It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Private messages at work can be read by employers, says court

page: 6
3
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:49 PM

One thing, I would suggest you (not offensively) is learning about productivity.

A person working as much as I do, finding an individually fitting work-pause (or rest) balance can do far more in 8 hours than a person with exact same skills and capabilities.

Mental as well as the physical capabilities are similar. Let us bring an example from physical skills. There are two persons: person A and person B. They are equal at every level. The goal is running the longest distance in the same time period of 40 hours per week 8 hours straight (let us say 8 hours). One thing to add, both have good recovery periods (as most people do have). Person A runs the whole time, while person B runs and then recovers for certain period and then runs again. What happens : person A runs but is becoming more tired, so every day from the start till the end, the speed becomes slower and slower. In the end that person basically walks. While person B, having recovery time ten minutes every half an hour is able to keep constantly similar speed. On ten point scale: person A does the eight straight hours as: 10, 9, 8,7,6,5,4,3, while person B thanks to the recovery time is able to do (per my schedule, as I described before):10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 7,7,6). If we considered that 5 is the point from where upwards and downwards person is either rest or tired (5 is feeling normal)), then person A on average in a day does 52 units of work while working all day long, while person B works 64 units per week during the same time frame by optimising his work/rest balance. In the end, person B works less, but achieves higher competence every day. In a week the difference would be 60 units, in a month of 20 work days, 240 units...

Why I brought this example, what I wanted to say, is that the amount of work time-wise one does, does not mean that that person brings better results/makes more money for the company. During the day performance of one drops if the person works all the time without rest. The other person puts less time in, but achieves more, because his performance drops less. In my case, let us say, just an hour, just a random example : If i worked sixty minutes straight as many do, I would achieve roughly 10 units of work an hour while the performance drops, every single hour for the rest of the day, I would become more tired and due to becoming more tired and tired, I would do less and less every hour. On the other hand, with making "pitstops" after every 20 minutes, I would be able to fully function without getting tired the whole day. In one hour, on my counts, despite working only 40 minutes, I am able to do roughly 80 or 90 minutes of work. What matters more to an employer? The fact that one works like an unoptimised machine and brings in mediocre results or the fact that employee has optimised his/her perfomance and can do far more in the same time frame, while working less time-wise. In my case, should I just go home every hour? Spend half an hour to walk home and back? Just because of the minutes I spent on work? Results matter. If I optimise my work-rest balance, I get more done. That brings more money for the company, I feel better. Win-win.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:57 PM

If you have your wifi on your device turned on while sending a personal message, the first hop the message takes is to the company's router... at that point, the message is on their hardware, not yours.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 09:59 PM

Even if you are using your own equipment to generate the message, if you have wifi enabled, the message hops off your device onto the company router to make the connection to the outside world.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:31 PM

How this is a surprise to anyone is beyond me. I've known everything I do at work is being monitored since the 90s.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:34 PM

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Employment is a contract to buy labor form an individual; if they do not deliver that labor you clearly have recourse to terminate their employment or reprimand them. Employment is not a contract to where you OWN the employee during the hours you are employing them and so you do not have a right to all they may produce during that time.

In my field atleast, that is not true. If you use company equipment or time for something in any way they own it in full.

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:17 PM

all that is if's, work flow is not always a constant, things come up and happen.

i had a shop before and during the 2008 bubble. had to shut it down because there was no repair work coming in. commercial, industrial, and construction being the main focus. with welders and generators being the more technology advanced equipment constantly coming out with more and more logic boards, and circuits in them everyday.

there is no way that i could have any of my employees stop work twice a hour to for 7, to 10 minutes at time. say a job takes a hour to complete,( per manufacturers time allotment, which is always less than actual time it takes ) and you stop working on it for 20 minutes. that's 20 mins of the next hour you have to spend to finish that first job before you can move on to the next, rested or not.

now granted, myself and some of my employees figured out ways to cut that time, but that still doesn't rule out the fact that you are not working. your are paid for eight hours a day, you should be working the eight hours, not shooting the breeze, surfing the web or reading pm's on my computer or your phone on my time that i pay you for. if you can do 8 hours worth of work in 6 &1/4 hrs, do it and clock out (if your boss will let you work like that). don't expect me / them to pay you to goof off and rest.
if not producing product, at least do something that benefits the company to earn that 2 to 2 &3/4 hours you claim you save by goofing off and resting that i paid you for. pick up a broom, clean up the break room, clean up the bath room, organize the supply shelves or something.

what matters is i pay you for so much time of work, and if your not up to par, your gone, if you goof off your gone.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 02:28 AM

I recently read an Ebook Adventures in Legal Land by Mark Stevens. while this book is about how the court system works and is backed up by violence or the threat thereof, it did give me the distinct impression that courts will always favour business over individuals particularly small time people.

In other words despite the fact that magistrates and judges take an oath to dispense justice without fear or favour, they keep a close ear to the ground about where things are at in the world. They can see the NWO coming they have to make a choice to either go along to get along or they will be eased out. They are not stupid, hence decisions like this thread refers to.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 05:09 AM

originally posted by: Puppylove
...knowing full well the work we do and the time we invest is worth more than what we're offered. But since the choice is starve and be homeless or accept this reality, we're forced to accept the scraps or die...

No, your work and time is worth what you accept. If it was worth more, you could find someone else willing to offer you more. The only people "forced to accept the scraps or die" are the people who massively overrate their own importance and/or ability, or are unable or unwilling to make themselves more marketable to employers.

To be brutally honest, some people only have jobs because they're cheaper than the machine that does the job faster and better. The people smart enough to realise this, find ways to be more valuable than the machine. The people who aren't smart enough to realise this, wave banners at protests demanding an increased minimum wage.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 05:22 AM

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

Yes. Everyone has the opportunity to just quit working and start their own business.

Yes, everyone has the opportunity. Not everyone has the ability or is prepared to accept the amount of work or level of risk.

This goes to the heart of the matter. Some people seem oblivious to the fact that maybe they're just not worth as much as they think they are. It's never their fault, of course, it's always "the man" keeping them down, or "the system" oppressing them, or anything except them.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 05:47 AM

originally posted by: Blaine91555...A future manager will be the one who walks up to their boss and says I'm done, is there something else I can be doing instead of farting around.

I'll change that a little bit, if you don't mind:

A future manager will be the one who walks up to their boss and says "I've finished that task. I noticed that this other task needs to be done, should I start doing that or is there something else you'd like me to do?"

Always present a solution with every problem, or at least show that you've tried to develop a solution. Don't be the guy who needs the boss to do all the thinking for him. Be the guy that the boss trusts to spot what needs to be done. Don't be the problem, be the problem solver.

In fact, this difference feeds directly into these discussions. Whenever these threads come up, the posters seem to fall into two groups. One group says "I see a problem, what can I do to solve it?" The other group says "I see a problem, someone really should do something to solve it."

It should come as no surprise which group is the biggest fan of a minimum wage.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 05:52 AM
You'd have to be foolishly naive to harbour any expectations of privacy using a work network to conduct private communications on.

I spent twenty years working on the railway where every single phone call was recorded and audited by management. Even though we all knew, there was always some fool who thought their "human rights" superceeded the necessity of keeping a record.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 05:57 AM

Just the title of this thread alone made me think, "So Hilary should have to give all of her personal computer emails and private messages to congress or any citizen filing a freedom of information request no matter their security clearance or relativity to the investigation."

Right? The Judge says.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:16 AM

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

Just the title of this thread alone made me think, "So Hilary should have to give all of her personal computer emails and private messages to congress or any citizen filing a freedom of information request no matter their security clearance or relativity to the investigation."

Right? The Judge says.

That's not what the judge said. At least, based on the extracts from the article. It will be interesting to read the full judgment at some point, but not today.

From what I can gather, the employee was using a work computer. The company allowed the use of Yahoo communication software for business use only. The employee breached policy by using it for personal use. The company was checking the logs (assuming it was only being used for work purposes) and discovered that the employee had also been sending personal messages - which was against policy and resulted in termination. I'm not sure if it was purely the personal use or was considered a sacking offence based on the content.

There is a key component that people seem to be ignoring: the court acknowledge that the company believed it was accessing work-related communication logs, only later discovering them to be personal communication logs. The wording of the article seems to suggest that this was the reason why the court found in their favour. As I mentioned earlier, the actual judgment will probably clarify this point, but it seems to be saying that the company might have been in the wrong if it was checking communication logs that it knew to be personal - for example, if the company used Yahoo but then found some IRC chat logs.

It will be interesting to read the final published judgment at some point.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:42 AM

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: imd12c4funn

Just the title of this thread alone made me think, "So Hilary should have to give all of her personal computer emails and private messages to congress or any citizen filing a freedom of information request no matter their security clearance or relativity to the investigation."

Right? The Judge says.

That's not what the judge said. At least, based on the extracts from the article. It will be interesting to read the full judgment at some point, but not today.

From what I can gather, the employee was using a work computer. The company allowed the use of Yahoo communication software for business use only. The employee breached policy by using it for personal use. The company was checking the logs (assuming it was only being used for work purposes) and discovered that the employee had also been sending personal messages - which was against policy and resulted in termination. I'm not sure if it was purely the personal use or was considered a sacking offence based on the content.

There is a key component that people seem to be ignoring: the court acknowledge that the company believed it was accessing work-related communication logs, only later discovering them to be personal communication logs. The wording of the article seems to suggest that this was the reason why the court found in their favour. As I mentioned earlier, the actual judgment will probably clarify this point, but it seems to be saying that the company might have been in the wrong if it was checking communication logs that it knew to be personal - for example, if the company used Yahoo but then found some IRC chat logs.

It will be interesting to read the final published judgment at some point.

When company policies are breached resulting in termination, there lies bountiful circumstance.

Say you are always on time, never miss a day, always professional and spoken highly of by clients and coworkers, exceed al others in performance and make the company tons of profit but, your boss or supervisor can't stand you for reasons only he or she can imagine. Even worse, when you approach the boss to inform him/her that a new employee, one that the same boss hired him/herself, was sexually harassing a coworker, but the coworker was fearful that going to the boss themselves might cause themselves to be scrutinized and sent walking the plank or tip-toe on thin ice, so you were representing , as her/his advocate, his/her claim.
The boss does nothing about it, mainly because whe/she had hired the person and could not accept failure on hiring.
So, you go above trhe boss to their boss and now, although you are trying to help a coworker and feel the overstep was the only option, now not only your boss is doing nothing about the harassment situation, but you have just removed the chain from the boss' boss' collar for breaking chain of command and for the next week, during their employ, they get together daily reviewing security tapes to find some breach of policy so that you can be terminated without it looking like a cover-up of sexual harassment.

It's like there is always a way to defeat what is just. Sometimes it takes awhilr or requires purging ones statements to fit your desired outcome.

Same with federal laws. There is always one that fits you as a criminal.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:51 AM

originally posted by: EvillerBob
I'll change that a little bit, if you don't mind:

A future manager will be the one who walks up to their boss and says "I've finished that task. I noticed that this other task needs to be done, should I start doing that or is there something else you'd like me to do?"

I was once fired for this exact thing. It was at a charter school and their staff was technically incompetent. They assigned me a task that they thought would take 4 days based on previous experience, I had it done in 3 hours. Then they assigned me another multi day task, again it was done in a couple hours. I was fired on the third day of work because they had nothing left for me to do, the official reason was that I needed too much direction from management.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 08:03 AM

You've touched on something I try to be aware of, which is sometimes the best and most efficient employees somehow get 'punished' for doing their jobs so well. You find someone who is particularly good at the job, who completes tasks quickly and competently, so you give them more work, then more, until they end up doing twice as much work as the other people while receiving the same pay. Simply because they are superior workers.

I try to be mindful to not let that happen in my office, although there we have services to people within the 45 minute hour. Still, those people wind up with eight appointments in a day, while others have only four or so. More work because they are so good at what they do.

I've told them at times you are scheduling too many appointments in one day. Limit it to give yourself time to breathe and do your paperwork. But my situation might be different than others who might be depending on as much output as possible. So I do try to watch out for them.

But still to the topic -- no I don't give a hoot about a quick email or test message, or visiting with peers in one office for a while, or chats around the coffee pot. Our office is our home away from home. I want them to be happy.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 08:19 AM

I thought that was anywhere. I can't use.......well, the other employees can't use Facebook, Twitter, or anything else on the internet while they're working. Even if they're caught with their phone out, they could get fired, especially if they're texting. If you're off the clock, not a word will be said. But the owner here doesn't pay people to piss off, he pays them to work. If you're not working, you're pissing off and could face time off or get canned.

I write contracts and proposals and handle our marketing. The contracts take me about 10 minutes, proposals anywhere from an hour to a week, and the marketing/promotion is only about 15 times per year so I basically have time to kill almost all day long unless I have a long proposal. That's why I'm always on the internet. But when it comes to work, things are done immediately so there aren't ever any complaints about me or questions about what I'm doing.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 08:27 AM

But still to the topic -- no I don't give a hoot about a quick email or test message, or visiting with peers in one office for a while, or chats around the coffee pot. Our office is our home away from home. I want them to be happy.

Then we got off on the wrong foot.

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 08:30 AM

originally posted by: EvillerBob

This goes to the heart of the matter. Some people seem oblivious to the fact that maybe they're just not worth as much as they think they are. It's never their fault, of course, it's always "the man" keeping them down, or "the system" oppressing them, or anything except them.

I think some are getting the wrong impression that I either don't work, aren't good at my job, or don't have a great career.

I am all three. And quite happy where I am at.
edit on 14-1-2016 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 08:35 AM

originally posted by: EvillerBob
I'll change that a little bit, if you don't mind:

A future manager will be the one who walks up to their boss and says "I've finished that task. I noticed that this other task needs to be done, should I start doing that or is there something else you'd like me to do?"

I was once fired for this exact thing ... I was fired on the third day of work because they had nothing left for me to do, the official reason was that I needed too much direction from management.

That's actually the opposite of "exactly the same thing". You presented a problem, but there's no mention of offering a solution or identifying possible tasks for you to take on. Maybe I'm wrong of course. I don't really care enough to go into the details.

It's also worth noting that the "reason for getting fired" isn't always the reason for getting fired. All it takes is for an office manager to take a dislike to you. They won't give that as the reason when you're fired... but that's really the reason.

I'll be perfectly blunt, "I got fired for doing my job too well" can certain happen... but I'd start by approaching any such story with a healthy dose of skepticism...

3