I've been called in for a disciplinary hearing at work tomorrow. Apparently my internet usage is unacceptable, and I could lose my job over it. Now, I'd argue that it would be normal to maybe mention this to a person in advance, rather than leaping straight to "you're going to get fired" stage, but what worried me is that the people there don't actually seem to understand how the internet works.
For instance, I checked football365.com. Fair enough. But checking that also produced hits for:
All within two minutes of me loading up the site. Now, I suggested that these might be pop ups, but apparently that's not how Symantec Web Security works. No, it only registers if you've actually clicked on those web-sites. And there's obviously no such thing as a web-page advert that constantly refreshes. Nope. Nothing at all like that.
Absolute idiots.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
That's certainly a bummer. Do your employers know that DoubleClick is a web advertisement company? When you talk with them tomorrow, will you be given a chance to point all these URLs out and show them that they are self-refreshing ads? Good luck, and I hope that you can convince them.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, good luck to you. Hope you can educate them.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Liam, Kate knows loads about employment law due to her years working for law firms. If you like I could get her to give you a call tomorrow if you need advice. . .
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
We'll wait and see how the meeting goes. If it does go wrong, then yeah, I'd like to talk to her. But anything she can think of before I go in would be cool too. You could just post it here, I'm going to have a look before the meeting.
One thing you can ask her... surely a company should warn you before something like this? A manager coming over and saying "you've been using the internet too much, try and cut down"? Are they violating any sort of law by their first action against me being a full disciplinary meeting that could lead to a charge of gross misconduct which could itself lead to a charge of dismissal?
Also, they did through some other pages at me, such as "whitepages". At the time, I forgot that was an ICQ thing. I don't go on it, but I'm guessing that one of the forums I go on accesses them to check and see if the person is on-line, and then marks them as such on the posts. Anyway, when I said that I didn't know what that was, the boss said:
"I'm sorry, but that's not acceptable."
I then suggested we go to a PC and check and see what that address was, and she said
"No, we can't do that."
Isn't that a violation of my right to defend myself?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
First off, are you in an area that subscribes to "Right-to-work" laws? IF your answer is YES, then you are screwed. Please go to the back of the line.
Second, was there a WRITTEN policy prohibiting internet usage or use of company equipment for personal activity.
Third, have you received ANY warnings that your usage was being monitored.
Fourth, by what method have they deemed your usage as "Excessive" and what other individuals have/are receiving like disciplinary actions.
Don't go down without a fight... or at least some REALLY incriminating photos to blackmail with later. Or consider using your bosses computer and setting it up to repeat hit on multiple porno sites every 15 minutes. Jason can probably help you with that.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
As I see things, it should be trivial to prove that their "software" doesn't work as advertised:
1) Make a copy of the old SWG log and then create a blank one in its place. 2) Visit football365.com or another site with a lot of DC ads and click on stuff as you normally would (while they're watching over your shoulder, obviously). 3) Show them the resulting new log. 4) Argue that they shouldn't unequivocally trust what a third-party piece of crap is telling them, and walk away.
As for the legal aspects, I'm not sure what the current standing is in Britain on the monitoring of employees during office hours, but I seem to recall that it falls under the '00 Lawful Business Practices Regulations (and even if it doesn't, I'd go over your employment clauses with a fine-toothed comb), which, unless there's since been an amendment to them, would probably kill your defense right there. But that's something you should really ask Kate.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
When the person said "no we can't do that" - sounds as if he doesn't want to DEAL with it personally - i.e. technophobia?
If they have a strict rule NO non-work-related pages... then find a page that is work related and show them how all the ads on there do what the football365.com page did.
Also - how about finding others as examples who also use the computer for non-work related business. I'm sure EVERYONE doesn't, even the boss.
If you are going down, take others down with you! I mean, why not?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I'm not sure what the law says about warnings prior to disciplinary meetings, but you'd think out of reasonableness they'd have a quiet word first. As it stands I don't think they can fire you right from the very first hearing, there's have to be a verbal warning then maybe a written one. But to just chuck you out for the first offence, especially when it can be demonstrated that the access you're being held to account for is unintentional, leaves them extremely liable.
I'll send you a text with some contact details. Kate's phone (which is actually my phone, since she lost hers and I have a work mobile anyway) is switched off right now, she's just started a new job as a business manager.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
They argue that others only use it when it's quiet, not for 7 hours a day. I have pointed out that that' sbecause I sign into gmail when I get in in the morning and leave it on in the background, but they argue that that wouldn't cause the software to register contact access because the screen is minimised, or something mad like that.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Hmm. Sounds like they're being unreasonable in some fashion. You haven't done anything else to make them want to get rid of you?
I've spoken to Kate and she'll be happy to have a word. I've texted you our numbers - if the number we still have for you is the right one, it's from 2-3 years ago. . .
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
No, that's right. Cool.
I've had the meeting and they are currently deliberating. They have said that part of the problem is that because I sign into gmail at the start of the day it gives the impression that I am constantly using the internet for 7 hours a day, which mucks up their stats. *shrug* All this because a jobsworth complained that he was doing more work than everyone else.
If things go badly wrong, I'll give Kate a call. Cheers, Lee.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:...You could just post it here, I'm going to have a look before the meeting.
Oh, like that looked good.
I've never really understood this attitude regarding the monitoring of internet usage. It's one thing to make certain your employees aren't doing anything illegal or potentially scandelous using your equipment, but it seems to me that unless they (in management) don't think you are performing your duties adequately or irritating co-workers or other-wise mucking up their profits, that it isn't any of their business what you're doing on the net. I can't imagine our precious Liam obfuscating their dominant paradigm. But then I've never met him.
Maybe they're they are pricks who have a mad-on for you. Good luck all the same.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I hope 'mad-on' wasn't a typo! Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
Oh this sounds familiar - I had this problem about a year ago.
It sucks and I eventually left (was forced out).
Good luck!
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And then there was silence in heaven for the space of about half an hour. So. . ?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Pins and needles, needles and pins......
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Oh, god, it's worse than we thought. Not only did they yank his web access, but they broke his fingers as well.
Seriously, I'm hoping there's good news.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I was given a formal reprimand. It mainly seems to be due to me staying signed in to gmail all day and that coming up as me being on the internet 7 hours constantly. I've been told to stop that as it mucks up their stats. Everything else I've explained, and I can't be arsed arguing the formal reprimand.
On the other hand, I've now been given ownership of one of our contracts and have to perform incident management on it. Which is far duller than it sounds and doesn't come with a pay rise. Also, my team leader is away for 3 weeks and said that I'll be in charge. I suspect that he's joking as I've only been there 2 months (although 4 others of out 7 person team have been here even less), but I'm still going to run with it. The first part of my administration will involve getting rid of that silly "no tea at your desk" rule.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I was given a formal reprimand. It mainly seems to be due to me staying signed in to gmail all day and that coming up as me being on the internet 7 hours constantly. I've been told to stop that as it mucks up their stats. Everything else I've explained, and I can't be arsed arguing the formal reprimand.
That sucks but at least you've not lost your job.
quote:The first part of my administration will involve getting rid of that silly "no tea at your desk" rule.
WHAT????
No tea at your desk!???
Animals!
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
why have tea when you can have a 64 ounce super tanker of Pepsi?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
What do you call the 100 oz mug then?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Uniquely American.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Obesely American better yet....
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
Only if the owner is also seen Super-Sizing their meals at MickeyD's and ordering Diet Coke as the drink....
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
hey, buy one refill for 75 cents and you are set for the day, The Tanker of Doom keeps the beverage cold for up to 18 hours.
I'm sure someone will now tell how this insulation for the tanker was orignally developed by NASA...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Close, Starfleet....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So...you can post from work, just "when it's slow" or some nonsense?
I keep Flare minimized at work and post in while the computer is scanning print jobs worth thousands of dollars to my company.
No one seems to mind that, but I dont have anyone whining that they "do all the work" either.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'll have to be careful about which web-sites. I'm guessing that if I go on an ad-driven web-site that it will look like constant access, due to the adverts updating themselves, correct? Some thing with web-mail. But here it would just show the initial web-page loading and then me posting, if I do, right?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Makes sense. Also depends on which sites you just pop into, if they are loaded with ads, and they don't pay attention to the times, you could get nailed for going to several different sites. All in about 2 to 4 seconds.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mabye you could just install a ad-blocker? Assuming you have administrative privledges and all that.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I don't, but I know the password. I don't want to push my luck by installing Firefox so I've just put the Google taskbar on. I've been told though that it won't actually stop the ad site hits from showing up.
Also, a 64 ounze mug of Pepsi makes my teeth hurt just thinking about it. I'm already traumatised about having to get my first ever filling.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Go with iced tea -which I know you hate, but add some honey, two lemons and some Sweet & Low and it'll grow on you. Makes you have to pee a lot though.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes. Because I carry all that stuff around with me all the time.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
That's why you short wear those Old Navy Cargo Pants with the huge pockets. I miss my old job; I had free access to a Dr Pepper vending machine. Oh, the screams of pain coming from my kidneys back then. I miss it.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
We have a dress code. Except! It has just changed and become more casual. Now we can wear whatever we want, apart from t-shirts, jumpers with logos, hoodies, jeans, shorts, combat trousers, sportswear, trainers, and several other items. Essentially the list could have said "same as now, except you don't have to wear a tie" and we'd have got the message.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
But would you have gotten it, too?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)