Moments of paranoia and presumption

I've become used to questioning the motives of my employer with increasing diligence, some might say suspicion. I received notice yesterday that I can leave employment tomorrow, but couched in these terms: "Your last day of working ... will be 27th April 2007... your last day of employment will be 10 May". At first glance you might think (since the letter discusses this) that my employer is kindly calculating the holiday owed to me. Given that the company is probably aware of its precarious legal situation -- potential constructive dismissal and breach of the disability discrimination act -- I'm a little more circumspect. If I'm employed until May 10, how do I start a new job on Monday?
But my employer is presumptive and underestimates me, despite me telling them that they shouldn't.
Since my new job is a contract through an agency, I can still start Monday but my contract can start May 10. I still meet the end client's needs, but don't get paid for a couple of weeks. The agency doesn't care.
But I don't even need to do this. Check out the contract I signed. It doesn't say I can't work for anyone else, just that I can't engage in "business where there is or there is likely to be any conflict with the interests of [the company]".
And there's more.
"In the even of the termination of your employment you will be paid for any holiday that has not been taken on a pro rata basis." I take this to mean that I'm paid the holiday that's owed to me, without being employed any longer. So I'm owed money up to May 10 without being employed. Either way, I'm not in breach of contract for working elsewhere over this period (unless this was for a competitor to my current employer).
There's still more.
The company "undertakes to provide a comfortable, safe and creative environment to work in". Which they didn't. Isn't that breach of contract on their part?
Anyway, as I said, Friday is my last day, so you shouldn't have to put up with me harping on about work. I realise that I may have alienated my small readership, so I'll get back to talking about PDAs and politics again soon.

Blogosphericals

A couple of quick links: can you qualify for a maths degree? The BBC will test you.



If that doesn't stump you, then this image will. Just stare at it and you'll see it doesn't move at all.

Karate 2.0

The more observant among you, who actually go to this blog rather than read it via some feed aggregator, will have noticed a couple of extra features recently. I've added pop-up previews on external links, chat facilities and a featured video from the my double...
There's loads of free stuff you can add like this, with no mark-up required: from live data feeds to online Sudoku.
None of this is particularly new, but I mention it in case you hadn't noticed before and could find a useful application for widgetry, and to get me away from harping on about work.

More piss-taking

I'm not going to go into all the details, but my employers are really beginning to take the piss now. Went to a meeting to agree a leaving date, but we didn't. Then their response to my grievance said that I didn't do enough to ensure my own successful integration.
These people just don't get it. If they had talked to me properly from the start and made the assumption that I was their equal instead of some pushover, they'd have realised, like Aesop, that there's more than one way to skin a cat.
I may have to try the crane on them next.

Hardball or softball

Following my resignation, the offers keep coming:

• A more senior position in the company.
• A salary raise commensurate with that position.
• Charge of the graduate recruitment programme in consulting and research.

I've spoken to the Employment Tribunal Service however and they tell me that in only 1% of cases does the board believe that a grievance is sufficiently malicious for them to award employer costs against the employee. I also have an idea of costs for a legal representation through an employment tribunal.
The question I have to ask myself is, what would be able to let me stay? Is there a way I could draw a line in the sand and continue in employment here? Or do I want to burn all my bridges when I'm going to be looking for other work in future?
The easiest -- but least satisfactory -- course of action is just to walk away. I'm not prepared to do that:

• I don't want it said that I left because I just couldn't hack it, that I got a poor review and got arsey over it.
• I need to establish that they discriminated against me because of my cancer.
• Could I be really onboard for the graduate programme if I have doubts about the company?

So, there's nothing that'll make me stay, because I've lost faith.

Updated:
Now I've articulated my position to the head of HR, things have turned a little more hardball. They're completing the grievance process at a subsequent meeting and will take the view that they've made every attempt to resolve the issue. I will say that they did this only once I'd resigned. They'll say that the process wasn't complete and that I could have appealed before I resigned, but chose not do do so. They told me the process was complete, but I have no witnesses to that, so it'll be difficult to prove. I'll tell them that I'm going to an Employment Tribunal. They'll say fine and won't do anything until they hear from the service, which means I'll need to pay hundreds of pounds for a lawyer when I shouldn't need to. If the tribunal sits, they will lose, but I won't win much because they'll claim I didn't follow the whole process. It's a stupid way of doing things, but they forced me down the hardball route.

Coursing adrenalin

I quit just now. There's a tinge of regret, no doubt.
My head of department admitted to me that comments in my appraisal related to my cancer and that he should have transferred me to the newly merged company at a higher level. So there's some concession there, but it's too little too late. I don't want to be a hard arse over this, but if I knew about someone else being treated as they've treated me, I'd be really pissed off.
The head of HR came to see me within about 5 minutes of me resigning, asking me to reconsider, so I'll spend tonight discussing with Helen and try to take as open a mind as possible.

A few silly links

If you have time to spare because, say, you're under-utilised by systemic failures, you may want to consider playing rock paper scissors with a colleague in a similar position. If so, this is worth reading.
I also thought I'd share this cartoon.
And I know that web design tends to be masculine, but this is ridiculous.

Charge your iPod, blow your mind

I love this. When are you most likely to make use of solar power? When you're sunbathing. So now you can charge all your USB-driven devices (maybe even a solar fan) with zero-carbon while tanning your hide.
I guess oil is used to produce the bikini however.
Also, if everyone switches to powering their gadgets through sustainable energy, will this reduce global warming and thus reduce sunbathing opportunities, so making this product less effective?

It's a mashed up world out there

This blog is turning into yet another whinge about work: YAWAW, or YAWN. It was never meant to be. So let me pretend that I'm saying something wider about society and the internet rather than just about my terrible employers.
If you're into things webby, you'll almost certainly have read about if not actually read Tim O'Reilly's call for (self-)censorship, which has made the headlines in a number of places. I think what's shocked the internet community is that someone with as much understanding of the web should advocate this approach, when the whole strength of the web has been its liberalism; I use the term with all its implicitly positive and negative connotations.
Generally the internet has grown because it is innovative and free form, permitting the majority of people with the financial means to post content little hindrance to do so. There are of course exceptions, but generally this liberalism has led to rapid innovation of diversity of content, business models and technology. This is particularly in evidence in the much rehashed concept of Web 2.0. Such innovation creates issues for the politically reactionary, but few in our industry would have expected Tim O'Reilly to form part of that group.
You wouldn't expect the leading internet agency in Europe to form part of that group either, but an email to staff suggests otherwise:

[We] have been asked to attend a brainstorming seminar at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on April 19th to explore the subject of how digital media can be used to defend against radicalisation.

The FCO tells us:

Groups such as Al Qaeda use the Internet and other communication media to great effect for propaganda and recruitment purposes.

Leaving aside my doubts about how much Al Qaeda is a cohesive group that distributes mass email and uploads photos of insurgent activities onto Flickr or terrorist mash-ups onto Facebook, let's just consider the company's reaction. It accepts without question that radicalisation is wrong and that the internet should be used to control it, then seeks to engage staff in telling the government why. So we're telling the government how to censor ourselves (coz they sure as hell don't know) while we tell our clients about how radical our thinking is in providing innovative solutions on the internet. We're provocative, we are. You can be too. Unless you're doing something that's not right. We'll be the judge of that though. So, we can create Web 2.0 style forums and develop some of the biggest mash-ups in the UK, but we're in favour of censorhip. That's because we're ethical. But we can still build sites for arms and cigarette manufacturers.
Wow, it's a complex world out there.