Slashdot Mirror
Secretaries Sacked After Flamewar at Work
ross.w writes "Two legal secretaries in Sydney have been sacked after a flamewar over a ham sandwich got circulated throughout the cities financial district. The insults about figures, boyfriends and jobs flew thick and fast and ultimately resulted in the dismissal of both of them for mis-use of the email system."
Here is a link with pics. http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,2028 1,16525356-5001022,00.html
All bad really however you look at it. Link to email extract http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,2028 1,16522876-5001022,00.html
I agree, this is pretty stupid. The whole exchange of emails is here:
a _lawye.html
http://radar.smh.com.au/archives/2005/09/cutting_
It's hugely disappointing and unfunny. The sandwich looks pretty good though, better than the chicks (warning: catfight fantasy spoiler link.)
everything in moderation
"Guns aren't "banned" in Australia. They're merely not as easy to get as they are in some other countries"
Since you are from Oz I am probably not telling you anything you don't know already, but the truth is alot of firearms available in the US are "banned" over here. The gun in the GP post's quote, (from Fight Club IIRC), would be illegal and near impossible to obtain. Most people only have access to registered single shot rifles and "snap-load" shotguns, pistols must be kept in a secure armory at a registered gun club. Semi-auto rifles are a big no-no, getting caught with a machine-gun will give you your 15 minutes of fame in the media.
A few studies have been published showing the laws have made a slight improvement in the rate of shooting deaths but it's harder than you think to measure. Common-sense says a nut can no longer go hunting humans on a whim, the nuts now have to plan ahead, not to mention the extreme difficulty in finding the firearms and ammo on our island continent. Making it difficult for a nut to shoot multiple people in a short space of time is what the Port Aurthur laws were designed to accomplish and I think they have worked well.
"America is simply a violent culture. If they weren't shooting each other, they'd be stabbing and bludgeoning each other. The problem isn't mechanical, it's social"
I have to agree that gun control is largely a cultural thing, but not all of it. Mechanics can play a significant part in some common senarios. For example, statistically (in the US) shootings are roughly 5X more lethal than stabbings so more "heat of the moment" events (including suicide) end in death when there is a loaded gun in the top draw of the dresser. Those who survive a gun shot wound are 20X more likely to be permenantly disabled in some way compared to a stabbing victim. (Ref: old Scientific American magazine on my bookshelf).
I have lived in Oz for 40+ years and I think the Gun laws have kept pace with our culture over that time. I am usually the last to praise politicians but I think our Government has done a pretty good job at finding sensible bi-partisan compromises over the years. I can't walk into k-mart and buy ammo anymore but I can still go and shoot rabbits if I want to. I have nothing against responsible hunting and target sports, personally I just don't feel the young man's urge to blow furry things apart anymore, even if they are a tasty pest for the dog.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
They probably say that email is not to be used for non-work related purposes (Every place Ive worked at has had that one) but as a law firm, I'd imagine they'd need a strict policy about internal correspondance leaving the firms internal network.
Even such a clause can be hard to enforce legally if the defence can show that it is not enforced uniformly. That is the danger of broad contract clause. If the defence can show that EVERYBODY violates the contract, then the courts will question the wisdom of enforcing it in any particular case.
For example, if the windows EULA contained a restriction that said that if you mow your own lawn you agree to give Bill Gates the title to your home, that is technically an agreement to avoid a particular activity. If MS then slectively went after windows copyright violators using this clause it would be likely to be found unenforceable, since it is being used selectively.
The fact is that most companies do in fact tolerate personal use of email despite wording to the contrary in the AUP. If the defence can show that many others send personal emails, and that their managers are aware of this activity, then the court may be likely to question why they are being singled out. Otherwise a company who wants to get rid of all its over-40 employees could just do an audit and fire just these employees for sending personal emails.
Many companies as a result have AUPs that specifically allow personal use of email within certain bounds. A court is more likely to uphold such an AUP if the bounds sound reasonable and has in fact been violated (such as running a personal business on company time, or sending bulk mail or many large emails, or excessive use of company time). Additionally, if an employee is excessively using time at work for personal business it is likely that their performance will suffer and that is clearly cause for termination.
Only because the average user has been *trained* by bad messaging habits to read email that way.
Top-posting is fine (it annoys me, but its tolerable) if you are engaged in a single-threaded, IM-style conversation where you only have to answer one question at a time. When someone asks multiple, unrelated questions in a single email or touches on multiple topics that cannot all be dealt with in a single response, top-posting falls flat on its face.
The division on this issue seems to be squarely along business users and technical users. Most technical users have been trained in Usenet-style posting: trimmed messages, clear annotation, appropriate response. Business users have been trained by Microsoft - fire and forget.