| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 262.1 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Have you got two tens for a five? | Mon Jan 23 1995 08:55 | 26 |
|
.0:
>Digital policy says that it is not [private]. Is that right?
Yes. Digital pays for the resource, to support the business environment.
Personal use should be allowed, but kept to a minimum, and be completely
above board at all times. Management must reserve the right to audit the
use of their electronic resources, since they can ultimately be held
responsible for their use or misuse.
Of course, I don't generally tend to be `pro-management' with issues
like this, but I think it boils down to "Who owns the system?"
>And did McDonald's go too far?
>Did they have an obligation to keep the wrongdoing they discovered
>absolutely private?
Yes. That is, if (like Digital), e-mail and voice messages are considered
to be `For Internal Use Only', then it would be a violation of that policy
to have played the messages for the wife.
As for the firing...what exactly was he fired for? Was his job
performance substandard, was he fired for misusing company resources,
or did they simply not agree with his extra-marital activities?
|
| 262.2 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 23 1995 09:15 | 12 |
| Newspaper article just says he was fired after confronting his manager
when he learned that the messages had been played for his wife. No
further information. His partner was subsequently promoted to store
manager, so clearly McDonald's wasn't _too_ upset with the misuse of
voicemail or the illicit liaison.
Mebbe he called his boss a jerk.
The $1M suit is not for wrongful termination, but for violation of
privacy, damge to reputation, emotional distress, etc.
/john
|
| 262.3 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Have you got two tens for a five? | Mon Jan 23 1995 11:35 | 17 |
|
Note 262.2
>The $1M suit is not for wrongful termination, but for violation of
>privacy, damge to reputation, emotional distress, etc.
I'm going to sue MacDonald's for the emotional distress of constantly
being asked whether I "want fries with that?".
But the privacy thing boils down to MacD's written policy, *if* it
existed, and *if* they made any attempt to inform their employees of
the policy. I'm willing to bet that playing the tape to the wife was
a violation of their own policy.
Myself...I assume that my e-mail and voicemail are insecure, and act
accordingly.
|
| 262.4 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Belgian Burger Disseminator | Mon Jan 23 1995 12:25 | 7 |
| |Myself...I assume that my e-mail and voicemail are insecure, and act
|accordingly.
Do you find them asking you questions like "Is my nose too big?" and
stuff like that? I hate that.
Glenn
|
| 262.5 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Have you got two tens for a five? | Mon Jan 23 1995 13:24 | 5 |
|
No...but I constantly remind my e-mail and voicemail systems that there
are other, better messaging systems available, and that they can be easily
replaced. :^)
|
| 262.6 | morals clause? | SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MA | Blondes have more Brains! | Fri Jan 27 1995 11:59 | 9 |
| I would also think that wrongdoing of Mickey D's action in listening
to and playing the messages to the wronged wife would depend upon
whether or not the company has a non-fraternization policy, and a
morals clause. Many companies have both, even to this day. However,
if that is the case, then, clearly, both parties should have been
fired.
M.
|