Author
|
Topic: WORKPLACE PORN IN THE ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE
|
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137
|
posted 13 July 2004 03:26 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44
|
posted 13 July 2004 04:03 PM
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
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
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 13 July 2004 04:31 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777
|
posted 13 July 2004 11:07 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 14 July 2004 01:16 PM
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
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
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 14 July 2004 01:44 PM
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
|
|
|
|
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350
|
posted 14 July 2004 04:22 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 14 July 2004 08:15 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137
|
posted 14 July 2004 08:48 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278
|
posted 14 July 2004 09:13 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 14 July 2004 10:36 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137
|
posted 21 July 2004 08:46 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137
|
posted 22 July 2004 05:57 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137
|
posted 23 July 2004 02:21 AM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438
|
posted 23 July 2004 11:11 AM
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
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
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
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
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 24 July 2004 11:47 PM
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
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 25 July 2004 11:08 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137
|
posted 26 July 2004 02:43 AM
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
|
|
|
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137
|
posted 26 July 2004 02:54 AM
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 27 July 2004 12:32 PM
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
|
|
|
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650
|
posted 27 July 2004 06:19 PM
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 28 July 2004 12:53 PM
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
|
|
|