posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, good luck to you. Hope you can educate them.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
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.
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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. . .
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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
