Trialbyfire Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 I think he has a ethical responsibility to disclose any monitoring software. It's how he delivers this disclosure that matters...
Enema Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 Could you please cite the passages from which you draw this inference? I don't know for sure what his motives are, but I think a possible alternate explanation aside from a power trip needs to be presented. All we know from the OP is that he mentioned during a meeting that he has the ability to do this... not that he's lording it over them. Seems like a not-so-subtle reminder to everyone at a convenient time (staff meeting) that they are being paid to work, not play. I think that an employee taking advantage of the Internet would not be a supporter of his monitoring.
Art_Critic Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 I have no idea what the boss is looking for . However he might have reasons to believe that Company intellectual property might be e mailed out by an employee. Or some info concerning bids on contracts could be passed on to the competition. which is true... but stealth and nonthreatening motions should be in place then.. People shouldn't be able to feel him login while they are working and watch their mouse move around.. how fuqked up is that ? They also shouldn't have it brought up to them repeatably.. once is all that is necessary
Art_Critic Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 I think that an employee taking advantage of the Internet would not be a supporter of his monitoring. I am an employer and I don't support this type of monitoring unless it is in the brokerage or financial market,.. but the iron fisted kind I'm am against An employer sets the tone of the environment.. he has set the tone to be untrust while wielding an iron fist till you are fired.. Who wants to work in that kind of environment ? Banks and brokerage houses don't have a hostile environment to work in because of monitoring
Trialbyfire Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 I am an employer and I don't support this type of monitoring unless it is in the brokerage or financial market,.. but the iron fisted kind I'm am against An employer sets the tone of the environment.. he has set the tone to be untrust while wielding an iron fist till you are fired.. Who wants to work in that kind of environment ? Banks and brokerage houses don't have a hostile environment to work in because of monitoring Don't forget software vendors and pharmaceutical companies. There are trade secrets everywhere.
Enema Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 I am an employer and I don't support this type of monitoring unless it is in the brokerage or financial market,.. but the iron fisted kind I'm am against An employer sets the tone of the environment.. he has set the tone to be untrust while wielding an iron fist till you are fired.. Who wants to work in that kind of environment ? Banks and brokerage houses don't have a hostile environment to work in because of monitoring I didn't say it was a GOOD tactic I have a number of young, casual, uni student staff here who often work unsupervised. I have had to implement tracking systems of my own in response to poor work performance. Nothing quite like this guy, or anything very overt... it's mainly there to use as justification if I need to let someone go after repeated talks don't work.
Art_Critic Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 Don't forget software vendors and pharmaceutical companies. There are trade secrets everywhere. The financial/banking and brokerage houses have to keep and monitor all emails because of homeland security Software vendors and drug companies are not bound by those regs
Trialbyfire Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 The financial/banking and brokerage houses have to keep and monitor all emails because of homeland security Software vendors and drug companies are not bound by those regs Okay. We don't have that requirement in Canada, although we do have different types of money-laundering reporting requirements. Regardless, if any industry has trade secrets, it is in their best interests to monitor but not with this type of overlordship attitude.
alphamale Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 The financial/banking and brokerage houses have to keep and monitor all emails because of homeland security oh come on, like Osama Bin is going to have an account at the corner Bank of America?!? those clowns are laundering all their money thru Switzerland.
Trimmer Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 I didn't say it was a GOOD tactic Sorry, then, I must have somehow misinterpreted this statement: huzzah for the shopkeep! I think that an employee taking advantage of the Internet would not be a supporter of his monitoring. Certainly true. But the converse logic does not follow: just because an employee is not a supporter of the monitoring, it does not imply that the employee is taking unfair advantage of the internet... Again, my bottom line: I accept that as an employer he has great latitude in monitoring network and computer usage. And as an employer, he has a choice in setting the tone and atmosphere of his company. He will get the company environment and the employee attitudes that he cultivates and deserves. It will all work out.
Trimmer Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 oh come on, like Osama Bin is going to have an account at the corner Bank of America?!? those clowns are laundering all their money thru Switzerland. Sure, but if they want to buy fertilizer, heating oil, and 16-penny nails down at the feed store and rent a panel truck to hold it all, the money has to make a journey from the Euros in that bank in Switzerland to become dollars in the cash registers here in the US...
Trialbyfire Posted June 11, 2007 Posted June 11, 2007 A_C, I should clarify one thing. We do have requirements for monitoring and keeping all emails but solely for our regulatory requirements for the purposes of supervisory monitoring of activities, instead of for reasons of terrorism. Liability can be many-pronged.
Recommended Posts