Newest comments first
Laissez-moi faire valoir, une fois de plus,
le caractère manifestement licite tant de la
chaîne Youtube “Hutchinson SA” que du blog “hutchinsoncentrederecherche.fr” qui font l'objet d'une attaque malveillante menée par la
société Hutchinson. Nous agissons dans un but de santé, sécurité et dignité au
lieu de travail, un but d’intérêt général par le biais de la parodie, la satire
et la critique légitime en disposant d'une base factuelle suffisante sans
excéder les limites admissibles du droit à la liberté d’expression. Nous visons
à dénoncer des conditions de travail malsaines et dangereuses, les pratiques de
harcèlement bien établies des entreprises pendant
la période d’emploi ainsi que lors du processus de recrutement. Les propos
tenus s’inscrivent dans le cadre d’un débat d’intérêt général portant sur les actes
de harcèlement et les pratiques abusives des entreprises
dont l’effet sur la santé et l’emploi justifie
l’intervention de divers acteurs ayant pu être victimes ou étant d’une façon ou
d’une autre concernés par ce fléau mondial.
La société Hutchinson s'est manifestement
avérée être mal intentionnée avec leur requête/citation directe dépourvue
de fondement factuel, raisonnable et juridique. Son intention est de nuire à la liberté d’expression
dans le cadre d’un sujet d’intérêt général par les moyens d’intimidation et des
mensonges
exaspérants contre les auteurs. Ils sont dénués des preuves/justifications que l'auteurs n'ont pu être
contactés et des justifications de faits (article 6-I 5 de la loi du 21 juin
2004 pour la confiance dans l’économie numérique) qui peuvent faire apparaître un caractère fallacieux ou trompeur d'un
commentaire. En revanche, les auteurs avaient apporté de nombreuses
preuves dans leur procédure prud'homale. Ils ont aussi obtenu des preuves par la Poste que la société
Hutchinson n’a jamais envoyé des citations ou sommations par lettre recommandée,
ce qui ressort également du procès-verbal des huissiers désignés.
Encore une fois, comment Me Massis a appris de la lettre d’invitation du juge d’instruction? Ils voulaient se cacher dans la cour? La révélation d'une telle information à caractère secret met en danger la sécurité des auteurs invités.
La liberté d’expression de la presse est particulièrement étendue et comprend la possibilité de recourir à une certaine dose d’exagération, voire de provocation, en particulier dans le cadre d’un débat d’intérêt général (Cass. crim., 23 mars 1978, n° 77-90.339). Le droit de critique est particulièrement important lorsqu’il vise des acteurs engagés dans l’espace public, tels que des grandes entreprises (CEDH, 15 févr. 2005, n° 68416/01) ou encore leurs dirigeants (CEDH, 21 sept. 1993, n° 17101/90). Le droit à un procès équitable trouve lui aussi ses sources à la fois au sein du droit international et du droit constitutionnel français. Il comprend les principes d’égalité des armes et d’intérêt général, notamment grâce à l’influence de la CEDH. La CEDH insiste sur la nécessité d’offrir aux parties à un procès « une possibilité raisonnable de présenter sa cause dans des conditions qui ne la placent pas dans une situation de net désavantage par rapport à son adversaire » ( CEDH, 27 oct. 1993, n° 14448/88 ). En particulier, elle reconnaît régulièrement le déséquilibre des moyens entre militants et grandes entreprises, ainsi que l’impact en résultant sur l’équité dans la procédure judiciaire (CEDH, 15 févr. 2005, n° 68416/01).
Envisagée au regard du droit français et international relatif aux droits à la liberté d’expression, à la participation aux affaires publiques et à un procès équitable, la pratique des Poursuites Stratégiques Altérant le Débat Public présente un risque avéré d’atteinte au fonctionnement de la démocratie et à la primauté de l’intérêt général sur les intérêts particuliers. Suite à la solution POME, Barrick Gold and Gunns 20 nous serons l’affaire emblématique HUTCHINSON S.A.T.I.RE (Solution Against Threatening Intimidating REquêtes). Ils recherchent ingénieurs « qui aiment la conquête » ? We like the con.quête, we like the CON’s reQUÊTE et nous sommes le « chien de garde » de la démocratie et des droits humains (CEDH, 26 nov. 1991, n° 13166/87 ; CEDH, 26 nov. 1991, n° 13585/88).
They lied that they mailed three times a citation directe and this week a new warning or threat (sommation) upon searching the authors in residences. Their bailiff wrote in his report “J’ai dressé le present procès-verbal pour server et valoir ce que de droit » according to the article 659 of the civil code, but it is not indicated that he mailed a registered letter as the article mentions (« le même jour ou, au plus tard, le premier jour ouvrable suivant, à peine de nullité, l'huissier de justice envoie au destinataire, à la dernière adresse connue, par lettre recommandée avec demande d'avis de réception, une copie du procès-verbal, à laquelle est jointe une copie de l'acte objet de la signification. Le jour même, l'huissier de justice avise le destinataire, par lettre simple, de l'accomplissement de cette formalité. ») However, Me Massis confirmed once more that a registered letter has been posted according to the article 659 of the civil code and accused the recipients for “hiding from the justice-making sure not to be found”. WE HAVE OBTAINED A WRITTEN CONFIRMATION BY THE POST MANAGER THAT THERE IS NO REGISTERED LETTER up today in our name waiting for collection. We have evidences that they never delivered any letter. They fail to provide us tracking numbers as evidences.
We assume that the judicial police (which easily revealed our residence addresses by the tax office and internet providers) did not communicate to Hutchinson our mail addresses but Hutchinson makes independent search trying to verify if the addresses which their ex-employees had provided to them during their employment are still valid. Their bailiff mentions that he is not authorized to ask the tax office, but police obtained data from them! They get the opportunity from that case to search and discover possible new residence addresses of their ex-employees and intrude once more into their private lives. They seek to find them in person and threaten them (or maybe even kill them). They lie that the authors can not be found wishing to shut down the Channel without a trial and email desperately SLAPPs and threats that they will proceed to the court. DO IT AND STOP THREATENING US! Mail your lawsuit to our addresses verified by the judicial police and STOP DISTURBING all the bodies trying to get personal data and intrude into our private lives as you were doing during our employment!
We do have evidences that they never delivered a letter in our names by the Post and we understand that there is something nasty going on with the postal services which filter out certain letters.
The Article 659 of the civil code which they refer to mentions that in case that a person does not have known residence address a report is drawn up by a bailiff in which he/she accurately reports the steps taken to find the addressee of the act (lorsque la personne à qui l'acte doit être signifié n'a ni domicile, ni résidence, ni lieu de travail connus, l'huissier de justice dresse un procès-verbal où il relate avec précision les diligences qu'il a accomplies pour rechercher le destinataire de l'acte.) However, our home addresses have been well confirmed by the judicial police which has access to our personal data through the tax office and our internet providers. They had to send the SLAPP by postal services if the court failed to dismiss it! Why they claim that the authors do not have known address??!!! It is totally unfounded! Although the addresses had been verified they made an unnecessary research asking many entities including neighborhood, town hall, municipal police, Pages Blanches in the internet and making simply Google search seeking to collect personal info about the author(s) and make intrusion into their private lives. We learnt that even supermarkets had been ordered last year to take photos those who buy mobile sim cards or just see the cards in the framework of an investigation regarding the channel! We think that they actually did not want to deliver the abusive and invalid SLAPP so as to be in position to demand Google and the court (which they did) to close the Channel and Blog claiming that “they could not find the authors” and that “the authors try to escape the justice”. They "manifestement" lie! Did they maybe pay the post managers for the no delivery? It is clear that no letter was posted for the first citation as it is SLAPP and the court maybe did not allow them to send it by post. Hutchinson obviously does not wish to proceed to the court (SLAPP element) but tries to intimidate us so as to close the channel before any trial takes place. Nobody is enforced to welcome unknown bailiffs even if the recipients of the SLAPP are present in their residences. It is their HOME and NOT AN OFFICE TO BE OPEN TO PUBLIC and in today's society people take measures to protect themselves. Nobody should take the risk to open their home door to unknown entities. Not opening home doors to unexpected and unknown visitors does not consist "escape from justice"! Me Massis are you personally “open”? "They make sure not to be found"!! Their insisting claims are nasty, invalid and thus intolerable. Not only they did not notify the authors about their first SLAPP by mail but they had the audacity to blame the authors for hiding! A SLAPP-back lawsuit should follow to ask general and punitive damages and the authorities should run an investigation for the delivery of citations and impose penalties. The authors made a complaint to the Post for the possible undelivered letters but they are not in position to act further in this regard without evidences (tracking numbers). So, they do not have any responsibility, but get much disturbed by their invalid, unfounded comments submitted to the court!
We collected the invitation letter sent by the judicial police to our verified home addresses early this year without an issue, we presented ourselves to the judicial police, we took responsibility for the published protected work and we confirmed our mail addresses which were also verified by the tax office and the internet providers. What else? Do we need to submit also energy bills for proof of address?! Having a postal box and a doorphone in the name of the recipient of the citation in a residence does not consist a proof of address and serves to nothing when a PO box is held. How we received without issue letters sent by the judicial and municipal police in our PO boxes if our addresses are unknown?! The post makes unauthorized screening of mail or an entity pays them to do so? Is that maybe an(e)ther tactic for suppressing our freedoms?
We are expecting one and final lawsuit by Hutchinson to challenge and the court date. We are not going to kill the licit criticism (in good faith) and parody on a topic of interest by ourselves. The freedom of speech does not apply only for certain amount of comments and videos. There are no quantity restrictions but the Channel content could have been less if the offenses of Hutchinson company against their employees were less. They feed satire richly. We can continue posting our critical comments and parodied videos based on the global corporate harassment culture without succumbing to the harassers’ unfounded and illegal SLAPPs.
We are sorry to disappoint them once more but we do not succumb to their invalid requête. This “MANIFESTEMENT” ABUSIVE suit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and as such it should be dismissed and sanctions should be imposed to its use!
Il faut aussi noter que selon l’article 6 I-4 de la Loi n° 2004-575 du 21 juin 2004 pour la confiance dans l'économie numérique (1) « Le fait, pour toute personne, de présenter aux personnes mentionnées au 2 un contenu ou une activité comme étant illicite dans le but d'en obtenir le retrait ou d'en faire cesser la diffusion, alors qu'elle sait cette information inexacte, est puni d'une peine d'un an d'emprisonnement et de 15 000 euros d'amende ». L’exception de parodie est célèbre en France et le caractère parodique de la Chaîne est évident. Aussi, les déclarations « l’extême mauvaise foi », « des manœuvres diverses en vue d’abuser et d’échapper à la justice » de Me Massis sont extrêmement inexactes, dénuées de tout fondement et ainsi inacceptables. On doit se renseigner sur la véracité d'un message/témoignage avant de signaler un abus, que un blog/Chaîne est illicite. Tout ce qui est écrit est bien connu aux employés de la société Hutchinson, y compris les cadres, les techniciens et le PDG ne faisant pas de doute pour tous. Ainsi, la peine que les harceleurs de la société Hutchinson encourent augmentent totalement à la réclusion criminelle à perpétuité plus 136,5 ans d'emprisonnement plus 33,749,500 € d'amende.
Les citations n'ont pas été livrées par la Poste afin que la société Hutchinson soit en mesure de demander à Youtube/Google de supprimer la Chaîne/Blog sans l’application du principe du contradictoire sous l'excuse « les auteurs ne n'ont pas pu être trouvés en personne » ?!@#! Pourquoi les huissiers cherchaient les auteurs à leur domicile pour les leur livrer en personne et ils dérangeaient le voisinage? Ils cherchaient à faire intrusion dans leur vie privée ? Le service postal pour les lettres recommandées ne fonctionne pas dans le cas des citations?!? Pourquoi les autorités n’ordonnent pas une enquête à cet égard? Qui ordonne à qui de ne pas envoyer/livrer certaines lettres «d'intimidation»?
Security managers who cause on purpose accidents to employees who never receive the essential security training, defective, broken and dirty office chairs, trials with carcinogenic, toxic, irritant chemicals, offices above the processing machines, CEOs who call employees publicly assholes and stupid and knock hotel doors of their female associates, directors who provoke with the thump up gesture, seminar attendees sleep out of the hotel, formal assignment of fucktional projects, violation of private lives/human trafficking, deprivation of the right to paid holidays and holidays allowance, deprivation of the right to information, lack of posters/notices on boards about law articles, lack of integration of employees, isolation, unjustified demotion, false accusations, fake/tailor-made testimonies motivated by actual malice, shameful internal investigation…we are talking about a big FUN. Your belly should hurt from the laugh, eh? Laughing is indeed the best medicine, but if you laugh with what has been denounced, then you need medicine.
L’entreprise a montré une fois de plus un manque de respect inacceptable envers moi en portant atteinte à ma dignité et ma sécurité. Il semble que la direction prend beaucoup de plaisir en maltraitant et remplissant de dégoût les salariés. Bien que je m’aie été inscrite assez tôt au séminaire et j'aie réservé une chambre dans l'hôtel pour la nuit, la réceptionniste m'a communiqué après le dîner de la conférence (aucune information préalable), en me provoquant avec un geste «pouce en l’air», qu’il n'y a pas de chambre pour moi, mon nom n'était pas enregistré sur la liste des invités. Ce n'était pas mon choix de participer à cette conférence, mais j’étais obligée d'y assister. En effet, je travaillais comme cadre dans l'équipe qui l’avait organisé et donc je devrais avoir la priorité. J’ai appris plus tard par un associé d'un autre service (pas par mon chef) que le nombre d'invités avait dépassé le nombre de chambres disponibles et, apparemment, j'ai été sélectionnée pour être retirée de la liste (les critères étaient inconnus) ! Pas une blague. Mon responsable-chef de service, Natacha Carniol, était disparue. Quand je suis arrivée à l'hôtel, on m'a juste conseillé de laisser ma valise à la réception car ils avaient besoin de vérifier les chambres. Mais, il n'était pas clair qu'il n'y aurait pas de chambre pour moi. Il était tard le soir pour me rentrer à mon domicile situé loin, dans une autre région de la France et la réceptionniste m'a offert, comme à quatre autres employés-hommes (j'étais la seule femme expulsée), une maison indépendante pour dormir la nuit qui était située quelques kilomètres loin de l'hôtel, mais encore dans le club de golf. Il n'y avait pas de réception là, les maisons étaient déconnectées de l'hôtel (pas de ligne téléphonique) et par conséquent, il n'y avait pas de sécurité. Certaines chambres des maisons indépendantes étaient, en effet, occupées par des personnes qui n’étaient pas participants du séminaire. C'était une zone isolée, pas du tout allumée, l'hôtel n'avait aucun concierge/bell attendant pour m'accompagner là-bas. La réceptionniste-pro quand je lui ai demandé d’être accompagné là, m'a provoqué en me disant que je pourrais y aller "avec mon copain" en pensant sans aucune base que l'un des associés expulsés était mon partenaire! Elle m'a conseillé d'utiliser mon portable, si je devais rejoindre l'hôtel !@@#$!! Il était encore difficile de croire que ce n'était pas une blague. J’ai dû aller avec deux autres associés également expulsés et choqués pour trouver les maisons en marchant dans une région totalement sombre après avoir dîné à l’hôtel. En effet, j’ai eu besoin de l’aide d’autres pour ouvrir la porte de ma chambre, comme le mécanisme était compliqué et défectueux et il n'y avait pas de lumière. En effet, mon logement était une maisonnette, la chambre à l'étage ! Malheureusement, je ne connaissais pas à l'avance ce qui serait le logement à le séminaire, afin d'apporter un dispositif d'alarme central et un détecteur infrarouge pour l’installer sur la porte et dormir "en sécurité". Il est à noter que parmi les employés expulsés étaient salariés d'origines différentes de la française, associés venus d'autres pays qui avaient tous été frustrés par ce maltraitement. Les critères utilisés pour « la liste » suggèrent également une discrimination sur le fondement « de ne pas être français, de non-appartenance à une ethnie, une nation ». En effet, le directeur R&D, Christian Casse, qui avait planifié ce séminaire honteux dans un hôtel qui avait moins de chambres que le nombre de participants m'a provoqué de plus pendant le cocktail avec son « pouce en l’air» geste. Un associé a eu la gentillesse de lui crier «Asshole !». Il avait une histoire notable et bien connue avec son coq ayant touché une employée (qui enfin est devenu riche de cette touche d'or en prenant le titre MBA). Il avait aussi l'habitude d'accrocher de manière provocante ses jambes aux bras des chaises pendant les présentations de femmes cadres ingénieurs. J'ai été obligée d'assister à cette conférence qui semblait être organisée par un bordel. Mais j'étais si généreuse que je n'ai pas pris un petit déjeuner le matin pour laisser la nourriture aux directeurs venus du siège social. Une dame a honoré et protégé les membres « très importants » de la direction d’entreprise en offrant sa chambre d'hôtel et son partage du petit déjeuner. Quel chevalier! Ce témoignage est aussi un mensonge M. Maigné? Les quatre autres participants du séminaire qui devaient aussi dormir à l'extérieur de l'hôtel peuvent également témoigner de leur expérience horrible. En effet, le deuxième jour de la conférence, tous les participants ont appris cet outrage et beaucoup d'entre eux ont été dégoûtés.
Bien qu’être social soit généralement une attitude que les entreprises attendent de leurs employés (être antisocial peut en effet constituer un motif de licenciement), l’expérience des événements sociaux que la société leur offre les rendent antisociales à un niveau extrême. Tout événement social d'entreprise s'avère être une mauvaise expérience difficile à effacer de la mémoire. Chaque événement doit être détruit par les professionnels d’une classe inférieure. Malheureusement, ce sont ceux qui gouvernent les entreprises.
M. Maigné, vous souhaitez que tous les contenus de la chaîne soient supprimés, eh ? Nous voudrions également supprimer tous les mauvais souvenirs que vous nous avez imposés d’avoir pendant notre emploi chez Hutchinson, mais nous ne pouvons pas le faire. Tout est bien enregistré. Toutefois, les harceleurs gardent toujours leur emploi et ils même montent plus haut l'échelle. La douleur n'est pas à leur côté. Nous avons toujours la douleur que nous avons seulement gagné par l’entreprise sous votre gestion et faire la satire constitue notre antidouleur.
Break out the bubbly! That new stuff broke somewhat the boredom.
As we got some new boring stuff, let’s add few lines in this regard.
Repetition is the key to learning, so let’s also repeat what has been
written earlier about the profile of the channel. Firstly, we would
like to advice the ignorant lawyers who choose to defend
harassers/oppressors or law breakers to learn firstly about the new
technology and functions of new devices, including internet boxes,
before accusing people for “multiplication des IPs et des manœuvres
diverses en vue d’abuser et d’échapper à la justice” which makes us once
more laugh. Such ignorance leads once more to “manifestement”
ridiculous and exasperating accusations. Better to accuse their internet
providers who deprive them of their right to receive information about
their new devices or technology, rather than accusing those who make use
of their modern and legal devices and their fundamental rights posting
licit videos and comments, while being clearly visible at the internet
having an unmasked IP. Apparently, the internet suppliers believe that
they are obliged by the law only to disclose data of their clients, but
not information about their new devices. They give access to knowledge
which is provided by the internet but not access to information
regarding the devices they provide. Another irony...Also, Google account
holders can use any nickname they wish, of course there is nothing
illicit to that! They do not need to post their ID cards! The users can
be identified only by their IPs and not by the name of their account,
even if they use their real one. Such arguments kind of “agir dans
l’anonymat et dissimuler leur identité» is totally laughable. Nobody
masked their IPs, nobody is hacker, nobody posted a comment or video
which they think is illicit, nobody was asked by Google to provide their
ID card. We are all based on our freedoms and act in EXTREMELY GOOD
FAITH (contrarily to the “extremely bad faith” of the Hutchinson’s
harassers) being willing to defend our works in the court. Once more,
they demonstrated their frightening ignorance which led to malicious
UNFOUNDED statements against the profile of the channel and the
author(s). The IP can change with the same ease one switches off a lamp
and the reason one does that can be any but “escape from justice”. Only
hackers could escape temporarily. Such accusation of “attempt to escape
from justice” would be valid in case of hacking. Do they have their
lamps continuously ON?! Me Massis also sleeps with the lights on?@!
“Manœuvres diverses” LOL. Of course being in the dark in terms of
technology and new devices can lead to such laughable claims. As it has
been well noted or rather denounced we were not called to the court last
year. The author(s) have been well identified and are willing to defend
their works of mockery and their comments in the court based on their
fundamental freedoms. A lesson to Hutchinson and their lawyer: You must
learn before becoming bad mouth.
There is no “recidivism” since there has not been any court decision
which renders satire, parody and freedom of expression and information
illicit. Recidivism means committing an offense again upon having been
condemned. We do not consider freedom of expression, satire and parody
an offense, we have not been condemned for any offense and we certainly
have not tried to escape from justice. We are here and willing to defend
our freedoms. We have not been restricted in making use of our rights
neither by Youtube/Google nor by the authorities. The “acharnement
extrême” of Me Massis to denigrate the profile of Hutchinson SA and the
character of the author(s) is “manifestement” unfounded and
unacceptable.
Once more, nothing has been posted in bad faith and the aim is not to
harm the honor or consideration (if any) of an entity but to denounce
the harassment practices employed by many companies (if not all) which
are harmful to those who need to work for living. People are free to
share their experience from their employment in any company. We are
against the system of harassment at workplace which also applies in the
recruitment process. We want to harm the “consideration” of that
harassment system which destroys lives and careers. One reading the
testimonies is free to take either the side of the harassers or the
harassed employees and make their own comments. All are welcome to
comment and, indeed, the channel has well highlighted the complaint of
Hutchinson, which has been challenged on line, given that we were not
called in the two court hearings last year and we are not allowed to
speak about harassment in the labour courts (to avoid “defamation”!**!) .
We have not yet received any comment which applauds harassment
practices and we have not been restricted by any court order in
continuing sharing views or posting parodied/ satirical videos or in
creation of new sites as Google+, Vimeo and Tweeter (LinkedIn apparently
is not supporter of freedom of expression). Again, freedom of
expression does not imply expression only of positive, favourable
opinion, but incisive criticism, as well. The motivation of a person to
write an unfavorable comment can be any, they can either have incurred
personal damages by moral/sexual harassment/null and void dismissal and
wish to share with the community the deplorable corporate practices or
they wish to engage simply in a discussion about harassment at
workplace. The more they harass employees, the more satirical works and
comments are posted. Apparently, Hutchinson feeded richly SAtire with
their extensive violations of all kinds. The comments/videos have been
posted in good faith (even with the consent of chefs) and a claim of the
opposite without any base/evidence is intolerable. The favourable
comments made in Google/YouTube or Glassdoor are actually ordered by the
companies who ask their employees to praise them and the real negative
ones are removed upon payment to the hosting sites by the concerned
companies. We make NO!SE against harassment at workplace. La liberté
d’expression s’accommode bien avec la satire, la parodie et des
commentaires de bonne foi. Bâillonner la presse « s’accommode mal » avec
la résistance à l’oppression qui consitue un droit naturel et
imprescriptibles de l’Homme. « Le but de toute association politique est
sa conservation”. The site demonstrates well that resistance which
means refusal to accept the harassment “system” and attempt to harm its
“consideration/ honour” by arguments. Sadly, we see that such arguments
can not be accommodated during a hearing in the labour courts, but
hosting sites as Youtube can serve well in this regard.
We write in English as English is the international language which is
used at the internet. English is also the language of science and it has
been thus adopted by many international companies as language of work.
Besides, the harassment or mobbing is a global scourge and our project
needs to have a global focus using the English language. Being based in
France if we wanted to “attract internauts” locally we should write in
French and not in English. Their argument is not reasonable given that
the majority of French steer clear of English. The accusation of using
mainly the English language in the site renders their complaint even
more boring.
Let’s keep as top accusation the « multiplication des IPs et des
manœuvres diverses en vue d’abuser et d’échapper à la justice» LOL.
People, how you switch off your mobiles ? Do you make magic? I also
switch off the lights when I go out, when I change room and when I go to
sleep, shall I be accused by my energy provider of escaping from high
bills? LOL. They made us again laugh, good stuff ^.
They go even greener by planting tree branches on the “humped and lame” chair of the victim when the latter is on a business trip abroad. Yes, one can expect plant climbing during their absence. Getting the clothes dirty by the chairs is something one should expect, so wearing clothes that are not to worry about is advisable. Besides, the corporate gifts, polyester scarves and cotton ties, suggest well the dress code which reflects the status of the company.
For the information of those who know only the penalties for defamation (indeed incorrectly) the types of information they are obliged to display at workplace are the following: « harcèlement moral et sexuel » 222-33-2 et 222-33 of penal code (L1152-4, L1153-5 of labour code), « lutte contre la discrimination à l'embauche » 225-1 - 225-4 of penal code, « égalité professionnelle et salariale entre hommes et femmes » R3221-2 of labour code, « horaires collectifs de travail » L3171-1, D3171-2 - D3171-3, « repos hebdomadaire » R3172-1 - R3172-9, « congés payés » D3141-6, D3141-28 of labour code, « inspection du travail » D4711-1, « convention ou accord collectif du travail » L2262-5, R2262-1 - R2262-3, « service d'accueil téléphonique sur les discriminations » L1132-3-3, « médecine du travail » D4711-1, « consignes de sécurité et d'incendie » R4227-34 - R4227-38, L2262-5, R2262-1 - R2262-3, « document unique d'évaluation des risques professionnels » R4121-1 - R4121-4, « panneaux syndicaux » L2142-3, travail temporaire R1251-9, « interdiction de fumer et vapoter » R3512-2 and L3513-6 du code de la santé publique, « élections des représentants du personnel» L2311-1 à L2324-4, « règlement intérieur » L1321-1 à L1321-4 and R1321-1, « comité d’hygiène, de sécurité et des conditions de travail (CHSCT) » L4742-1 and R4613-8, « accord de participation » D3323-12. Establishment without union/syndicat indicates the existence of jungle, which is the case for the woeful CdR.
The failure of Hutchinson Centre de Recherche to comply with the dispositions of the relative Articles is punishable by a fine provided for the contraventions of the 4th class, that is 750 euros/missing poster. So, multiplying that fine by the number of the missing from CdR posters, that is 21, the fine increases to 15,750 euro. Adding the previously mentioned penalties we reach totally life imprisonment plus 135.5 years imprisonment plus 31,477,000 euro fine.
Hutchinson CdR, as all the employers, is obliged to inform the employees by any means about certain texts offering them an equivalent guarantee in terms of the right to information. For example, a diffusion via an intranet site of the company. Since they failed to do so by all means, Hutchinson SAtire site takes in charge to inform the employees about the “hot texts” and push the clownish directors and woeful HR at the corner. They wish employees to be in the dark to avoid complaints, but SAtire has come to throw light to their long-term offenses. Not only they deprive their employees of their right to receive information, but they also try to deprive the expelled employees of the freedom of expression, the freedom to hold opinions and impart information.
Apart from the fact that Hutchinson CdR fails to display the articles of labour code referring to moral and sexual harassment and the related fines for the offenders, they also fail to display the work schedule contrarily to the law. According to the articles L 3171-1 and D3171-2 of the labour code « L'employeur affiche les heures auxquelles commence et finit le travail ainsi que les heures et la durée des repos. », « l'horaire collectif est affiché en caractères lisibles et apposé de façon apparente dans chacun des lieux de travail auxquels il s'applique.» The only table we saw is one in which the employees need to indicate the days they get leave, no poster with the work schedule and other dispositions! Indeed, the managers are requested to work 08.30-18.00 “in order to be respected” even when their lunch break lasts only half an hour. The legal 35 hours work week applies only for the technicians. Although the project managers are asked to register monthly 39 work hours/week (while they work 47h/w), there is no compensation of any kind at least for the project managers. Their payslips state “type horaire: normal”. What is normal, the legal or the unpaid overtime? The management claims that the salary of the “cadres” is higher than the technicians’, so they have to work more! According to the article 3171-12 « Lorsque des salariés d'un atelier, d'un service ou d'une équipe ne travaillent pas selon le même horaire collectif de travail affiché, un document mensuel, dont le double est annexé au bulletin de paie, est établi pour chaque salarié. » But, of course, there is no such document provided. The salary offered to those with high qualifications for a manager post is calculated on the basis of the hours they work which exceed the legal 35 hours and not on the basis of their credentials and responsibilities?!! Then the salary difference should be stated in their payslips as overtime pay! According to the article L3221-4 « Sont considérés comme ayant une valeur égale, les travaux qui exigent des salariés un ensemble comparable de connaissances professionnelles consacrées par un titre, un diplôme ou une pratique professionnelle, de capacités découlant de l'expérience acquise, de responsabilités et de charge physique ou nerveuse.» The law does not mention anything about the work schedule which can define the salary. The Article L3121-27 « La durée légale de travail effectif des salariés à temps complet est fixée à trente-cinq heures par semaine » does not mention that the managers are excluded from its application. Regarding the “higher” salary of the project managers than that of the technicians, which suggests that they have to work more, is a salary of 34,000 euros ridiculously offered to an employee with high credentials for the post of project manager so competitive which excuses a demand for working more than 35 hours? Anyway, the salary stated in their contract should not negate the legal work schedule of 35 hours/w. The director asks a project manager to have a meeting after 17.30 and the department manager even dares to send a message at the mobile of a project manager at 18.00 when she/he leaves work to request the latter to prepare and deliver a presentation for the next morning at 8.00, indeed in front of a big panel!! When an employee leaves work at 17.30 the department manager calls the latter to learn the reason that she/he left early! Even more, when they need to make a business travel abroad a project manager is asked to schedule the travel after work - during non working hours- without remuneration of any kind, in order to work at the office during the day! For emphasis the department manager indicates that “it is a request from the director of the establishment”! Sometimes we want to stay in work longer, as we are highly engaged into what we are doing and could even continue working at home, but we can not be imposed to stay at work until 18.00, make meetings with the director at 17.30 and get tasks to implement at home, for example preparation of slides to present next morning at 8.00! Also, the department manager can even change the deadline for submission of reports in order to make certain employees to work at home violating their personal time!
Besides, according to the Article R3221-2 « Les dispositions des articles L. 3221-1 à L. 3221-7 du code du travail sont portées, par tout moyen, à la connaissance des personnes ayant accès aux lieux de travail, ainsi qu'aux candidats à l'embauche. Il en est de même pour les dispositions réglementaires pris pour l'application de ces articles. » The candidates do not get informed, though. We did not see any poster in CdR neither as candidates nor as employees. We did not see any poster in the buildings were the interviews took place which is obligation according to the law. Some employees upon their request to see posters, they were told that there is a poster concerning discrimination in another building outside CdR (few hundreds m away where the plant is located with which CdR is not at all united) which neither the candidates, nor the employees visit. The law states that posters indicating several dispositions should exist to all the buildings where employees work and the law applies, clearly visible to all or they should be brought in the knowledge of the employees and candidates by any means.
According to the Article R3173-2 « Le fait de méconnaître les dispositions des deux premiers alinéas de l'article L. 3171-1 et celles de l'article L. 3171-2 relatives au contrôle de la durée du travail, est puni de l'amende prévue pour les contraventions de la quatrième classe. Cette amende est appliquée autant de fois qu'il y a de personnes employées dans des conditions susceptibles d'être sanctionnées au titre des dispositions de cet article. » Pauline Branger, the human resources manager of CdR, knows only that “the penalties for defamation public and non public is 45,000 euro” which is of course incorrect. She indeed impressed us with her knowledge and made us laugh once more! Obviously, she and those who “program” the petty HR fail to read both the code du travail, as well as the code pénal and apply the relative dispositions at workplace. It seems that there had never been inspection in CdR or maybe they display the posters only the day the inspector visits them. The working hours (47h/week) are “normal”, not legal and on top of that they offer contracts without holidays, without days off and holidays allowance! This is also absolutely “normal”. Our disgust due to their violations and provocation is normal and our denunciation is absolutely legal.
What a shame! In the country in which the employees get the most time off- the longest paid holidays Hutchinson offers contracts without paid holidays and without holidays allowance and ask their employees to “buy holidays”. After 1 or 1.5 year when they switch the contract to CDI again the employee does not have holidays in the first year as they need to build those days. So, they stay for two years restless before they are kicked out in unemployment. Alternatively, in a CDI contract they take 3-4 days off in advance deducting those from the future being all the time with a “debt”. The company aims shamefully to burn out physically and mentally their employees. “We gave you the money in your salary to buy holidays”!!! The holidays are included in a salary which is much less than the norms! How nasty are they! If their salaries are fixed to the lowest level then they should not make salary negotiation during interviews. They should say “this is the salary, it is fixed, take it or leave it”. They enter into negotiations starting with an offer of a ridiculously low salary which is the half of what other companies offer for the same position to a person with same high qualifications and skills (indeed other companies offer much more even for unqualified people for a lower position) and then they come with a second offer adding few more thousands by deducting that amount from the holidays allowance! The money under the table kept in the negotiation is actually the holidays allowance!?! LOL Indeed, they were the ones who fail to pass the “laugh test”. If they want equal salaries, then those should be towards the higher and fair one in accordance with the national and international norms. The fact that previous employees accepted a ridiculously low salary offer maybe saying “for me it is not important the salary, offer me whatever you wish, experience matters” does not allow them to offer a higher fair salary?!@! Then why they enter into negotiations? They want to check the negotiation skills of a candidate and then they end up with ridiculous contracts without holidays for meeting their lowest salary expectations? Indeed, “experience matters” but Hutchinson fails even to develop the employees. They kill them offering no training, no projects. Of course one should opt to work and earn money if the holidays are not paid. But companies should prompt their employees to get holidays to get rest in order to be productive in their work. The frustration becomes greater when the employee learns later that there are indeed other employees with similar qualifications who are paid much more for the same post! So where is the pay equality? It is also interesting the reply of the HRD when an employee asks her to comment on their salary: “We do not have problem with your salary” LOL. Of course they do not have a problem, as such low, laughable salaries allow the “development” of their HR sector. HR vermins are paid more than engineers! Again, such contracts are great shame offered in the country with the longest paid holidays and 35 legal work week. Employees are burnt out during the first two years working 50hours/per week without holidays until they are expelled “constructively” or without reason for being forced to “get engaged into trade business”. They seek to make them dependent on cocks. If you are unemployed of course you have days off but no budget for making holidays. Hutchinson aims to reduce the quality of their lives and make them sad! Life is only for the clownish directors who are allowed to get the maximum holidays and get pleasure by harassing and oppressing their subordinates. We also learnt that employees who asked salary increase were offered apartments à la FAB in order to return the salary increase as a rent to the company!! Another great shame!
They deserve the longest boooo!!! Steer clear of them or get burnt!
They deserve the longest boooo!!! Steer clear of them or get burnt!
It has been
already noted that they violate the right of the employees to respect for their
private and family life (article 9 of civil code) and they force them to
relocate aiming to get their properties. According the article 226-4-2 of penal
code « le fait de forcer autrui à quitter son domicile (en dehors des cas
prévus par la loi ) à l'aide de manœuvres, voies de fait ou contraintes est
puni de trois ans d'emprisonnement et de 30 000 € d'amende ». Applying the x5 bonus we get
150,000euro, so the total penalties are life imprisonment plus 135,5 years of imprisonment and 31,442,500
euro fine.
HUTCHINSON SA
So let me sum up. Upon the harassment-IQ-assessment tests led by the moronic HR and an academic background check in the frame of a recruitment process for a job in a company (not in army) a personal one follows and a company hires people intending to pro-mote them. The Human Resources Director searches and approaches relatives of the employees (women are in honour) to find out about their private lives entering with them into shameful negotiations under a deplorable men’s agreement. They promise to the “relatives” benefits including job opportunities and accommodation in their FAB properties in Paris for getting them as accomplices in their intended crime. They plan to force an employee to begging upon dismissing them “constructively” in order to offer them as solution their cock and accommodation to their “bigger house”. What a trade… They indeed dare to inform the relatives about their corporate harassment strategy, how the HRD became director by “accident”- upon being touched by the cock of the R&D Director Christian Casse (who did not know what he had in his slip)- and ask them to inform them when the employee will visit them upon having been subjected to corporate harassment (forced to be in financial need as unemployed-see begging) in order to go to me(a)t the target and introduce them their cocks!!! They even aim to get their properties (see CAF level) forcing them to relocate where their cock(s) live(s). They usurp the title of family proclaiming themselves in and outside the company relatives of an employee unknown yet to them whom they intend to me(a)t and circulate their family data driving them crazy. The high credentials, expertise and research interests of an employee are totally disregarded and the positions they are offered within the company depend on the sexual needs of the department managers and directors in an international level (women are always in honour)! Of course, they can not work in their field of expertise and interest if the “higher manager” is fearful or has a personal interest but the thumb up job opportunities are always plenty. Filling the latter job vacancies is priority! They can even be used as “teachers” to other managers offering them even their academic notes or can be placed in an irrelevant department in which the real relatives of the HRD can be hired. Any attempt of an employee to get a position in other company within the Group in a global level to escape the torture fails as their IQ scores though top are considered outdated (after two years) and even the experienced/confirmed professionals with heavy academic degrees and proven track record of top performance are asked to participate in their simulation of workplace-kindergarten in order to kill them, yes, after having been subjected to the real kindergarten harassment. Upon their null and void dismissal they are placed automatically in a “black list” to all relevant companies. They aim to reduce them all to putains! Then they blame women for the shit world we are living in because they make families…The shame has been revealed in all dimensions and respect remains their main written corporate value. Indeed, the corporate culture/values and laws are well written in the texts.
Do the pro gain more respect than the WOB by the MOB?
Is there any woman in our society who gains respect? Please let us know in which sector, country, company/university she works or studies.
I went for a bike ride the other day to enjoy the weather unaccompanied and I got nine thumbs up. Please let me know if there is anyone who has gotten more during such activity.
Selon le Code Pénal « Le viol est puni de quinze ans de réclusion criminelle. Les agressions sexuelles autres que le viol sont punies de cinq ans d'emprisonnement et de 75 000 euros d'amende. Le viol est puni de vingt ans de réclusion criminelle et les agressions sexuelles autres que le viol sont punies de sept ans d'emprisonnement et de 100 000 euros d'amende: lorsqu'il est commis par une personne qui abuse de l'autorité que lui confèrent ses fonctions; lorsqu'il est commis par plusieurs personnes agissant en qualité d'auteur ou de complice; lorsqu'il est commis par une personne agissant en état d'ivresse manifeste ou sous l'emprise manifeste de produits stupéfiants. La tentative des délits est punie des mêmes peines».
What he went to do to her room? He wanted to ask her to compare his height with hers in an horizontal fashion? How come and he got a room adjacent to hers? He was planning to enter her room from the balcony? Even the pro receptionist is called to act as accomplice. CEOs, CTOs or CTEs demonstrate globally their CTE.
La traite des êtres humains est punie de sept ans d'emprisonnement et de 150 000 euros d'amende. L'infraction prévue à l'article 225-4-1 est punie de dix ans d'emprisonnement et de 1 500 000 euros d'amende lorsqu'elle est commise: a l'égard d'une personne dont la particulière vulnérabilité due à sa difficulté financière ou à son chômage est apparente ou connue de son auteur; par une personne qui a autorité sur elle ou abuse de l'autorité que lui confèrent ses fonctions. L'infraction prévue à l'article 225-4-1 est punie de vingt ans de réclusion criminelle et de 3 000 000 euros d'amende lorsqu'elle est commise en bande organisée. La tentative des délits prévus par l'article 225-4 du code pénal est punie des mêmes peines.
Indeed, the shameful corporate practices denounced below evoke sadly human trafficking! HRD negotiate pro-motion of employees which they have not even met with unknown to them “relatives” to whom they promise benefits (e.g. job opportunities), they force their targeted employees to relocate in order to me(a)t them willing to offer them accommodation in their “bigger” houses, they usurp the title of “family” and present themselves to public as relatives of their employees, they offer to employees positions in the company depending on the sexual needs of the “higher” managers disregarding their qualifications/expertise/interests or they dismiss them aiming to force them to begging, to pro- or to commit a crime. The penalties for HuetChiensHonte gang have to increase a lot and our disgust and boo become even stronger.
The entity which under the auspices of Hutchinson Group exploited the carpooling for leaving inside the car a GPS tracker device in order to locate the residence address of the targeted employee is called Diego Pantano. That entity thought that one day could get the property of the target when the latter would be forced to get relocated LOL. Since he was asked by the company to “like” an employee, it is our duty to return the liking back.
Could you please communicate “données de nature“ which will allow the identification of the HRD “Home Research Division” stated earlier which had the audacity to usurp the title of family, relatives or ”proches” and proclaim themselves publicly relatives/family of an employee and violate as well the article L1221-9 of the “code du travail”? Who is behind that HRD which dared to intrude shamefully upon the private life of an employee and circulate her/his family data in and outside the company aiming to disturb the tranquility of the employee (see Code Pénal) and turn them crazy? Who is behind the HRD which seeks and calls relatives of an employee, informs them where the newly hired works (company, position, country and city), how they replied to interview questions and asks information about their personal relationships (current or past), personal/education background, family data, residence address etc which then diffuse publicly (in and outside the company) declaring themselves relatives of the unknown to them employee intending to me(a)t them? They are so unfathomably ludicrous that the family of HRD even asks those “relatives” to comment on/confirm various data of the ID card of the employee (including even the ID photo - hair colour!%*), a copy of which had been submitted upon request to the HRD as part of the hiring process. With such personal data treatment, it would be no surprise to see the ID cards of the employees published by the HRD abusively on the internet. Who is behind that pro-entity which conspired with unknown “relatives” behind the back of an employee asking those relatives to let the HRD know if/when the employee will visit them upon the workplace harassment she/he will be subjected to for two years in order to go to find them and me(a)t them-offer their cock? Who is this shameful entity which considers business a family matter and think that by hiring one they automatically become members of their families and they are free to call them for exchanges of information? Who is this shameful entity which they think that by hiring a person they get the right for “VPN”, the right to direct and disturb their private lives, relocate them and even more importantly, change their career direction getting them out of their field of expertise in order to me(a)t them or help the real relatives of the HRD to get a placement in the company? Who is that petty HRD division or “Manager By Accident” and the company which supported them in those shameful violations?
A discussion about the change of career direction of an employee, work placements irrelevant with their expertise and interests and employees’ dismissal in order for “higher” managers of a company to be able to me(a)t them has to follow shortly.
The court order dated on 11/05/17 states «…constant que l’ensemble de ces circonstances justifient qu’il soit dérogé au principe du contradictoire, ORDONNONS aux sociétés GOOGLE INC et YOUTUBE LLC de communiquer les données de nature à permettre l’identification des personnes ayant contribué à la création des contenus objet des notifications qui leur été respectivement adressées les 14 et 18 avril 2017 et 2 mai 2017 qu’elles détiennent en application de l’article 6-II de la loi du 21 juin 2004 précitée».
There are two other orders deleted with a pen with a note “contradictoire” in the margin: “ORDONNONS à la société YOUTUBE LLC de retirer le compte usurpé au nom de HUTCHINSON SA figurant à l’adresse URL suivante :
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjf0RgsKz09V5Os1SjGbjTg
Ordonnons à la société YOUTUBE LLC de retirer les contenus litigieux figurant aux adresses URL suivantes :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4kmhyI-vNE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm7TVg_4NSA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4kmhyIvNE&list=PLK7P8tmQ7ApIxRm_u_66R88aWGanQDixA
Although they identified people early last year, nobody was called to defend their comments or parodied works/works of mockery to the court. Although the court invoked the “principe du contradictoire“ and refused (formally) to remove the channel and the videos until bringing the parties in confrontation in the court we noticed sadly that videos have been either removed completely by Youtube or placed under the jurisdiction of other countries, including the EU member states that have implemented the parody exception having used as model the French parody exception. This is DRAMA. One can well understand that the purpose was to muzzle us and Youtube i n f o r m a l l y was asked to remove the videos! Nothing was judged f o r m a l l y as defamatory. The “Hutchinson CdR” video was removed upon the first court on 05/17 after having been initially accepted by the Youtube review team. Obviously, there are informal court orders which are kept as secret. What is the reason to place the rest videos under the jurisdiction of other countries? Did they think that the commenters will quit the country being unemployed upon their null and void dismissal and avoided to call them last year? They actually wanted to avoid a confrontation, leave the channel naked and close it! Yes, we well got it! Indeed, we all have hallucinations that we have democracy and freedoms. This is not satire, not parody but pure drama.
Apparently, nothing was heard in the court by any party (Hutchinson, Youtube, Google, tribunal) about the well known rules of satire and caricature, the “fair use”, the parody exception to copyright justified by the freedom of expression and freedom of arts, the freedom of panorama, the freedom of incisive criticism, ridicule, irony and sarcasm which are part of the freedom of expression and information, all those freedoms which "manifestement” refute the ridiculous complaint by the company HUTCHINSON. They did not even discuss about the limits of those particular freedoms (although we have not passed any)! All the aforementioned fundamental rights which are of utmost importance in every democratic country were taken automatically by the rulers as “manifestement illicites” with absolutely no quote/citation/discussion and they would almost remove all satirical videos as illegal and close the channel! They could well identify the authors before the first court and call them, but they did not. We received by Google the first notification email regarding disclosure of our accounts data dated on 24/05/17 with the court order attached dated on 11/05/17. Later, we received a second notification email on 29/11/17 with a modified court order shown in the video “who rules over you”. The court took place on November 2017. It was not “impossible” to call us to the court and we proved that it was not possible to get intimidated and close our accounts by ourselves without having made a violation. Indeed, we were subjected to prejudice and we disappointed them one more time. We can defend our works of mockery and criticism but it is frustrating that absolutely nothing was heard concerning the above rights in the court which has jurisdiction in the country with the long parody tradition and the famous explicit parody exception in their copyright law, the country which indeed served as model to the other EU member states that implemented the parody exception to their national law. The court’s order already refers to the contents of the channel as being “manifestement illicites”! Did they all aim simply to intimidate and muzzle us violating our freedoms? As we noted earlier we also sadly notice that videos in Hutchinson SAtire channel as well as in playlist become unavailable in France but they are available to all the rest countries due to that complaint. The laws in France have been suspended and the videos have been placed under the jurisdiction of other countries? Did the French court order that transfer to leave the channel naked? It seems that there exists “rulers” exception to parody exception, which renders satire, parody, criticism etc “manifestement illicites”, what a hypocrisy...
It’s no wonder then why people point their neighbours or other unidentifiable individuals when they are asked by the judicial police “who did it, who wrote it, who uploaded it?”. When a judge avoids making “defamation” in the courtroom against lawbreakers by concealing their crimes, when the court’s order upon a ruler’s complaint and the convocation letter by the judicial police is threatening or intimidating based on unfounded, null and void accusations referring to penalties kind of 15,000 euros fine and one year of imprisonment, then those who denounce illegal practices in various websites making use of their fundamental rights should opt to avoid wasting their precious time and money (and even risking their liberty) going to attend another parody act. The restoration of public trust in the justice is imperative need! When there are judges who humiliate the justice invoking “defamation” during a trial about harassment in workplace and show that way disrespect to the victim-plaintiff, then people have a very good reason to steer clear of courts being unconcerned about the cogency of their replies to the question “who did it?”! Those are not the liars, the hypocrisy lies “manifestement” elsewhere.
Again, we are still here remaining “vertical” and we will give to the harassers who made the complaint a lesson about our fundamental freedoms, the cornerstone of democracy (which sadly have not been taken as given) “afin de mettre fin au harcèlement mené par la societé HUTCHINSON et au dommage subi par les victimes de leurs violations honteuses”. DEF.AM.ATION came to stay.
A video can not be considered defamatory without a court decision. The first court (05/17) as well as the second court (11/17) asked only the identification of the authors. Until a new hearing takes place no video can be taken as defamatory or illegal and removed. We trusted that the parody exception and satire was well known in France but apparently not. It appears that there exists “rulers” exception to parody exception, which renders criticism illegal, what a hypocrisy...
Not only a pleading about well-proved
harassment acts and obvious violations/abuses of all kinds was not allowed by
the Great man during a pseudo-hearing at the afternoon, but the court did not
take the necessary time to study the submitted documents before a “délibéré”. They
opted, contrarily to the norms, to take the decision the same day of the pseudo-hearing
which was held during afternoon together with plenty of others. They took maybe
just a quick look during dining late at the evening at the end of all hearings and
then they took a hasty decision which they announced early next morning!@#. Why
that unprecedented rush!? Justice is rather what the judge ate for dinner.
WTH
is “délibéré”? Le "délibéré" est l'espace de temps au cours
duquel les juges qui ont entendu les parties
ou leurs mandataires à l'audience, se retirent, pour débattre collégialement des
dispositions qui constitueront le jugement ou l'arrêt. Au cours du délibéré le juge qui a présidé l'audience et ses assesseurs échangent
leurs avis après avoir examiné les pièces du dossier. Si les opinions exprimées
sont contradictoires, le Président soumet la ou les questions litigieuses au
vote. En cas de divergences, son opinion est prépondérante. La discussion
terminée et les votes ayant été exprimés, il se désigne lui-même ou désigne
l'un de ses assesseurs pour rédiger le projet de jugement qui sera
ensuite dactylographié ou imprimé par le personnel du Greffe et sera soumis à
sa signature. Dans les affaires délicates comportant un très grand nombre de
pièces de procédure et de documents, le Président peut désigner un des
assesseurs pour faire un rapport qui selon le cas peut être oral ou, plus
rarement, écrit. Les juges peuvent ainsi se réunir plusieurs fois avant qu'une
décision soit prise.
Indeed, they ridiculed justice in
all terms.
We are sorry to disappoint them but the sarcasm mode will stay ON. Their harassment mode must switch to OFF or they will be in a permanent base the object of derision/the mock as long as democracy mode is ON. “It is up to them” to choose between “harassment mode OFF” or “be the mock mode ON”. Intimidation is punishable by law and their ignorance of the law as well as the motto “harassment is difficult to be proved” cause laughter. Their despicable mindset and illegal practices inevitably inspire the creation of satirical pieces of artwork along with social caustic commentaries. Their “final thoughts” were “it is up to you” and we “Just did it”. HueTchienshonte (T from "time out"), your “ride” will be long.
LinkedIn facilitates only the companies in violating the personal data of employees when the petty employer ask various headhunters/recruitment agencies to approach or rather annoy the (constructively) dismissed employees in order to muzzle them before a court offering them crappy consultancy jobs even when their profile indicates that they hold a post and they are not interested in job offers. Those headhunters even dare to leave phone messages (in a business fixed telephone) to an employee who is going to be dismissed or quit while they are still working in the petty company! Such headhunters (for example the Quantum Group, UK) who appear suddenly from nowhere can even insist in arranging a meeting in person with an individual being willing even to travel from another country (!!) when there is no indication that the latter searches for a job indeed in another country. When the concerned individual makes a “subject access request” as being entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998 asking the petty headhunter/agency to supply information relating to the name of the person/organisation that provided/recommended their name and personal data in order for the agency to contact them for crappy jobs they reply “Your name was recommended to me on a confidential basis so I cannot say who it was”! Later, the higher manager of the agency takes charge of the “subject access request” and apologizes “for the error” declaring that the individual was found randomly by searching keywords (the classic cheap reply) in an effort to cover the cheap employer who approached them. They mention for the unadvertised position in the unrevealed company and country for which they contact the “recommended” individual that “it is highly confidential so this is why we have used this approach and why the position is not advertised on the company’s website”. They note in their file which they opened illegally with data they obtained for an individual that she/he is “unwilling to cooperate” with the unknown headhunter who does not disclose info about how they found them to discuss about a “secret” job in an unrevealed company which does not advertise it in their legal website and in an unspecified country!@!**! Other petty headhunters also mention that they found the concerned individual in LinkedIn by “searching keywords” even for a post which is totally irrelevant with their profile! Yes, a (constructively) dismissed employee receives within a very short time a storm of messages in LinkedIn by petty headhunters who found them suddenly by searching the keyword “irrelevance” while the profile of the former indicates that they are employed and they are not interested in job offers.
Companies dare to bring in bad faith (with willingness to damage) false testimonies to court and intentionally false accusations, they make defamation against the victims, the judge does not allow disputes about harassment acts within the courtroom during a l e g a l procedure (in the presence of the lawyers of both parties) to avoid “defamation” (!!!#&@***!) and anyone who attempts to denounce illegal practices making use of their fundamental right to freedom of expression is sued for defamation by the rulers. Amazingly, this has become the norm! An enterprise is eligible to break the law being protected by all the authority bodies, but the individuals/victims are muzzled or they are sued for defamation against the lawbreakers. What an irony…The lawyers just submit the files to the court without entering to a debate regarding the harassment accusations and the judge never recall the parties to the court for a debate upon reading their files, the harassment values are well protected even if there are o b v i o u s evidences which SHOUT that there has been severe moral and/or sexual harassment, discrimination and many violations committed by the shameful company. The victims are also invited by the media (a TV channel e.g. France 2) via their lawyers to speak about harassment acts before the court date (no wonder how they found them). If one accepts and speaks out they will be sued for defamation and due to that they will not get indemnities for their harassment claims, if one denounces the shameful practices of the enterprises upon the decision of the court which insists in not recognizing harassment again they will be wrongfully sued for defamation. We even reached the point that satire and parody are accused of being a defamatory tool when there is a legislation which protects those fundamental rights. This is an irony in full dimension. “The harassment is difficult to be proved”, the refrain that from now on should cause only laughter. It seems that it is difficult only for somebody (individual or entity) to deny breaking the law if they get paid or promoted to pseudo-directors.
Shall they pay again to speed up the court date? Look forward to laughing soon with the censored reply to the “thumb up” which their female attorney will invoke. A debate on where the “thumb” should be prompted to be placed will be interesting.
La satire, la parodie, l'utilisation du ridicule, l'ironie ou le sarcasme font partie de la liberté d'expression et d'information. Ils représentent un instrument efficace de la critique de la vie sociopolitique et du monde du travail et ainsi ils jouent un rôle social très important dans chaque pay démocratique.
La caricature est l'expression la plus évidente de la satire, il peut être grotesque, ridicule ou véritable, c’est-à-dire qu’il ne pouvait pas y avoir de confusion sur le plan de la représentation entre des dessins et l’image réelle de l’intéressé. La reproduction de l’image d’une personne physique dans le cadre d’une œuvre satirique n’est licite que pour assurer le plein exercice de la liberté d’expression. Les personnes peuvent voir leur image utilisée dans le cadre d’une œuvre satirique sans que leur autorisation n’ait à être sollicitée.
La caricature est un mode d’altération de la personnalité où l’excès est la loi du genre. Il s’agit d’un aspect de la liberté d’expression qui «autorise un auteur à forcer les traits et à altérer la personnalité de celui qu’elle représente», l’excès et l’outrance sont la règle. Le genre satirique autorise des abus qu’une information sérieuse ne pourrait pas commettre. La jurisprudence reconnaît même «un droit à l’irrespect et à l’insolence», une sorte d’impunité aux médias qui ont pour vocation la satire et la dérision. «L’inconvenance grossière et provocatrice, l’irrévérance sarcastique sur le bon goût desquels l’appréciation de chacun reste libre ne peuvent être perçus sans tenir compte de leur vocation ouvertement satirique et humoristique qui permet des exagérations, des déformations et des présentations ironiques». Des individus, des organisations/entreprises, des États etc peuvent légitimement exposées à la libre critique et à la caricature incisive. Peu importe que les personnages soient dans le sketch comme ayant des affinités avec le régime nazi ou l’État islamique; la critique peut éventuellement être très incisive. Le droit de critique par nature ne sert pas à faire l'éloge. La satire est une forme d’expression artistique et de commentaire social qui vise naturellement à provoquer, à agiter, à faire honte aux individus, aux entreprises, au gouvernement ou à la société efin d’imposer le changement nécessaire. Elle est inspirée par des pratiques réelles et honteuses de diverses entités et pas par des contes de fées enfantins. Son ton ne peut être qu’acerbe.
Ainsi, il est évident que la satire est une forme d’expression qui doit aussi bénéficier d’une protection renforcée par rapport à d’autres formes d’expression puisque sa nature est l’excès et l’impertinence, encore plus quand il est même possible de relater des faits dont la matérialité peut se prouver.
Celon l’art. 2 de la Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen la résistance à l’opression consitue un droit naturel et imprescriptibles de l’Homme et le but de toute association politique est sa conservation. Comment quelqu'un qui a besoin de travailler pour vivre peut-il résister à l'oppression sur le lieu de travail alors qu'aucune loi ne s'applique pour les protéger? Il semble que seules les valeurs de harcèlement sont conservées et perpétuent. Bien sûr, "il est difficile de prouver le harcèlement" car les victimes sont muselées par de nombreuses entités.
Diffusion/violation of personal data occurs also when the employer makes known the place of residence of an employee without his/her consent to other employees who live in the same region in order to promote carpooling and through that “carpooling” to promote the placement of GPS tracker devices! “Our director told me that you live in that city, do you want to share the car?” Yes, it is even more easy to leave a trapped bag inside the car than attach a device externally. Indeed, it is very oppressing to work with such pricks who are experts in violations of all kinds. Regarding denouncing harassment acts in workplace can one tell us which is the proper place or media where one can talk, argue and try to find their right? An internal complaint to HR is of no avail as it has been mentioned. Comments made in google or other media are removed upon payment of the harassers. When during the trial the judge mentions “better not to talk about the harassment acts now to avoid making defamation as there is audience” it is obvious that the harassment practices are protected and there is no place where one can argue about it. Even the courtroom during a legal process does not tolerate disputes regarding harassment. The “harcèlements” articles are just an ornament in the “code du travail” without any application. Of course, “harassment is difficult to be proved” when there is no platform to talk about it with the victims being muzzled. “Defamation” during a trial about harassment??!!***@#%^&*!!!!!!! How is it possible?
According to the comic creator’s guide there is no libel in the following cases:
Truth: No matter how scandalous or injurious to an entity’s reputation a statement may be it is not considered defamatory if it is true.
Humor or parody: It is considered a form of protected opinion. There is no libel when the material is clearly understood as parody, satire, humor or fantasy and is not capable of carrying a defamatory meaning.
Opinion: Statements that reflect a point of view or opinion are not considered defamatory. Also, insulated from libel and slander are “vigorous epithets,” “rhetorical hyperbole,” “loose, figurative language” or “lusty and imaginative expressions".
Consent: If one consents to the publication of a defamatory statement they will not be able to bring a claim for defamation.
Concerning the usurpation of identity-logo (the accusation for the name “Hutchinson” has already been well ridiculed) does the logo of the company which accuses us have a red devil or a kitten or a trident drawn with transparent ink? Do they also have the other red lines of our triangle-brand in their logo drawn with transparent ink which we can not see? Fate changes when you change clothes, does it change when you change ink colour or logo? How many logos can an entity register? If a new logo does not challenge them it won’t change them. Logos change, minds remain the same. The power of satire is that it forces necessary change in order to put end to the harassment, abuse and violations of the enterprises against those who need to work for living.
Apart from the chemical weapons they also have in their arsenal harassers used as bioweapons (see Hortense Leblond). They serve as a source of microbes and are installed in the same office with the victim to fill them with disgust. They cough all the time in their face spreading out microbes and viruses, they file their fingernails causing dust and fresh up putting smelly spray deodorant in the office. They are so disgusting that they scare the crap out of the toilet. They are indeed a biohazard. Always, if the victim complains she/he will be considered unfit in the team as they can not get along well with the disgusting collegues. If those “bioweapons” will change office they will be replaced by smelly freshly injected parts which instead of being stored according to the safety and health regulations in the warehouse they are left on the desks for undermining the health of the victim.
What the code of conduct states ? « Nous accordons une attention particulière aux conditions de travail des salariés en particulier à la protection de leur santé et de leur sécurité… » LOL
Of course, such entity would not loose the opportunity to get the CVs of their former employees from the employment centre (if those have been submitted) in order to diffuse them in the internet and provoke the unemployed further. Attention must be paid by the latter.
For the invasion of privacy by taking one photos and/or videos without their consent many individuals, entities and authorities have to be charged. Indeed, this is one of the most ANNOYING thing. Better to suspend/stop the sale of mobiles and cameras (or just remove the camera from the mobiles) than the sale of mobile sim cards!
Regarding the penalties for the false accusations those must be multiplied by two for the false testimonies of petty “witnesses” as well as for the dismissal letter based on lies and fake accusations which had been already turned down with strong evidences presented by the victim(s). Although those evidences had been accepted orally by the nasty company the false accusations were kept in the letter and presented to the justice. So adding 45,000euro more and two years imprisonment (one for the letter and one for the nasty fake testimonies brought to justice) the total penalties for Huechienhonte raise to 2,863,000 and 67years of imprisonment.
The right to respect for private
life is a fundamental human right. According to the article 9 of the Civil Code:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life".
The concept of privacy includes information about one’s home or the places they
visit, information about their family life or their love life. Anyone who makes
public elements of private life of another person and without their consent
incurs penalties for invasion of privacy. French law also provides criminal
sanctions against the perpetrator of privacy invasion. For the invasion of
privacy (including search and disclosure/circulation of private facts/family
info, search and approach of family members for obtaining private info, info
about family relationships, false light, GPS tracking of car) the m i n i m u m
penalties are 45,000 euros and one year of imprisonment. Considering also the
workplace invasion of privacy (search of an employee’s desk, locker/drawer and
personal items, taking photographs/videos without the victim’s knowledge or consent)
the m i n i m u m penalties are raised to 90,000euros and two years
imprisonment. So totally the penalties for HueTchienshonte (T from "time
out") raise to 2,818,000 € and 65 years of imprisonment.
Let me pose a question now. Given
that the workplace is a wild zoo should HR be replaced by judicial police?
Could that put an end to harassment, abuse, provocation and violations of the
enterprises towards those who need to work for living? Would the directors say
also to them “if you want to belong to a company you must do what your boss
say- Just do it!”? Would also such body go along with their harassment values
and violations of all kind “for the benefit of the company”?
The accounts of commenters opened and the internet providers disclosed their personal data “in order to put an end to the damages” the harassers and the law breakers have incurred when nobody identified them. Although youtube took action removing certain videos the creators/uploaders are later prosecuted for defamation, public insult and usurpation of identity with the penalties being 15,000euros fine and one year imprisonment.
SAtire replies to MOBbies by mocking them, people have the right to denounce illegal practices. The crimes of the harassers are to be penalized, not the satire!
De nouveau, hueeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Boooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A victim reports to HR harassment acts, various violations which
can be verified very easily by questioning employees and reviewing the tasks,
responsibilities, the utopic projects or missions of the victim. On the other
hand the harassers lie to HR, report fake/fantastic stories, attribute a wrong
character to a victim without any base throwing mud to her/him and HR although
can very easily prove their lies by running an investigation and bring the
opposing parties in confrontation, accepts their figments of imagination
formally. The HR manager “cheap investigator” instead of posing to employees a
number of appropriate questions in relation to reported acts of harassment with
the purpose of shedding light on each and every claim and subsequently
registering their short relevant replies, she accepts irrelevant long
defamatory essays-reports of the harassers, obviously fabricated and submitted
outside of any hearing, who relate with wickedness fake events without
evidences and throw mad to their colleague. Not only she fails to investigate
on the reported by the victim acts, but she accepts accusations of harassers
without proceeding to any investigation to verify the fake stories questioning
the victim and others and she submits them to the court! How cheap are all
they! HR even asks witnesses to deny harassment acts and sign lies and if any
verifies the real facts simply their testimonies are excluded from those
presented to the court. Obviously such fake testimonies consist clearly a
defamation against the victim approved by the deplorable HR and the dumb
directors who program them. We remind to Huechienshonte that there are
disciplinary and criminal sanctions against the e m p l o y e r who brought in
bad faith (with willingness to damage) false testimonies to court (ANI March
26, 2010:”intentionally false accusations should not be tolerated and may
result in disciplinary action.”). According to the criminal code Huechienshonte
must pay 45 000 € fine for the public defamation based on lies against the
victim who reported only the t r u t h providing clear evidences. So the total
penalty considering all the rest prementioned violations for such shameful
entity raises to 2 638 000 euro and 57 years of imprisonment. [Note: not only
the lawyers know the French/international law but also the engineers).
Un employé injurié porte plainte auprès des RH mais il n'obtient pas d'indemnités, il se plaint auprès du tribunal mais il n'obtient pas d'indemnités, il écrit son avis sur des médias sociaux mais la société paie les médias pour supprimer l'avis défavorable. Comment quelqu'un dans notre société peut trouver son droit et être indemnisé pour les dommages subis? La loi n'est applicable que seulement pour les entreprises lorsqu'elles osent se présenter comme victimes de ce qu'elles ont semé? Que faut-il faire afin de mettre fin au harcélement, à l'abus, à la provocation ou les violations par les entreprises envers ceux qui ont besoin de travailler pour vivre? Que faut-il faire afin de mettre fin au dommage subi par les employés précédents ou actuels? L'injure est punie par la loi. Elle peut être privée ou publique. L'injure publique est une injure pouvant être entendue ou lue par un public. Le fait qu'une injure ait été prononcée dans un lieu fermé n'en fait pas forcément une injure non publique. Ainsi, une injure criée dans une cour d'immeuble, parce qu'elle peut être entendue par tous les occupants (qui ne se connaissent pas forcément) et leurs invités, est une injure publique.
L'injure publique est punissable par une amende de 12 000 €. Si cela s'est multipliée par quatre personnes injuriées (à une certaine occasion) la peine s'élève à 48 000 €. Pour trois occasions la peine s'élève à 144 000€. Quant à l'injure non publique elle est punie par une contravention de 38 € maximum. Si cela s'est multipliée par l'effectif de l'entreprise (par exemple 41 000) seulement pour une occasion la peine s'élève à 1 558 000 €. Donc en total la peine pour l'injure publique et non publique que Huechienshonte doit payer s'élève à 1 702 000 € et en ajoutant les pénalités susmentionnées le montant total pour Huechienhonte s'élève à 1 867 000€ et 11 ans d' emprisonnement. Mais les entreprises ne paient jamais, pas même un centime car la loi les toujours protège, seulement elles!
We also cough when we refer to the company’s “café” from badly maintained professional” machines. CAFé is the only personal thing one would like to get at work. A brewed café from freshly ground hard beans using a personal unrusty machine. But when it comes to such personal element the company does not pass the line.
Catherine, I agree that penetration gives a greater release of energy than deflection LOL. Mme Massis if the engineering terms do not make sense to you please do not hesitate to get back to us for further clarifications.
Let me provide you some “données de nature d’ingénierie ” which allow the identification of various parties. There are countless research domains, centers and Hutchinson entities. “Tell me your research interests and I'll tell you who you are”. I identify my research interests with those of He and Hutchinson. Huetchienshonte focus their research on personal lives and development of harassment techniques. Hutchinson SAtire research focuses at the interface between harassers and talents examining the energy release by the penetration of satire or criticism into harassment.
There exists also Hutchinson Technology Inc., CK Hutchison Holdings Limited, Hutchison Asia Telecommunications Limited, Hutchison 3G, Hutchison Whampoa, Hutchinson publisher, Hutchinson Legal, H&S, Hutchison School and numerous people and places named as Hutchinson. Should we expect to see more complaints for “usurpation d’identité numérique”?
Concerning the penalties stated in the document shown in “who rules over you” it must be noted that under the Labor Code the penalties for moral harassment a company must pay are 30 000 € fine and two years imprisonment. Regarding the sexual harassment the maximum penalties are 45 000 € and three years imprisonment. Is harassment at workplace (with plenty of obvious evidences) or defamation (when people denounce real harassment acts) punishable i n p r a c t i c e ?
Once more, we explicitly refuse that our site identifies an entity or that it constitutes a defamation against an entity. A company may identify themselves with Hutchinson SAtire but we did not identify any.
If boldness can have a positive meaning like bravery (bravoure) to report unlawful practices like harassment acts and other violations then we are the ones who exemplify that value denouncing situations that are harmful to employees publishing innovative videos under the support of YouTube and Google. B.O.Bs act under the support of their enterprises which foster violations. The leaders must exemplify the corporate values and their behaviour defines their real meaning. They demonstrate the real code of conduct.
The video was removed wrongfully.
Je suis audacieux.
The companies who harass their employees are the ones who violate the laws and not the videos or comments. Once more let us remind you that satire is the highest form of wit used to mock and shame individuals, corporations or government for their shameful practices and it should never be censored. If a company is disturbed by the exposure of its vile face then they need to change and not gag their current and ex-employees. When the harassment of any nature (moral or sexual) committed by various B.O.Bs (Babies of Business) against talents is hardly recognized by the court despite the plenty of clear evidences (with the aim to avoid the establishment of harassment practices by the employers), then that harassment gets back as boomerang to the harassers through such videos inspired by real acts of harassment and other violations committed by the B.O.Bies. When the companies will stop harassing, abusing and mistreating employees then the lawsuits will also stop as well as such videos. As the courts do not want to recognize the moral harassment similarly a defamation is hard to be proved. When the corporate values advertised in the companies’ websites will be applicable in the workplace then the videos will disappear. But when B.O.B reveals himself informing his company/associates about his intention to “test” an employee by knocking her room door in a hotel being or playing the drunk indicates clearly that this “leader” and the company which protects him give obviously other meaning to the “boldness” which stands among their values. Defamation is done by themselves against themselves. When the Babies will grow then the Business world will become harassment-free and those who climb up the ladder will not be those who accepted the “values” which initially challenged but real leaders.
We do not accept that our videos or comments pass the freedom of expression. You must pay to a person the respect she/he deserves if you want to be respected by them. You harvest what you sow. On récolte ce qu'on sème.
