[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-20-05 AT 11:52AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Our company has an employee directory, both in written form and on the company's intranet. Directory states employee name, department, cell number and desk phone number.
After a recent transformation, some of mgmt wanted to "link" company badge photos to directory for purposes of matching a face with a name. For ease of handling the project, mgmt said, "let's just do the link and post a message that if anyone DOESN'T want their photo on the directory, to advise." If an employee didn't respond, it was viewed as "approved".
As most of you are aware, invasion of privacy issue here. Would have been okay to turn it around the other way......give your consent, we'll post your pic.
Project was scrapped.
Now, on the other hand, the legal departments between the various business units do have a directory that lists our full names, home address, home telephone number, office number, and cell number. Plus the online directory for the legal depts has our picture. We all agreed to provide this information for publishing.
You probably already know this; but, the EEOC will take great exception to any procedure of posessing or posting photographs with the exception of ID badges. This includes company directories and especially personnel files. The reasoning being obvious.
If management wants to associate a name with a face, management needs to get up out of their chairs, leave their offices and mingle with the peons on a regular basis. I don't buy the notion of needing a photo to make an association. Then what? Oh, yeah, John, that's John. Yeah. Does he have a family? Where's he live anyway. Which car is his or does he have one?
What if: the employer did it sort of like the Forum does and allowed employees to enter a database program and post their personal information. What if: some did and some didn't and nobody was offended because it was entirely by choice. And what if: Some chose, like on the Forum, to opt in or opt out, to participate or to not participate, sort of like DCHR decided not to. What if?
Comments
After a recent transformation, some of mgmt wanted to "link" company badge photos to directory for purposes of matching a face with a name. For ease of handling the project, mgmt said, "let's just do the link and post a message that if anyone DOESN'T want their photo on the directory, to advise." If an employee didn't respond, it was viewed as "approved".
As most of you are aware, invasion of privacy issue here. Would have been okay to turn it around the other way......give your consent, we'll post your pic.
Project was scrapped.
Now, on the other hand, the legal departments between the various business units do have a directory that lists our full names, home address, home telephone number, office number, and cell number. Plus the online directory for the legal depts has our picture. We all agreed to provide this information for publishing.
Just my comments to add to the others.
If management wants to associate a name with a face, management needs to get up out of their chairs, leave their offices and mingle with the peons on a regular basis. I don't buy the notion of needing a photo to make an association. Then what? Oh, yeah, John, that's John. Yeah. Does he have a family? Where's he live anyway. Which car is his or does he have one?
What if: the employer did it sort of like the Forum does and allowed employees to enter a database program and post their personal information. What if: some did and some didn't and nobody was offended because it was entirely by choice. And what if: Some chose, like on the Forum, to opt in or opt out, to participate or to not participate, sort of like DCHR decided not to. What if?
No way! You're joking, right??