babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » WORKPLACE PORN IN THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: WORKPLACE PORN IN THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 13 July 2004 03:26 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Liberal Govt of Dalton McGuinty is right now deciding whether or not to appeal a notorious arbitration ruling that forces the Ontario Natural Resources Ministry to rehire six men it fired in 2001 for using their workplace computers for pornogaphic purposes. As the CBC News clearly showed last night, taxpayers are furious and find the situation disgusting.


Ontario laments reversal of firings over e-mail porn

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040713.wxporn0713/BNStory/National/

Toronto — Ontario's Minister of Natural Resources is not happy about an arbitrator's ruling requiring the ministry to rehire six workers fired three years ago for exchanging e-mails with pornographic content at work.
“This kind of smut and filth poisons the workplace and threatens and intimidates people,” David Ramsay said Monday.

Correct me if I am wrong, but David Ramsay used to be with the ONDP???

Then there is a very regrettable piece by Margaret Wente that takes an unjustified, persmissive attitude towards workplace porn.

To each, his own porn (and other workplace conundrums)
By Margaret Wente

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040713/COWENT13//

There's just one great taboo, and that is S-E-X. Waste all the time you want at work. But if they catch you surfing porn sites, you're toast. Lie and cheat and steal, and you may well get a promotion. But if you dare look at pictures of naked people, you will be frog-marched out the door without a reference.
That's what the poor clucks at Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources found out. …
Some members of the public are outraged. If you can't fire government workers for surfing porn sites, what can you fire them for?
Personally, I think the public should think again, because I guarantee most of them have done it, too. Everyone who sneaked a peek at Janet Jackson's boob on company time has no right to complain. What enrages me is not that government workers can't get fired for surfing porn sites. It's that they can't get fired for worse things, like incompetence.
Meantime, some highly competent people have been felled by the hysteria. In 2001, Commodore Eric Lerhe, the commander of the Pacific fleet, was relieved of his command after looking at pictures of naked women on his own time, using his own account. His offence? He was using a laptop that belonged to the Canadian Forces, which had declared a zero-tolerance policy. After universal howls of protest from the public, he got his job back, and the military revised its porn policy. The latest senior officer who was caught porn-surfing (this time, it was during office hours) drew a $1,200 fine, which seems about right to me.

How do Babblers feel about this labour case? Indeed, is it a labour issue, or a feminist issue?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 July 2004 03:38 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd have to read the arbitrator's decision, but from the article it sounds to me like the workers, while not fired, are getting punished with unpaid suspensions of significant length.

The philosophy of "progressive discipline," which underpins most union job protection, is that workers be given a chance to redeem themselves before they are fired, particularly if they have no prior disciplinary record.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 July 2004 03:48 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh I thought this would give me links where to go to find some
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 13 July 2004 04:03 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:

“This kind of smut and filth poisons the workplace and threatens and intimidates people,” David Ramsay said Monday.

Correct me if I am wrong, but David Ramsay used to be with the ONDP???[/QB]


Yes, and before that, he was a Tory. A very well-traveled politician.

quote:

Then there is a very regrettable piece by Margaret Wente that takes an unjustified, persmissive attitude towards workplace porn.

She may be right. It seems that the people who were fired had a clean record up until they sent porn to each other and that they were just fired rather than warned about it when management found out. It depends on what the degree of misappropriation of work time and computer resources was, how offensive the porn potentially was and whether, in fact, anyone who didn't want to see it ended up seeing it.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
gula
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6474

posted 13 July 2004 04:21 PM      Profile for gula     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:

She may be right. It seems that the people who were fired had a clean record up until they sent porn to each other and that they were just fired rather than warned about it when management found out. It depends on what the degree of misappropriation of work time and computer resources was, how offensive the porn potentially was and whether, in fact, anyone who didn't want to see it ended up seeing it.


Agree with you there, especially the last part. As a female I have always and still am subjected to offensive, tasteless "jokes". It took me many year to get to the point whre I can now tell them so and ask them to change the subject.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't porn sites where you are most likely to pick up nasty bugs (as in computer viruses). I certainly wouldn't tolerate any employee of mine to surf for porn on an office computer.


From: Montréal | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 July 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You would have to tolerate it unless you had specific rules against it which the employees have signed an acknowledgement of it.
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 July 2004 04:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow, I actually kind of agree with Margaret Wente! I thought the quote by David Ramsay was hilaroius and over the top:

"To know that this number of employees were spending a part of their working day - sponsored by the taxpayers of Ontario - transferring this type of smut and filth that poisons the workplace and threatens and intimidates people is just wrong."

Smut and filth, I tell you! Send in the moral majority!

I agree, if people are sending pornography to other people at work, it could constitute sexual harassment. But just clicking on a "bad" site that someone sends you or something like that? Give me a break.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as you aren't sending sexual stuff to people who don't want it, and you're getting your work done, then I don't see why they should care any more than they would if you do your online banking or reading the Globe online at work. I mean, honestly, who cares?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 July 2004 04:33 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More porn, less work. That's what makes a happy employee.

All they have to do is install a blocking program, as other governmental entities have done.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 July 2004 04:38 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Its having to clean the keyboard repeatedly that they dislike. And once those keys are sticky,typos prolifffffferatttttte
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 July 2004 04:42 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is that the voice of experience speaking?
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 July 2004 04:43 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ha. Well, it also takes some common sense on the part of employees. I mean, my workplace has a relatively relaxed internet policy, but I certainly don't click on stuff that isn't "work safe".

But I know from people who work for the Ontario Government that pretty much nothing is work safe - their internet policy is so restrictive that one person I know who works for them doesn't even feel comfortable getting very many text-only e-mails at work, or looking at newspapers like the Globe, or personal web sites of people in her family (you know the kind - family pictures, "Johnny's just got an A in math!" sort of thing).

I think that's just a really good way to make your employees miserable. It would be like telling people they're not allowed to get any personal calls at work at an office job. I know there are jobs like that, but they suck. If I had a job like that, I'd be looking for another job in my spare time.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 July 2004 04:59 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Basically what the company/gov't office needs is ae-policy which spells out acceptable use. And then be relatively relaxed about it unless there is a problem. Ive written several for companies and they are pretty comprehensive. And all employees have to read it and sign it and get regular updates on it as well

lol and not really the voice of experience. I may be ambidextrous but not that skilled

[ 13 July 2004: Message edited by: Bacchus ]


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 13 July 2004 06:50 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The problem as I see it is that there is no such thing as privacy at work; and I think employees should not access sites or content that co-workers might deem to be offensive or discriminatory if they happened to be exposed to it.

That goes for any type of 'borderline' content, whether it be political, social, or sexual.

As for the firings - I agree that it's an excessive punishment for a first offence - but the issue I think is disclosure. Had they been informed that firing was a possible repercussion for consuming pornography at work?


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 July 2004 06:55 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Had they been informed that firing was a possible repercussion for consuming pornography at work?

Without having read the arbitrator's opinion, I would assume that they had not. If an internet use policy had been properly negotiated and drafted, setting out what constitutes abuse and prescribing termination as a possible sanction for behavior like what the employees here did, to my knowledge most arbitrators would have upheld the employer's right to fire the workers.

[ 13 July 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
K.E. Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5717

posted 13 July 2004 07:28 PM      Profile for K.E. Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think that's just a really good way to make your employees miserable. It would be like telling people they're not allowed to get any personal calls at work at an office job. I know there are jobs like that, but they suck. If I had a job like that, I'd be looking for another job in my spare time.

Maybe if these people do not like the restrictions that the Ontario government puts on them they can decline the "invitation" to be rehired


From: ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 13 July 2004 07:29 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchoress:
That goes for any type of 'borderline' content, whether it be political, social, or sexual.



From a feminist perspective, wouldn't sexually explicit material be considered especially questionable, ... even on a first offence?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 13 July 2004 07:33 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:


From a feminist perspective, wouldn't sexually explicit material be considered especially questionable, ... even on a first offence?


Personally I don't think pornography is a feminist issue, and I think it hurts feminism to make it one.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 13 July 2004 08:48 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchoress:

Personally I don't think pornography is a feminist issue, and I think it hurts feminism to make it one.



Really? Well I'll be damned. That's not quite the response I would have expected.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 13 July 2004 09:25 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:


Really? Well I'll be damned. That's not quite the response I would have expected.


Well, I've surprised Erik Pool... now I can die.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 13 July 2004 11:07 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Its a simple matter of management not doing their homework before firing a few folks. It happens all the time. This particular situation is not unique at all.

And the union did its job at the arbitration hearing pointing out that management hadn't done their homework and so the workers got their jobs back...albeit with lesser penalties.

In unionized workplaces in particular where workers have grievance and arbitration rights, management has to follow the principle of progressive discipline. If they don't, they lose their case.

As for personal use of the internet at work, one must always remember that one is using the employers network and the employers equipment. If you use the employers equipment to download porn, mp3 files, or play solitaire for hours on end you're opening yourself up to reprisals by the employer. Its just a really stupid thing to do.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 14 July 2004 12:43 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchoress:

Well, I've surprised Erik Pool... now I can die.



To be serious, doesn't this put you at odds with the "received wisdom" among established Canadian feminists?

There has always been a strong current in Canada among women's groups vigorously opposing even soft-core porn, such as Playboy magazine, or "swimsuit" editions of Sports Illustrated, a notion many find laughable at first, but which the official feminist organizations in Canada have tended to support, and without any hint of a smile. This position even led many of their leading spokespeople to leave the civil liberties groups, becuase those groups refused to join in the call for censorship of boobs and bikinis.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 July 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That would be the fringe element, Erik. Andrea Dworklones.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 July 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Erik Pool, seriously: do you ever think in anything but abstract overgeneralizations?

What a terrible fate. You must bore yourself, even.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 14 July 2004 12:53 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Erik, I really don't think that Anchoress or anyone here for that matter needs a history lesson in Canadian Feminism from you. You can, on the other hand, take note of the Feminism forum here on babble to see that Feminism is not a monolith and there are lots of debates among feminists on lots of topics.

You can also take note that the censorship you speak of is not currently advocated by any Canadian feminist organisations.

[ 14 July 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 July 2004 12:54 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
C'mon - Erik's being "controversial" and that's what everyone wants, right? Controversy?...More, more...give me more controversy! Mindless, empty, confrontational...I don't care. I just want MORE!
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 July 2004 12:59 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hinterland:

Do you remember Tom Lehrer's classic ditty "Smut!"?

As that song gets more and more baroque and literate, Lehrer cries out towards the end of one stanza, "More ... more ... I'm still not satisfied."


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 July 2004 01:05 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not familiar with that, but that's the idea. There's has got to be a thesis somewhere out there concerning consumerism, over-stimulation and the infantilisation of society.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 July 2004 01:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the one and only Tom Lehrer:


quote:

SMUT


I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we no what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days I have here a march for mine. It's called...

Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.

I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."

Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.

(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)

Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)

All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.

Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,

Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.

Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!



From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 14 July 2004 01:17 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the whole issue of porn is a red herring here. Either the workplace computer is to be used for work related activities-- as anyone should rightfully assumme it is-- or it isn't.

Stealing time from the employer, on the employer's equipment, is theft regardless of the subject matter.

They took the internet away from us at work. Big deal. I can't grab a lift truck and take it home to do some heavy lifting, either. Nor can I put my own dies in a press and make things to sell at garage sales.

Yer paid to work what's so difficult to understand about that?

Sure, we all-- at least for the sake of humanity I hope we all take advantage of our employers by stealing time. We aren't automatons, and goofing off is normal.

But to whine about getting caught, well that's just tough. One knows the rules.

Concerning the case at hand, firing someone for a first offence, when no stated policy was in place, and doubtless other computer related time theft was going on was draconian.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 14 July 2004 01:32 PM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have a problem with the idea of 'stealing time'. It has become generally accepted in our modern world of work, but it represents more of an attempt to enforce greater control on workers rather than representing an actual social problem that is deserving of being couched in terms that suggest some sort of criminal activity is going on.

Laureen Snider has been doing great work studying and analyzing Corporate Crime in general and even the concept of Theft of time. Here is an abstract if I'm able to find the whole article I'll post a link.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 14 July 2004 01:44 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When I started where I currently work, I was required to be ready for work, at my station five minutes before shift start. My breaks, two ten minute and one twenty minute paid lunch was exactly that. Your break started the minute you left your station-- not when you got to the cafeteria-- and you had to be back before ten or twenty minutes had passed.

Sure the line went down from time to time. But extra production was often downpiled on the floor so it could be up-loaded and processed in this time. And when that ran out, there was a ready supply of brooms and shovels for clean up. And you were never out of the line of site of a supervisor.

I've worked hours on end inspecting parts, never looking up, never breaking concentration.

Of course I learned to get away from that kind of situation. But I know what we are capable of doing in the work place.

It's a game. Your employer tries to squeeze as much out of you as he or she can, while you try to do your job in a way that frees up some personal time. My employer was winning for a long time. Now I'm whoopin' thier ass.

For the time being.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 14 July 2004 03:53 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
That would be the fringe element, Erik. Andrea Dworklones.


But in the Canadian feminist organizations that viewpoint has been in charge. For example around the 1993 Supreme Court decisions. The lawyers for LEAF were acknowledged followers of MacKinnon and Dworkin.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 14 July 2004 03:56 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
You can also take note that the censorship you speak of is not currently advocated by any Canadian feminist organisations.

[ 14 July 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


Well that must be a change of position from years past. They had previously been quite in favour of the MacKinnon-Dworkin approach that was refered to by Mr Magoo. LEAF, for one, took this approach to the Supreme Court in the early 1990s and declared total victory.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 14 July 2004 04:22 PM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
you might further refresh your memory, Erik, with a visit to the LEAF webpage. While the early 90s decision isn't on the site, LEAF's intervention in the Little Sisters case is.

click here

I can't recall what their arguments were in that earlier case, but I'll wager they are a tad more complex than your description above.

Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear which Canadian feminist groups are currently advocating the extreme approach you describe.

[ 14 July 2004: Message edited by: vickyinottawa ]


From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 14 July 2004 04:38 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm interested in hearing Erik's answer, too.

While we're waiting, tho, I did have a question for people here who might be more familiar with Ont. labor law. I saw in this snippet from the first Globe story that the govt. was considering an appeal:

quote:
The government won't decide whether to appeal until it learns all the reasons behind the arbitrator's decision, Mr. Ramsay said.

“I don't know on what grounds we've been ordered to rehire these employees and what other remedial action we are supposed to take,” he said.

“We're going to have to look at that and see if there's any opening for any further action.”


My understanding of arbitration here in the US is that it is binding and neither party can appeal a final decision except in very rare, extreme circumstances. Is that also the case for the Ontario public service?


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 14 July 2004 04:45 PM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
oh, employers can find all kinds of ways to delay implementing arbitrations.

I would guess they are considering a judicial review.


From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3472

posted 14 July 2004 05:52 PM      Profile for Nam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
My understanding of arbitration here in the US is that it is binding and neither party can appeal a final decision except in very rare, extreme circumstances. Is that also the case for the Ontario public service?

Don't know about Ontario, but in Alberta an arbitration is always appealable (is this a word?) to the court system. My belief is because the entire system is quasi-judical, an out was put into place to correct mistakes that may have been made. To be fair, I know of only very few cases that do go to that extreme length, but thankfully the option exists.


From: Calgary-Land of corporate towers | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
beibhnn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3178

posted 14 July 2004 06:06 PM      Profile for beibhnn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Decisions of arbitrators, labour relations boards, or pretty much any tribunal can be appealed via judicial review. The courts re examine the decision of the arbitrator or board based on the appropriate standard of review (which is dependent on the amount of authority/deference given to the arbitrator or board... blah blah blah... really it is very dry) The courts will generally be looking to see if the decision of the arbitrator/board is "reasonable". Judicial review is an expensive process and usually only undertaken if the losing side has a very strong case to put forward.

After having researched far too many porn-at-work cases already this month alone, the arbitrator's decision in this case doesn't strike me as out of the ordinary. The only unusual aspect is that the media decided to care enough to cover it and raise some general moral uproar. I would be surprised if it was sent to judicial review by the employer. But then again, I have only read the sanctimonious coverage in the local media calling for condemnation, flogging and perhaps a burning at the stake, and not the actual decision where there might be some egregious oversight calling out for the review of a panel of judges.


From: in exile | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
K.E. Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5717

posted 14 July 2004 06:49 PM      Profile for K.E. Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But then again, I have only read the sanctimonious coverage in the local media calling for condemnation, flogging and perhaps a burning at the stake,

So what, these people were mailing porn around the workplace using employee owned(taxpayers) on company time(taxpayers) if they have this much time then perhaps they are reduntant, better they go than a low seniority person that is actually doing their job. My computer at work is used by 4-5 others when I find porn on it(such as on a search to find a document I lost) I delete it, I have never said anything to anybody but i may start, this is at a private company.


From: ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 July 2004 07:44 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, maybe you should tell on them all. Make sure you bring the boss a nice shiny apple while you're at it, and maybe she'll let you sharpen her pencils as a reward!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 14 July 2004 07:48 PM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ouch Michelle. Maybe he meant that he would tell the people that he shares a computer with to stop it. After all, it wouldn't be fair for Smith to suffer for someone else's porn addiction.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
K.E. Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5717

posted 14 July 2004 08:06 PM      Profile for K.E. Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yeah, maybe you should tell on them all. Make sure you bring the boss a nice shiny apple while you're at it, and maybe she'll let you sharpen her pencils as a reward!

Wow what an intellegent response well done, how long did this one take you?


From: ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 July 2004 08:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I thought he meant he would report it. If I were offended by porn put on a computer I share with others, I'd talk to the others who share my computer first.

Sorry, K.E.Smith, my response was too hasty, if that's what you meant.

But I still think your other argument (that they're probably redundant if they have time to send porn to people) is dumb. I haven't met anyone who doesn't use their work computer for at least some personal things. It doesn't take any longer to forward a pornographic e-mail than it does to forward a "you are my friend and here's a poem that will make us both feel all smooshy inside" e-mail, or to check your bank balance online, so I'm afraid it's that argument that is redundant.

Also, clearview - porn addiction? So if you click on a link from a porn spam, or if you forward an inappropriate pornographic e-mail to a friend in the office, you have a "porn addiction"? That sounds like psycho-babble to me.

[ 14 July 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yukoner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5787

posted 14 July 2004 08:29 PM      Profile for Yukoner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gov't workers here went through a similar thing not long ago.

YG based their case on the Ontario witch hunt, so it will be interesting how this effects us up here.


From: Um, The Yukon. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 14 July 2004 08:40 PM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes Michelle, that's exactly what I said.

Anyway, while that would not in itself suggest an addiction, but if someone is checking out porn at work on a regular basis, that might be an addiction.

Why do you ask?


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 14 July 2004 08:48 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by vickyinottawa:
you might further refresh your memory, Erik, with a visit to the LEAF webpage. While the early 90s decision isn't on the site, LEAF's intervention in the Little Sisters case is.

click here

I can't recall what their arguments were in that earlier case, but I'll wager they are a tad more complex than your description above.

Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear which Canadian feminist groups are currently advocating the extreme approach you describe.

[ 14 July 2004: Message edited by: vickyinottawa ]



The answer to your last question is simple. All of them. If you don't believe, name one feminist organization in this country that takes the view that pornography is not a political issue and that feminists need not spend time opposing it. Name just one feminist leader in Canada who has laughed out loud when asked if Playboy harms women, or if photos of girls in skimpy bikinis are degrading to women.

The LEAF lead attorney in the Little Sisters case is Karen Busby of Winnipeg. Her views on porn are much more liberal that the view that prevailed in 1992 when LEAF went to court in the Butler case, arguing that any sexually explicit material that was violent or degrading to women would be obscene, and therefore criminal. Anyone who watches popular TV shows in prime time can easily see that this so-called standard is so subjective and elastic as to be no standard at all, and will be entirely in the eye of the beholder.

LEAF seems to be saying that gay and lesbian porn should allowed some greater leeway that heterosexual porn. Its kind of like the intellectually vacuous non-distinction between erotica and porn.

"LEAF also argued that simple extrapolations about harm concerning heterosexual materials may not be appropriate when applied to materials by and for the gay and lesbian community. However, this is merely one factor to be considered; it does not lead to a general “exemption” or “immunity”, from obscenity law, for all gay and lesbian materials.

"LEAF supports an analysis of sexually explicit materials that focuses on whether they cause harm,” said LEAF counsel Karen Busby. “We believe that freedom of expression and equality rights are both important when dealing with materials pertaining to disadvantaged groups in Canada, such as gays and lesbians.”


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 July 2004 08:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What are you implying? I've never clicked on porn at work, and I don't share a computer there.

I ask, because you said that K.E. Smith shouldn't have to suffer because of someone's porn addiction. Which I thought was a pretty big leap to make from his brief comment that he shares a computer with a few people and has found porn on it. That could mean anything from "half the hard drive was taken up with Debbie Does Ducks and Dingoes" to a pornographic link in the browser history, or a humourous pornographic image file someone got sent by e-mail saved in a folder somewhere. For you to assume that there's a porn addiction is, to me, jumping the gun completely.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 14 July 2004 09:01 PM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I thought this: actually meant something, perhaps I was wrong.
Anyway, I was extrapolating to a worst case scenario because you don't know what's on a computer, and it would be pretty stupid to do a search at work to find out.

Also, you've never clicked on porn at work? not even by mistake? Funny, neither have I.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 14 July 2004 09:12 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
That sounds like psycho-babble to me.

Is psycho-babble a subset of regular babble?


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 July 2004 09:13 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One of the interesting parts of this case is that 90 people were "stung" including a human resources person and an anti-harassment advisor.

The six who were fired were all unionized employees who were deemed to have behaved more inappropriately than the others who received lesser disciplinary actions.

Forwarding porn at work is bone-headed but should not be a firing offence the first time around.

Better they should go and cut down some trees.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 14 July 2004 09:49 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Someone in our department never logs off his computer so his internet home page has been switched to a porn site as a joke at least once.
From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 14 July 2004 09:58 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I always liked the file that turns your volume up and proclaims "Im watching porn" loudly.
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 July 2004 10:36 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bacchus, I LOVE that one! And it opens about 1000 "OK" windows that you have to click on to close before the thing stops shrieking, "I'M WATCHING PORN!" with the siren blaring in the background.

About 5 years ago, my husband got caught in a beginner computer class surfing for porn. He thought he'd be a smartass with his buddies around him, so he did a search for "XXX" and clicked on one of the results so he could nudge his buddies sitting next to him and say, "Look at this!" The guys looked, laughed, and then my husband closed the window after a few snickers. But then a whole bunch more porn windows started popping up. The instructor had given everyone instructions on how to work some program they were learning and was walking through the aisles to see that everyone was on the same page and got it right, and meanwhile there's my husband, frantically trying to close all the porn windows before the instructor reached his row, while his buddies around him were dying of suppressed laughter. He didn't make it in time. The instructor looks at his screen, and then my husband looks up at the instructor with his most charming grin and says, "I don't know what happened, they just keep popping up." The instructer just snorted and told him to reboot. Everyone around him was choking trying not to laugh out loud.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 14 July 2004 10:52 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was in one company where we had internet access but the owner was a real SOB and paranoid we were taking advantage of him. So he announced he was going to check everyones computer to make sure they were jsut using it for work. I went to his favourite employees computer at lunch and went to every gay porn site I could think of and bookmarked them all. His reaction was priceless
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 14 July 2004 11:51 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I always liked the file that turns your volume up and proclaims "Im watching porn" loudly.

Does anyone have a link to that file? My nephew and I are in a battle to "out embarrass" each other and, although I'm winning (...he's 19 and my last manoeuvre was running onto the soccer field while he's was playing with a sweater and a juice box), that would be a useful addition to my arsenal.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 21 July 2004 08:46 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
Erik, I really don't think that Anchoress or anyone here for that matter needs a history lesson in Canadian Feminism from you. You can, on the other hand, take note of the Feminism forum here on babble to see that Feminism is not a monolith and there are lots of debates among feminists on lots of topics.

You can also take note that the censorship you speak of is not currently advocated by any Canadian feminist organisations.

[ 14 July 2004: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]



I have checked that forum you recommend and there is nothing there that is on topic.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 21 July 2004 10:53 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:


I have checked that forum you recommend and there is nothing there that is on topic.


I don't think we've discussed it there for quite a while. I found a thread from last year.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 22 July 2004 12:44 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:

I don't think we've discussed it there for quite a while. I found a thread from last year.


Thanks Doug. I will take a browse.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 22 July 2004 03:06 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:
The Liberal Govt of Dalton McGuinty is right now deciding whether or not to appeal a notorious arbitration ruling that forces the Ontario Natural Resources Ministry to rehire six men it fired in 2001 for using their workplace computers for pornogaphic purposes. As the CBC News clearly showed last night, taxpayers are furious and find the situation disgusting.

The Ontario electorate are, by and large, dimwits. How else can you explain the Bill Davis Interregnum?

And WHY do we continuue to allow the corporation known as Erik Poole™® to flood our space with his garbage? I thought advertisers and other assorted snake oil sellers had to BUY space..?


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 22 July 2004 05:57 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:

I don't think we've discussed it there for quite a while. I found a thread from last year.



I have now had a chance to browse this thread. There is some variety of opinion there, but there is no indication of what the major feminist organizations in Canada now regard as their received doctrine on this issue, which was my main point.

I have said, and stand ready to be proven wrong, that most feminist organizations in Canada, certainly all that receive public funding and which are not artists or writers collectives, subscribe to a more or less full MacKinnon-Dworkin viewpoint on the issue of pornography. None of the messages in the thread referenced above provide any direct link to statements by feminist organizations that would contradict my point.

In the thread there are several examples of what is, I think it fair to say, the MacKinnon-Dworking viewpoint. Here are three examples:

Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 01 July 2003 07:05 PM

The main problem with porn is not that it exists, but more to do with the fact that most story-lines (if you can call them that) are patriarchal and degrading towards women. This creates a view among users that women are sex objects to be used and abused - the classic "male gaze" is reinforced.

dianal who asked to be unregistered
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4192

posted 20 July 2003 05:34 PM

Back in the early 90's.....a feminist collective I belonged to received funding from the provincial government to produce a film about pornography. It's called 'Freedom Sacrificed - The Price of Pornography' and I believe the NFB still carries it.

The women and I collected porn: Hustler, Penthouse, Playboy...videos: underground, mainstream, and advertising. Our premise was to show to a cross section of local women a spectrum of women objectified in the media, everything from a woman in a bikini lieing across an airconditioner in an appliance dealer ad, to depictions of outright physical violence. We recorded their reactions and comments; this is the film. We then took this film 'on the road', showing it at conferences, Take Back the Night events, etc. always with discussion afterward. We even held a community meeting with Project P showing what THEY had collected in porn, which included child porn, fetishes (scat and such) and perported snuff films and pics. We also showed our film to the local City Council, after being denied once as the film contained 'porn' (that's ANOTHER story lol).

The end result was, from the women participating and in our own collective, an anti censorship stance. To further legislate or outright ban porn, would put more power into the hands of the government, a male dominated system. No one felt comfy about that.

In later years and including recently, porn is still a topic of interest, discussion and comtemplation for me. I am very much enjoying this thread and the messages....in the end I still maintain that it's individual choice to view, participate, and even to let it take over your thoughts and transfer into real life with willing or unwilling persons. Society, our laws, our justice systems can respond accordingly, but ultimately, it is the will of the people and their level of tolerance for deviations from the 'norm' in their community that determine acceptable or non acceptable pornographic practices. The ones we know about that is


Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 21 July 2003 04:13 PM

Ok... I read enough and I want to share my opinion. I think porn is Bad! Why? Because as time goes on, porn get's worse and more violent as competition increases. More and more people are becoming increasinly involved in the industry... yes, even the girl nextdoor and maybe our children one day, as it becomes an increasing part of society. The only way to stop it from getting more worse, violent and claiming more victims, is to denounce it.

Yes, I see it and get pop-ups when trying to download software and I see the images and categories and the millions involved. It's in an explosive stage. Remember, although it started far before Playboy, it was PlayBoy that introduced it into the mainstream and rapidly evolved from there, making PlayBoy seem like a walk in the park. I really think it's degrading to woman because there is no artistic content involved.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 22 July 2004 06:21 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have said, and stand ready to be proven wrong, that most feminist organizations in Canada, certainly all that receive public funding and which are not artists or writers collectives, subscribe to a more or less full MacKinnon-Dworkin viewpoint on the issue of pornography. None of the messages in the thread referenced above provide any direct link to statements by feminist organizations that would contradict my point.

If you're making the assertion, it's your job to back it up. The posts you chose don't do that, by the way.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 22 July 2004 10:30 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe pornography should be legally available with the obvious exception of child pornography. However, work is not the place to be viewing it and I'd make life extremely difficult for an employee that didn't grasp that. And if he ever created the need for a keyboard to be cleaned life would be worse.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 22 July 2004 10:35 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And if he ever created the need for a keyboard to be cleaned life would be worse.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 23 July 2004 02:21 AM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hailey:
However, work is not the place to be viewing it and I'd make life extremely difficult for an employee that didn't grasp that. And if he ever created the need for a keyboard to be cleaned life would be worse.


First, it's clear that you identify with the employer, and that you regard the employee as your's to govern and supervise in whatever way pleases you. If the employee were viewing or transmitting other non-work related items, such as recipes or Biblical passages, on their workplace computer, I don't get the impression you would be at all upset, but perhaps I am wrong in that regard.

The last sentence tends to indicate that you also view this as a problem of controlling men, and that these men need to be controlled because they have fundamentally objectionable habits in the areas of sex and hygeine. They need you to keep them out of the gutter. I wonder if these poor fellows realize how lucky they are to have someone of your character policing them?

.

[ 23 July 2004: Message edited by: Erik Pool ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 23 July 2004 02:52 AM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:

If you're making the assertion, it's your job to back it up. The posts you chose don't do that, by the way.



Oh, ... so now it's my "job" is it?

Well Mr Dee, if your want a reference, I don't have a convenient weblink for you. I do have a book reference:

Bad Attitude/s on Trial: Pornography, Feminism, and the Butler Decision

Brenda Cossman, Shannon Bell, Lise Gotell, Becki L. Ross, Univ of Toronto Press, 1997

The third chapter by Gotell describes the stand taken by LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund) in the Bulter case. LEAF's declared connections between its position and that of MacKinnon and Dworkin are described in detail and contrasted to the positions taken by the Canadian and BC Civil Liberties Associations.

The fourth chapter by Ross makes reference to a 1992 article in MS Magazine by one Michelle Landsberg, which tells American feminists of the developments in the Candian courts. This is, I assume, the same Michelle Landsberg whose Award is featured on this website.

As for the quotes, as far as I can tell, they most certainly do conform to the MacKinnon-Dworkin pattern of thought. How do you think they differ?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 23 July 2004 04:06 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

It's a game. Your employer tries to squeeze as much out of you as he or she can, while you try to do your job in a way that frees up some personal time. My employer was winning for a long time. Now I'm whoopin' thier ass.

For the time being.


Yeah of course the employer is trying to get the most out of you that he or she can. But it is your work that they are paying for; they are not giving you a job because they like you and want you to be happy and prosperous. And are you suggesting that you have found a discreet way to hump the pooch? I'd hate you if you worked with me because I would have to be picking up the slack and taking the shit from the manager (That has happened before with some idiots I have worked with)


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 23 July 2004 05:04 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
All they have to do is install a blocking program, as other governmental entities have done.

'Cause blocking programs can't fail, eh Josh?


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 23 July 2004 05:24 AM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah - it's those blocking programs that are responsible for the fact that porn sites now have things like 'Harry Potter', 'Raffi', and 'Teletubbies' in their list of search words.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 July 2004 05:53 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Back when I worked in an office which just had my boss and a couple other guys in it, one fella would come in and fire up a free porn site and just look at the pictures for about an hour before actually doing any work.

My boss regularly got forwarded dirty-pictures e-mails even after he got married, and more often than not I'd see that some pretty raunchy movies got stored on the hard drive.

I never made an issue of it, but it's just interesting how even senior people can find ways to waste time.

My worst failing was probably to babble on work time.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 23 July 2004 11:11 AM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
First, it's clear that you identify with the employer, and that you regard the employee as your's to govern and supervise..... If the employee were viewing or transmitting other non-work related items, such as recipes or Biblical passages, on their workplace computer, I don't get the impression you would be at all upset, but perhaps I am wrong in that regard. The last sentence tends to indicate that you also view this as a problem of controlling men... because they have fundamentally objectionable habits in the areas of sex and hygeine. I wonder if these poor fellows realize how lucky they are to have someone of your character policing them?


Just to clarify that I am a student and my employment is part time. I'm not in a position of leadership so I am not overseeing anyone's work. I am not in the position of "policing anyone". I do, however, believe that an employee is subject to being supervised by the employer that's sort of common sense to me.

In terms of the situation we were commenting on the employees were in clear violation of the terms of use of their internet access at work. If I were a supervisor and the rules were that people could peruse pornography over lunch hour, breaks, and before and after work then I would work within the scope of those rules. If the rules were more oriented towards "zero tolerance" then I'd accomodate that. I'd work within the guidelines given me and not use my own personal morality to make these choices.

With recipes and biblical passages I would have a higher personal tolerance for the former. I'd rather someone view recipes rather than pornography. I would still, however, feel it was inappropriate to do this day in and out during work time while requesting compensation for working. With regards to biblical passage I would have the additional concern of someone's interest growing into prothletizing at work which I can't support. I think that a large part of my reaction to these would be about how much time was spent on these things.

Finally, the reference to the keyboard was a comment that was prompted by an earlier reference to the idea of someone masturbating at work and leaving their keyboard in a state of disarray. And, yes, call me a prude but I'd be displeased with an employee that left semen on the keyboard.

[ 23 July 2004: Message edited by: Hailey ]


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 24 July 2004 09:07 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hailey:

Just to clarify that I am a student and my employment is part time. I'm not in a position of leadership so I am not overseeing anyone's work. I am not in the position of "policing anyone". I do, however, believe that an employee is subject to being supervised by the employer that's sort of common sense to me.
...

Finally, the reference to the keyboard was a comment that was prompted by an earlier reference to the idea of someone masturbating at work and leaving their keyboard in a state of disarray. And, yes, call me a prude but I'd be displeased with an employee that left semen on the keyboard.

[ 23 July 2004: Message edited by: Hailey ]



When I said that it was clear that you identified with the employer, I meant that was where your sympathies lie. As you put it above, "an employee is subject to being supervised by the employer that's sort of common sense to me." It is indeed common sense. The question is what degree of supervision people who are not actual parties to that employment relationship think is justifiable.

In the case of the Ontario Environment employees, is dismissal justified as opposed to, say, a suspension of a day or two, or a week? The McGuinty Govt, siding with those taxpayers who have a personal, emotional distaste for pornography that vastly outweighs any rational, cost-of-government style objections they might have to other non-work related computer use by public sector workers (hours and hourse spent on recipes, or Biblical passages, or vacation advice) is upset that the courts have rejected the remedy of dismissal, saying that is too harsh.

From the tone of your remarks, I gathered the impression that you would side with the McGuinty Govt, not the dismissed employees. Perhaps that was not an accurate impression on my part.

As for the prospects outlined in the last paragraph, I am amazed that anyone think this a serious rather than an amusing possibility. Surely you don't know any men who have actually masturbated onto their keyboards, even at home, let alone in a workplace setting, do you?

And again, I do feel that it's implicit in your passage that you feel the problem of viewing pornography at work is a problem that arises with male employees, not females. Very, very few women would be inclined to view pornography at work is the impression I get from your wording.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 24 July 2004 10:08 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In the case of the Ontario Environment employees, is dismissal justified as opposed to, say, a suspension of a day or two, or a week? The McGuinty Govt, siding with those taxpayers who have a personal, emotional distaste for pornography that vastly outweighs any rational, cost-of-government style objections they might have to other non-work related computer use by public sector workers (hours and hourse spent on recipes, or Biblical passages, or vacation advice) is upset that the courts have rejected the remedy of dismissal, saying that is too harsh. As for the prospects outlined in the last paragraph, I am amazed that anyone think this a serious rather than an amusing possibility. Surely you don't know any men who have actually masturbated onto their keyboards, even at home, let alone in a workplace setting, do you?
And again, I do feel that it's implicit in your passage that you feel the problem of viewing pornography at work is a problem that arises with male employees, not females. Very, very few women would be inclined to view pornography at work is the impression I get from your wording.

1) I think whether or not dismissal is appropriate depends on the volume of time wasted.
2) I realized the person was being amusing and I was in turn. It didn't shine through though. And, no, I don't know anyone that would masturbate on their keyboard.
3) I believe the majority of offenders at work would be males although I have no evidence of that. I don't personally know any girls who view porn.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 24 July 2004 10:34 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hailey,

I don't know if you appreciate that dismissal is considered, in terms of employment law, the equivalent of capital punishment. That means it can only be applied in the worst; most extrems circumstances.

Secondly, I haven't yet seen the impugned "pornography" that was being exchanged. Frankly, I doubt that it is anything that would be deemed "pornographic" by the courts ( but the headline does sell nespapers )

Much more likely it consists of the sort of somewhat riske written and pictoral jokes that probably 75 % of the Canadian "deskbound" workforce exchanges every day.

Evil ?; I don't think so. And it is said that it was a form of workplace levity/release that was accepted and made the other job conditions more bearable.

A firing offence; apparently not. Should it be a "zero tollerence" part of the job ?

Well, yes, if you want to make it a less desireable workplace, and thereby make it more expensive to hire civil servants.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 24 July 2004 11:15 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Workplace PC's should be considered in the same way that files, desks, and company notice boards are.

For example, if you are, say an English teacher at a smallish West Coast college and during the day you are posting bigoted comments on a website, it should be considered as if you were posting a hateful diatribe on the company notice boards.

Same thing would go for say a government worker or even a student at college.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 24 July 2004 11:47 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Can't agree, H.F.
These days e-mail takes the place of what used to be inter-worker camraderie at coffee/lunch breaks, staff meetings, etc. Those sorts of venues are much less common these days, due largely to the obsessions with "increased efficiency" etc.

Show me a workplace where there isn't some outlet for connecting, cynicism, and probably some associated ribaldry, and I'll show you a workplace where morale is at rock-bottom.

I didn't learn that in school, but 30 years of organisational management tells me that.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 24 July 2004 11:49 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hailey,
I don't know if you appreciate that dismissal is considered, in terms of employment law, (for) most extrems circumstances. (my edit)...Secondly, I haven't yet seen the impugned "pornography" that was being exchanged. Frankly, I doubt that it is anything that would be deemed "pornographic" Evil ?; I don't think so. And it is said that it was a form of workplace levity/release that was accepted and made the other job conditions more bearable.

I appreciate a firing is for extreme circumstances and that's why I said how much time I mean an hour a month or 40 hours a week? I haven't seen the material and that's a fair point. I took it forgranted that it was genuine porn. Zero tolerance? Depends on the content, the likelihood for complaints, the volume of time etc. Frankly, if people's worklife is improved by access to porn or jokes they need a new job.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 25 July 2004 11:08 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Yeah of course the employer is trying to get the most out of you that he or she can. But it is your work that they are paying for; they are not giving you a job because they like you and want you to be happy and prosperous. And are you suggesting that you have found a discreet way to hump the pooch? I'd hate you if you worked with me because I would have to be picking up the slack and taking the shit from the manager (That has happened before with some idiots I have worked with)


Well yes, one of my rules is that I don't "hump the pooch" in such a way that someone else has to pick up my slack.

I get my work done, and a little bit besides. I was busy this past week. Very busy.

People are on holidays, some are off because they put a chainsaw into their shin, while others have badly sprained an ankle.

Someone had to pick up the slack.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
tully s
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6445

posted 25 July 2004 02:58 PM      Profile for tully s        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
who here can claim that they never visited babble from work? i can't. i justify it by the fact that i sometimes show up for work early, or stay late or take work home. what ever one's exuse -most of us do it. so i will not say that it is BAD to steal time. but - to complain about getting busted for porn at work. how dumb. (Have to admit that there is a bit of resentment on my part knowing that those employes DO make more money than me and that their pay DOES come out of my tax money.) i knew a women who had a habit of borrowing money from the cash register at the store she worked at. you know - didn't get to the bank machine on time so she'd grab $20 to pay for her pizza delivery for lunch. and she'd always pay it back. a day or two later. well, one day, her suprevisor did a random check on her register and found out she was $20 short. next time it was $40. so he kept an eye on her and one day saw her grab a $20 bill and pay for her chinese delivery. she was fired on the spot. borrowing money for lunch when you always pay it back isn't moraly wrong (which as we all know can be debated about porn). but it's not what you do at work. didn't her her complain about getting fired. it's just plain dumb.
From: left of centre | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 25 July 2004 03:06 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
who here can claim that they never visited babble from work? i can't...but - to complain about getting busted for porn at work. how dumb. (Have to admit that there is a bit of resentment on my part knowing that those employes DO make more money than me and that their pay DOES come out of my tax money.) i knew a women who had a habit of borrowing money from the cash register at the store she worked at. you know - didn't get to the bank machine on time so she'd grab $20 to pay for her pizza delivery for lunch. and she'd always pay it back. a day or two later. well, one day, her suprevisor did a random check on her register and found out she was $20 short. next time it was $40. so he kept an eye on her and one day saw her grab a $20 bill and pay for her chinese delivery. she was fired on the spot. borrowing money for lunch when you always pay it back isn't moraly wrong (which as we all know can be debated about porn) didn't her her complain about getting fired. it's just plain dumb.

I've never babbled from work. Our computers are highly monitored and I'd have to explain myself. If that check and balance wasn't in place, would i? I think i'd look but not post.

Your friend put herself in a foolish position. If I really did feel that need I would have another person aware of *when* it was removed and *when* returned because it would just LOOK fishy otherwise. I can understand why she got fired although I'd have taken another path as an employer.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 25 July 2004 06:43 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tully s:
who here can claim that they never visited babble from work?

I can.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 26 July 2004 02:43 AM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Workplace PC's should be considered in the same way that files, desks, and company notice boards are.

For example, if you are, say an English teacher at a smallish West Coast college and during the day you are posting bigoted comments on a website, it should be considered as if you were posting a hateful diatribe on the company notice boards.

Same thing would go for say a government worker or even a student at college.



Two points.

First, a student is basically a CUSTOMER of the college, not an employee like the teacher is. Do the very same consdirations apply?

Second, you have jumped from pornographic images to hateful messages. Are these one and the same in your view?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 26 July 2004 02:48 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When it falls into the inappropiate use area I'd say it doesn't matter. Hate speech is just as likely to create a hostile work environment as porn and the fallout from a hateful person is far more pervasive.

As far as the student goes, they know what the PC's at the school are for. If they chose to abuse the likely limited resources a school has to post hate speech or surf for porn then they should catch hell.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 26 July 2004 02:54 AM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hailey:

I took it forgranted that it was genuine porn. ...

Frankly, if people's worklife is improved by access to porn or jokes they need a new job.


"genuine porn"? What is genuine porn? We could write several books on that, ... but is it the same for everyone?

As for who needs a new job, given your test, about 40 to 60 percent of the labour force. That's just my guesstimate, and I could be on the low side.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 26 July 2004 03:01 AM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

As far as the student goes, they know what the PC's at the school are for. If they chose to abuse the likely limited resources a school has to post hate speech or surf for porn then they should catch hell.

So, ... two students, or two teachers, are meeting on college grounds, say the cafeteria or pub in the Student Union Bldg. One student/teacher gives the other his/her copy of Playboy. Have any rules been broken? In another instance, the same two exchange, on their college computer accounts and using college computer hardware, pictures from the Playboy website. Now what?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 26 July 2004 03:06 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Your analogy is false. One student/teacher takes their playboy/playgirl or latest posting from Zundels site and places it on the notice board. That would have to be violating a rule or two.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 27 July 2004 01:08 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At least it isn't like in Croatia...
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 27 July 2004 12:32 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Your analogy is false. One student/teacher takes their playboy/playgirl or latest posting from Zundels site and places it on the notice board. That would have to be violating a rule or two.


There's nothing false about my analogy at all.

If you mean using a university computer to Email porn pics to some wide audience of people, unsolicited, that's one thing. That would be comparable to putting it up on a bulletin board.

But that is not the premise of my example, I am talking about a private conversation or a private Email between two people who know each other.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 27 July 2004 12:34 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:

If you're making the assertion, it's your job to back it up. The posts you chose don't do that, by the way.



I have provided you with a reference. Was that sufficient or not?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 27 July 2004 06:19 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:


There's nothing false about my analogy at all.

If you mean using a university computer to Email porn pics to some wide audience of people, unsolicited, that's one thing. That would be comparable to putting it up on a bulletin board.

But that is not the premise of my example, I am talking about a private conversation or a private Email between two people who know each other.



The point is that a school cafeteria is legally defined as a public place, a school computer network is legally defined as private.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 27 July 2004 07:08 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchoress:


The point is that a school cafeteria is legally defined as a public place, a school computer network is legally defined as private.



And so the implication is, ... what? I know that in the case of UBC, when there was a strike on a year or so ago, they had the entire campus declared private property and pickets had to remain on the outside of the "gates".


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 27 July 2004 07:29 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:


And so the implication is, ... what? I know that in the case of UBC, when there was a strike on a year or so ago, they had the entire campus declared private property and pickets had to remain on the outside of the "gates".


What's your point?


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 July 2004 07:38 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Note: Universities often have acceptable use policies which students are supposed to follow when using the uni computers.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 28 July 2004 12:53 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anchoress:

What's your point?



No, ... the ball is in your court. What's your point.

To go back to your original assertion that the university cafeteria is public, the computer system private, there are two problems:

- first, it's not clear that the univeristy cafeteria is private, given the stance taken by UBC that their entire campus is private.

- second, even if it is true that the cafeteria is public, the computer system private, so what? The question still boils down to what's acceptable or not on the computer system.

If the computer system is as you say the private property of the university, which you will be happy to insist elsewhere is a public institution, Martha Piper's proclamations during the strike be damned, then would the university be justified in suspending or reprimanding two students or teachers who exchanged nude photos by Email on their university computers? And how would that trading of nude pictures be different from the same two students or teachers meeting the cafeteria and handing each other their favourite pictures?

As for DrConway's point on "acceptable use" policies, they don't seem to depend on any distinctions as between public and private ownership. The computers are the property of the university, and whether it's considered public or private, they are imposing certain restrictions on the use of their system. From my reading of UBC's rules, they seek to prohibit things that are criminal, such as child porn, not soft core things like centrefolds, or even pictures of adults engaging in intercourse. Perhaps other universities are more strict.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca