'Big Shot' boss: You're accused of doing nothing. You committed an act of "nothingness". Merry Xmas, Rianne!

Summary: A manager at Sirius 'Open Source' has accused my wife, Rianne, of basically nothing at all! She did nothing, hence she's considered "guilty"; she resigned following this unwarranted bollocking, seeing that the company had gone broke and hid its presence in a network of shells, impeding potential lawsuits for compensation; today we reveal the full chain of correspondence and offer related context

THE LIAR AT SIRIUS has not only picked on yours truly; he also picked on my wife. Presumably being married to me means that any accusation against myself is also equally applicable to her.

How does that work? It goes like this:

"Presumably being married to me means that any accusation against myself is also equally applicable to her."Even the letters to me get reproduced and are then being sent to her (with her name instead of mine) and the only connection the company was able to find is that she wanted to raise money for koalas amid very deadly wildfires in Australia. I re-post her blog post under my name (she has no account in Techrights) several years ago and this astoundingly becomes 'evidence' against her. Just wow!

Don't believe me? Watch...

Accusation #1:



This is the Bytes Media site, not Techrights. Nothing suggests she runs Techrights. That she runs Tux Machines is nothing new; she has done this for nearly a decade already. This is not even surprising and the company's own site -- even at this very moment -- boasts about it:



Accusation #2:



Notice the author on the right; this was posted originally in Tux Machines (by Rianne), then merely copied by me.

Accusation #3:



This is about editorial work in Tux Machines, not Techrights. It's worth noting that he even stalked the old (now retired) site of Tux Machines to 'prove' a connection -- a fact that the company boasts about in its very own site! Even right now! They've failed to removed our names from the site even more than a month after we had resigned. Maybe they worry clients would find out things had gone really sour at the company.

Accusation #4:



They failed at basic reading comprehension if they think a blog post in Tux Machines implies Rianne does write Techrights. What is the above even meant to imply???

We're astounded the company wasted not just time but also physical paper sending us (by post) the above, as if to make some point (the lawyer thought the same upon seeing this). We'll come back to this later when we cover this travesty some more. It is a cautionary tale to anyone else who gets bullied by bosses, based on nothing at all! It cannot be overstated (nor understated) that she did nothing at all. Nothing!

"They failed at basic reading comprehension if they think a blog post in Tux Machines implies Rianne does write Techrights."Over a day ago (we saw this hours after it had been posted) Major Hayden wrote about "red flags" (Major Hayden is a sysadmin who worked in a number of well known companies). He said a couple of days ago: "Survival in almost any company requires you to believe that your contributions create value for someone somewhere. You also need a belief that your chance for further opportunities in the company should improve as the product improves. [...] When red flags start to appear, talk to your manager about them as soon as possible! Don’t let them fester and get worse while you’re silently becoming more and more upset and stressed. Try to bring them up with your manager in the context of your experience with them."

It seems like a common issue; Hayden worries that the company where he worked started lying to clients (or, as he puts it more politely, wasn't honest with clients). Such pathological liars or gaslighters or bullies are drowning the boat that all of us are in. In this particular case we deal with a sociopath who has no time to read my E-mail but has several weeks to carefully read years' worth of IRC logs in my site, my wife's site, and my wife's old (now retired) site! Some productivity right there...

Amazing, keep up the great work, Mr. CEO! Unless you're the only person left in 'your' company (he hasn't been in the company as long as we have; he's fairly new).

"In this particular case we deal with a sociopath who has no time to read my E-mail but has several weeks to carefully read years' worth of IRC logs in my site, my wife's site, and my wife's old (now retired) site! Some productivity right there..."The "big shot" Mr. CEO fails to grasp that the company brought the criticism upon itself by mistreating staff for years, then lying to them and about them. As the Internet meme goes, "you must be new here," Mr. CEO! Let us tell you a little about the company's history. The staff can teach you a thing or two.

This is a CEO who has no clue how to manage the Wiki and we need to lecture him, explaining to him that as manager he is the one responsible for adding clients to the Wiki (after a couple of years as CEO he still did not know that!).

Anyway, amid all this self-defeating campaign against my wife came this letter that was folded to save money and still belongs right in the wastebasket. Yes, he didn't even want to pay for a proper envelope. Must be a budget issue...

Now it's our turn to show and to explain what a pathetic and likely illegal thing he embarked on. So we decided to take screenshots in December or even do some videos (e.g. show in OBS/Webcamoid just how ridiculous this entire thing was). There's lots more on the way...

At the end of the day the company left itself bruised badly by bullying staff for years. It made some previously-ambitious and motivated staff less loyal or even disloyal.

"Aside from E-mails, the boss had her put on call; he recorded her (yes, audio and video) while she was baffled over what this thing was all about."Outsourcing is what's left of the company now (it's a middleman, reseller, parasitic firm that's severely hobbled and unable to contribute). There are almost no geeks with technical skills left, just mostly self-appointed 'managers' who don't do their own job, just pocket the money or surplus off of geeks, some of whom work all night long on shoestring budget. It's an exploitative relationship; the managers are milking the brand (productive past staff earned reputation like this!) and the remaining staff -- not to even surmount the abuse against staff since 2019, i.e. 4 years ago. We covered this before.

In the communications below one can see how it all started and later this month we shall talk about why it's a kangaroo court, definitely not compliant with British laws. Aside from E-mails, the boss had her put on call; he recorded her (yes, audio and video) while she was baffled over what this thing was all about. She had no clue. Because she did nothing and hadn't said anything.

It was certainly a waste of recording, but the E-mails that followed showed eagerness to harass and intimidate her. We're dealing with a barely-trained manager pretending to be a cop, picking on a totally innocent person who has no clue what's even going on or why.

Here is everything in chronological order and accompanying notes/explanations.

This is how it started:

Dear Rianne,

Could we please have a call urgently to discuss a matter that has been brought to my attention?

Would you be able to join a video call at this link? [redacted]

I will telephone you shortly to discuss timing.

Kind regards, [redacted]

She wasn't checking her personal E-mail account in real time, so then he phoned our personal landline at home (not the company's phone! Perhaps that too was disabled/suspended already) to draw her attention to an E-mail having been sent. Upon logging in and checking Thunderbird she noticed her company account had been suspended (or at least dysfunctional).

She responded quickly regarding another such "weirdness":

Hi [redacted],

I can't login to [redacted] it says your account has been disabled.

Regards,

Rianne

Notice they failed to actually inform her and never said what had happened. They took action prematurely or shot before asking any questions. We'll revisit this some other time and explain why it may be a breach of British law.

He responded (still by E-mail, they suspended everything, so they contacted her via personal E-mail):

Hi Rianne,

You don't need to be logged in to Google to use that link. You can post that link into any browser window and join the meeting.

Could you please re-try?

Thanks, [redacted]

She said:

I'm in.

He said:

Hi Rianne,

I can't see you listed as a participant in the meeting attendees?

Let's try a Zoom call instead.

Would you be able to join a Zoom meeting with the following details? :

This should again just work via any web browser.

To give you time to get it set up, can we please meet at 14:30?

Many thanks, [redacted]

And she replied:

Hello [redacted],

Ok, I'll see you at 14:30.

Best,

Rianne

After the call, which revealed absolutely nothing at all, he had the audacity to say "you are formally suspended" without even specifying anything that she had done wrong!

Here's the E-mail:

Dear Rianne,

Further to our meeting by video conference earlier today, please see attached letter confirming our discussion that you are formally suspended from your role of Support Engineer with Sirius Open Source.

The attached letter provides further information about this action.

Kind regards, [redacted]

This above-mentioned "letter" provided no evidence at all.

She responded after a couple of visits to lawyers.

Hi,

I believe I was unfairly treated on several grounds, including relevant protocols.

Here is the gist of the issues:

1. no due process 2. no evidence presented (or claims merely alluded to without context/link) 3. guilt by association (almost identical letter, too)

Roy and I visited lawyers on Friday and on Monday. We spoke about the facts in length.

We don't yet wish to escalate this matter and would rather settle amicably.

Rianne

He did not even respond to this E-mail. He just simply ignored anything that did not suit his twisted agenda.

Days later he wrote:

Dear Rianne,

Please see the attached letter regarding your attendance at an investigation meeting tomorrow.

Kind regards,

An "investigation" for nothing basically; they accuse another person and then try to engage in 'guilt' by association (the other person isn't guilty of anything either).

Rianne responded, politely:

Hi,

Please be patient. My lawyer will respond to you soon. I will not attend any meetings prior to that.

Best,

Rianne

Well, if that wasn't bad enough he then kept pushing "Reminders" by E-mails, despite having not received any input to the effect he wanted. He kept postponing each time the kangaroo 'court' was empty, as it was likely constructed in violation of the law.

Days later Rianne followed up:

Hi,

The meeting with the lawyer was today. The legal rights are now clearer. Cooperation with your instructions are now possible.

Best,

Rianne

Suddenly the company 'discovers' they left something out:

Dear Rianne,

Thanks for your message.

As per our letter, you are entitled to be accompanied by either a work colleague or by a Trades Union representative.

Just to be clear, it is not Sirius' responsibility to run or operate a Union. Trades Unions are independent bodies that operate separately to employers so that they can work for the benefit of their members.

It is also not Sirius' responsibility to nominate a suitable Trades Union. It is a right under UK law for each employee to make an individual decision to choose whether or not they wish to join a Union. Sirius is an equal opportunity employer and makes no distinction at all between those who are members of a Trade Union and those who are not.

Kind regards,

That was not good enough:

Hi,

That does not answer my main question or my main point. The point is, you've presented me with a false dichotomy. That also does not follow the protocols, as per my lawyer.

Regards,

Rianne

In order to keep this post relatively concise we'll come back to this at a later date when rights of staff are discussed further.

Some hours later, after seeking legal advice, she noted that she deserved (legally entitled) to be accompanied by someone else:

Hi,

My lawyers say I can be accompanied not only by a trade union person. Sirius doesn't have a union.

Best,

Rianne

It was like talking to a wall because they did not facilitate what was allowed and in fact they had hidden those rights until she pointed those out (or after Mr. Boss was belately speaking to a professional at the company's side). They kept pushing and pushing for another meeting:

Dear Rianne,

Thank you for your reply.

Please see the attached letter regarding your attendance at a re-scheduled investigation meeting.

Kind regards,

They even pushed this until December:

Dear Rianne,

Please see the attached letter regarding attendance at a disciplinary hearing this Friday 2nd December.

Kind regards,

Many "Reminders" followed, but still no compliance with rules. The company wasn't interested in actual facts, laws etc.

Rianne gave up at this point, seeing the company wasn't interested in any input about law and protocols. She resigned in December:

Dear [redacted],

I am writing to announce my resignation as a support engineer in Sirius Open source Ltd. effective today, 2nd of December 2022. This was not an easy decision to make; I have been working with Sirius for nine years, but it feels like this has come to an end. The situation recently hasn't been managed/handled according to laws; this hassle could have been avoided if only the rules and protocols have been followed.

Sincerely,

Rianne

It took the company nearly 10 days to reply to that.

Dear Rianne,

Please see attached letter regarding your resignation.

Yours sincerely,

This was covered here before, as the contents of the letter were truly absurd.

To summarise, Rianne and I wished to send a formal document to the employer as a response to trumped-up accusations. We knew it would help if legal representatives (like someone in his/her capacity as a lawyer) could acknowledge that this is our position and that they're there to take the matters further upon instruction from the clients. Not to endorse the message (statement) but to assure the company that the clients have legal representatives and are presently considering further action, such as lawsuit or whistle-blowing. At the end we chose the latter, seeing the companies was acting like an eel, hiding behind rocks and shells, especially weeks before the bullying began. The company changed its address 3 times in just 5 weeks, leaving both 'companies' with the address of its accountants, i.e. a phony registration (even if technically it's legal to do so).

"The company changed its address 3 times in just 5 weeks, leaving both 'companies' with the address of its accountants, i.e. a phony registration (even if technically it's legal to do so)."We assume that most readers don't bother reading the PDF, as it is long, but it might help to have this series at the site (blog posts or wiki) at all times; it might help other people in case -- or at the time -- of similar incidents. Ever since we resigned we spotted at least 4 blog posts in the FOSS-centric blogosphere that we felt were inspired by us (but could not actually prove the correlation). Geeks like to focus on coding, testing, tickering etc. Sadly this means not many are aware of their legal rights and this leaves them vulnerable to sociopaths who somehow made their way into management positions in companies whose products/services they don't even understand. Heck, they do not and cannot understand the staff either! Maybe that counts as management, but that's not actual leadership and it usually ends badly as both clients and staff get fed up with the lies, the threats, the endless (false, baseless etc.) finger-pointing, and mostly cover-up. Charlatans and imposters are toxic to companies where the atmosphere or the work climate can rapidly deteriorate, causing colleagues to leave and creating critical vacuums (e.g. systems nobody can maintain or knows how to patch, extend etc.), begetting unpaid pensions, a lack of payslips (violation of British law by the way!), no actual servers and so on.

For those who want to get a quick roundup of the wrongs and the injustices done to my wife, here is the gist of the issues:

1. no due process 2. no evidence presented (or claims merely alluded to without context/link) 3. gross accusation inflation 4. guilt by association (identical letter, too) 5. the company has a history doing this to couples, e.g. one blind colleague based in Germany; it was very serious and it went to court (cost the company or its Directors -- a manager and the CEO -- a lot of money, went on for a long time, settled at the end)

Portions of E-mail correspondence prior to the abuse and resignation is now included here along with further context that anyone can judge independently. Attachment of an employee handbook (may not be very similar to the latest version) isn't possible for confidentiality reasons and PDF versions of the letters sent will likely be shown in the next post, albeit only on camera. Employment contracts (printed for us, to be brought home) don't say much at all, so staff was basically compelled to sign some "Web pages" online, consenting to largely unknown terms. Later on in this series we'll show he we were pressured to sign new contracts 'by surprise' without any legal advice available.

"Unless this was a case of digital "swatting" (someone who hates us trying to falsely report us to the employer, possibly anonymously), this is the employer manufacturing a 'case'."In Rianne's own words: "I think my employer does not wish to settle amicably, and it seems to boil down to a manager's ego rather than anything wrong I did."

Unless this was a case of digital "swatting" (someone who hates us trying to falsely report us to the employer, possibly anonymously), this is the employer manufacturing a 'case'.

The cheaply-made hatchet job never goes far. It only backfires. The victims always remember. ⬆