I am switching jobs my 2 hour commute each way sucked, and today a
packet (email) came in with all these forms to sign both electronically
and old style.
Well this is the first time two things have been put like this.
One is the I-9 requires me to get my two forms of ID notarized to send
the form back to them. Normally I just fax my drivers license and SS card.
The second is where it gets real interesting. I can not quote as I am
too afraid that they will pick up on this. (not really but not taking
any chances).
First it says that cyberspace is now legally considered an extension of
the workplace. as such, I am not allowed to post anything negative about
anyone or anything at anytime whether work related or not. I am not
allowed to post any negative comments period.
I can fired for _ANY_ negative postings. So at first I thought this is
far reaching and intrusive, but in thinking about it, if I identify
myself, they think I can be traced back to their company and therefore
anything I say can have an effect on them.
So first F them, but secondly, it's why I won't post my full name. I
think these companies are getting out of control.
What happened to this country... (I don't need an answer I already know).
--
Jeff
formerly tiredofspam..
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:59:04 -0500, Casper <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>First it says that cyberspace is now legally considered an extension of
>>the workplace. as such, I am not allowed to post anything negative about
>>anyone or anything at anytime whether work related or not. I am not
>>allowed to post any negative comments period.
>
>If you are permitted access to the internet from work for personal
>use, you are fortunate. Many companies do not allow access for
>regardless of if it may help with work.
When I worked for IBM, the policy was simple; do whatever you want on
the Internet but remember you are representing IBM. They didn't much
appreciate their 9. Class-A address topping the playboy.com list,
though.
>Some comapnies setup guest internet connections but usually employees
>are not allowed to access them as they could violate policy, leak
>information, or inadvertantly allow outsiders access.
Some companies believe their employees are grownups, at least until
proven otherwise. Where I work now, the Internet is locked down so
tightly it's almost unusable. I bring my own laptop and use my cell
phone as a hotspot (as I am now). I often have to use it for work use
because they won't let me get to some sites that I need to do my work.
Paranoia trumps productivity.
>Honestly, the worst thing you can do is access the internet, personal
>email or other personal information from your work computer. Once you
>do the company has access to that information and should any
>authorities request it, they are legally bound to divulge it.
Given that level of paranoia, you shouldn't be posting at all. All
ISPs operate is under those same rules.
>You may not think much of that but as someone who has witnessed
>employee firings and prosecution for doing just that, it's one thing I
>will never do. Long gone are the .com days of happy work computing.
In come the days of paranoia.
>Here is one example ...
>Guy working in a software company would go out to lunch and pick up a
>DVD rental. Back at the office he would rip it to his work laptop,
>which he took home every night to work on. When the company found out
>he was immediately terminated and fortunate not to be prosecuted. He
>didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Ergo, he wasn't thinking.
That's why I carry my own laptop (though I wouldn't rip DVDs, in any
case).
On 1/8/2013 12:59 PM, Casper wrote:
> Guy working in a software company would go out to lunch and pick up a
> DVD rental. Back at the office he would rip it to his work laptop,
> which he took home every night to work on. When the company found out
> he was immediately terminated and fortunate not to be prosecuted. He
> didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Ergo, he wasn't thinking.
I would have fired him also ... that is sheer stupidity, and you can't
ever fix stupid.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
"woodchucker" wrote:
<snip>
> I can fired for _ANY_ negative postings. So at first I thought this
> is far reaching and intrusive, but in thinking about it, if I
> identify myself, they think I can be traced back to their company
> and therefore anything I say can have an effect on them.
>
> So first F them, but secondly, it's why I won't post my full name. I
> think these companies are getting out of control.
>
> What happened to this country... (I don't need an answer I already
> know).
--------------------------------------------------
Talk about sheer paranoia.
Assume this is at best, a short term inconvenience.
Lew
Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:45:13 -0500, woodchucker <nospam.nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>>>> Now if I use my name in any negative post, I am putting it right out
>>>> there.. Which I won't do. I'll chose to not fight that battle, because
>>>> even if I win, I lose.
>>>
>>> Sounds like you've already lost, just by working for them.
>>>
>> Yep, you are right. But I need to pay the bills and I took this before
>> knowing. But I have a feeling this won't be the only company like this.
>
> Seems to be a growing trend. Schools too, are restricting what
> faculty can do and say on line. Seem as though Facebook is causing a
> lot of problems in society as more and more people do dumb things and
> reveal too much of their personal lives and thoughts.
It's the dumb every thing down to the lowest denominator way we do things
these days so that those that don't put in the effort have an equal chance.
The every one gets a trophy for signing up, mentality. It is knowing that
we can control what you say on your own time because if you don't like it
we can fire you and hire the person that only gets trophies because he
signed up.
The problem is that we live in the real world where our competition does
not think that way and they are currently whipping our asses. Banks steal
from us because they know that 50% of their customer are below average in
intelligence and because we are lowering expectations so that every one has
an equal opportunity many many more of us fall below the 50% average
intelligence compared to a few years ago..
With our new government health care system Nurse Bubba is going to have an
equal chance, to perform brain surgery on you, as the doctor that pioneered
the procedure that is about to performed on you. Nurse Bubba's
qualifications, three, count'm three trophies. Nurse Bubba won out over
intern Guber because one of Nurse Bubba's trophies was for actually
participating.
Rant off. :-)
On Jan 8, 9:49=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just one of the reasons I have chosen to be self-employed/major
> shareholder of place of employment since 1973.
>
So if you screw something up and say "Man, I am such an idiot", that
means you can fire yourself for disparaging an employee, right?
On 1/8/2013 1:59 PM, Casper wrote:
>> First it says that cyberspace is now legally considered an extension of
>> the workplace. as such, I am not allowed to post anything negative about
>> anyone or anything at anytime whether work related or not. I am not
>> allowed to post any negative comments period.
>
> If you are permitted access to the internet from work for personal
> use, you are fortunate. Many companies do not allow access for
> regardless of if it may help with work.
>
> Some comapnies setup guest internet connections but usually employees
> are not allowed to access them as they could violate policy, leak
> information, or inadvertantly allow outsiders access.
>
> Honestly, the worst thing you can do is access the internet, personal
> email or other personal information from your work computer. Once you
> do the company has access to that information and should any
> authorities request it, they are legally bound to divulge it.
>
> You may not think much of that but as someone who has witnessed
> employee firings and prosecution for doing just that, it's one thing I
> will never do. Long gone are the .com days of happy work computing.
>
> Here is one example ...
> Guy working in a software company would go out to lunch and pick up a
> DVD rental. Back at the office he would rip it to his work laptop,
> which he took home every night to work on. When the company found out
> he was immediately terminated and fortunate not to be prosecuted. He
> didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Ergo, he wasn't thinking.
>
>> What happened to this country... (I don't need an answer I already know).
>> woodchucker
This is not about work computing, this is about home computing. They
believe that my time at home is an extension of their time.
They believe any negativity is a poor reflection of them. So if I were
to call you a name here on my time, my computer, my network, it would
violate their policy, and could lead to my termination.
As far as that guy using their equipment to rip DVDs he was an idiot.
That violates other agreements big time.
We are all going to be plain vanilla people going forward. No one will
be any different than the next. All men will wear dresses and all woman
the pants, since that is what society is expecting of us. Men are now
encouraged to not exhibit any hostility... any hostility means we are
abnormal.... funny, I thought that's what made us men....
What made this country great... having the balls to explore and go out
in tough environments .. the meek followed. We are repeatedly being told
that this is bad behavior not acceptable. Anger must be controlled. It
would be F'd up if some idiot walked around punching people in the face,
but controlling everything to the Nth degree is preventing everyone from
being themselves, that's not acceptable. We need to explore and
sometimes slap someone around verbally ... it's natural. For companies
to say no you can't is the beginning of the end.
--
Jeff
formerly tiredofspam..
<[email protected]> wrote:
> If you're a cow, you'll be cowed.
Suck it up, Bubba ... I'm stealing that! ;)
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 01:28:16 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:59:04 -0500, Casper <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>Guy working in a software company would go out to lunch and pick up a
>>>DVD rental. Back at the office he would rip it to his work laptop,
>>>which he took home every night to work on. When the company found out
>>>he was immediately terminated and fortunate not to be prosecuted. He
>>>didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Ergo, he wasn't thinking.
>
>Durn right he wasn't thinking. Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material is a
>crime. Knucklehead committed a crime on company time, using company resources. They
>were right to fire him.
>> That's why I carry my own laptop (though I wouldn't rip DVDs, in any
>> case).
>
>When I was fresh out of college, about <mumble> years ago, the company I was working for
>hired a guy who apparently had a gambling problem. From time to time, he would call a
>bookie at lunchtime (from the company phone) and place a couple bets on horse races
>(illegal at that time in that state). Being still wet behind the ears, I figured it wasn't really my
>place to say anything about what someone senior to me was doing on his own time, but I
>did think it was stupid to use the company phone, when there was a pay phone right across
>the street. Then one day Knucklehead called the bookie in the middle of the afternoon. I
>decided it was time to say something, but before I could move a muscle, my project leader
I wouldn't say anything to anyone. None of my business. If asked, I
certainly wouldn't lie, either. We have a situation today that I just
turn my head. The boss has asked me questions about it several times.
I tell him what I *know* (just the facts...) and make it clear that I
don't want to know any more.
Thirty five years ago my office mate was skipping out of work. There
was no punch clock and it wasn't unusual to run out during the day to
take care of personal business. It was accepted, if not encouraged.
Salaried employees were treated as such (they weren't bashful about
unpaid overtime, either). However, he started coming in in the
morning, laying out his "work" all over his desk, then splitting. He'd
come back about 5:15, pack up, and leave. I'd get calls for him from
the county jail, too. What got him fired, though, was when he came
into work with his eyes looking different directions. You could get
away with just about anything but drugs, or alcohol, forget it. Gone!
>was already on her feet and heading to the boss's office. Next morning, around 8:45,
>Knucklehead wasn't at work yet (not unusual), Boss walked in, said "I have an
>announcement. As of last night, <name> is no longer with us. At my request." and walked
>out. And that was that.
Some time back a receptionist was fired for running her porn site from
the lobby, across the IBM intranet, of course. Speaking of *dumb*.
She was only caught because a manager happened to walk out of the
guest bathrooms behind her and see it.
On 1/7/2013 11:51 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:
> "woodchucker" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
> So first F them . . .
>
> You've already blown it!
>
> Dave in Texas
Nope, I didn't identify myself, therefore they can't figure out who I am
or who said it.
If my name were attached, I would be identifying them in some indirect
way. Now you can't say it came from so and so in company ABC.
--
Jeff
formerly tiredofspam..
Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> writes:
>On 1/8/2013 1:23 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> On 1/8/2013 12:10 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2013 10:36 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> If you post information on line, you may be unknown to the casual user,
>>>> but if someone is determined to know who you are they will learn who you
>>>> are.
>>>
>>> Absolutely ... in the "Internet Age", once you hit the send button it
>>> will be available to those with the resources in perpetuity, or as long
>>> as that is.
>>>
>> Yes, but again, my name is not attached, therefore I can't bring harm to
>> the company directly, or indirectly, as it was an anonymous post. Or
>> almost. Any perceived breach is just that percieved and not real.
>>
>Several people have told you that your name does not have to be
>attached. Have you ever looked at the expanded header of your email.
>There is a wealth of information that one could use to track you to the
>very computer you used to post the message.
>
>This is the software you are using with your last post:
>
>Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
The NNTP-Posting-Host: header is much more interesting:
$ host 76.6.47.27
27.47.6.76.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer nj-76-6-47-27.dhcp.embarqhsd.net.
So Jeff appears to be posting from a CenturyLink address in New Jersey, USA.
From the X-Trace header, the giganews poster ID can be derived (albeit not
without help at giganews, unless they've used a trival obfuscation means)
The IP address is sufficient (with ISP help) to determine the ICBM address
at which the post originated.
"woodchucker" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
So first F them . . .
You've already blown it!
Dave in Texas
On 1/8/2013 10:36 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> If you post information on line, you may be unknown to the casual user,
> but if someone is determined to know who you are they will learn who you
> are.
Absolutely ... in the "Internet Age", once you hit the send button it
will be available to those with the resources in perpetuity, or as long
as that is.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 1/8/2013 4:11 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 1/8/2013 1:23 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> On 1/8/2013 12:10 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2013 10:36 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> If you post information on line, you may be unknown to the casual user,
>>>> but if someone is determined to know who you are they will learn who
>>>> you
>>>> are.
>>>
>>> Absolutely ... in the "Internet Age", once you hit the send button it
>>> will be available to those with the resources in perpetuity, or as long
>>> as that is.
>>>
>> Yes, but again, my name is not attached, therefore I can't bring harm to
>> the company directly, or indirectly, as it was an anonymous post. Or
>> almost. Any perceived breach is just that percieved and not real.
>>
> Several people have told you that your name does not have to be
> attached. Have you ever looked at the expanded header of your email.
> There is a wealth of information that one could use to track you to the
> very computer you used to post the message.
>
> This is the software you are using with your last post:
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
Yep, I understand, but in checking all my posts, nothing ties it to me
directly.
They would have to talk to my isp to tie it totally to me.
I have reviewed the complete header.
So I am confident that any attempt would have to go through my isp.
I also want to straighten this out. I can not use my name to make any
statement, since my name can easily be tied to them, they are paranoid
that they may lose customers or be thought negatively because of me.
That being said, if they want to try to find me by going to extreme
lengths, then it's certainly not for me. And in that case, I would
probably hit them where it hurts.
--
Jeff
formerly tiredofspam..
On 1/8/2013 7:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 18:23:18 -0500, woodchucker <nospam.nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/8/2013 5:02 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> On 1/8/2013 1:23 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/2013 12:10 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/8/2013 10:36 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>>> If you post information on line, you may be unknown to the casual user,
>>>>>>> but if someone is determined to know who you are they will learn who you
>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely ... in the "Internet Age", once you hit the send button it
>>>>>> will be available to those with the resources in perpetuity, or as long
>>>>>> as that is.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but again, my name is not attached, therefore I can't bring harm to
>>>>> the company directly, or indirectly, as it was an anonymous post. Or
>>>>> almost. Any perceived breach is just that percieved and not real.
>>>>>
>>>> Several people have told you that your name does not have to be
>>>> attached. Have you ever looked at the expanded header of your email.
>>>> There is a wealth of information that one could use to track you to the
>>>> very computer you used to post the message.
>>>>
>>>> This is the software you are using with your last post:
>>>>
>>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
>>>
>>> The NNTP-Posting-Host: header is much more interesting:
>>>
>>> $ host 76.6.47.27
>>> 27.47.6.76.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer nj-76-6-47-27.dhcp.embarqhsd.net.
>>>
>>> So Jeff appears to be posting from a CenturyLink address in New Jersey, USA.
>>>
>>> From the X-Trace header, the giganews poster ID can be derived (albeit not
>>> without help at giganews, unless they've used a trival obfuscation means)
>>>
>>> The IP address is sufficient (with ISP help) to determine the ICBM address
>>> at which the post originated.
>>>
>>
>> Yep you are right, it would be, but again that would be extreme to get
>> to me. It is using my name that could, would get me in trouble with the
>> company, not a post that removes my name from the issue. But if I
>> mentioned the company in a negative comment I guarantee they would try
>> to find out who posted it.
>
> They'd have to get a court order (subpoena) to get the information.
>
>> Now if I use my name in any negative post, I am putting it right out
>> there.. Which I won't do. I'll chose to not fight that battle, because
>> even if I win, I lose.
>
> Sounds like you've already lost, just by working for them.
>
Yep, you are right. But I need to pay the bills and I took this before
knowing. But I have a feeling this won't be the only company like this.
--
Jeff
formerly tiredofspam..
"woodchucker" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 1/7/2013 11:51 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:
> "woodchucker" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
> So first F them . . .
>
> You've already blown it!
>
> Dave in Texas
Nope, I didn't identify myself, therefore they can't figure out who I am
or who said it.
If my name were attached, I would be identifying them in some indirect
way. Now you can't say it came from so and so in company ABC.
--
Jeff
formerly tiredofspam..
Somebody, somewhere has software that can clandestinely track your
post's origin and server and the like in the town close to where your job is
. . . .
Build a ten foot wall this week and next week someone will have built an
eleven foot ladder.
Dave in Texas
On 1/8/2013 12:10 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 1/8/2013 10:36 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> If you post information on line, you may be unknown to the casual user,
>> but if someone is determined to know who you are they will learn who you
>> are.
>
> Absolutely ... in the "Internet Age", once you hit the send button it
> will be available to those with the resources in perpetuity, or as long
> as that is.
>
Yes, but again, my name is not attached, therefore I can't bring harm to
the company directly, or indirectly, as it was an anonymous post. Or
almost. Any perceived breach is just that percieved and not real.
--
Jeff
formerly tiredofspam..
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> It's so funny to see employers try to word their bullshit with legalize
> to try to make sound all official and legal. A lot of it is not. An
> "extension of the workplace?" What complete bullshit. They can say what
> they want, it doesn't make it legal and it's doesn't supersede your 1st
> amendment rights.
The First Amendment constrains the government, not the private sector, and it is *not* a
violation of the employee's First Amendment rights for a *private* employer to muzzle (or
attempt to) the employee's speech, whether in or out of the workplace.
Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:kch52c$qpj$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> On 1/8/2013 7:07 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:kcg3td$gmh$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> It's so funny to see employers try to word their bullshit with legalize
>>> to try to make sound all official and legal. A lot of it is not. An
>>> "extension of the workplace?" What complete bullshit. They can say what
>>> they want, it doesn't make it legal and it's doesn't supersede your 1st
>>> amendment rights.
>>
>> The First Amendment constrains the government, not the private sector, and it is *not* a
>> violation of the employee's First Amendment rights for a *private* employer to muzzle (or
>> attempt to) the employee's speech, whether in or out of the workplace.
>>
> I believe the employer has the Right to terminate an employee if the
> employer believes that the employee has done something to harm the
> company. I believe it would be up to the court to decide if the
> specific action harmed the company.
That may depend on state law and any employment contracts that may exist (e.g. a union
agreement).
>
> My guess is that if an employee was distributing anything, papers,
> video, phone calls, or internet post that cast the company in a negative
> image he should consider himself a candidate for termination.
Of course. And that is as it should be.
>
> UNLESS he can frame it to make it appear he is a whistle blower and
> there are laws to protect him. Though you are back in court.
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:Bt-
[email protected]:
>
> Just one of the reasons I have chosen to be self-employed/major
> shareholder of place of employment since 1973.
>
+1 to that!
woodchucker <nospam.nospam.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/8/2013 1:59 PM, Casper wrote:
>>> First it says that cyberspace is now legally considered an extension
>>> of the workplace. as such, I am not allowed to post anything
>>> negative about anyone or anything at anytime whether work related or
>>> not. I am not allowed to post any negative comments period.
>>
>> If you are permitted access to the internet from work for personal
>> use, you are fortunate. Many companies do not allow access for
>> regardless of if it may help with work.
>>
>> Some comapnies setup guest internet connections but usually employees
>> are not allowed to access them as they could violate policy, leak
>> information, or inadvertantly allow outsiders access.
>>
>> Honestly, the worst thing you can do is access the internet, personal
>> email or other personal information from your work computer. Once you
>> do the company has access to that information and should any
>> authorities request it, they are legally bound to divulge it.
>>
>> You may not think much of that but as someone who has witnessed
>> employee firings and prosecution for doing just that, it's one thing
>> I will never do. Long gone are the .com days of happy work computing.
>>
>> Here is one example ...
>> Guy working in a software company would go out to lunch and pick up a
>> DVD rental. Back at the office he would rip it to his work laptop,
>> which he took home every night to work on. When the company found out
>> he was immediately terminated and fortunate not to be prosecuted. He
>> didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Ergo, he wasn't thinking.
>>
>>> What happened to this country... (I don't need an answer I already
>>> know). woodchucker
>
> This is not about work computing, this is about home computing. They
> believe that my time at home is an extension of their time.
>
> They believe any negativity is a poor reflection of them. So if I
> were to call you a name here on my time, my computer, my network, it
> would violate their policy, and could lead to my termination.
>
> As far as that guy using their equipment to rip DVDs he was an idiot.
> That violates other agreements big time.
>
> We are all going to be plain vanilla people going forward. No one will
> be any different than the next. All men will wear dresses and all
> woman the pants, since that is what society is expecting of us. Men
> are now encouraged to not exhibit any hostility... any hostility means
> we are abnormal.... funny, I thought that's what made us men....
>
> What made this country great... having the balls to explore and go out
> in tough environments .. the meek followed. We are repeatedly being
> told that this is bad behavior not acceptable. Anger must be
> controlled. It would be F'd up if some idiot walked around punching
> people in the face, but controlling everything to the Nth degree is
> preventing everyone from being themselves, that's not acceptable. We
> need to explore and sometimes slap someone around verbally ... it's
> natural. For companies to say no you can't is the beginning of the
> end.
I don't understand that policy. It should be illegal. Because by
extension, they could force you to vote for a particular political
candidate. Or at least you would be prohibited from
voicing any opinion in favor of a candidate who is opposed to anything
the company likes, or from
voicing any opinion against a candidate who is in favor of something the
company likes.
Has to be illegal.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/8/13 3:41 PM, Han wrote:
>> I don't understand that policy. It should be illegal. Because by
>> extension, they could force you to vote for a particular political
>> candidate. Or at least you would be prohibited from
>> voicing any opinion in favor of a candidate who is opposed to
>> anything the company likes, or from
>> voicing any opinion against a candidate who is in favor of something
>> the company likes.
>> Has to be illegal.
>>
>
> Sound like a Union, Han. :-p
What woodchucker relates about his company sounds likes intellectual
slavery - suppression of free speech. Don't misunderstand me, there are
laws against slander, and as a supervisor I would definitely take into
account what a person says about company, coworkers etc. But stifling
constructive criticism is just stupid.
I have been lucky in my professional life that my direct supervisor was
always very supportive. Which didn't hold me back from saying things
when I thought he was wrong. (Sometimes needing to use "reverse
psychology" to get my points across).
No one here would say I never say stupid things <grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 1/8/13 6:07 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:kcg3td$gmh$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> It's so funny to see employers try to word their bullshit with legalize
>>> to try to make sound all official and legal. A lot of it is not. An
>>> "extension of the workplace?" What complete bullshit. They can say what
>>> they want, it doesn't make it legal and it's doesn't supersede your 1st
>>> amendment rights.
>>
>> The First Amendment constrains the government, not the private sector, and it is *not* a
>> violation of the employee's First Amendment rights for a *private* employer to muzzle (or
>> attempt to) the employee's speech, whether in or out of the workplace.
>>
>
> I believe you are mistaken. There are private companies in the Detroit
> who have been taken to court and order to provide breaks and rooms with
> eastward facing windows to allow their Muslim employees time and place
> to practice their first amendment rights.
I hadn't heard about that (and I can't imagine that it would hold up on appeal).
Got a cite?
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 1/8/13 4:26 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 1/8/13 6:07 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:kcg3td$gmh$1
>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> It's so funny to see employers try to word their bullshit
>>>>> with legalize to try to make sound all official and legal. A
>>>>> lot of it is not. An "extension of the workplace?" What
>>>>> complete bullshit. They can say what they want, it doesn't
>>>>> make it legal and it's doesn't supersede your 1st amendment
>>>>> rights.
>>>>
>>>> The First Amendment constrains the government, not the
>>>> private sector, and it is *not* a violation of the employee's
>>>> First Amendment rights for a *private* employer to muzzle (or
>>>> attempt to) the employee's speech, whether in or out of the
>>>> workplace.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe you are mistaken. There are private companies in the
>>> Detroit who have been taken to court and order to provide
>>> breaks and rooms with eastward facing windows to allow their
>>> Muslim employees time and place to practice their first
>>> amendment rights.
>>
>> I hadn't heard about that (and I can't imagine that it would
>> hold up on appeal).
>>
>> Got a cite?
>>
>
> No I don't, it was an article a few years ago. There's all kinds
> of that stuff going on in Michigan. Huge Muslim population up
> there.
>
> In any case, do you think if a private employer told a Jewish
> man he couldn't wear a yamaka to work, they wouldn't get their
> butts sued?
*yarmulke
Yes, the employer would probably get sued. It's not clear who
would win the case.
[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:59:04 -0500, Casper <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>Guy working in a software company would go out to lunch and pick up a
>>DVD rental. Back at the office he would rip it to his work laptop,
>>which he took home every night to work on. When the company found out
>>he was immediately terminated and fortunate not to be prosecuted. He
>>didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Ergo, he wasn't thinking.
Durn right he wasn't thinking. Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted material is a
crime. Knucklehead committed a crime on company time, using company resources. They
were right to fire him.
>
> That's why I carry my own laptop (though I wouldn't rip DVDs, in any
> case).
When I was fresh out of college, about <mumble> years ago, the company I was working for
hired a guy who apparently had a gambling problem. From time to time, he would call a
bookie at lunchtime (from the company phone) and place a couple bets on horse races
(illegal at that time in that state). Being still wet behind the ears, I figured it wasn't really my
place to say anything about what someone senior to me was doing on his own time, but I
did think it was stupid to use the company phone, when there was a pay phone right across
the street. Then one day Knucklehead called the bookie in the middle of the afternoon. I
decided it was time to say something, but before I could move a muscle, my project leader
was already on her feet and heading to the boss's office. Next morning, around 8:45,
Knucklehead wasn't at work yet (not unusual), Boss walked in, said "I have an
announcement. As of last night, <name> is no longer with us. At my request." and walked
out. And that was that.
-MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> Not clear... because of our corrupted court system which has been taken
> over by activist judges, perhaps. The constitution and prevailing cases
> are pretty clear on the matter.
How clear it is depends on which specific First Amendment freedoms you're talking about. It
does not violate the *Constitution* if a private-sector employer fires an employee because of
his religion -- because the First Amendment restrains the government, not the private sector.
However, it does violate both state and Federal *employment law*.
In employment-at-will states, a company is perfectly free to fire an employee who expresses
opinions which the employer doesn't like -- and there is no violation of the First Amendment.
[email protected] (Larry W) wrote in news:kclm5l$t88$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:59:04 -0500, Casper <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Guy working in a software company would go out to lunch and pick up a
>>>>DVD rental. Back at the office he would rip it to his work laptop,
>>>>which he took home every night to work on. When the company found out
>>>>he was immediately terminated and fortunate not to be prosecuted. He
>>>>didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Ergo, he wasn't thinking.
>>
>>Durn right he wasn't thinking. Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted
>>material is a
>>crime. Knucklehead committed a crime on company time, using company
>>resources. They
>>were right to fire him.
>>>
>
> I don't disagree that the company was within its rights to fire the employee,
> but making a copy of copyrighted material for personal use is not
> necessarily illegal.
Not if you've already bought a copy, no. You're permitted to make a backup. Doesn't apply
in this case, though: he was copying *rented* DVDs, which is most definitely not legal.
On 1/9/2013 4:51 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Seems to be a growing trend. Schools too, are restricting what
> faculty can do and say on line. Seem as though Facebook is causing a
> lot of problems in society as more and more people do dumb things and
> reveal too much of their personal lives and thoughts.
Arguably doing the rest of us a big favor by providing the dickheads
with the means to shine the light of scrutiny on themselves ... you
can't fix stupid, and it is getting harder to hide.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:42:41 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 1/8/2013 6:56 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> On 1/8/2013 7:07 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> It's so funny to see employers try to word their bullshit with legalize
>>>> to try to make sound all official and legal. A lot of it is not. An
>>>> "extension of the workplace?" What complete bullshit. They can say what
>>>> they want, it doesn't make it legal and it's doesn't supersede your 1st
>>>> amendment rights.
>>>
>>> The First Amendment constrains the government, not the private sector,
>>> and it is *not* a
>>> violation of the employee's First Amendment rights for a *private*
>>> employer to muzzle (or
>>> attempt to) the employee's speech, whether in or out of the workplace.
>>>
>> I believe the employer has the Right to terminate an employee if the
>> employer believes that the employee has done something to harm the
>> company. I believe it would be up to the court to decide if the
>> specific action harmed the company.
>
>In a right to work state, "like Texas" the employer can fire you if you
>enter the building with your right foot entering before your left foot.
It's not a "right to work" issue, rather an "at will employment"
issue, though they tend to go together in enlightened states. "Right
to work" means that "closed" union shops aren't allowed; you aren't
required to join a union to work in a union shop. "At will
employment" means that the employer has the same rights as you do. You
can quit for any reason at all, or no reason. You can also be fired
for any reason at all (except the federally proscribed reasons) or no
reason at all.
>Having said that it is likely his unemployment taxes would go up as a
>result, if the terminated employee files for unemployment, however he
>can fire any one for any reason.
Or no reason.
woodchucker wrote:
> I am switching jobs my 2 hour commute each way sucked, and today a
> packet (email) came in with all these forms to sign both
> electronically and old style.
>
> Well this is the first time two things have been put like this.
> One is the I-9 requires me to get my two forms of ID notarized to send
> the form back to them. Normally I just fax my drivers license and SS
> card.
>
> The second is where it gets real interesting. I can not quote as I am
> too afraid that they will pick up on this. (not really but not taking
> any chances).
>
> First it says that cyberspace is now legally considered an extension
> of the workplace. as such, I am not allowed to post anything negative
> about anyone or anything at anytime whether work related or not. I am
> not allowed to post any negative comments period.
>
> I can fired for _ANY_ negative postings.
So what constitutes a negative posting? A bad tool review? A
dishonest tool review?
> So at first I thought this is far reaching and intrusive, but in
> thinking about it, if I identify myself, they think I can be traced
> back to their company and therefore anything I say can have an effect
> on them.
>
> So first F them, but secondly, it's why I won't post my full name. I
> think these companies are getting out of control.
>
> What happened to this country... (I don't need an answer I already know).
>
>
>
On 1/7/13 8:50 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> First it says that cyberspace is now legally considered an extension of
> the workplace. as such, I am not allowed to post anything negative about
> anyone or anything at anytime whether work related or not. I am not
> allowed to post any negative comments period.
>
> I can fired for _ANY_ negative postings. So at first I thought this is
> far reaching and intrusive, but in thinking about it, if I identify
> myself, they think I can be traced back to their company and therefore
> anything I say can have an effect on them.
>
It's so funny to see employers try to word their bullshit with legalize
to try to make sound all official and legal. A lot of it is not. An
"extension of the workplace?" What complete bullshit. They can say what
they want, it doesn't make it legal and it's doesn't supersede your 1st
amendment rights.
That being said, my state, TN, is a right-to-work and fire-at-will
state, meaning they have laws allowing employers to fire an employee
without cause, for any reason at all. Now, we all know there are federal
laws prohibiting employers from firing anyone based on race, gender,
religion, etc. So, even if an employer is firing someone because of a
reason prohibited by law, as long as they give some other reason, it is
legal.
They can say nothing, they can say, we just don't like him, they can
say, he smells funny. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 1/8/2013 7:07 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> It's so funny to see employers try to word their bullshit with legalize
>> to try to make sound all official and legal. A lot of it is not. An
>> "extension of the workplace?" What complete bullshit. They can say what
>> they want, it doesn't make it legal and it's doesn't supersede your 1st
>> amendment rights.
>
> The First Amendment constrains the government, not the private sector, and it is *not* a
> violation of the employee's First Amendment rights for a *private* employer to muzzle (or
> attempt to) the employee's speech, whether in or out of the workplace.
>
I believe the employer has the Right to terminate an employee if the
employer believes that the employee has done something to harm the
company. I believe it would be up to the court to decide if the
specific action harmed the company.
My guess is that if an employee was distributing anything, papers,
video, phone calls, or internet post that cast the company in a negative
image he should consider himself a candidate for termination.
UNLESS he can frame it to make it appear he is a whistle blower and
there are laws to protect him. Though you are back in court.
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> I believe the employer has the Right to terminate an employee if the
> employer believes that the employee has done something to harm the
> company. I believe it would be up to the court to decide if the
> specific action harmed the company.
>
Well - not so much. In states that are Work At Will states, the employer
can dismiss you for any reason they chose, as long as it is not one of the
forbiddend reasons (discrimination). As someone else said, they can dismiss
you because they don't like your smell.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 1/8/13 6:07 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> It's so funny to see employers try to word their bullshit with legalize
>> to try to make sound all official and legal. A lot of it is not. An
>> "extension of the workplace?" What complete bullshit. They can say what
>> they want, it doesn't make it legal and it's doesn't supersede your 1st
>> amendment rights.
>
> The First Amendment constrains the government, not the private sector, and it is *not* a
> violation of the employee's First Amendment rights for a *private* employer to muzzle (or
> attempt to) the employee's speech, whether in or out of the workplace.
>
I believe you are mistaken. There are private companies in the Detroit
who have been taken to court and order to provide breaks and rooms with
eastward facing windows to allow their Muslim employees time and place
to practice their first amendment rights.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 1/8/2013 10:58 AM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 1/7/2013 11:51 PM, Dave in Texas wrote:
>> "woodchucker" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> So first F them . . .
>>
>> You've already blown it!
>>
>> Dave in Texas
> Nope, I didn't identify myself, therefore they can't figure out who I am
> or who said it.
>
> If my name were attached, I would be identifying them in some indirect
> way. Now you can't say it came from so and so in company ABC.
>
If you post information on line, you may be unknown to the casual user,
but if someone is determined to know who you are they will learn who you
are.
Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
>I believe the employer has the Right to terminate an employee if the
>employer believes that the employee has done something to harm the
>company.
or if the employer does not believe that the employee has done
something to harm the company.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
On 1/8/2013 1:23 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 1/8/2013 12:10 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/8/2013 10:36 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> If you post information on line, you may be unknown to the casual user,
>>> but if someone is determined to know who you are they will learn who you
>>> are.
>>
>> Absolutely ... in the "Internet Age", once you hit the send button it
>> will be available to those with the resources in perpetuity, or as long
>> as that is.
>>
> Yes, but again, my name is not attached, therefore I can't bring harm to
> the company directly, or indirectly, as it was an anonymous post. Or
> almost. Any perceived breach is just that percieved and not real.
>
Several people have told you that your name does not have to be
attached. Have you ever looked at the expanded header of your email.
There is a wealth of information that one could use to track you to the
very computer you used to post the message.
This is the software you are using with your last post:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
On 1/8/13 3:41 PM, Han wrote:
> I don't understand that policy. It should be illegal. Because by
> extension, they could force you to vote for a particular political
> candidate. Or at least you would be prohibited from
> voicing any opinion in favor of a candidate who is opposed to anything
> the company likes, or from
> voicing any opinion against a candidate who is in favor of something the
> company likes.
> Has to be illegal.
>
Sound like a Union, Han. :-p
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 1/8/13 4:26 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 1/8/13 6:07 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:kcg3td$gmh$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> It's so funny to see employers try to word their bullshit with legalize
>>>> to try to make sound all official and legal. A lot of it is not. An
>>>> "extension of the workplace?" What complete bullshit. They can say what
>>>> they want, it doesn't make it legal and it's doesn't supersede your 1st
>>>> amendment rights.
>>>
>>> The First Amendment constrains the government, not the private sector, and it is *not* a
>>> violation of the employee's First Amendment rights for a *private* employer to muzzle (or
>>> attempt to) the employee's speech, whether in or out of the workplace.
>>>
>>
>> I believe you are mistaken. There are private companies in the Detroit
>> who have been taken to court and order to provide breaks and rooms with
>> eastward facing windows to allow their Muslim employees time and place
>> to practice their first amendment rights.
>
> I hadn't heard about that (and I can't imagine that it would hold up on appeal).
>
> Got a cite?
>
No I don't, it was an article a few years ago. There's all kinds of that
stuff going on in Michigan. Huge Muslim population up there.
In any case, do you think if a private employer told a Jewish man he
couldn't wear a yamaka to work, they wouldn't get their butts sued?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 1/8/13 7:08 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 1/8/13 4:26 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 1/8/13 6:07 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:kcg3td$gmh$1
>>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's so funny to see employers try to word their bullshit
>>>>>> with legalize to try to make sound all official and legal. A
>>>>>> lot of it is not. An "extension of the workplace?" What
>>>>>> complete bullshit. They can say what they want, it doesn't
>>>>>> make it legal and it's doesn't supersede your 1st amendment
>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> The First Amendment constrains the government, not the
>>>>> private sector, and it is *not* a violation of the employee's
>>>>> First Amendment rights for a *private* employer to muzzle (or
>>>>> attempt to) the employee's speech, whether in or out of the
>>>>> workplace.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe you are mistaken. There are private companies in the
>>>> Detroit who have been taken to court and order to provide
>>>> breaks and rooms with eastward facing windows to allow their
>>>> Muslim employees time and place to practice their first
>>>> amendment rights.
>>>
>>> I hadn't heard about that (and I can't imagine that it would
>>> hold up on appeal).
>>>
>>> Got a cite?
>>>
>>
>> No I don't, it was an article a few years ago. There's all kinds
>> of that stuff going on in Michigan. Huge Muslim population up
>> there.
>>
>> In any case, do you think if a private employer told a Jewish
>> man he couldn't wear a yamaka to work, they wouldn't get their
>> butts sued?
>
> *yarmulke
>
> Yes, the employer would probably get sued. It's not clear who
> would win the case.
>
Not clear... because of our corrupted court system which has been taken
over by activist judges, perhaps. The constitution and prevailing cases
are pretty clear on the matter.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:59:04 -0500, Casper <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>Guy working in a software company would go out to lunch and pick up a
>>>DVD rental. Back at the office he would rip it to his work laptop,
>>>which he took home every night to work on. When the company found out
>>>he was immediately terminated and fortunate not to be prosecuted. He
>>>didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Ergo, he wasn't thinking.
>
>Durn right he wasn't thinking. Making unauthorized copies of copyrighted
>material is a
>crime. Knucklehead committed a crime on company time, using company
>resources. They
>were right to fire him.
>>
I don't disagree that the company was within its rights to fire the employee,
but making a copy of copyrighted material for personal use is not
necessarily illegal.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
On 1/8/2013 5:02 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 1/8/2013 1:23 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2013 12:10 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2013 10:36 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>> If you post information on line, you may be unknown to the casual user,
>>>>> but if someone is determined to know who you are they will learn who you
>>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely ... in the "Internet Age", once you hit the send button it
>>>> will be available to those with the resources in perpetuity, or as long
>>>> as that is.
>>>>
>>> Yes, but again, my name is not attached, therefore I can't bring harm to
>>> the company directly, or indirectly, as it was an anonymous post. Or
>>> almost. Any perceived breach is just that percieved and not real.
>>>
>> Several people have told you that your name does not have to be
>> attached. Have you ever looked at the expanded header of your email.
>> There is a wealth of information that one could use to track you to the
>> very computer you used to post the message.
>>
>> This is the software you are using with your last post:
>>
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
>
> The NNTP-Posting-Host: header is much more interesting:
>
> $ host 76.6.47.27
> 27.47.6.76.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer nj-76-6-47-27.dhcp.embarqhsd.net.
>
> So Jeff appears to be posting from a CenturyLink address in New Jersey, USA.
>
> From the X-Trace header, the giganews poster ID can be derived (albeit not
> without help at giganews, unless they've used a trival obfuscation means)
>
> The IP address is sufficient (with ISP help) to determine the ICBM address
> at which the post originated.
>
Yep you are right, it would be, but again that would be extreme to get
to me. It is using my name that could, would get me in trouble with the
company, not a post that removes my name from the issue. But if I
mentioned the company in a negative comment I guarantee they would try
to find out who posted it.
Now if I use my name in any negative post, I am putting it right out
there.. Which I won't do. I'll chose to not fight that battle, because
even if I win, I lose.
--
Jeff
formerly tiredofspam..
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:53:08 -0500, woodchucker <nospam.nospam.com>
wrote:
>On 1/8/2013 1:59 PM, Casper wrote:
>>> First it says that cyberspace is now legally considered an extension of
>>> the workplace. as such, I am not allowed to post anything negative about
>>> anyone or anything at anytime whether work related or not. I am not
>>> allowed to post any negative comments period.
>>
>> If you are permitted access to the internet from work for personal
>> use, you are fortunate. Many companies do not allow access for
>> regardless of if it may help with work.
>>
>> Some comapnies setup guest internet connections but usually employees
>> are not allowed to access them as they could violate policy, leak
>> information, or inadvertantly allow outsiders access.
>>
>> Honestly, the worst thing you can do is access the internet, personal
>> email or other personal information from your work computer. Once you
>> do the company has access to that information and should any
>> authorities request it, they are legally bound to divulge it.
>>
>> You may not think much of that but as someone who has witnessed
>> employee firings and prosecution for doing just that, it's one thing I
>> will never do. Long gone are the .com days of happy work computing.
>>
>> Here is one example ...
>> Guy working in a software company would go out to lunch and pick up a
>> DVD rental. Back at the office he would rip it to his work laptop,
>> which he took home every night to work on. When the company found out
>> he was immediately terminated and fortunate not to be prosecuted. He
>> didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Ergo, he wasn't thinking.
>>
>>> What happened to this country... (I don't need an answer I already know).
>>> woodchucker
>
>This is not about work computing, this is about home computing. They
>believe that my time at home is an extension of their time.
>
>They believe any negativity is a poor reflection of them. So if I were
>to call you a name here on my time, my computer, my network, it would
>violate their policy, and could lead to my termination.
If they really think your time is theirs, to that degree, it's
certainly not a place I would work. Overtime is one thing (I agreed
to do the work). Owning my inventions/patents is OK (I just won't
bother on my own time). But owning my thoughts after I've left work, I
don't think so.
>As far as that guy using their equipment to rip DVDs he was an idiot.
>That violates other agreements big time.
>
>We are all going to be plain vanilla people going forward. No one will
>be any different than the next. All men will wear dresses and all woman
>the pants, since that is what society is expecting of us. Men are now
>encouraged to not exhibit any hostility... any hostility means we are
>abnormal.... funny, I thought that's what made us men....
Can't have *any* individuality. Vote Democratic. "You didn't make
that."
>What made this country great... having the balls to explore and go out
>in tough environments .. the meek followed. We are repeatedly being told
>that this is bad behavior not acceptable. Anger must be controlled. It
>would be F'd up if some idiot walked around punching people in the face,
>but controlling everything to the Nth degree is preventing everyone from
>being themselves, that's not acceptable. We need to explore and
>sometimes slap someone around verbally ... it's natural. For companies
>to say no you can't is the beginning of the end.
If you're a cow, you'll be cowed.
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:06:35 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 1/8/13 6:07 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> It's so funny to see employers try to word their bullshit with legalize
>>> to try to make sound all official and legal. A lot of it is not. An
>>> "extension of the workplace?" What complete bullshit. They can say what
>>> they want, it doesn't make it legal and it's doesn't supersede your 1st
>>> amendment rights.
>>
>> The First Amendment constrains the government, not the private sector, and it is *not* a
>> violation of the employee's First Amendment rights for a *private* employer to muzzle (or
>> attempt to) the employee's speech, whether in or out of the workplace.
>>
>
>I believe you are mistaken. There are private companies in the Detroit
>who have been taken to court and order to provide breaks and rooms with
>eastward facing windows to allow their Muslim employees time and place
>to practice their first amendment rights.
I'd like to see a citation for that.
>Well - not so much. In states that are Work At Will states, the employer
>can dismiss you for any reason they chose, as long as it is not one of the
>forbiddend reasons (discrimination). As someone else said, they can dismiss
>you because they don't like your smell.
That's certainly true for me. My employment is "at will". I can be
fired or I can quit "at will". No justification whatsoever required,
except as noted above (i.e. "protected status").
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:45:13 -0500, woodchucker <nospam.nospam.com>
wrote:
>>
>>> Now if I use my name in any negative post, I am putting it right out
>>> there.. Which I won't do. I'll chose to not fight that battle, because
>>> even if I win, I lose.
>>
>> Sounds like you've already lost, just by working for them.
>>
>Yep, you are right. But I need to pay the bills and I took this before
>knowing. But I have a feeling this won't be the only company like this.
Seems to be a growing trend. Schools too, are restricting what
faculty can do and say on line. Seem as though Facebook is causing a
lot of problems in society as more and more people do dumb things and
reveal too much of their personal lives and thoughts.
>First it says that cyberspace is now legally considered an extension of
>the workplace. as such, I am not allowed to post anything negative about
>anyone or anything at anytime whether work related or not. I am not
>allowed to post any negative comments period.
If you are permitted access to the internet from work for personal
use, you are fortunate. Many companies do not allow access for
regardless of if it may help with work.
Some comapnies setup guest internet connections but usually employees
are not allowed to access them as they could violate policy, leak
information, or inadvertantly allow outsiders access.
Honestly, the worst thing you can do is access the internet, personal
email or other personal information from your work computer. Once you
do the company has access to that information and should any
authorities request it, they are legally bound to divulge it.
You may not think much of that but as someone who has witnessed
employee firings and prosecution for doing just that, it's one thing I
will never do. Long gone are the .com days of happy work computing.
Here is one example ...
Guy working in a software company would go out to lunch and pick up a
DVD rental. Back at the office he would rip it to his work laptop,
which he took home every night to work on. When the company found out
he was immediately terminated and fortunate not to be prosecuted. He
didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Ergo, he wasn't thinking.
>What happened to this country... (I don't need an answer I already know).
>woodchucker
On 1/8/2013 6:56 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 1/8/2013 7:07 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
>> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> It's so funny to see employers try to word their bullshit with legalize
>>> to try to make sound all official and legal. A lot of it is not. An
>>> "extension of the workplace?" What complete bullshit. They can say what
>>> they want, it doesn't make it legal and it's doesn't supersede your 1st
>>> amendment rights.
>>
>> The First Amendment constrains the government, not the private sector,
>> and it is *not* a
>> violation of the employee's First Amendment rights for a *private*
>> employer to muzzle (or
>> attempt to) the employee's speech, whether in or out of the workplace.
>>
> I believe the employer has the Right to terminate an employee if the
> employer believes that the employee has done something to harm the
> company. I believe it would be up to the court to decide if the
> specific action harmed the company.
In a right to work state, "like Texas" the employer can fire you if you
enter the building with your right foot entering before your left foot.
Having said that it is likely his unemployment taxes would go up as a
result, if the terminated employee files for unemployment, however he
can fire any one for any reason.
On 1/8/2013 12:23 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 1/8/2013 12:10 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 1/8/2013 10:36 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> If you post information on line, you may be unknown to the casual user,
>>> but if someone is determined to know who you are they will learn who you
>>> are.
>>
>> Absolutely ... in the "Internet Age", once you hit the send button it
>> will be available to those with the resources in perpetuity, or as long
>> as that is.
>>
> Yes, but again, my name is not attached, therefore I can't bring harm to
> the company directly, or indirectly, as it was an anonymous post. Or
> almost. Any perceived breach is just that percieved and not real.
Let me rephrase that:
.... once you hit the send button _who you are_ will be available to
those with the resources in perpetuity, or as long as that is.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 18:23:18 -0500, woodchucker <nospam.nospam.com>
wrote:
>On 1/8/2013 5:02 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 1/8/2013 1:23 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2013 12:10 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/2013 10:36 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>> If you post information on line, you may be unknown to the casual user,
>>>>>> but if someone is determined to know who you are they will learn who you
>>>>>> are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely ... in the "Internet Age", once you hit the send button it
>>>>> will be available to those with the resources in perpetuity, or as long
>>>>> as that is.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, but again, my name is not attached, therefore I can't bring harm to
>>>> the company directly, or indirectly, as it was an anonymous post. Or
>>>> almost. Any perceived breach is just that percieved and not real.
>>>>
>>> Several people have told you that your name does not have to be
>>> attached. Have you ever looked at the expanded header of your email.
>>> There is a wealth of information that one could use to track you to the
>>> very computer you used to post the message.
>>>
>>> This is the software you are using with your last post:
>>>
>>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
>>
>> The NNTP-Posting-Host: header is much more interesting:
>>
>> $ host 76.6.47.27
>> 27.47.6.76.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer nj-76-6-47-27.dhcp.embarqhsd.net.
>>
>> So Jeff appears to be posting from a CenturyLink address in New Jersey, USA.
>>
>> From the X-Trace header, the giganews poster ID can be derived (albeit not
>> without help at giganews, unless they've used a trival obfuscation means)
>>
>> The IP address is sufficient (with ISP help) to determine the ICBM address
>> at which the post originated.
>>
>
>Yep you are right, it would be, but again that would be extreme to get
>to me. It is using my name that could, would get me in trouble with the
>company, not a post that removes my name from the issue. But if I
>mentioned the company in a negative comment I guarantee they would try
>to find out who posted it.
They'd have to get a court order (subpoena) to get the information.
>Now if I use my name in any negative post, I am putting it right out
>there.. Which I won't do. I'll chose to not fight that battle, because
>even if I win, I lose.
Sounds like you've already lost, just by working for them.