My situation is as follows. I was recently terminated from my job. (insert curse words here). As they were sitting me down, they went to my station and took my own personal external hard drive and usb flash drive. When I asked where these were, they told me they were plugged into the station. They were not plugged in. They told me there were many of the firms files on external HD and flash drive and they needed to remove them. I know there were many files because I often took work home. I expressed concern and told them there were personal files and other previous professional jobs on there, along with family photos. They said they needed to reformat the Hard drive and flash drive, would put all the files back onto the hard drives, and return to me as soon as possible.
First of all, is this legal for them to do? Isn't this invasion of privacy?! I'm very concerned that I may lose very important files during this. I'm also concerned that they have a copy of everything I had on there. What can I do?
I've never heard of this either. I don't care about the work I did for them and their files. It would be nice to have a copy of what I did for them during that time. I was more concerned with my own projects and files. They were okay with taking work home.
Whether you like it or not, it is a well established legal principal in the US that employees of any company - not just design firms - enjoy no right to privacy when it comes to their use of company-owned computers or computer networks. You may not like this conclusion, but it sounds to me as though your former employer acted entirely within their rights and entirely according to the law.
For this reason, employees should be very careful about co-mingling personal files with company files, personal e-mail with company e-mail, etc. Your employer has the absolute right to view any files on, or attached to, your computer at any time and without your prior knowledge or permission.
But quizzical, mezdez says this usb and external drive were his/her personal equipment. And that they weren't at the time of termination attached to his/her work-issued computer.
However this particular situation works, I think it's bullshit that a firm would expect an employee to provide a piece of personal equipment for office use without compensating that person for its use and then making the rules of its use VERY clear. In my mind this ALSO includes cell phones, frankly, which I know is not an opinion with which everyone will agree. But think: if High Powered Client calls me from his/her unpublished phone number on a weekend because they absolutely need something and know I'm the one to answer the question not my boss, does the firm now have rights to my phone because it has the client's info stored on it?
We're into very fuzzy legal issues here as digital media is more and more prevalent.
quizzical- thanks for the response...very informative. I never would have thought that they would have the right to confiscate my own personal possession. Donna sink you are right about this and agree with you! Its sad that they lied to me when they said it was 'plugged into the work station' so thats why they seized it. BULLS***. I definitely will never co-mingle work and personal files again.
Quiz is pretty much right. The only fuzziness is that it's mezdez's drive. His/her choice, I'm guessing - although probably more from convenience than intention. If it was needed, firm should have provided.
Still, the information is the firm's by right. They know the rules, I'm guessing, and would likely be *very* careful to return the property and files.
quiz may be right, but this whole situation does not pass the smell test. if it sounds illegal, which it does, it generally is. the question becomes, like many similar situations where an employer is breaking a law (i.e. pirated software, illegal labor practices, etc.), if it is really worth the employee's time and money to investigate if the employer's actions were illegal and then take legal action. sadly, nine times out of time it is not worth one's time, and firms continue these practices because they are never confronted.
Donna: it's not really that 'fuzzy' - I've spent more time (and money) than I care to remember in an effort to understand this issue. This is what I understand the law to be. If the firm pays for the technology, then everything residing on the technology belongs to the company.
Further, any of the firm's files copied from the firm's system remain the property of the firm unless the firm provides explicit permission for an employee (or others) to be in possession of those files.
Legally, a firm is under no obligation to share appropriate project files with its employees, although AIA addresses this topic as an ethical matter in its Canon of Ethics. Technically, the presence of company files on a personal drive without the firm's permission is prima facia evidence of theft.
As Stephen points out, the fact that certain company files resided on mezdez's personal drives does create a small complication. However, as a practical matter this becomes a "he says / they say" question as to whether the drives were plugged in to the company's system. The fact that these drives contain copies of company files does not reinforce mezdez's position.
In my experience, most firms of any sophistication these days have a policy manual that spells out both the 'privacy' and 'ownership' aspects of these matters. Ours does, plus we explain it again in a staff meeting once a year so there is no lack of clarity.
Nevertheless, we still have staff members who load personal files on to our firm's technology, we still have staff members who conduct extensive personal e-mail using our system, and we know that many firm files are copied unilaterally to personal thumb drives, despite our extraordinary willingness to share project files whenever asked.
It was convenience and not intention. I'm fine with the firm wanting to delete all their work. I'm just very concerned with my own personal files. There is a lot of personal info that could lead to identity theft. The firm and people working on extracting the information are a bit shady and I would never want any of my information in the wrong hands. There is no guarantee that my files are not published or made public in any way. This is what worries me. I will know in the next couple days if I receive my HD back intact with all files. I just hope nothing is corrupt! Is it fair to ask for a copy or screenshot of the files on their server to double check that all files were copied back onto my HD?
It doesn't pass the smell test. I'm beginning to wonder about illegal labor practices. What would be illegal labor practices? Instead of the common 3 month 'trial period' for new hires, my trial period lasted 7 months. I was hired on as a temporary hire for " 3-4 months". So technically after that 4th month I was still a temporary? I was very confused during that time as to what my status was. In my own mind, i was an independent contractor.
but quiz, the issue is how the company obtained the personal thumb drive. since it was not plugged into company hardware, it sure sounds like theft or at minimum an invasion of privacy.
to put it another way, if i suspect you stole something of mine, does that give me the right to search through all your personal belongings to find out if it's true? i don't know the law, but i do think it's unethical regardless of whether i find something there or not.
won: again, you won't like the answer, but companies are granted extraordinary leeway when it comes to what they are allowed to search on their own premises. "Privacy" on work premises doesn't enjoy the same protections as it does elsewhere. If you don't want to run the risk of your employer looking at your stuff, don't bring it to the office and don't put it on the their technology.
Sounds like quizzical and I have been talking to the same HR gurus! It's cruddy and murky and frustrating, but I'm also learning that there is a logic to the HR craziness. Sounds wrong to you - mezdez and won - and would to me too, if we hadn't been working with attys on these 'policies' just recently.
quizzical, i have two questions for you regarding your responses:
- 1 -
"Technically, the presence of company files on a personal drive without the firm's permission is prima facia evidence of theft. "
So if I use my jump drive for transport of company data for any reasonable reason, I do this openly, including taking work home when needed, it is obvious to other workers including my superiors and no one says anything against this practice, at any point prior to the termination, or more true to life, they say not to do it but then tolerate or ignore the fact that everyone does it...doesn't that imply consent to this behavior by the firm and thereby make it de facto company policy, no matter the written rule? And if so, is the implication two way, that is, just as the firm is implying consent to allow me to use my own equipment as part of work, I am implying consent that my own equipment is equipment accessible to the company for the purposes of executing the company's work?
This seems to suggest to me that the company has a right to access my data drive but that it seems unlikely that they could claim theft and have it upheld. Does that seem correct or am I missing something?
- 2 -
One of the things that makes people valuable is that they get stuff done quickly, they take charge and make things happen, they don't have to be asked or told too often. And firms are not perfect in the resources they provide, no matter how well-intentioned. So let's say I'm at a firm and I'm getting things done and that means I use my own equipment occasionally when the firm does not provide it. Maybe I do this because I believe in the firm, trust that I'm a valued member, etc. It occasionally helps me to not waste time or let the exigencies of a struggling or behind the times firm impede my capacity to work quickly and productively.
The alternative, based upon your post, is that I don't do anything unless the situation meets the letter of the company handbook for use of technology, etc. That would be its own pain in the rear for management if I'm often requesting software and hardware and a cell phone or rented vehicle or reference materials because I observe a strict delineation between what belongs to the firm and what is mine.
How do you define these terms and boundaries, in your experience, to establish a healthy balance between sound guidelines and not unnecessarily bureaucratizing the firm?
companies are granted extraordinary leeway when it comes to what they are allowed to search on their own premises.
again, may not be illegal. it is unethical. if it's "cruddy and murky and frustrating," why are you doing it? cya? not impressed by your responses, quiz, and i don't think your employees would be either.
While quizzical is technically right, "it is a well established legal principal in the US that employees of any company - not just design firms - enjoy no right to privacy" is technically wrong.
Different states have different laws protecting both the interests of employers and employees. One should also mention that firms receiving a disproportionate amount of governmental work may also have to comply with governmental standards as part of their specific contracts.
This is not a board for competent legal advice unless you happen to be needing shelter or a wallpaper recommendation.
won: again, you won't like the answer, but companies are granted extraordinary leeway when it comes to what they are allowed to search on their own premises. "Privacy" on work premises doesn't enjoy the same protections as it does elsewhere. If you don't want to run the risk of your employer looking at your stuff, don't bring it to the office and don't put it on the their technology.
hmmm... I guess that also means cell phones, ipods, etc...
IMO - if a firm insists they be able to call you in the field - I guess then you make sure they provide you with a company phone and not your personal cell phone.
so many offices and people are so loose with this stuff...
Once again, a couple of longtime and respectable Archinectors, Quiz and Steven, offer useful (if painful) information dispassionately, borne of experience and not emotion.
There's a court ruling in Texas that award an employee a rather large sum of money when an employer broke the lock on a company-furnished locker during a search.
While constitutional law may not apply to private workplaces, common law does. Many states do have non-specific laws that say private parties may not intrude onto another person's property or seize said property for any reason.
Personal information that's believed to be confidential also may not be shared by the employer-- i.e., your boss tells your coworkers that the reason you've been absent is because of a medical issue.
The Federal Privacy Act of 1974 states that an employer may only collect information if it is "reasonably necessary for business purposes."
There are specific laws that allow an employer to bar you from having personal items at the workplace.
But because your employer terminated your business relationship [fired you], the legal protection the employer has is no longer valid. Basically, this is no different than a single person stealing your items and holding them at ransom.
This is exactly why you should contact a lawyer.
A smart employer would have searched your belongings before firing you.
Unless you're a licensed architect or this firm uses proprietary technology [i.e., they invented and patented their own window systems, structural systems et cetera]... any possibly "company data" you have is essentially worthless
Also, 95% of the time... your firm nor you own the documents you create. Almost all the time unless agreed to in a specific kind of contract (which are not usually binding), your firm does not own the exclusive rights to the documents you are creating. Your client is generally the sole fee-simple owner of your firm's work.
I think this is more of a lesson of keeping backups on your important shit than anything else. This should be common sense in 2011. An architecture friend of mine just lost her laptop and along with it 4 years of personal documents. I feel little sympathy for the later part.
That said, I wouldn't have left that office without my hardware in hand. And the last paycheck since that's how they chose to say their goodbyes.
quizzical: "we still have staff members who load personal files on to our firm's technology, we still have staff members who conduct extensive personal e-mail using our system, and we know that many firm files are copied unilaterally to personal thumb drives"
How big is your office? I ask because offices are kind of like architectural projects. Small ones can be done through simple sketches and handshakes. Big ones require careful approach to systematic documentation of the entire process. To have a comprehensive employee conduct rulebook for an office of 10 is to be an anal retentive asshole.
Even if your office is AECOM, personal files on your firm's "technology" rule sounds spiteful and nitpicky. Where's the harm? I've consulted for an office that would automatically e-mail their employees if they ever took more than 59 minutes for lunch break. One office took frequent screenshots of their employees' desktops. They were both starchitects in their own right, and thus didn't care too much about low level employee retention, happiness, or well being.
If your internal policy treats everyone like a criminal by default, don't be surprised if more of your employees start acting like criminals.
unicorn/uxbridge's last makes me question all of the other long (seemingly informed) screeds that he's posted in the past. maybe texas law is different than kentucky's? anyway, his post sounds good except that it flies in the face of a lot of what our att'ys have been telling us. 'property' is not affected by the employees status with the company, for example, so waiting until after the termination is a non-starter. and the client only has rights to the work that is provided to the client, not the process work that gets you there.
rusty, i would have agreed with you about the need for a policy manual a year ago, but i've learned...
Just reading through the posts, it seems like there's no question that the firm has the right to have any of it's material (or material done for the firm, etc.) removed from the hard drive, no matter who owns it. So, the real question might be how went about it (very poorly if it went down as described). Unfortunately, there aren't many alternatives to what they did (IT wise), in terms of making sure someone couldn't go back through and just restore what was 'deleted'. The far more diplomatic way of handling it would be to sit down with Menendez like an adult, explain what they needed to do, and allow him to transfer off everything and allow him to be a part of the process, however awkward. Of course, as noted above, the best solution would have been to simply provide him a drive to work with in the beginning.
Menedez - just to follow up - did they give you the drive back with your files on it? To me, that's where the fine line is. Yes, they very likely have the right to make sure any material of theirs is deleted, but they don't have the right to destroy your personal files on your personal drive.
I'm definitely not questioning Steven's or quizzical's knowledge on this issue. Just trying to bring it to a personal level for employees to consider the consequences of what may be too casual action on both their and their employer's part.
As toaster said, if a firm needs to reach you in the field, they need to provide you with a phone. In the early days of cell phones the firm where I worked had an office phone that was checked out to be used in the field, and if you used it to call your boyfriend to make dinner plans you had to pay for the time spent - so of course no one abused it.
Likewise, if a firm "needs" to use your cell phone, they need to compensate you for the time/equipment cost AND make a clear policy about how to deal with the information that may then reside on your phone. With everyone having smart phones, meaning you can get drawings, email etc on your personal equipment - it's going to be an ongoing issue that we're going to have to work out, but I think conversations about policy early on are a FAR better way to handle it than "My associate is taking your iPhone from your desk while I'm firing you here in the conference room." That's just a crappy way to treat a colleague, former or current.
It gets into a whole huge other are, too, when we start talking about mezdez, or anyone, taking work home to do on their personal computer. The lines get very fuzzy - can an employer seize your HOME equipment or your personal laptop if you've used it for work?
I guess my point is to politely raise the question of policy IF your employer ever asks you to supply your own equipment in any way.
Policy is not about firm size .. it's about making clear to all the participants in an employment relationship the conditions of employment. In my 30+ years in the profession the worst employment abuses I've witnessed always have been at very small firms where 'informality' was the norm.
The presence of policy does not 'big brother' make. On the roads there are speed limits, jaywalking laws, and requirements that cars come to a full stop at stop signs. While these laws are 'on the books' they are regularly and routinely ignored by large portions of the population. These laws only seem to come into play when something bad happens - such as a wreck or fatality - and accountability becomes a factor.
Similar conditions exist in firms. Policy provides employees with guidance relative to daily behavior. Most firms administer policy with a light hand and a reasonable degree of flexibility. Typically, firms fall back on the 'book' only when incidents of egregious behavior take place and corrective action becomes necessary.
Like Greg said: treat the situation like grown ups and professionals, which means clear communication and good faith. mezdez's employers didn't, IMO, do this.
it is important to remember, too, that often firms benefit as much or more than the individual employees from employees "breaking the rules" and using their own hw/sw/resources to get things done
almost always, in my experience, the employee is not doing this to game the firm but to expedite work, improve work quality or make up for lack of resources offered by the firm, very much to the firm's benefit
so as opposed to such activities being viewed as criminal or even tolerable, they should be appreciated in most instances as allowing the firm to have a capacity or dexterity that it simply would not have if everyone observed the letter of the law
viewing the situation from this perspective casts such activities in a much different light, demanding more respectful and sensitive handling of employee rule transgressions than the "tolerating speeding and jaywalking" analogy which makes it sound like the firm is doing the employee a favor by allowing them to use their own equipment
I'd just hope they don't go after your computer at home. I am guessing they would, should the work be truly confidential.
If it were me, and there were no 'extra' files on his drive (which it would be more common than not), then I'd ask to delete the files with their supervision, or copy my data to another drive and let them reformat. Eitherway, I'd insist on being present while they messed with my personal stuff.
But I don't really see he argument for this being some huge unethical problem and certainly not illegal. Sure, they should have offered what I mentioned above, but when someone is fired they are going to walk them to the door, not back to their computer and let them copy everything to their computer (surely what they were concerned with, a "ok, so he probably knew he was going to be let go and started copying things to his drives").
If you only have the specific files that they requested you work on from home, not that you thought you'd get a little work done outside of the office, then ask to do it with them or supervise. That seems the best way to protect your data.
I'm curious as to why you would be so worried about what's on an employee's thumb drive Steven and Quizzical (as owners). If they do have say the cad file of an in progress project, do you assume they could sell it? Take the project and client from you and work for themselves? In a lot of cases I would think the employee would want to take at least some of the company's work so they can create a portfolio of what they've done, which ethically they are entitled to.
Also, I don't see how the employer can get around the 'plain view' constitutional issues. It sounds like you guys have looked into this more than I have, but if a police office took my thumb drive and plugged it into a different computer I would think they would need a warrant. As I understand it this would be legally similar to my boss searching through my billfold because they suspect I might have taken company paperclips or whatever (assuming it's a very valuable paperclip). I can't imagine a scenario where I would allow that to happen. I don't see how a business would be allowed to trample constitutional protections.
While I'm sympathetic to the OP's feelings about the original circumstance, the reality and existence of workplace policies based on legal rights is a crucial factor for all to keep in mind.
The frequent vilification (on countless other threads) of employers by employees who use company phones for personal calls and company computers to check Facebook (and Archinect!), personal email, websurfing, etcetera, is priceless.
I'm not accusing Mezdez of this, just making the general point that respect needs to go both ways.
curtkram, this is from the AIA's coed of ethics. Keep in mind the AIA has its own code of ethics that doesn't apply to anyone but their members and any given firm may or may not be a member, in other words just because you're an architect doesn't mean you have to abide by the AIA's code, but they do make a good set of common sense guidelines:
Paraphrased:
Rule 5.302: Members leaving a firm shall not take images of the firm’s work or other information for their own use without permission.
Rule 503.3: A Member shall not unreasonably withhold permission from a departing employee to take images etc. of projects they worked on.
So an employee isn't really entitled to take images for use in their own portfolio, but the guidelines suggest that a firm should not unreasonable withhold their ability to do so. But you always, always have to ask for permission.
That said, the firm cannot stop you from taking your own photographs of a finished building, assuming you take the shots from viewpoints at which you are legally allowed to be (for example, a public sidewalk).
curt - short answer is yes, you're very concerned about what an employee can do with the information they take and this gets worse the higher up you go in a firm's hierarchy.
A company is very different than the police - you have much less privacy rights overall.
One last note in general: there's a gulf of difference between taking something like a billfold (which would be illegal) vs. asking you to turn out your billfold (perfectly legal) IF there is some grounds to suspect foul play. If the firm suspected you took something valuable and had very reasonable proof (ie someone saw you), if you refuse, they almost certainly will have you arrested if need be. None of the above applies to the situation at hand though. No one was calling them a thief, nor accusing them of stealing anything. The company simply wanted to make sure their trade secrets didn't get carried out with the employee.
Donna - I don't think they were worried about photos or something similar. My guess is they were trying to make sure project information didn't go away. Most firms wouldn't bother with someone simply downloading image files for their portfolio. However, I've seen some employees on the way out of firms literally downloading marketing brochures, office cad templates, libraries, standards, document templates, old projects (drawings and specs) - literally everything they would need to help make launching their new firm (which they were doing) easier and quicker. That's one extreme none of us would condone, but the fine line back is harder to draw - if an employee is leaving to go to Firm Y down the street and can take specific marketing material for a 'not so public' potential project - that would certainly be illegal but may not feel so much so to a fired employee...
As to the whole permission question, too, and then I need to stop talking about this: frequently you don't, as an employee, know all the details of a project contract. The firm may have signed a very strict confidentiality clause in their contract with the client, which would make the firm owners more concerned about making sure they didn't breach the contract by letting employees take images that would violate the contract thus opening the firm to legal action.
In which case, by the way, the firm should be very, VERY clear about making sure the employee only works on the job on firm equipment, and that means supplying all of it.
While I'm sympathetic to the OP's feelings about the original circumstance, the reality and existence of workplace policies based on legal rights is a crucial factor for all to keep in mind.
This is tough. I think it's pretty important to keep in mind that if you're an employee, that you're doing work ONLY on office equipment - if they want you to do work outside of the office, either they set up remote access or issue you a laptop. The moment you've transferred a file to something you've purchased for your personal use, you're in weird legal areas...
I think this makes sense for larger organizations but smaller firms with shoe-string budgets are going to be a little more lax with this.
however - what I'm curious about is whether or not these policies were written down someplace and if the employee agreed to these conditions of employment. I think the existence of a document containing company policy is pretty important - without it then what?
donna, if there is a confidentiality clause in the contract, then it is the PMs/Principals responsibility to inform the entire project team to prevent any inadvertent breaches of confidentially.
jmanganelli:"almost always, in my experience, the employee is not doing this to game the firm but to expedite work, improve work quality or make up for lack of resources offered by the firm, very much to the firm's benefit"
Fully agreed.
citizen "The frequent vilification (on countless other threads) of employers by employees who use company phones for personal calls and company computers to check Facebook (and Archinect!), personal email, websurfing, etcetera, is priceless."
I like to take a 5 minute break on the hour when working. Either to stretch my legs or clear my head. I find it very helpful for my workflow. Should I not be doing that citizen? If I'm on the clock, do you at least offer to subsidize my exact time then? Oh, I'm salaried and am expected to produce results at the end of the day. So until the end of the day, just back off. An office obsessed with a play-by-play micromanagement of its employees' every working second needs its priorities straightened out.
EVERYONE slacks off. Top to bottom. It's how we are wired. Our work is the primary thing we should be evaluated on.
Professional discipline is a fine line between Mao's China and anarchy in Somalia. I've often seen ownership piss all over it.
"Dude" or "Dudette" I hope you didn't have any personal pictures of the Bosses significant other on your memory card. That could be, well it could be messy!
curtkram:"I'm curious as to why you would be so worried about what's on an employee's thumb drive Steven and Quizzical (as owners). If they do have say the cad file of an in progress project, do you assume they could sell it?"
A lot of architects who are currently in positions of ownership/upper management haven't really progressed technologically since the '90s. To them architecture is a collection of closed proprietary information that gets secretly passed down in masonic temples.
Back then, having a comprehensive product library definitively gave you an edge over your competition. Information was just that much harder (and slower) to obtain. I remember struggling with my very first attempt at detailing a below-grade blind-side waterproofing drainage back in pre-internet days. My cooworkers were of no help. "Just copy the last project's detail". These days I could have that detail on my screen in less than a minute via google. From multiple manufacturers.
The assholes that stole the haarddrive in this story live in that olden world. In reality, their drawings are practically worthless. Collection of information that any informed professional can slap together as well. Just as sloppily.
If you tend to recycle your own 'signature' details from project to project, you are just not a very ambitious designer IMO.
The fee the architect collects is really for the ability to provide a custom design solution and execute a project in a timely, professional manner. Holding on to 'company secrets' as a means of being competitive is beyond laughable in this day and age.
wow, some folks really think that firm owners are the bogeyman.
the only reason i'm current on these issues is that our firm is attempting to grow up - leaving behind the casual buddies-at-studio model for the structure of a real adult/professional office. we're having growing pains. we remain casual about most things - on purpose - but we have had to provide a policy manual so all staff know that there are rules by which we must work. we aren't minute-counters, don't begrudge checking of sports scores, email, or archinect. our staff gives more than enough time and attention to their work and they deserve whatever breaks they take.
we don't disallow use of work email, internet, or office resource, even. some even use their work email as their primary personal email address. it's fine with us. BUT - the policy manual describes things that were necessary to describe for cases where things do not remain happy-go-lucky. we had to describe that - if things go bad - we have rights to the office's property, and we described what that means.
so...
i doubt this has anything at all to do with proprietary details. not likely at all. most firms acting in good faith, in fact, would allow mezdez access to drawing sets for portfolio use. as donna noted above, there is a reasonable use/permission expectation on both sides.
mezdez was terminated. (and for that i'm sorry, mezdez.) termination is bad for both sides because neither side thinks they got what they signed up for. it's ugly, no way around it. don't believe tv the shows: its hard as hell to fire someone, there is no joy in it - and it's seldom vindictive - and it can go very badly for the firm. it sounds like mezdez' firm handled this clumsily, but they're trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit!
since curtkram called me out about what we might try to protect, i'll answer as directly as possible: i have no idea. our network is open to all employees. while they don't have access to all of the bookkeeping, they do have access to everything having to do with projects, clients, correspondence, etc for all jobs. i don't know what files an employee might remove from the network. i don't know what files might be useful in a wrongful termination suit againt my firm. i would prefer not to have files that could be used against us walk out the door with an unhappy former employee.
most of you are assuming everything was hunky-dory until the day mezdez walked out. maybe. maybe he/she was a model employee who just didn't meet the unreasonable expectations of a firm. but there are employees who are not acting in good faith and can see benefit in damaging an office for reasons beyond their own termination. architects - who didn't learn about this crap in architecture school and don't want to learn it now - can be blindsided by a bad apple and will do anything they can think of to protect themselves.
mezdez' firm may have overstepped. they were having a bad day, too, believe me.
I appreciate your comments Steven, Greg, and others. While I personally don't think my current employers are bogeymen, it seems apparent to me that some are. There is going to be a line between 'right' and 'wrong' that isn't really drawn by an employee manual or the law. Those are generally there for worst case scenarios.
In mezdez's case, perhaps he had proven himself untrustworthy and the sort of person that would have taken company assets and used them to somehow harm his previous employer (if that's the case they may have had just cause and don't be an asshole next time), but it really doesn't sound like that. If they confiscated his personal hard drive on an assumption of guilt he hadn't earned, rather than just talking to him, then I think they're establishing an uncivil baseline of mistrust. This makes a bad situation worse and creates a hostile environment. I think this sort of hostility is what would lead Mezdez to leave behind and upper decker or call the BSA about a pirated copy of photoshop he left behind (not that he did, this is hypothetical).
If they wanted to take the information off his hard drive specifically to avoid a wrongful termination suit, maybe they should look at why they were terminating him in the first place. More than likely it's due to the economy and lack of work, but even if it's because he's lazy or incompetent they would have the right to dismiss him. On the other hand, if they breached their own employee manual with the temporary position stuff he posted earlier, there may be a wrongful termination suit, and due to their actions I would be inclined to pursue it.
If you listen to your insurance company and lawyers too much, and are afraid of your employees because of whatever potential harm they can do, I think you will create the sort of hostile environment where employees think of you as a bogeyman. Of course you need to be prepared and knowledgeable. Employee manuals, conferences on workplace rules, and overall order are good things to have. Perhaps it's a fine line between bogeyman and reasonable, responsible boss. Just remember you guys as firm owners create the atmosphere, so if you treat your employees like criminals the same is going to come back to you.
Also, if I left my company to start my own firm I would expect my current employers to wish me luck, whether I took the door block I created and ANSI restroom details with me or not. I would sure think there would be a general professional expectation that I would not sabotage their efforts and likewise they would not sabotage mine.
Curt - I'm not afraid of our employees and, yes, to summarize this whole post: this instance doesn't really sound like they were criminalizing mezdaz, nor accusing him of wrongdoing. It sounds like they were extremely ham-fisted in handling a situation that, frankly, doesn't come up too often in practice. Hence, most owners (no matter how sophisticated, etc.) don't really know how to react. Honestly, from mezdaz's own descriptions, this likely isn't about wrongful termination, lawsuits, or anything like that. Their company policy is likely similar to most - if you leave a company (willingly or not), you're not going to be allowed to just walk out with company information (no matter how 'open' some would like that to be). In this case, the company wanted to protect and enforce that policy but did so in a needlessly tactless manner. And, yes, they run some risk of pissing off a former employee so badly that they may rattle some skeletons in retribution.
Great discussion, though, to bring up a host of issues that, frankly, most owners and employees simply don't ever stop to think about.
It's important to remember that policies related to IT system use often are defensive in nature. For example, there have been numerous well publicized cases where individual employees of firms have been found to be using the firm's high speed connection to download and display porn. Other employees have found this objectionable and raised the issue of whether the firm is allowing a 'hostile workplace' and tolerating sexual harassment
This sort of thing can get very dicey for a firm and has led many firms to establish 'acceptable use' policies. Once you start down that road you realize very quickly that this is a many tentacled issue that forces the firm to establish a comprehensive policy regarding the entire computer network.
Personally, I don't deem such policies to be 'treating the staff like criminals' as was suggested above. Rather, this simply is prudent practice management in a highly sensitive and litigious world. One easily could argue that not having a reasonable 'acceptable use' policy is irresponsible.
As stated before, the presence of a policy does not necessarily mean the firm needs to administer the policy in a heavy handed or adversarial manner.
It's cruddy and murky and frustrating, but I'm also learning that there is a logic to the HR craziness.
since curtkram called me out about what we might try to protect, i'll answer as directly as possible: i have no idea.
steven, your responses to this question have been particularly puzzling to me. while i completely disagree with quizzical, i can at least understand where he is coming from. your office, steven, seems to be doing this simply because an "hr guru" advised you to and out of a fear that an unknown something might happen if you don't. i think the more these policies are put in place out of a sense of fear rather than grounded in an actual threat the greater employees will tend to see this as top-down bureaucracy that places a wedge between "us" and "them." this works for some offices, usually large and hierarchical, where policy is needed to reinforce and maintain the structure of the firm, but i think it could backfire in other firm structures. the management style needs to match the firm you are trying to create; there is no one size fits all solution, and that's where i would be careful of the advice of your hr gurus.
Invasion of privacy
My situation is as follows. I was recently terminated from my job. (insert curse words here). As they were sitting me down, they went to my station and took my own personal external hard drive and usb flash drive. When I asked where these were, they told me they were plugged into the station. They were not plugged in. They told me there were many of the firms files on external HD and flash drive and they needed to remove them. I know there were many files because I often took work home. I expressed concern and told them there were personal files and other previous professional jobs on there, along with family photos. They said they needed to reformat the Hard drive and flash drive, would put all the files back onto the hard drives, and return to me as soon as possible.
First of all, is this legal for them to do? Isn't this invasion of privacy?! I'm very concerned that I may lose very important files during this. I'm also concerned that they have a copy of everything I had on there. What can I do?
never heard of this happening..
i think its going to depend on how confidential the work you were doing was. Also if they were ok with you taking work home
I've never heard of this either. I don't care about the work I did for them and their files. It would be nice to have a copy of what I did for them during that time. I was more concerned with my own projects and files. They were okay with taking work home.
Call the police or a lawyer.
Whether you like it or not, it is a well established legal principal in the US that employees of any company - not just design firms - enjoy no right to privacy when it comes to their use of company-owned computers or computer networks. You may not like this conclusion, but it sounds to me as though your former employer acted entirely within their rights and entirely according to the law.
For this reason, employees should be very careful about co-mingling personal files with company files, personal e-mail with company e-mail, etc. Your employer has the absolute right to view any files on, or attached to, your computer at any time and without your prior knowledge or permission.
Sorry.
But quizzical, mezdez says this usb and external drive were his/her personal equipment. And that they weren't at the time of termination attached to his/her work-issued computer.
However this particular situation works, I think it's bullshit that a firm would expect an employee to provide a piece of personal equipment for office use without compensating that person for its use and then making the rules of its use VERY clear. In my mind this ALSO includes cell phones, frankly, which I know is not an opinion with which everyone will agree. But think: if High Powered Client calls me from his/her unpublished phone number on a weekend because they absolutely need something and know I'm the one to answer the question not my boss, does the firm now have rights to my phone because it has the client's info stored on it?
We're into very fuzzy legal issues here as digital media is more and more prevalent.
quizzical- thanks for the response...very informative. I never would have thought that they would have the right to confiscate my own personal possession. Donna sink you are right about this and agree with you! Its sad that they lied to me when they said it was 'plugged into the work station' so thats why they seized it. BULLS***. I definitely will never co-mingle work and personal files again.
Quiz is pretty much right. The only fuzziness is that it's mezdez's drive. His/her choice, I'm guessing - although probably more from convenience than intention. If it was needed, firm should have provided.
Still, the information is the firm's by right. They know the rules, I'm guessing, and would likely be *very* careful to return the property and files.
quiz may be right, but this whole situation does not pass the smell test. if it sounds illegal, which it does, it generally is. the question becomes, like many similar situations where an employer is breaking a law (i.e. pirated software, illegal labor practices, etc.), if it is really worth the employee's time and money to investigate if the employer's actions were illegal and then take legal action. sadly, nine times out of time it is not worth one's time, and firms continue these practices because they are never confronted.
Donna: it's not really that 'fuzzy' - I've spent more time (and money) than I care to remember in an effort to understand this issue. This is what I understand the law to be. If the firm pays for the technology, then everything residing on the technology belongs to the company.
Further, any of the firm's files copied from the firm's system remain the property of the firm unless the firm provides explicit permission for an employee (or others) to be in possession of those files.
Legally, a firm is under no obligation to share appropriate project files with its employees, although AIA addresses this topic as an ethical matter in its Canon of Ethics. Technically, the presence of company files on a personal drive without the firm's permission is prima facia evidence of theft.
As Stephen points out, the fact that certain company files resided on mezdez's personal drives does create a small complication. However, as a practical matter this becomes a "he says / they say" question as to whether the drives were plugged in to the company's system. The fact that these drives contain copies of company files does not reinforce mezdez's position.
In my experience, most firms of any sophistication these days have a policy manual that spells out both the 'privacy' and 'ownership' aspects of these matters. Ours does, plus we explain it again in a staff meeting once a year so there is no lack of clarity.
Nevertheless, we still have staff members who load personal files on to our firm's technology, we still have staff members who conduct extensive personal e-mail using our system, and we know that many firm files are copied unilaterally to personal thumb drives, despite our extraordinary willingness to share project files whenever asked.
It was convenience and not intention. I'm fine with the firm wanting to delete all their work. I'm just very concerned with my own personal files. There is a lot of personal info that could lead to identity theft. The firm and people working on extracting the information are a bit shady and I would never want any of my information in the wrong hands. There is no guarantee that my files are not published or made public in any way. This is what worries me. I will know in the next couple days if I receive my HD back intact with all files. I just hope nothing is corrupt! Is it fair to ask for a copy or screenshot of the files on their server to double check that all files were copied back onto my HD?
It doesn't pass the smell test. I'm beginning to wonder about illegal labor practices. What would be illegal labor practices? Instead of the common 3 month 'trial period' for new hires, my trial period lasted 7 months. I was hired on as a temporary hire for " 3-4 months". So technically after that 4th month I was still a temporary? I was very confused during that time as to what my status was. In my own mind, i was an independent contractor.
but quiz, the issue is how the company obtained the personal thumb drive. since it was not plugged into company hardware, it sure sounds like theft or at minimum an invasion of privacy.
to put it another way, if i suspect you stole something of mine, does that give me the right to search through all your personal belongings to find out if it's true? i don't know the law, but i do think it's unethical regardless of whether i find something there or not.
won: again, you won't like the answer, but companies are granted extraordinary leeway when it comes to what they are allowed to search on their own premises. "Privacy" on work premises doesn't enjoy the same protections as it does elsewhere. If you don't want to run the risk of your employer looking at your stuff, don't bring it to the office and don't put it on the their technology.
Sounds like quizzical and I have been talking to the same HR gurus! It's cruddy and murky and frustrating, but I'm also learning that there is a logic to the HR craziness. Sounds wrong to you - mezdez and won - and would to me too, if we hadn't been working with attys on these 'policies' just recently.
quizzical, i have two questions for you regarding your responses:
- 1 -
"Technically, the presence of company files on a personal drive without the firm's permission is prima facia evidence of theft. "
So if I use my jump drive for transport of company data for any reasonable reason, I do this openly, including taking work home when needed, it is obvious to other workers including my superiors and no one says anything against this practice, at any point prior to the termination, or more true to life, they say not to do it but then tolerate or ignore the fact that everyone does it...doesn't that imply consent to this behavior by the firm and thereby make it de facto company policy, no matter the written rule? And if so, is the implication two way, that is, just as the firm is implying consent to allow me to use my own equipment as part of work, I am implying consent that my own equipment is equipment accessible to the company for the purposes of executing the company's work?
This seems to suggest to me that the company has a right to access my data drive but that it seems unlikely that they could claim theft and have it upheld. Does that seem correct or am I missing something?
- 2 -
One of the things that makes people valuable is that they get stuff done quickly, they take charge and make things happen, they don't have to be asked or told too often. And firms are not perfect in the resources they provide, no matter how well-intentioned. So let's say I'm at a firm and I'm getting things done and that means I use my own equipment occasionally when the firm does not provide it. Maybe I do this because I believe in the firm, trust that I'm a valued member, etc. It occasionally helps me to not waste time or let the exigencies of a struggling or behind the times firm impede my capacity to work quickly and productively.
The alternative, based upon your post, is that I don't do anything unless the situation meets the letter of the company handbook for use of technology, etc. That would be its own pain in the rear for management if I'm often requesting software and hardware and a cell phone or rented vehicle or reference materials because I observe a strict delineation between what belongs to the firm and what is mine.
How do you define these terms and boundaries, in your experience, to establish a healthy balance between sound guidelines and not unnecessarily bureaucratizing the firm?
hope they were paying you 1.5x or 2x your hourly rate to work at home....hence why it's better to leave this profession's work in the office...
again, may not be illegal. it is unethical. if it's "cruddy and murky and frustrating," why are you doing it? cya? not impressed by your responses, quiz, and i don't think your employees would be either.
Seriously, call a lawyer or the police.
While quizzical is technically right, "it is a well established legal principal in the US that employees of any company - not just design firms - enjoy no right to privacy" is technically wrong.
Different states have different laws protecting both the interests of employers and employees. One should also mention that firms receiving a disproportionate amount of governmental work may also have to comply with governmental standards as part of their specific contracts.
This is not a board for competent legal advice unless you happen to be needing shelter or a wallpaper recommendation.
hmmm... I guess that also means cell phones, ipods, etc...
IMO - if a firm insists they be able to call you in the field - I guess then you make sure they provide you with a company phone and not your personal cell phone.
so many offices and people are so loose with this stuff...
Once again, a couple of longtime and respectable Archinectors, Quiz and Steven, offer useful (if painful) information dispassionately, borne of experience and not emotion.
If only that was contagious....
If only snark was contagious, too? Oh wait.
There's a court ruling in Texas that award an employee a rather large sum of money when an employer broke the lock on a company-furnished locker during a search.
While constitutional law may not apply to private workplaces, common law does. Many states do have non-specific laws that say private parties may not intrude onto another person's property or seize said property for any reason.
Personal information that's believed to be confidential also may not be shared by the employer-- i.e., your boss tells your coworkers that the reason you've been absent is because of a medical issue.
The Federal Privacy Act of 1974 states that an employer may only collect information if it is "reasonably necessary for business purposes."
There are specific laws that allow an employer to bar you from having personal items at the workplace.
But because your employer terminated your business relationship [fired you], the legal protection the employer has is no longer valid. Basically, this is no different than a single person stealing your items and holding them at ransom.
This is exactly why you should contact a lawyer.
A smart employer would have searched your belongings before firing you.
Unless you're a licensed architect or this firm uses proprietary technology [i.e., they invented and patented their own window systems, structural systems et cetera]... any possibly "company data" you have is essentially worthless
Also, 95% of the time... your firm nor you own the documents you create. Almost all the time unless agreed to in a specific kind of contract (which are not usually binding), your firm does not own the exclusive rights to the documents you are creating. Your client is generally the sole fee-simple owner of your firm's work.
I think this is more of a lesson of keeping backups on your important shit than anything else. This should be common sense in 2011. An architecture friend of mine just lost her laptop and along with it 4 years of personal documents. I feel little sympathy for the later part.
That said, I wouldn't have left that office without my hardware in hand. And the last paycheck since that's how they chose to say their goodbyes.
quizzical: "we still have staff members who load personal files on to our firm's technology, we still have staff members who conduct extensive personal e-mail using our system, and we know that many firm files are copied unilaterally to personal thumb drives"
How big is your office? I ask because offices are kind of like architectural projects. Small ones can be done through simple sketches and handshakes. Big ones require careful approach to systematic documentation of the entire process. To have a comprehensive employee conduct rulebook for an office of 10 is to be an anal retentive asshole.
Even if your office is AECOM, personal files on your firm's "technology" rule sounds spiteful and nitpicky. Where's the harm? I've consulted for an office that would automatically e-mail their employees if they ever took more than 59 minutes for lunch break. One office took frequent screenshots of their employees' desktops. They were both starchitects in their own right, and thus didn't care too much about low level employee retention, happiness, or well being.
If your internal policy treats everyone like a criminal by default, don't be surprised if more of your employees start acting like criminals.
Also, I strongly agree with your post Unicorn errr... Uxbridge.
unicorn/uxbridge's last makes me question all of the other long (seemingly informed) screeds that he's posted in the past. maybe texas law is different than kentucky's? anyway, his post sounds good except that it flies in the face of a lot of what our att'ys have been telling us. 'property' is not affected by the employees status with the company, for example, so waiting until after the termination is a non-starter. and the client only has rights to the work that is provided to the client, not the process work that gets you there.
rusty, i would have agreed with you about the need for a policy manual a year ago, but i've learned...
Just reading through the posts, it seems like there's no question that the firm has the right to have any of it's material (or material done for the firm, etc.) removed from the hard drive, no matter who owns it. So, the real question might be how went about it (very poorly if it went down as described). Unfortunately, there aren't many alternatives to what they did (IT wise), in terms of making sure someone couldn't go back through and just restore what was 'deleted'. The far more diplomatic way of handling it would be to sit down with Menendez like an adult, explain what they needed to do, and allow him to transfer off everything and allow him to be a part of the process, however awkward. Of course, as noted above, the best solution would have been to simply provide him a drive to work with in the beginning.
Menedez - just to follow up - did they give you the drive back with your files on it? To me, that's where the fine line is. Yes, they very likely have the right to make sure any material of theirs is deleted, but they don't have the right to destroy your personal files on your personal drive.
I'm definitely not questioning Steven's or quizzical's knowledge on this issue. Just trying to bring it to a personal level for employees to consider the consequences of what may be too casual action on both their and their employer's part.
As toaster said, if a firm needs to reach you in the field, they need to provide you with a phone. In the early days of cell phones the firm where I worked had an office phone that was checked out to be used in the field, and if you used it to call your boyfriend to make dinner plans you had to pay for the time spent - so of course no one abused it.
Likewise, if a firm "needs" to use your cell phone, they need to compensate you for the time/equipment cost AND make a clear policy about how to deal with the information that may then reside on your phone. With everyone having smart phones, meaning you can get drawings, email etc on your personal equipment - it's going to be an ongoing issue that we're going to have to work out, but I think conversations about policy early on are a FAR better way to handle it than "My associate is taking your iPhone from your desk while I'm firing you here in the conference room." That's just a crappy way to treat a colleague, former or current.
It gets into a whole huge other are, too, when we start talking about mezdez, or anyone, taking work home to do on their personal computer. The lines get very fuzzy - can an employer seize your HOME equipment or your personal laptop if you've used it for work?
I guess my point is to politely raise the question of policy IF your employer ever asks you to supply your own equipment in any way.
Policy is not about firm size .. it's about making clear to all the participants in an employment relationship the conditions of employment. In my 30+ years in the profession the worst employment abuses I've witnessed always have been at very small firms where 'informality' was the norm.
The presence of policy does not 'big brother' make. On the roads there are speed limits, jaywalking laws, and requirements that cars come to a full stop at stop signs. While these laws are 'on the books' they are regularly and routinely ignored by large portions of the population. These laws only seem to come into play when something bad happens - such as a wreck or fatality - and accountability becomes a factor.
Similar conditions exist in firms. Policy provides employees with guidance relative to daily behavior. Most firms administer policy with a light hand and a reasonable degree of flexibility. Typically, firms fall back on the 'book' only when incidents of egregious behavior take place and corrective action becomes necessary.
Like Greg said: treat the situation like grown ups and professionals, which means clear communication and good faith. mezdez's employers didn't, IMO, do this.
Nice post, Greg. Welcome.
it is important to remember, too, that often firms benefit as much or more than the individual employees from employees "breaking the rules" and using their own hw/sw/resources to get things done
almost always, in my experience, the employee is not doing this to game the firm but to expedite work, improve work quality or make up for lack of resources offered by the firm, very much to the firm's benefit
so as opposed to such activities being viewed as criminal or even tolerable, they should be appreciated in most instances as allowing the firm to have a capacity or dexterity that it simply would not have if everyone observed the letter of the law
viewing the situation from this perspective casts such activities in a much different light, demanding more respectful and sensitive handling of employee rule transgressions than the "tolerating speeding and jaywalking" analogy which makes it sound like the firm is doing the employee a favor by allowing them to use their own equipment
I'd just hope they don't go after your computer at home. I am guessing they would, should the work be truly confidential.
If it were me, and there were no 'extra' files on his drive (which it would be more common than not), then I'd ask to delete the files with their supervision, or copy my data to another drive and let them reformat. Eitherway, I'd insist on being present while they messed with my personal stuff.
But I don't really see he argument for this being some huge unethical problem and certainly not illegal. Sure, they should have offered what I mentioned above, but when someone is fired they are going to walk them to the door, not back to their computer and let them copy everything to their computer (surely what they were concerned with, a "ok, so he probably knew he was going to be let go and started copying things to his drives").
If you only have the specific files that they requested you work on from home, not that you thought you'd get a little work done outside of the office, then ask to do it with them or supervise. That seems the best way to protect your data.
I'm curious as to why you would be so worried about what's on an employee's thumb drive Steven and Quizzical (as owners). If they do have say the cad file of an in progress project, do you assume they could sell it? Take the project and client from you and work for themselves? In a lot of cases I would think the employee would want to take at least some of the company's work so they can create a portfolio of what they've done, which ethically they are entitled to.
Also, I don't see how the employer can get around the 'plain view' constitutional issues. It sounds like you guys have looked into this more than I have, but if a police office took my thumb drive and plugged it into a different computer I would think they would need a warrant. As I understand it this would be legally similar to my boss searching through my billfold because they suspect I might have taken company paperclips or whatever (assuming it's a very valuable paperclip). I can't imagine a scenario where I would allow that to happen. I don't see how a business would be allowed to trample constitutional protections.
While I'm sympathetic to the OP's feelings about the original circumstance, the reality and existence of workplace policies based on legal rights is a crucial factor for all to keep in mind.
The frequent vilification (on countless other threads) of employers by employees who use company phones for personal calls and company computers to check Facebook (and Archinect!), personal email, websurfing, etcetera, is priceless.
I'm not accusing Mezdez of this, just making the general point that respect needs to go both ways.
curtkram, this is from the AIA's coed of ethics. Keep in mind the AIA has its own code of ethics that doesn't apply to anyone but their members and any given firm may or may not be a member, in other words just because you're an architect doesn't mean you have to abide by the AIA's code, but they do make a good set of common sense guidelines:
Paraphrased:
Rule 5.302: Members leaving a firm shall not take images of the firm’s work or other information for their own use without permission.
Rule 503.3: A Member shall not unreasonably withhold permission from a departing employee to take images etc. of projects they worked on.
So an employee isn't really entitled to take images for use in their own portfolio, but the guidelines suggest that a firm should not unreasonable withhold their ability to do so. But you always, always have to ask for permission.
That said, the firm cannot stop you from taking your own photographs of a finished building, assuming you take the shots from viewpoints at which you are legally allowed to be (for example, a public sidewalk).
curt - short answer is yes, you're very concerned about what an employee can do with the information they take and this gets worse the higher up you go in a firm's hierarchy.
A company is very different than the police - you have much less privacy rights overall.
One last note in general: there's a gulf of difference between taking something like a billfold (which would be illegal) vs. asking you to turn out your billfold (perfectly legal) IF there is some grounds to suspect foul play. If the firm suspected you took something valuable and had very reasonable proof (ie someone saw you), if you refuse, they almost certainly will have you arrested if need be. None of the above applies to the situation at hand though. No one was calling them a thief, nor accusing them of stealing anything. The company simply wanted to make sure their trade secrets didn't get carried out with the employee.
Absolutely, citizen. And the AIA code I just posted is a good example of a policy "going both ways".
Donna - I don't think they were worried about photos or something similar. My guess is they were trying to make sure project information didn't go away. Most firms wouldn't bother with someone simply downloading image files for their portfolio. However, I've seen some employees on the way out of firms literally downloading marketing brochures, office cad templates, libraries, standards, document templates, old projects (drawings and specs) - literally everything they would need to help make launching their new firm (which they were doing) easier and quicker. That's one extreme none of us would condone, but the fine line back is harder to draw - if an employee is leaving to go to Firm Y down the street and can take specific marketing material for a 'not so public' potential project - that would certainly be illegal but may not feel so much so to a fired employee...
As to the whole permission question, too, and then I need to stop talking about this: frequently you don't, as an employee, know all the details of a project contract. The firm may have signed a very strict confidentiality clause in their contract with the client, which would make the firm owners more concerned about making sure they didn't breach the contract by letting employees take images that would violate the contract thus opening the firm to legal action.
In which case, by the way, the firm should be very, VERY clear about making sure the employee only works on the job on firm equipment, and that means supplying all of it.
Agree completely, Greg. Gotta get to work myself but I love this discussion!
This is tough. I think it's pretty important to keep in mind that if you're an employee, that you're doing work ONLY on office equipment - if they want you to do work outside of the office, either they set up remote access or issue you a laptop. The moment you've transferred a file to something you've purchased for your personal use, you're in weird legal areas...
I think this makes sense for larger organizations but smaller firms with shoe-string budgets are going to be a little more lax with this.
however - what I'm curious about is whether or not these policies were written down someplace and if the employee agreed to these conditions of employment. I think the existence of a document containing company policy is pretty important - without it then what?
"... based on legal rights..."
is there a resource that explains these?
donna, if there is a confidentiality clause in the contract, then it is the PMs/Principals responsibility to inform the entire project team to prevent any inadvertent breaches of confidentially.
jmanganelli:"almost always, in my experience, the employee is not doing this to game the firm but to expedite work, improve work quality or make up for lack of resources offered by the firm, very much to the firm's benefit"
Fully agreed.
citizen "The frequent vilification (on countless other threads) of employers by employees who use company phones for personal calls and company computers to check Facebook (and Archinect!), personal email, websurfing, etcetera, is priceless."
I like to take a 5 minute break on the hour when working. Either to stretch my legs or clear my head. I find it very helpful for my workflow. Should I not be doing that citizen? If I'm on the clock, do you at least offer to subsidize my exact time then? Oh, I'm salaried and am expected to produce results at the end of the day. So until the end of the day, just back off. An office obsessed with a play-by-play micromanagement of its employees' every working second needs its priorities straightened out.
EVERYONE slacks off. Top to bottom. It's how we are wired. Our work is the primary thing we should be evaluated on.
Professional discipline is a fine line between Mao's China and anarchy in Somalia. I've often seen ownership piss all over it.
"Dude" or "Dudette" I hope you didn't have any personal pictures of the Bosses significant other on your memory card. That could be, well it could be messy!
curtkram:"I'm curious as to why you would be so worried about what's on an employee's thumb drive Steven and Quizzical (as owners). If they do have say the cad file of an in progress project, do you assume they could sell it?"
A lot of architects who are currently in positions of ownership/upper management haven't really progressed technologically since the '90s. To them architecture is a collection of closed proprietary information that gets secretly passed down in masonic temples.
Back then, having a comprehensive product library definitively gave you an edge over your competition. Information was just that much harder (and slower) to obtain. I remember struggling with my very first attempt at detailing a below-grade blind-side waterproofing drainage back in pre-internet days. My cooworkers were of no help. "Just copy the last project's detail". These days I could have that detail on my screen in less than a minute via google. From multiple manufacturers.
The assholes that stole the haarddrive in this story live in that olden world. In reality, their drawings are practically worthless. Collection of information that any informed professional can slap together as well. Just as sloppily.
If you tend to recycle your own 'signature' details from project to project, you are just not a very ambitious designer IMO.
The fee the architect collects is really for the ability to provide a custom design solution and execute a project in a timely, professional manner. Holding on to 'company secrets' as a means of being competitive is beyond laughable in this day and age.
(He stole all of their SketchUp Components. They spent 30 minutes downloading all of them from Google! How will they ever make up for lost time?)
wow, some folks really think that firm owners are the bogeyman.
the only reason i'm current on these issues is that our firm is attempting to grow up - leaving behind the casual buddies-at-studio model for the structure of a real adult/professional office. we're having growing pains. we remain casual about most things - on purpose - but we have had to provide a policy manual so all staff know that there are rules by which we must work. we aren't minute-counters, don't begrudge checking of sports scores, email, or archinect. our staff gives more than enough time and attention to their work and they deserve whatever breaks they take.
we don't disallow use of work email, internet, or office resource, even. some even use their work email as their primary personal email address. it's fine with us. BUT - the policy manual describes things that were necessary to describe for cases where things do not remain happy-go-lucky. we had to describe that - if things go bad - we have rights to the office's property, and we described what that means.
so...
i doubt this has anything at all to do with proprietary details. not likely at all. most firms acting in good faith, in fact, would allow mezdez access to drawing sets for portfolio use. as donna noted above, there is a reasonable use/permission expectation on both sides.
mezdez was terminated. (and for that i'm sorry, mezdez.) termination is bad for both sides because neither side thinks they got what they signed up for. it's ugly, no way around it. don't believe tv the shows: its hard as hell to fire someone, there is no joy in it - and it's seldom vindictive - and it can go very badly for the firm. it sounds like mezdez' firm handled this clumsily, but they're trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit!
since curtkram called me out about what we might try to protect, i'll answer as directly as possible: i have no idea. our network is open to all employees. while they don't have access to all of the bookkeeping, they do have access to everything having to do with projects, clients, correspondence, etc for all jobs. i don't know what files an employee might remove from the network. i don't know what files might be useful in a wrongful termination suit againt my firm. i would prefer not to have files that could be used against us walk out the door with an unhappy former employee.
most of you are assuming everything was hunky-dory until the day mezdez walked out. maybe. maybe he/she was a model employee who just didn't meet the unreasonable expectations of a firm. but there are employees who are not acting in good faith and can see benefit in damaging an office for reasons beyond their own termination. architects - who didn't learn about this crap in architecture school and don't want to learn it now - can be blindsided by a bad apple and will do anything they can think of to protect themselves.
mezdez' firm may have overstepped. they were having a bad day, too, believe me.
Dude" or "Dudette" I hope you didn't have any personal pictures of the Bosses Son or Daughter on your memory card. That would be really messy.
I appreciate your comments Steven, Greg, and others. While I personally don't think my current employers are bogeymen, it seems apparent to me that some are. There is going to be a line between 'right' and 'wrong' that isn't really drawn by an employee manual or the law. Those are generally there for worst case scenarios.
In mezdez's case, perhaps he had proven himself untrustworthy and the sort of person that would have taken company assets and used them to somehow harm his previous employer (if that's the case they may have had just cause and don't be an asshole next time), but it really doesn't sound like that. If they confiscated his personal hard drive on an assumption of guilt he hadn't earned, rather than just talking to him, then I think they're establishing an uncivil baseline of mistrust. This makes a bad situation worse and creates a hostile environment. I think this sort of hostility is what would lead Mezdez to leave behind and upper decker or call the BSA about a pirated copy of photoshop he left behind (not that he did, this is hypothetical).
If they wanted to take the information off his hard drive specifically to avoid a wrongful termination suit, maybe they should look at why they were terminating him in the first place. More than likely it's due to the economy and lack of work, but even if it's because he's lazy or incompetent they would have the right to dismiss him. On the other hand, if they breached their own employee manual with the temporary position stuff he posted earlier, there may be a wrongful termination suit, and due to their actions I would be inclined to pursue it.
If you listen to your insurance company and lawyers too much, and are afraid of your employees because of whatever potential harm they can do, I think you will create the sort of hostile environment where employees think of you as a bogeyman. Of course you need to be prepared and knowledgeable. Employee manuals, conferences on workplace rules, and overall order are good things to have. Perhaps it's a fine line between bogeyman and reasonable, responsible boss. Just remember you guys as firm owners create the atmosphere, so if you treat your employees like criminals the same is going to come back to you.
Also, if I left my company to start my own firm I would expect my current employers to wish me luck, whether I took the door block I created and ANSI restroom details with me or not. I would sure think there would be a general professional expectation that I would not sabotage their efforts and likewise they would not sabotage mine.
Curt - I'm not afraid of our employees and, yes, to summarize this whole post: this instance doesn't really sound like they were criminalizing mezdaz, nor accusing him of wrongdoing. It sounds like they were extremely ham-fisted in handling a situation that, frankly, doesn't come up too often in practice. Hence, most owners (no matter how sophisticated, etc.) don't really know how to react. Honestly, from mezdaz's own descriptions, this likely isn't about wrongful termination, lawsuits, or anything like that. Their company policy is likely similar to most - if you leave a company (willingly or not), you're not going to be allowed to just walk out with company information (no matter how 'open' some would like that to be). In this case, the company wanted to protect and enforce that policy but did so in a needlessly tactless manner. And, yes, they run some risk of pissing off a former employee so badly that they may rattle some skeletons in retribution.
Great discussion, though, to bring up a host of issues that, frankly, most owners and employees simply don't ever stop to think about.
It's important to remember that policies related to IT system use often are defensive in nature. For example, there have been numerous well publicized cases where individual employees of firms have been found to be using the firm's high speed connection to download and display porn. Other employees have found this objectionable and raised the issue of whether the firm is allowing a 'hostile workplace' and tolerating sexual harassment
This sort of thing can get very dicey for a firm and has led many firms to establish 'acceptable use' policies. Once you start down that road you realize very quickly that this is a many tentacled issue that forces the firm to establish a comprehensive policy regarding the entire computer network.
Personally, I don't deem such policies to be 'treating the staff like criminals' as was suggested above. Rather, this simply is prudent practice management in a highly sensitive and litigious world. One easily could argue that not having a reasonable 'acceptable use' policy is irresponsible.
As stated before, the presence of a policy does not necessarily mean the firm needs to administer the policy in a heavy handed or adversarial manner.
since curtkram called me out about what we might try to protect, i'll answer as directly as possible: i have no idea.
steven, your responses to this question have been particularly puzzling to me. while i completely disagree with quizzical, i can at least understand where he is coming from. your office, steven, seems to be doing this simply because an "hr guru" advised you to and out of a fear that an unknown something might happen if you don't. i think the more these policies are put in place out of a sense of fear rather than grounded in an actual threat the greater employees will tend to see this as top-down bureaucracy that places a wedge between "us" and "them." this works for some offices, usually large and hierarchical, where policy is needed to reinforce and maintain the structure of the firm, but i think it could backfire in other firm structures. the management style needs to match the firm you are trying to create; there is no one size fits all solution, and that's where i would be careful of the advice of your hr gurus.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.