Moral police
Is it against the law to have your lunch in a strip joint? If he was on his own time and got back to work on time what business is it of theirs? I'm sure his wife would be interested but the employer should be agnostic to this.
Staff at one of Britain's oldest national newspapers got a shock on Monday morning when they found monitoring sensors installed under their desks. The boxes, sold by OccupEye as a way to monitor how long staff are at their desks without relying "on coffee cups and coats on chairs," were installed in the offices of The Daily …
I'm sure his wife would be interested but the employer should be agnostic to this.
The issue is that this may also impact the employer's reputation because some customers don't quite have such a liberal view either. This is why some companies have extra clauses in their contracts that allow them to boot you if you behave in such a manner that you bring the company into disrepute.
The issue here is not the fact itself, though, but the manner in which it was discovered. Unless the staffer has agreed to location surveillance like, for instance, delivery drivers usually have to, the company has engaged in illegal activity that in some countries may make them even get into trouble with law enforcement.
The main article is another example. Such monitoring should not exist, although I now suggest to have such sensors installed under HR desks, with a direct feed to a console which is accessible to everyone else in the building. I find that the arguments for surveillance tend to evaporate surprisingly quickly when those who come up with such ideas are the first to suffer the consequences.
The sensor boxes... were installed in the offices of The Daily Telegraph. Staff weren't told anything about the installation.... These are all totally legal, so long as employees are informed.
So, besides letting the staff know that management don't trust them one bit, the implementation was probably not run by their legal department. Also, isn't keeping track of staff activity and productivity a management function? I wonder at what point management/HR realize that they have automated themselves out of a job.
"... some customers don't quite have such a liberal view either. This is why some companies have extra clauses in their contracts that allow them to boot you if you behave in such a manner that you bring the company into disrepute."
Yes, but the employer cannot just make up rules on the fly and/or apply them retroactively.
"Just remembered the late and great Professor Richard Feynman used to repare to "Dance Bars" on occasions."
I have also remembered that Feynman wrote at one point about a Las Vegas dancer who was the daughter of a university dean. She wasn't rebelling, it was just that she was a good dancer, wanted to get experience, and it was the only place she could get paid work.
Imagine the possibilities.
"Dean, we have evidence that during your vacation you were seen in Vegas watching a floor show."
"Yes, my daughter wanted me to come and see her working".
Against the law no - but if your job is some kind of sensitive ones, it may make some alarm bells ring. There are risks you can be blackmailed (or act against the company for the need of money) if you put yourself is some bad or silly position.
Would you trust your broker if you knew it spends a lot of time in strip clubs (and maybe fancies a stripper) or betting agencies? Or the risk your money can end not in a way good for you could look too high? Sure, it doesn't happen with a 100% probabilty, and people who look perfectly OK may disappear with your money too - yet who would you trust?
"..., it may make some alarm bells ring. There are risks..."
You also shouldn't employ people from poorer neighbourhoods. They are more likely to see social disturbance which could see them be late for work or have to take days off, also there are more bookmakers in poorer areas, a higher risk of loan sharks operating and more chance of blackmail. You should only employ people who are from nice areas and talk with an accent that suggests their breeding - as they are the only trustworthy ones.
...or you could just choose to trust people until they prove you wrong (whether that involves someone stealing £100 from the company accounts to bet on a horse or someone who spends £10billion gambling the economy on risky mortgage deals)
Do you believe companies don't take that into account also when hiring people? Do you believe someone who has relatives in jail has the same chances of getting a job in a bank, or other senstive jobs?
Anyway I was talking about risky behaviours - which may happen wherever you come from. I won't trust any well-bred nice people if I knew they have dangerous behaviours which may lead them to act badly. We aren't talking about possible risky behaviours due to origin, we are talking about *known*, documented, risky behaviours. Sure, you're free to live your life as you like, just you must be prepared to face the consequences of your actions, because other are also responsible of theirs.
Background checks are perfomed for many jobs - sometimes you can't really afford to wait for someone to prove you wrong, because it would be too late - and it may also mean the end of your business. When you're responsbile for a business and many people working for it, you don't want a single moron destroy it all.
I would like to know how many who are against this kind of "discriminations" are ready to put their money, properties or close people in the hands of those people... would you hire a baby sitter who drinks heavily? Hire a cashier with betting issues?
It's always too easy to be liberal with someone else money and risks...
It might surprise you to know that you can get a job in correctional services even though you have a relative in prison, never mind a job in a bank. Your list of 'risks' is bottomless and pointless. What matters is the person's ability to do the job and performance once they get it. Nothing else matters and nothing else is any of your business.
@bep
While I agree with you for most jobs there absolutely are roles where the employer will look into your past, convictions, financial history, personal relationships etc.
As a previous poster said, to make sure that you cannot easily be "persuaded" do so something that you wouldnt normally do - example, if you are giving an employee access to large amounts of sensitive and valuable data that others would like to get hold of and a financial check shows that the employee has massive debt and is struggling to pay the bills - that person may be completely trustworthy but if some third party offered to pay off their debt in exchange for some data - how long would their loyalty last?
I agree with your point that most employers have no business knowing these things, but some do.
Background checks are performed for many jobs - sometimes you can't really afford to wait for someone to prove you wrong, because it would be too late - and it may also mean the end of your business. When you're responsible for a business and many people working for it, you don't want a single moron destroy it all.
I've known a few cases, one where the business was destroyed. The person passed clearances etc when she started. She had the documents to say she was good. The documents had been prepared properly, with proper legal checks by properly qualified people. She saw the money, saw her chance, and took the money.
I would like to know how many who are against this kind of "discriminations" are ready to put their money, properties or close people in the hands of those people... would you hire a baby sitter who drinks heavily? Hire a cashier with betting issues?
Yes and yes. Known quantities can be accounted for and dealt with. I have personally known someone who passed some very high-level clearances, and built a hell of a lot of trust before he started wanting more money than he was being paid (which was an almost obscene amount given the nature of the work - people will pay a ton for someone with good clearances when even the cleaner almost needs "top secret" clearance levels!). I'd hire him now - I know what he's done, I know what to look for, and I know to make damn sure he can't get his hands on the company money because he probably knows more tricks than I do.
A heavy drinker could watch my kids with safeguards in place. The sweet neighbours teenager who "just wants a bit of extra holiday cash" may turn out to not be so sweet, and I wouldn't want my kids being the first to discover that.
Known quantities. Safeguards.
Would you trust your broker
Are you nuts? Nobody trusts their damn broker, where do you imagine that he/she gets the money for the lavish location, the chauffeur driven Bentley, the huge mansion and the many priapism-inducing interns in the office?? Not from the tax-payers, remember, they had to blow your money first to get bailed out!
I trust my broker to look after my money about in about the same way as I believe that my flat-coated retriever will protect a Sunday roast left within it's reach, that is for about as long as I can keep an eye cocked in her direction. If I blink, it's OVER.
Since when is undertaking a completely legal activity a security risk with respect to blackmail? Some of my best friends have been or are currently strippers.
I could understand if he went to a cock-fight (not the type you'd find at a legal strip club ;) ) or a crack-house.
I wouldn't care if someone was a serial killer in their off-hours. When it comes to work, all I care about is if they perform their work duties skillfully and honestly.
Just because someone lies/cheats in their personal lives does not mean they will lie/cheat in their professional lives. The two are separate.
but the employer should be agnostic to this.
Exactly. If he'd parked a van with the company name on the side in the strip club lot then the company might have had a case for some disciplinary action, but firing him was excessive. As for telling his wife, that manager should be in serious legal trouble.
This post has been deleted by its author
Always a bit of a risk when you call someone out over an inaccuracy and then call them a moron.
Opens you up to all manner of opprobrium should you have got the facts wrong yourself. As you did here....
The employee fired for visiting the strip club was in the US. That was what Rototype was referring to.
I'll not call you a moron though. Not even in CAPS.
"Are you completely daft? What kind of a complete idiot makes ridiculous unfounded accusations and doesn't even bother to read the FIRST LINE IN THE ARTICLE???"
Umm, before calling someone a moron, might it be a good idea to make sure you're not being one?
Rototype was referring, as was everyone else, to the case of the dude who got fired for lunching in a Strip Joint. An incident that occurred in California, clue being "a Californian legal practice".
It would be courteous to apologise about now.
On the topic of the actual article, completely out of order. The moment some genius decides not to tell anyone about the monitoring, that's when all excuses become BS and the whole thing turns into creepy assed spying!
The other IT angle in this is that Richard Feynman famously used to spend a lot of time in strip clubs. He didn't drink, he liked to talk to women and he liked to draw them. He was totally unashamed of this activity, his last (English) wife knew all about it, and he even appeared in court to defend a strip club owner, by pointing out just how many important and respectable people patronised the joint.
I would hope the wife responded to the employer somewhat on the lines of "it's not where he has his lunch that bothers me", but with the strange US mixture of extreme licence on the one hand and Calvinist Prodnosing on the other, nothing would surprise me.
I'm tempted to name the US corporation that celebrated gaining a large government military contract by taking the entire senior staff to spend the weekend in a Thai brothel, but it would probably be more interesting to have a list of the companies that don't do things like that - likely to be a short one.
No, they can't. Individual people in corporations may be, but whatever US law says (or the Blessed Mitt Romney) corporations are not people and they have no morality. Put the blame for stupidity where it lies; stupid people.
I don't drink, I don't gamble, I don't visit strip clubs and I don't take any nonprescription drugs stronger than caffeine, and not much of that. But I do have enough sense to know that there are people who do all of those things and yet are safe around money, and I know that there are puritanical people who are capable of embezzling a load of cash and passing it along to the needy because God told them to. When it comes to deciding if someone is a safe pair of hands, Experian and employment history are better guides than most.
Is it against the law to have your lunch in a strip joint? If he was on his own time and got back to work on time what business is it of theirs?
Had a mate here in NZ who got drunk and did something really stupid (bastard's lucky I still call him "mate" even but anyway...) He wound up on GPS bracelet and bail conditions saying he couldn't be in certain places.
One afternoon he gets a call from his parole officer, asking why he's at a certain bar. He was told he'd be arrested and recalled to prison. He asks that the cops be sent to his home since that's where he is anyway, not at the bar. PO does so, and the cops call her to confirm that yes, the guy is at his hom. The PO says the GPS claims he's at a bar some 5km away from his home.
That was last year. GPS is generally pretty accurate these days, but I wouldn't recommend using data from it to convict someone without other evidence. Hell, I often drive on one road while the GPS puts me on a parallel road a (narrow) block away.
"Hell, I often drive on one road while the GPS puts me on a parallel road a (narrow) block away."
I doubt the GPS puts you there. The Satnav interpreting the GPS location badly interprets the GPS-supplied co-ordinates and it puts you there.
If the GPS co-ordinates put you 1 meter away from where you actually are, and that 1-meter error puts you in a place you couldn't be (car inside a building for example), the logic in the satnav may be bad and rather than putting you on the correct road, increases that error and puts you an an adjacent road that is 20 meters away. Thats a satnav code logic error, not a GPS error.
I doubt the GPS puts you there.
By "GPS" I do mean the in car unit - like most people I know (not necessarily most people, just most people I know)
A cheap one that surprisingly does better at picking up the satellite signal than any Garmin and most Tomtom's I've seen.. (But they have the huge advantage in getting updated maps!)
Seriously? If your worth to a company can be measured by how long you are at your desk for or how long you spend on youtube, you must be doing a pretty basic job... the sort that robots will be doing soon.
How about this for an alternative; you are measured by the quality and quantity of your work. If it is acceptable, then who cares if you're at your desk or having lunch at a strip club. If it's not then you need to explain yourself and only at that point do they start talking about installing tracking collars to find out if you're actually slacking off.
I don't measure my car's fuel consumption by looking at my bank balance even though the two are related. It's pointless trying to measure performance based on attendance.
How about this for an alternative; you are measured by the quality and quantity of your work
But that would involve your manager having to know and understand your job, plus have some reliable way to measure the quality of your work. Oh - and for said manager to not spend time sycophantically sucking up to the bosses above.
I think this just shows that the managers aren't actually managing and THEY should be fired.