[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-24-03 AT 03:21PM (CST)[/font][p]I wasn't calling the IT manager Hitler - it's the person who developed the policy. Certainly you want to limit the time and energy employees spend on personal internet and email as you do for personal phone calls, personal business, etc. However, absolutely forbidding it seems a bit much. Remember Adam and Eve and the apple? Forbidding usually doesn't work. Our network has hundreds of internet/email computers on it, and thus far between our IS deparment and virus detection software we've been fine.
I have to agree with Leslie on this one. While I concede that you need to limit the time employees spend on the internet and email, they DO have lives outside of work and I would much rather them shoot out a quick email then gab on the phone for 20 minutes. Now our IT man does have a limit set so that employees can't open things past a certain size for viruses and such and managers DO monitor their employee's usage quarterly to make sure abuses aren't occuring, but employees who use the email occassionally aren't a big deal in our eyes...and yes, we use the email system for sending out congratulatory messages and such as well..saves paper and time, and still gets the message across. Since this is the 21st century, I think employers will have to be a little more flexible when it comes to employees and technology.
I've been meaning to check this thread but have been too busy with personal emails to get to it. The new company I joined has thousands of ees worldwide and networks and servers and all that stuff somewhere in a secret tower up north. They have the capability to sit and view all the traffic. If I were to call them and say, "This is Don in HR in Madison. I want you to project on my viewer precisely the traffic that's going on on Slim's computer....Bang! There it is, keystroke by keystroke. This may be simple science to many of you guys, but was a revelation to me. I got a call yesterday from a guy who had 'left' the company three years ago. He wants copies of his past reviews to assist in job search. I pulled his file and found a 2 inch stack of emails that IS had provided. He was given the opportunity to resign after it was learned that he spent most of every day on our computer day-trading. He was warned twice but was incurably hooked on the activity, thus his ultimate demise. Tragic. Our company encourages using tools including the internet, for business purposes. I'm hopeful that they'll consider The HR Forum a business purpose. The policy here is real clear but unless there is 'abuse' it's not going to cost a job. My wife can still email me and tell me to pick up bread (I think).
I had an auditor tell me that, for tax reasons, an employer's policy should either flat-out prohibit the conducting of personal business and email on the employer's computers and internet systems, or the subject shouldn't be addressed at all if you do permit personal use and communications. According to this auditor, the employee may have a taxable benefit if they are officially permitted to access and utilize the employer's computer and internet for personal use and gain. Seemed to me to be a harsh interpretation of tax law, not to mention how would you ever calculate the value that someone received from receiving and sending personal emails or when surfing the web?? But, as a nonprofit organization which, in part, relies on positive audit outcomes to support on-going funding, we implemented the recommendation.
My question is this...How much is too much? If we all agree that occasional use of email for personal reasons is acceptable, at what point do we consider it abuse? Do not tell me that if they are getting there work done, it's okay. Clearly, their workload should be adjusted if that's the case. I would really be interested in hearing what others consider to be the threshold of "abuse".
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-15-03 AT 10:10AM (CST)[/font][p]We let a VP go for sending a joke e-mail company-wide, that was a photo of a rabbit humping a chicken, with the caption, "How Easter eggs are made." He had had other problems but that was the final straw. He was on probation for viewing pornography on his computer.
Would this man have been terminted had he 'told' the same joke in the breakroom? I think people overreact to emails simply because they're somewhat new. My guess is he would not have been terminated for telling the joke or even if he had taped it on the wall beside his desk. PS: 20 years ago I drew a cartoon that I still have, in color, with the caption, "Share the Christmas Season With a Pet This Year". It was similar to the one you describe, only Santa and Rudolph were the actors. No, I didn't distribute it......well, not widely. I knew better. When I retire, I might.
I don' agree. Telling a joke is one thing. If someone doesn't want to hear it they can always say no or walk away; but sending something thru e-mail chances are the recipient wasn't asked first, they're an unsuspecting audience and its in graphic detail. Could border on sexual harassment and pornography by some standards.
Yes, but the courts have generally ruled that one remark does not equal harassment. If that incident was the "icing on the cake" as Mr creasote said, I could understand. But if someone had a clean nose and did that I would be reluctant to terminate. Discipline yes, terminate, no.
I agree but these things are usually not isolated incidents. There is usually a pattern to them. However, I agree that if it is an isolated incident then by all means use the discipline procedure. I was referring in this case to the fact that it was the "icing on the cake". Terminate in this case.
Are you suggesting that I had a pattern of drawing Santa Claus in sexually explicit poses? Jeez, I was a kid, new to the workforce and this predated sexual harassment. All things must be viewed independently, in context. There are no clear, textbook answers. The internet and email entering the picture should not be the determinant. Or so I think x:-)
I think Whatever has hit the nail on the head about why people react more strongly to e-mail rather than a dirty joke that is told. E-mail produces the plaintiff's Exhibit A automatically!
I'm not sure -- did you have a Santa Claus fetish?? :-)
I agree that each case is individual and I wouldn't terminate on a first offense either. We had a situation where the person was sending borderline jokes. No one complained until one went over the line and it went to the top. The person was fired.
I have to say that situation drives me crazy. Had someone complained when it was borderline, I bet he would not have ben fired. But they waited thinking, oh well I don't want to get him in trouble, he's not such a bad guy. Meanwhile, the guy sending the emails thinks its OK because noone says anything. Then whamo his whole life changes. Dont' get me wrong he is the one to blame. He should have been smart enough not to send borderline emails. It's just unfortunate that it had to happen. I train ee's on this same scenario. If it is offensive or uncomfortable, don't wait to complain because you don't want to get someone in trouble. It's my opinion someone is less likely to get in trouble if you deal with the situation, like borderline emails, immediately. If you wait, just like in your situation valentine, someone is going to get fired.
Don, I agree that the inertnet or email should not be the determinant factor, but it has changed the sexual harassment landscape becuase you can reach a lot more ppl a lot quicker. The joke in the hallway, hits two to three ppl. The blanket email hits hundreds. And that does make a difference.
Speaking of 'BORDERline' jokes, isn't it a bit odd that we can tell jokes all day long about our Canadian friends; but, jokes about our Mexican friends from Mexico are immediately suspect, harassing, discriminatory and in poor taste. What's the analysis of this one?
Comments
My question is this...How much is too much?
If we all agree that occasional use of email for personal reasons is acceptable, at what point do we consider it abuse?
Do not tell me that if they are getting there work done, it's okay. Clearly, their workload should be adjusted if that's the case.
I would really be interested in hearing what others consider to be the threshold of "abuse".
Margaret Morford
theHRedge
615-371-8200
[email]mmorford@mleesmith.com[/email]
[url]http://www.thehredge.net[/url]
I agree that each case is individual and I wouldn't terminate on a first offense either. We had a situation where the person was sending borderline jokes. No one complained until one went over the line and it went to the top. The person was fired.
I agree that the inertnet or email should not be the determinant factor, but it has changed the sexual harassment landscape becuase you can reach a lot more ppl a lot quicker. The joke in the hallway, hits two to three ppl. The blanket email hits hundreds. And that does make a difference.