"Paul D. Robertson" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Hugh Bragg wrote:
>
> > Who would want to work for a company who doesn't even trust you to do
> > your work properly. They may as well hire convicts for the amount of
>
> Who would want to own stock in a company that doesn't even check its
> employee's work, has only a 10% work to recreation time, or is a likely
> lawsuit target? For better or worse, most of us participate in a market
> economy and that requires we factor that in to our models.
I doubt these things are all that important in today's economy.
I think most companies are like this (esp. the big ones) and the real
issue is if the job gets done on time within spec.
> > trust company XYZ has. Perhaps it should screen it's employees more
> > carefully or have a contract that forbids anything they don't want.
> > That way if they are sued, they can sue ABC for breaking the contract.
>
> It's not solely about lawsuit mitigation, it's also about responsibility
> to shareholders to ensure that the company isn't accepting undue risk and
> is performing at the best level that it can (that's a balance that
> includes both worker and employer interests.)
Why should a worker care how the company is performing on the stock
market unless they are afraid of loosing their job. Personally, if the
company goes broke I will just find another in less time than it will
take the managers. Days to weeks is usual. I change jobs often because
I know staying with the same company ushers in the law of diminishing
returns WRT experience. Besides, there are lots of people who would
pay plenty to have me around.
This may be blowing my own trumpet but, what the hell, there are a lot
of
people in my position because demand is high for technical specialists
and
this impacts directly on the companies ability to retain employees.
The company complies with my demands or gets a new employee, if they can
find one. I'll be reasonable, but not lose control.
> > When I get a PC from work I lock it up as hard as can be. no-one,
> > including my boss is allowed to do anything to it. When I leave it is
> > still locked and if they want to use their PC again they will have to
> > reformat and reinstall everything loosing anything on the disk. They
> > may own the data on the disk, but they own the lockdown system too.
>
> If you leave and don't give them the key, it's likely they could sue you
> successfully.
That's not true. They already have the key. They just don't know how to
use
it. It is my responsibility to secure my machine from anyone who might
abuse the trust. This includes my CEO who might illegally use my pc to
view porn when so they are not suspected.
> > Hey, they can alway pay me to come and move some data about their
> > systems if they really need something from it.
> >
> > If I found I was being monitored without my consent I should probably
> > be able to sue the company for violating my privacy, but I would resign
>
> Consent isn't necessary in the workplace for a lot of circumstances. You
> should check your local laws and precedents set in your local and district
> courts to be sure. Go into a 7-11 or bank and look at all the cameras and
> see if anyone's signed anything saying that it's ok to monitor them on the
> premesis (esp. the customers.)
You missed the point. If I discovered I was being spied on without my
consent I would immediately resign. I don't care if consent is
unnecessary,
I will not work for an organisation that doesn't fully trust employees.
> > immediately. I wouldn't mind being monitored if I knew what was being
> > monitored and it was part of my signed contract.
>
> That's always the best way to do it.
>
> > The definitions being bandied about are pretty strange. If ABC does a
> > turd on a keyboard at work, does that belong to XYZ? Yes of course it
> > does since if someone else trips on it they sue XYZ not ABC. The same
> > is true if a burglar trips on your hose in the back yard and is hurt.
> > He can sue you no matter who put it there. You can try to prosecute the
> > burglar for trespassing but that doesn't help you footing the medical
> > bills.
> >
> > To monitor or not to monitor? It's not effective.
>
> Actually, it is effective.
Only against those that are too stupid to know how to circumvent it.
You have to ask, Why do they _need_ to monitor if employees are
trustworthy.
The best security is trust and nothing else even comes close.
I'm sure some sort of contract could be created that makes the employee
culpable if they abuse the trust, even in the US.
> > You can monitor all you like but committed flouters will find another
> > way. Ever heard of asci art. I've seen some incredibly accurate porno
>
> 1. Most of the performance problems aren't with people who'll be caught by
> monitoring.
>
> 2. If someone deliberately tries to get around monitoring, then they're a
> prime candidate for immediate termination once discovered, and you'll
> _definitely_ be able to have a "bad apple" defense for any collateral
> lawsuits.
How do you prove someone _deliberately_ did it. There are too many
defences to list.
> > sent by email this way. Looks like junk until you resize, select the
> > right font and center it. For all XYZ knows employee DEF is using
> > employee ABC's PC to read porn or email company documents while ABC
> > is in the toilet.
>
> That's why I advocate making users log into proxies and mail systems.
> That provides accountability- even if it's not a token thing and the
> accountability is for the password.
So you're suggesting, no advocating that someone should be employed to
read all the mail and search for anything offensive or illegal.
This is impossible for any other company with any volume of mail as
internet censorship will thankfully always will be.
> > If I was an employee in the U.S. I would periodically monitor logs
> > to see if anyone is using anything that might get _me_ into trouble.
> > This would be stated in the employment contract. If something is found
> > I would warn suspects that they may be breaking their contracts. If it
> > continues despite my warnings, employees proven to be guilty would
> > be terminated.
> >
> > There is a lot of leway in "might get me into trouble". I would
> > attempt to find out what is a legitimate risk. If there is a problem
> > I can say I did everything possible to prevent it.
>
> "Might get me in trouble" also covers shareholder lawsuits for
> non-performance.
Missed the point again. I said if the employees get the job done on time
within spec. Otherwise I wouldn't employ them. This is not a formula
for non-performance lawsuit.
> >
> > As far as wasting time goes, if my employee gets the jobs done as
> > required, then happy surfing. If that interferes with others trying
> > to do their job I can do two things.
> > 1. Talk to the individual.
> > 2. Get more bandwidth. Many jobs require surfing. They should all be
> > able to do it at the same time so this makes sense.
>
> If 80% of the bandwidth is personal use and you have to make the jump from
> $800/month to $8,000 a month for the next incremental bandwidth increase,
> do you honestely expect the employer to cover that cost without any
> accountability? If a single department has everyone using some streaming
> video service, should the other departments necessarily suffer?
> End-to-end QoS fixes this, but it's not a pretty solution if you're not
> the one assigning bandwidth.
Missed the point again. Hey, if the guy is good I will buy him his own
modem. If he's not, he's out the door.
> > > Also, a lot of people use privacy notices on their sinatures. I'm not
> > sure if this helps but I don't think a company can legally read this
> > mail?
>
> Sure they can, so long as they don't give the user any expectation of
> privacy (at least in the US.)
God I'm glad I don't live in the US.
>
> Paul
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
> PSB#9280
>
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
