The only thing I'd really like to point out in all of this...
...is the lack of laws and legal precedents.
As quizz points out, many of these policies are created as liability buffers. But that kind of negates the point. If one creates a rule or policy, it should be applied to everyone regardless of the infraction. Even by management.
Employees creating a hostile work environment by looking at porn is civil infraction.
Employers using the same computers to look at porn is tax evasion. An employer is using tax-deducted company property for personal use.
In this situation, the employer's misappropriate conduct is far more damaging.
This is exactly the problem with double standards and zero-tolerance rules. They create an unjust duality and frequently do more harm than good.
In that sense, each employer needs to specific that the telecommunications and equipment use policy is a "case-by-case basis." In that sense, each employee should draft up their own specific policy, sit down and talk to management about the specific things they will and will not do with their access. That way everyone has their own specific dos-and-donts for office equipment use.
The bigger overall issue with this is that many employers are pushing a legal boundary (as are some employees) where potential legislation and regulation could lead to a very uncomfortable future for either or both parties.
My strong hunch is that Steven's and Quiz's responses come from hard-won and painful experience in running a business.
I'd enjoy putting this thread in a time capsule, then hearing future responses from the younger critics of all those big, bad bosses once they've actually had to do that difficult job themselves.
I would agree with you Quizzical that an employee should not be using your company's IT infrastructure to surf porn. I would include torrents and pirating in this as well. I would agree with your statement above that 'not having a reasonable acceptable use policy is irresponsible.' If you automatically work off the assumption that this is happening, though, you are (in my opinion) criminalizing your employees.
I think it's preferable to assume they are responsible, not surfing porn, have an employee manual that says 'don't surf porn', and hold occasional company conferences discussing your policy of not surfing porn, etc.
So would this relate to the OP in that they may want to verify his hard drive was not used for surfing porn on company time and with company resources? Maybe his firm may have liability in a potential harassment suit if that was the case?
What I think is wrong with the way they acted is that they assumed guilt without any reason to assume guilt. I wouldn't resent an employer for reserving the right to search employee's possessions, but I would resent them for exercising that right unless it's warranted. 'Resent' may be the wrong word, but then that's what ended up here.
Also, as far as trust goes, I can easily take the entire server here, back it up, and take it home tomorrow. Mezdez probably had the same access. It seems this policy sets a bad precedence for the employees remaining in that they may want to take precautionary action.
rules and policy are not wrong. they are valuable and necessary. having rules doesn't make anyone evil. but you can see in the early posts in this thread:
a) a tendency to focus on the rules to justify employers' rights to do x, y, z, etc, followed by admonitions to employees to accept it
b) implicit in the phrasing is that all rules are equally valid
trouble is there are good reasons why firms are usually reasonable, even lax, in their enforcement --- it is to their benefit to be so --- or put another way, most rules are not valuable to most firms most of the time
still, when making up the rules, the tendency seems to be (in my experience) that firms approach making the rules from the CYA perspective and will have lots of rules that make logical sense and legal sense but that in fact fall into the category of things that shouldn't be enforced most of the time if you want to promote an efficient, proactive, creative, collaborative environment
this creates a problem. to have rules (let's say with respect to technology) such that it is in the firm's interest to ignore most of them, most of the time, introduces ambiguity into the value of the rules for both employers and employees, ultimately undermining the very intent of having rules in the first place
On matters of this nature, it seems to me there is an instinctive divide between those who own the firm and those who don't. I understand where won is coming from with his cynicism. Nevertheless, policy is not inherently divisive - it all depends on how policy is communicated and managed.
Our firm is substantial in size and I won't apologize for our management structures - they are appropriate to the size and complexity of our organization. Having said that, I also am confident we do not operate in an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust that some here suggest is inevitable with more formalized management structures.
Design still is pretty much a 'people business'. Unfortunately, too many here have experienced bad work situations in the profession and now have difficulty seeing past that to the real possibilities inherent in a professional firm. That truly is a sad situation.
It's a fact that we have structure in our firm, but we still treat our people with respect, collegiality and friendship. Such concepts can - and, more importantly, do - co-exist with structure in the real world.
Thanks for everyone's posts...i appreciate them all. its been great discussion!
curtkram -I don't believe I proved myself untrustworthy because multiple upper management positions trusted that I could get work done and send it out to clients. I think that just because I had the HD on the desk, near the station that I was taking their work. I only had projects on the HD that I specifically worked on when they asked me to. I made it clear to them that I was not trying to steal work and that they take anything of the firm's work off of the HD. I did so willingly, just made it clear that I was not comfortable with them copying all of my personal work.
The termination was not due to the economy, lack of work or my laziness/incompetence. (It was a prosperous year, office renovations, lots of work) The reason given to me was "lacking performance" I wasn't as fast as I should have been in CAD(in their minds). I had multiple colleagues tell me I was doing a fantastic job. I think a few screw ups were blamed on me though and that one of the bossman (bogeymans) didn't like me for whatever reason. I was often confused on the hierarchy of the firm and who to go to for questions.
Its interesting that they terminate me on such subjective matter. The guy that headed the termination did not work with me on a daily basis. That is what is scary...if he/she didn't know my work, he either 1. made up all allegations of 'lacking performance' or 2. my fellow co-workers who said I did a fantastic job lied to me and told bossman a different story. On a side note, the firm did not treat the people with respect, collegiality and friendship from upper management down to the people that did all the work. There was camaraderie amongst the people doing the work.
...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.
-now i'm wondering if they did breach their own employee manual. I'm almost positive though that I did not sign the policy/employee manual because of questionable items. I don't have a copy of what I did sign so I don't think I have anything to take to a lawyer. I do know that there was an added loose leaf paper added to the end of the policy stating that the company could terminate without reason. Is this common?
rustystuds- Its unfortunate because I actually helped create a large BIM library and added to theirs from my own library. I guess, I will be more careful doing that in the future.
Purpurina- Agreed. I did work for one of 'those' companies. Sadly, I can say I can only trust a select few, and probably wasted almost a year of personal growth. I now know what NOT to do, and how a firm shouldn't be structured/managed. I suggested setting projects up differently, creating standards, and processes to help make work go more smoothly and efficiently just to show my value and passion for the job. I definitely was trying to improve work quality and make up for lack of resources to only benefit the firm. These efforts either were ignored or shot down. I may have asked too many questions?
Is there a particular lawyer I would consult in a matter like this? What type of evidence or information would I need?
Snook_dude- Dude...no pics of any relation to anyone at the firm...ha, so I'm not worried about that.
for the record, there was no looking at porn. I may be guilty for taking small breaks to browse through arch record, archinect, or other arch blogs to actively engage others work and become more educated in the type of work the firm did.
Citizen- It wasn't all packed with horrible people. what does "OP" stand for? And you are right, if only I knew what the other side was. I can say there was a similar situation with another termination, almost exactly like mine a month ago.
GW-I honestly don't know if it's about wrongful termination or if its worth the time and money. I agree, they did so in a needlessly tactless manner.
saint- I was guilty of what? I was guilty of having their files on my HD. I was not trying to steal their files though. It was just random files that I accumulated over the course of the year of work that I did at home.
You're welcome, mezdez. And my comments were not aimed at you personally, but the other, all-too-common tendency around here to characterize firm owners as villains almost by definition, without any recognition of particular circumstances.
I understand. I appreciate your comments and all the other ones as this has been a very informative discussion on a number of issues of the architectural world.
mezdez, you seem like a nice kid. I recommend that you don't let this get you down too much. Forget involving a lawyer or taking legal action. It's natural that you are angry, but that too will blow over. It's possible to have a disagreement where no party is in crear fault. Happens all the time. At the same time some people are dicks. Be weary when such people have direct power over you.
Your biggest lesson out of all of this should be to properly back up your digital crap :)
Agree 100% w/rusty's last post - good luck and move on to the next thing, mezdez with gained knowledge and experience. Sorry you had a bad time there and I hope things look up in your next position.
However....I have to open a can of worms here. Were you an employee or a contract worker? In other words, can you file for unemployment now? From your earlier posts I thought that you had only worked there for a few months on a trial contract, but it sounds like you were there for a year, so you probably *should* have been an employee.
I agree with the chicken lady (and her can of worms). Straighten out your employment status if anything. Not just for unemployment purposes, but you'll be filing taxes soon. If they really treated you like contract worker, your tax burden will be much higher. Uncle Sam would not consider you a contractor worker anyways, so you need to act accordingly.
mezdez24 - sounds like you've had a time of it, pal. My sympathies. However, I agree with those above who encourage you to move on. This situation seems too fraught with ambiguity to justify wallowing in a painful fight - it's not likely to be worth the agony.
My main takeaways:
1. Never, ever, bring my own memory device to the office. If I am asked, or need, to copy files so I can work at home, the office should provide whatever hardware is necessary.
2. Never, ever, bring personal files to the office - or put personal files on the office computers - that I would care about losing or having anybody else see.
I want to say that this has been a fascinating thread - Archinect at its absolute best. Thanks to everyone who contributed - I learned a lot.
ha, thanks rustystuds...you can't keep this kid down for sure. I plan on figuring out what position will best suit me and go after that job. I don't plan on involving a lawyer. AGREED. some people are dicks.
I'm getting my HD back this afternoon...and plan make a few separate backups!
Donna Sink-Appreciate the kindness! I hope you all are well and happy with your positions!
I was a" temporary employee" (i believe as stated in letter of hire) until the fall and then became full time. I believe I can file for unemployment. I'm not sure about how being a temp and then full time works as far as taxes goes. Is there a thread that goes into this?
Saint- thanks! same goes to you as well!
Stone-def. moving on...its not worth it! I will never be mixing work with personal again. Let this be lesson for all others that have not already experienced this type of situation! Thanks!
Invasion of privacy
The only thing I'd really like to point out in all of this...
...is the lack of laws and legal precedents.
As quizz points out, many of these policies are created as liability buffers. But that kind of negates the point. If one creates a rule or policy, it should be applied to everyone regardless of the infraction. Even by management.
Employees creating a hostile work environment by looking at porn is civil infraction.
Employers using the same computers to look at porn is tax evasion. An employer is using tax-deducted company property for personal use.
In this situation, the employer's misappropriate conduct is far more damaging.
This is exactly the problem with double standards and zero-tolerance rules. They create an unjust duality and frequently do more harm than good.
In that sense, each employer needs to specific that the telecommunications and equipment use policy is a "case-by-case basis." In that sense, each employee should draft up their own specific policy, sit down and talk to management about the specific things they will and will not do with their access. That way everyone has their own specific dos-and-donts for office equipment use.
The bigger overall issue with this is that many employers are pushing a legal boundary (as are some employees) where potential legislation and regulation could lead to a very uncomfortable future for either or both parties.
My strong hunch is that Steven's and Quiz's responses come from hard-won and painful experience in running a business.
I'd enjoy putting this thread in a time capsule, then hearing future responses from the younger critics of all those big, bad bosses once they've actually had to do that difficult job themselves.
I would agree with you Quizzical that an employee should not be using your company's IT infrastructure to surf porn. I would include torrents and pirating in this as well. I would agree with your statement above that 'not having a reasonable acceptable use policy is irresponsible.' If you automatically work off the assumption that this is happening, though, you are (in my opinion) criminalizing your employees.
I think it's preferable to assume they are responsible, not surfing porn, have an employee manual that says 'don't surf porn', and hold occasional company conferences discussing your policy of not surfing porn, etc.
So would this relate to the OP in that they may want to verify his hard drive was not used for surfing porn on company time and with company resources? Maybe his firm may have liability in a potential harassment suit if that was the case?
What I think is wrong with the way they acted is that they assumed guilt without any reason to assume guilt. I wouldn't resent an employer for reserving the right to search employee's possessions, but I would resent them for exercising that right unless it's warranted. 'Resent' may be the wrong word, but then that's what ended up here.
Also, as far as trust goes, I can easily take the entire server here, back it up, and take it home tomorrow. Mezdez probably had the same access. It seems this policy sets a bad precedence for the employees remaining in that they may want to take precautionary action.
rules and policy are not wrong. they are valuable and necessary. having rules doesn't make anyone evil. but you can see in the early posts in this thread:
a) a tendency to focus on the rules to justify employers' rights to do x, y, z, etc, followed by admonitions to employees to accept it
b) implicit in the phrasing is that all rules are equally valid
trouble is there are good reasons why firms are usually reasonable, even lax, in their enforcement --- it is to their benefit to be so --- or put another way, most rules are not valuable to most firms most of the time
still, when making up the rules, the tendency seems to be (in my experience) that firms approach making the rules from the CYA perspective and will have lots of rules that make logical sense and legal sense but that in fact fall into the category of things that shouldn't be enforced most of the time if you want to promote an efficient, proactive, creative, collaborative environment
this creates a problem. to have rules (let's say with respect to technology) such that it is in the firm's interest to ignore most of them, most of the time, introduces ambiguity into the value of the rules for both employers and employees, ultimately undermining the very intent of having rules in the first place
On matters of this nature, it seems to me there is an instinctive divide between those who own the firm and those who don't. I understand where won is coming from with his cynicism. Nevertheless, policy is not inherently divisive - it all depends on how policy is communicated and managed.
Our firm is substantial in size and I won't apologize for our management structures - they are appropriate to the size and complexity of our organization. Having said that, I also am confident we do not operate in an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust that some here suggest is inevitable with more formalized management structures.
Design still is pretty much a 'people business'. Unfortunately, too many here have experienced bad work situations in the profession and now have difficulty seeing past that to the real possibilities inherent in a professional firm. That truly is a sad situation.
It's a fact that we have structure in our firm, but we still treat our people with respect, collegiality and friendship. Such concepts can - and, more importantly, do - co-exist with structure in the real world.
curtkram said:
What I think is wrong with the way they acted is that they assumed guilt without any reason to assume guilt.
But mezdez was guilty! How do we know they didn't have reason to suspect so?
But, seriously, before moving on with this discussion can we at least establish something definitive: "bogeyman" or "boogeyman"?
Mezdez,
You have worked for one of those rootless architectural[u/] firms, [u]packed with horrible people.
I still think you should consult a lawyer immediately while things are fresh.
Really? Maybe. Maybe not.
Let's not forget that there's only one (very abbreviated) side of the OP's story here. Maybe the torches and pitchforks aren't warrented...
Damn!
"...aren't warranted."
my spellchecker says 'boogeyman' should be spelled 'bogeyman.' I did not question that particular issue any further.
"A bogeyman (also spelt bogieman, boogeyman or boogieman) is an amorphous imaginary being used by adults to frighten children into behaving."
replace children with no-good thievin' architecture employees.
citizen,
Obviously my impression is based solo on his statement. A lawyer is the most appropriated professional so far to give him the right answers.
Thanks for everyone's posts...i appreciate them all. its been great discussion!
curtkram -I don't believe I proved myself untrustworthy because multiple upper management positions trusted that I could get work done and send it out to clients. I think that just because I had the HD on the desk, near the station that I was taking their work. I only had projects on the HD that I specifically worked on when they asked me to. I made it clear to them that I was not trying to steal work and that they take anything of the firm's work off of the HD. I did so willingly, just made it clear that I was not comfortable with them copying all of my personal work.
The termination was not due to the economy, lack of work or my laziness/incompetence. (It was a prosperous year, office renovations, lots of work) The reason given to me was "lacking performance" I wasn't as fast as I should have been in CAD(in their minds). I had multiple colleagues tell me I was doing a fantastic job. I think a few screw ups were blamed on me though and that one of the bossman (bogeymans) didn't like me for whatever reason. I was often confused on the hierarchy of the firm and who to go to for questions.
Its interesting that they terminate me on such subjective matter. The guy that headed the termination did not work with me on a daily basis. That is what is scary...if he/she didn't know my work, he either 1. made up all allegations of 'lacking performance' or 2. my fellow co-workers who said I did a fantastic job lied to me and told bossman a different story. On a side note, the firm did not treat the people with respect, collegiality and friendship from upper management down to the people that did all the work. There was camaraderie amongst the people doing the work.
...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.
-now i'm wondering if they did breach their own employee manual. I'm almost positive though that I did not sign the policy/employee manual because of questionable items. I don't have a copy of what I did sign so I don't think I have anything to take to a lawyer. I do know that there was an added loose leaf paper added to the end of the policy stating that the company could terminate without reason. Is this common?
rustystuds- Its unfortunate because I actually helped create a large BIM library and added to theirs from my own library. I guess, I will be more careful doing that in the future.
Purpurina- Agreed. I did work for one of 'those' companies. Sadly, I can say I can only trust a select few, and probably wasted almost a year of personal growth. I now know what NOT to do, and how a firm shouldn't be structured/managed. I suggested setting projects up differently, creating standards, and processes to help make work go more smoothly and efficiently just to show my value and passion for the job. I definitely was trying to improve work quality and make up for lack of resources to only benefit the firm. These efforts either were ignored or shot down. I may have asked too many questions?
Is there a particular lawyer I would consult in a matter like this? What type of evidence or information would I need?
Snook_dude- Dude...no pics of any relation to anyone at the firm...ha, so I'm not worried about that.
for the record, there was no looking at porn. I may be guilty for taking small breaks to browse through arch record, archinect, or other arch blogs to actively engage others work and become more educated in the type of work the firm did.
Citizen- It wasn't all packed with horrible people. what does "OP" stand for? And you are right, if only I knew what the other side was. I can say there was a similar situation with another termination, almost exactly like mine a month ago.
GW-I honestly don't know if it's about wrongful termination or if its worth the time and money. I agree, they did so in a needlessly tactless manner.
"OP" = original post/poster (you, in this case)
saint- I was guilty of what? I was guilty of having their files on my HD. I was not trying to steal their files though. It was just random files that I accumulated over the course of the year of work that I did at home.
thanks citizen for the clarification!
You're welcome, mezdez. And my comments were not aimed at you personally, but the other, all-too-common tendency around here to characterize firm owners as villains almost by definition, without any recognition of particular circumstances.
Good luck to you in your next chapter.
I understand. I appreciate your comments and all the other ones as this has been a very informative discussion on a number of issues of the architectural world.
Thanks, I appreciate it!
mezdez, you seem like a nice kid. I recommend that you don't let this get you down too much. Forget involving a lawyer or taking legal action. It's natural that you are angry, but that too will blow over. It's possible to have a disagreement where no party is in crear fault. Happens all the time. At the same time some people are dicks. Be weary when such people have direct power over you.
Your biggest lesson out of all of this should be to properly back up your digital crap :)
Agree 100% w/rusty's last post - good luck and move on to the next thing, mezdez with gained knowledge and experience. Sorry you had a bad time there and I hope things look up in your next position.
However....I have to open a can of worms here. Were you an employee or a contract worker? In other words, can you file for unemployment now? From your earlier posts I thought that you had only worked there for a few months on a trial contract, but it sounds like you were there for a year, so you probably *should* have been an employee.
and if you were contract.......ohh snap
I agree with the chicken lady (and her can of worms). Straighten out your employment status if anything. Not just for unemployment purposes, but you'll be filing taxes soon. If they really treated you like contract worker, your tax burden will be much higher. Uncle Sam would not consider you a contractor worker anyways, so you need to act accordingly.
@ mezdez:
"guilty", in this case, was relative. No harm meant; was using the same terminology of the poster to whom I was responding.
Best of luck to you.
mezdez24 - sounds like you've had a time of it, pal. My sympathies. However, I agree with those above who encourage you to move on. This situation seems too fraught with ambiguity to justify wallowing in a painful fight - it's not likely to be worth the agony.
My main takeaways:
1. Never, ever, bring my own memory device to the office. If I am asked, or need, to copy files so I can work at home, the office should provide whatever hardware is necessary.
2. Never, ever, bring personal files to the office - or put personal files on the office computers - that I would care about losing or having anybody else see.
I want to say that this has been a fascinating thread - Archinect at its absolute best. Thanks to everyone who contributed - I learned a lot.
Good luck, man.
ha, thanks rustystuds...you can't keep this kid down for sure. I plan on figuring out what position will best suit me and go after that job. I don't plan on involving a lawyer. AGREED. some people are dicks.
I'm getting my HD back this afternoon...and plan make a few separate backups!
Donna Sink-Appreciate the kindness! I hope you all are well and happy with your positions!
I was a" temporary employee" (i believe as stated in letter of hire) until the fall and then became full time. I believe I can file for unemployment. I'm not sure about how being a temp and then full time works as far as taxes goes. Is there a thread that goes into this?
Saint- thanks! same goes to you as well!
Stone-def. moving on...its not worth it! I will never be mixing work with personal again. Let this be lesson for all others that have not already experienced this type of situation! Thanks!
mezdez24....how about you move back and we grab beers at 5 on king!
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.