Yea, there is a deeper meaning you are missing. You see, the majority of the population doesn't think as you do on at least a couple of things. In fact, in those things, it disturbs them to a point they want to say or do something about it. These shows give that avenue in which they either say or hear what they believe echoed and know they aren't alone.
It's sort of like the libertarians siding with republicans in most elections, they don't like the majority of what is done/put out/planned to be done, but it's the closest match for a couple important things to they want. People like Beck and Limbaugh are good at bringing all these ideas and forces together which is why their ratings are better then anything the left has put out. In all that stuff you think is crazy, most of it is a mirror of something most of the population is thinking at various times.
and those bizarre conspiracy theories aren't really that bizarre when you think about it. Take this Google situation, it's no secret that Google employees contributed quite a bit to obama's campaign. It's no secret that Eric Schmidt campaigned for Obama. And this isn't the first time someone has accused Google of politically biasing search results.
Now if someone is getting different results while using different search engines, I don't see how it's much different then people getting different results when getting their news from sources outside the US mass media markets. And pointing out the results being different isn't ad bizarre or crazy and you might think.
well, which is easier for you to accept as a reality, I have 1 dollar in my pocket or I have unlimited dollars in my pocket.
Yes, some people can believe you might have one dollar in your pocket. Even if there is nothing but rumor and hearsay suggesting it. Although they have a harder time believing I have unlimited dollars in my pocket under the same situation. One is crazy, the other, while maybe not well supported, isn't nearly as crazy.
Is anything 100% guaranteed? Are you suggesting that because AV doesn't catch 100% of software, then it is a laughable idea to consider installing it?
Actually, I believe that comment was more to the liking of just because an AV is installed, it doesn't mean you are completely safe. It's not that you wouldn't want to install one.
Microsoft attempted to make up for that by locking the browser completely down on the server. but then you had to unlock part of it to get windows updates, and that stopped working so you had to unlock more to figure out that Microsoft changed where windows updates pulled the updates from..
And that's not counting the other software relying on IE to run properly or update. In the end, it was typically much easier to simply unlock the web browser and not allow anyone to log in. But we know that never happens.
There is the argument about artificial fertilizers made from petroleum products, transportation of food stuffs and so on being used on a lot of the plant material that causes the an increase in global warming. But I have never seen anything that showed it to be a significant contribution in and of that alone.
All federal laws apply to all federal territories. If you would have said why do you think they ship people to Egypt or UAE to be tortured, I would see your point.
They set club gitmo up where it was because it's a naval base away from the fighting action (no elaborate escape attempts from outside forces), as well as away from the American homeland, it had a similar climate as far as the Geneva convention is concerned (they housed actual war prisoners there too) and it already had decent security in place because of the Cuban missile crisis.
Back in the 60's it wasn't illegal or unconstitutional to tap phone calls without a warrant. There was no law against it and various court cases in which defendants were trying to get evidence thrown out were all over the map on whether it was allowed or not. In 1968, there was a supreme court case which settled the idea that it's protected constitutionally for domestic to domestic law enforcement calls. However, that court specifically raised the concept that in matters of national security, their ruling might not apply and that their ruling shouldn't be construed as doing so. This promted the government to pass the title 3 provisions of the omnibus crime and safe streets act or something to that extent which provided the only rules or ways law enforcement could get wiretaps.
A couple of years later, another case found that law enforcement were going to the CIA and other departments dealing with national security and side stepping the entire warrant procedure and accountability stuff. the court ruled that evidence couldn't be used because it was obtained under the guise of national security when it was solely a law enforcement issue. Congress responded with FISA in the early 1970's. President Carter, through executive order, expanded the reach of FISA to other government employees and positions.
So no. In the 1960's. the US wouldn't have had to route anything off shore to tap it. they could have legally at the time just tapped it anywhere. And there is good arguments that the executive doesn't need to follow laws passed requiring judicial oversight for wiretaps concerning national security. One such argument stood well in a challenge where the Patriot act provisions relaxing the oversight were found to be constitutional. But the arguments themselves have never been challenged that I know of and brought to a final term or disposition.
Well, now.. aren't you a bit of a confused little troll.
Try reading what I posted again.. and this time, take it as consideration that it was a reply to a specific post that was directly above it.
Nothing that you posted is in conflict with anything I said. Nothing I said is in conflict with anything you posted. You seem to have discovered some canned response and now think you are brilliant posting it along with whatever insult your puny little mind can generate at the time. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what I said, or what I responded too. Further more, I cited specific people engaged in government as well and the very words of one of the biggest offenders of the general welfare clause in the bulk of my post pertaining to how the op got it wrong.
And this is all despite the fact that "To promote the general welfare" is in the preamble which is not in the least binding to anything in the constitution. The terms binding are "for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" which was describing the reasons the government could lay and collect taxes for. And there, the welfare is mentioned is as you stated which is not out of line with my post whatsoever at all and does severely limit the ops application of the clause.
Before you jump into something trolling and start declaring everyone else is wrong, idiots, or less intelligent, at least make sure you are fucking right first. Otherwise you look dumber then the dumbass that just schooled you. Perhaps you would be served well to pay attention to detail.
You know, it's strange that this entire "promote the general welfare" argument has any traction at all. I mean it's completely new to the stage. Founding fathers and statement alike throughout the years found nothing in the constitution that would allow the government to take from one person and give to another.
Even FDR publicly stated the government had no right to get involved in social welfare. I said
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere."
In a speech concerning the Volstead act some two years before his New deal program was ruled unconstitutional and then SCOTUS had to make up the expansion of the interstate commerce clause to stop a constitutional meltdown when FDR refused to halt the programs.. You can read it's entirety in New York Times, March 3, 1930 edition.
Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, all spoke out against attempts at welfare that doesn't even come close to what we see today. Grover Cleavland and Franklin Pierce are on record pretty strongly stating that there is no constitutional authority for giving the people things. Even Davey Crockett spoke out against it when congress tried to allocate money to the widow of a then recently passed veteran.
Historically, this general welfare claim simply doesn't hold any water. Having it do so now is like changing the constitution without going through the process and it very bad. If you can successfully reinterpret the constitution to suit you needs, then anyone can do it, including Bush when he allowed warrant-less wire taps and the suspension of habeas corpus. The document either means something and places limits on government or it does not and almost everything is free game for reinterpretation.
If they are skirting through loopholes in the actual laws, then it's completely fine. If they are skirting because of some reliance on the commerce clause, they will lose if it ever goes to court.
And I believe in most states, UPS and other delivery agents would be in the same boat regardless of what the wineries do. In most states, even if you buy the alcohol, it's illegal to give it to someone under the legal age that isn't your own offspring. Even if you are giving it to them to give to their parents. well, there are a few exceptions like serving unopened containers to "of age" people where a clerk or waitress is under age but the final recipient is going to off age. but those are limited in context. Generally, if you give someone alcohol under the legal age, you are probably violating some state law in most situations.
So they would likely be carding these people anyways.
Please read the 21st amendment again. If your state were to outlaw the possession and consumption of alcohol, that mail order would be bared from shipping anything into the state at all or subject to that state's laws. This is completely because of the 21st amendment.
So if your state says the wine or whatever must be taxed before being sold or imported into the state, them it doesn't allow out of state companies to skirt that by the interstate commerce clause.
The 21st amendment deals specifically with the destination. It is constitutionally prohibited to import alcohol (spirits) into a state without obeying that destination state's laws in the process.
Now, it may be that your state's excise tax laws pertaining to alcohol are written to which there is an actual loophole regarding mail order. It may be that the mail order company simply doesn't follow the law too. But the substantial nexus is only applicable to interstate commerce issues that aren't negated by an amended constitution.
And that is a real stifling point for the commerce clause. The constitution was amended after the commerce clause was put in, so it can only be interpreted within the scope of the amendment. So the amendment takes power over the commerce clause where applicable.
there wouldn't be an issues with alcohol sales like this.
When Alcohol was prohibited, then the prohibition was removed, the amendment to the constitution that removed the prohibition specifically gives the states the rights to regulate it within their boundary.
the 21st amendment didn't really legalize alcohol again or repeal every aspect of the prohibition (although it specifically states it repealed the 18th amendment), it limited the prohibition to the laws in the jurisdiction the alcohol is in at the time with respect to the commerce clause.
"The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."
In essence, the federal government retained the right to regulate alcohol passing through a state to end up in another state, but reserved all rights to the destination state and of course the originating state had the same rights before it was exported.
A lot of areas do not pre-process the garbage before disposing of it. Some do.. Most commonly, where they ship their garbage to another location, likely out of state.
Or unless it goes to an incinerator.. Then it's preprocessed too.
Around my parts, garbage goes from curb to truck, to a transfer station where it gets compacted and loaded into a bigger truck, then straight to the landfill.
And can you imagine my surprise when I found out a CPAP machine had nothing to do with that?
Picture this, I was at a friends house. He his mother (all 80 year old of her) came over and started talking about a CPAP table she needed moved. I was curious to why they had a one (a Pap-smear table) at their house. She said it was little machine and offered to show me how it worked. They talked like it was nothing and I started getting weird'd out. In fact, I was downright disturbed until they told me it was for sleep apnea and asked me what I thought it was. In case you haven't figured it out, I thought it was a gynecologist table for giving pap smears.
Waiting until someone does something you don't like, then applying the written policies inconsistently in order to single them out for termination is borderline illegal.
I agree.. I would take it further and say it's also immoral. But it happens.
If it's a policy, you have to enforce it consistently or risk losing a lawsuit when you do use it to lie about the reason you are terminating someone (and yes it is lying because if you claim the policy is the reason, but you don't fire others for the same thing, you've lied for the reason for firing someone).
It's a he said she said situation. If the fired employee complains that it's never enforced, you simply claim you never caught anyone before. If they say So and So is doing it, you call them into the office and ask them. They will likely deny it seeing how someone just got fired for doing it. You reiterate the policy making sure people know who caused the clampdown, defend yourself in court, and once things blow by, ignore it again.
It's all about perception. It's hard to change that perception when you signed a computer use document stating no personal or work only web usage or sign that you received an employee handbook with the rule written in it. In other words, if any of that is true, then you getting busted and terminated because everyone else does it has about as much chance as getting out of a speeding ticket by saying other cars were going faster then you.
I don't have an issue with a place that has an upfront policy of "if you use the internet for personal reasons, you will be fired." I hope a place that states "you can't use the internet for personal use" then lets everyone use it as a matter of course, then picks one and only one employee they don't like and fire them for breaking that rule when they know quite well that everyone breaks that rule.
I agree, but the reality is that it happens, and it will continue to happen. Most of us are completely helpless when it does happen unless we can provoke the management into making a statement of some sort in front of others to validate the claim. But with management firing and HR doing the dirty work, that opportunity isn't there for the most part.
Not too many people will have a conscious when their job and future advancement is on the line. You would literally need people to state on record that they do the same things you got fired for doing and no one punished them. That's a tuff sell unless someone else is disgruntled.. And even then, being disgruntled works against you.
What would you do if you worked somewhere where there was no internet at all? I mean seriously, you act as if that's not even possible.
How about if you got a promotion and you never touched a computer at your job again, would you quit or declare the company was doomed to die a painful death?
There are a lot of companies to which the extent of the internet is little more then routing to a remote server somewhere for information or perhaps off site backups and that's pretty much all you can reach. These companies, or more likely departments within some companies have been around longer then you have too.
Giving employees internet access and free surfing on paid time is not in the slightest a requirement to keep employees happy. Else wise you would see ports to plug in your laptop on the burger line at McDonald's. and with most smart phones now, it's completely irrelevant as you can check you email through them and even surf the web through them if you absolutely need to get your web fix. It's not a sinking ship, it's not all hands lost. In fact, if anything is lost, it's the immature idiots that the company would likely benefit from not having on the payroll in the first place.
It's all about perception. They can claim they didn't know others were doing it then drop the hammer on them too. Except them knowing that you can get fired, they just stop doing it.
After a while, things get relaxed again until they need to dick someone over.
And yes, I agree with you in principle. I just know there are limitations in practice. A friend of mine was denied unemployment compensation after being fired for excessive days missed. Of course the days missed were covered under the Family medical leave act, so they gave him his job back for 1 week then shit canned him without reason. When he tried to apply for unemployment compensation, the workplace cited that he quit and wasn't fired because he gave a 2 weeks notice some 9 months before but they talked him out of leaving at that time. OF course they didn't say anything about talking him out of quitting by giving him a hefty raise to stay.. they made it appear that he was quitting, got ill and they replaced him so he left. He couldn't do much of anything but fight it but it wasn't a good paying job anyways.
It's not about what is right or wrong.. It's about how they can make it appear to whoever is concerned. And if they are dishonest in doing that, it's a matter of the disgruntled ex employee's word against theirs.
If the checking of that email causes a virus infection because her webmail account bypasses our filtering software, Yes.
The problem with employees is that they aren't always smart when it comes to computers. Worse yet, they are completely dangerous when they think they are and ignore basic rules in the workplace. Take the idiots in the government who fell to some attack over the Christmas holidays hoping they got an email from the president.
If it's in the rule book or a known policy, just because it isn't enforced doesn't necessarily mean they give up the ability to enforce it.
All they need to do is claim they didn't catch everyone else and wasn't going to launch a witch hunt because of a disgruntled employee on his way out.
Of course, that would be looking through the colored lenses of glasses and not exactly true. The problem is where it can or can't be proven and by who.
I think the other reply said it best. It really is just a method of selective punishment and covering your own ass.. It's way of saying "this employee broke the rules which is why your personal information was leaked, it wasn't because we didn't take steps to protect it".
However, how does it feel, I don't personally care about it one way or another. The more personal use they do, the more work I get. If it starts making me look as if I'm not doing the job well, I start pointing out where the problems are coming from. And yes, access to and from the network is logged according to workstation so I do have not only a log of what IP's access what system on the internet, I also have a log of what websites they accessed which can easily be determined if it's a source of the problem or not.
I do a lot of work with companies who are borderline if not HIPPA cases. They touch aspects of insurance, payments, and so on but don't get into the actual medical records except for a small few people at the company. I deal with some companies who do taxes and financial planing and could have enough private information not only to compromise someone's identity, but to pretty much guarantee it's likely going to happen if those records get loose.
There are a lot of viruses and other things that pass through social networks or non-worked related websites that could open these people up to legal ramifications from exposure of client information. I imagine, although I don't pretend to know for sure, that even the employees who caused an infection would have a case against the company if their personal information was lost due to misuse of the internet.
Outside the risk of physical harm, I can see little difference between showing up to work drunk and getting fired and abusing the computer access policy in place with the same result. It's still a blatant violation of the rules that everyone is aware of and expected to follow. I would have a lot more empathy if we were talking about kids who forget the rules faster then they learn them. But in the real world, with real adults, too much trust is put on people and following rules to respect customer's and fellow worker's information to have that trust violated. I can see where a few special people in special cases might not be fired, but there is no reason to expect that as the norm.
Of course not.. You simply find a way to discharge that person without citing those accusations and rumors as being the reason. You can also give them crap job duties, impossible hours, and so on to make them want to quit. Be careful there though, there is a thing called constructive discharge in which someone quitting is turned it around as if you fired them because you made the workplace unbearable or something to that effect.
Bottom line, no, you do not have to continue to pay them. Just find any other reason to get rid of them. If they are protected by a union, promote them to a non-union position, tell them some company secret that you know they will blab (like you are going to lay off half the employees Christmas day) then fire them for fraternization with employees and insubordination.
Oh, and do not tell anyone your master plan as they might not like you either and blab about it on their facebook page.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, there is a deeper meaning you are missing. You see, the majority of the population doesn't think as you do on at least a couple of things. In fact, in those things, it disturbs them to a point they want to say or do something about it. These shows give that avenue in which they either say or hear what they believe echoed and know they aren't alone.
It's sort of like the libertarians siding with republicans in most elections, they don't like the majority of what is done/put out/planned to be done, but it's the closest match for a couple important things to they want. People like Beck and Limbaugh are good at bringing all these ideas and forces together which is why their ratings are better then anything the left has put out. In all that stuff you think is crazy, most of it is a mirror of something most of the population is thinking at various times.
and those bizarre conspiracy theories aren't really that bizarre when you think about it. Take this Google situation, it's no secret that Google employees contributed quite a bit to obama's campaign. It's no secret that Eric Schmidt campaigned for Obama. And this isn't the first time someone has accused Google of politically biasing search results.
Now if someone is getting different results while using different search engines, I don't see how it's much different then people getting different results when getting their news from sources outside the US mass media markets. And pointing out the results being different isn't ad bizarre or crazy and you might think.
well, which is easier for you to accept as a reality, I have 1 dollar in my pocket or I have unlimited dollars in my pocket.
Yes, some people can believe you might have one dollar in your pocket. Even if there is nothing but rumor and hearsay suggesting it. Although they have a harder time believing I have unlimited dollars in my pocket under the same situation. One is crazy, the other, while maybe not well supported, isn't nearly as crazy.
Actually, I believe that comment was more to the liking of just because an AV is installed, it doesn't mean you are completely safe. It's not that you wouldn't want to install one.
Microsoft attempted to make up for that by locking the browser completely down on the server. but then you had to unlock part of it to get windows updates, and that stopped working so you had to unlock more to figure out that Microsoft changed where windows updates pulled the updates from..
And that's not counting the other software relying on IE to run properly or update. In the end, it was typically much easier to simply unlock the web browser and not allow anyone to log in. But we know that never happens.
Well, mostly..
There is the argument about artificial fertilizers made from petroleum products, transportation of food stuffs and so on being used on a lot of the plant material that causes the an increase in global warming. But I have never seen anything that showed it to be a significant contribution in and of that alone.
All federal laws apply to all federal territories. If you would have said why do you think they ship people to Egypt or UAE to be tortured, I would see your point.
They set club gitmo up where it was because it's a naval base away from the fighting action (no elaborate escape attempts from outside forces), as well as away from the American homeland, it had a similar climate as far as the Geneva convention is concerned (they housed actual war prisoners there too) and it already had decent security in place because of the Cuban missile crisis.
Back in the 60's it wasn't illegal or unconstitutional to tap phone calls without a warrant. There was no law against it and various court cases in which defendants were trying to get evidence thrown out were all over the map on whether it was allowed or not. In 1968, there was a supreme court case which settled the idea that it's protected constitutionally for domestic to domestic law enforcement calls. However, that court specifically raised the concept that in matters of national security, their ruling might not apply and that their ruling shouldn't be construed as doing so. This promted the government to pass the title 3 provisions of the omnibus crime and safe streets act or something to that extent which provided the only rules or ways law enforcement could get wiretaps.
A couple of years later, another case found that law enforcement were going to the CIA and other departments dealing with national security and side stepping the entire warrant procedure and accountability stuff. the court ruled that evidence couldn't be used because it was obtained under the guise of national security when it was solely a law enforcement issue. Congress responded with FISA in the early 1970's. President Carter, through executive order, expanded the reach of FISA to other government employees and positions.
So no. In the 1960's. the US wouldn't have had to route anything off shore to tap it. they could have legally at the time just tapped it anywhere. And there is good arguments that the executive doesn't need to follow laws passed requiring judicial oversight for wiretaps concerning national security. One such argument stood well in a challenge where the Patriot act provisions relaxing the oversight were found to be constitutional. But the arguments themselves have never been challenged that I know of and brought to a final term or disposition.
Well, now.. aren't you a bit of a confused little troll.
Try reading what I posted again.. and this time, take it as consideration that it was a reply to a specific post that was directly above it.
Nothing that you posted is in conflict with anything I said. Nothing I said is in conflict with anything you posted. You seem to have discovered some canned response and now think you are brilliant posting it along with whatever insult your puny little mind can generate at the time. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what I said, or what I responded too. Further more, I cited specific people engaged in government as well and the very words of one of the biggest offenders of the general welfare clause in the bulk of my post pertaining to how the op got it wrong.
And this is all despite the fact that "To promote the general welfare" is in the preamble which is not in the least binding to anything in the constitution. The terms binding are "for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" which was describing the reasons the government could lay and collect taxes for. And there, the welfare is mentioned is as you stated which is not out of line with my post whatsoever at all and does severely limit the ops application of the clause.
Before you jump into something trolling and start declaring everyone else is wrong, idiots, or less intelligent, at least make sure you are fucking right first. Otherwise you look dumber then the dumbass that just schooled you. Perhaps you would be served well to pay attention to detail.
You know, it's strange that this entire "promote the general welfare" argument has any traction at all. I mean it's completely new to the stage. Founding fathers and statement alike throughout the years found nothing in the constitution that would allow the government to take from one person and give to another.
Even FDR publicly stated the government had no right to get involved in social welfare. I said
In a speech concerning the Volstead act some two years before his New deal program was ruled unconstitutional and then SCOTUS had to make up the expansion of the interstate commerce clause to stop a constitutional meltdown when FDR refused to halt the programs.. You can read it's entirety in New York Times, March 3, 1930 edition.
Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, all spoke out against attempts at welfare that doesn't even come close to what we see today. Grover Cleavland and Franklin Pierce are on record pretty strongly stating that there is no constitutional authority for giving the people things. Even Davey Crockett spoke out against it when congress tried to allocate money to the widow of a then recently passed veteran.
Historically, this general welfare claim simply doesn't hold any water. Having it do so now is like changing the constitution without going through the process and it very bad. If you can successfully reinterpret the constitution to suit you needs, then anyone can do it, including Bush when he allowed warrant-less wire taps and the suspension of habeas corpus. The document either means something and places limits on government or it does not and almost everything is free game for reinterpretation.
If they are skirting through loopholes in the actual laws, then it's completely fine. If they are skirting because of some reliance on the commerce clause, they will lose if it ever goes to court.
And I believe in most states, UPS and other delivery agents would be in the same boat regardless of what the wineries do. In most states, even if you buy the alcohol, it's illegal to give it to someone under the legal age that isn't your own offspring. Even if you are giving it to them to give to their parents. well, there are a few exceptions like serving unopened containers to "of age" people where a clerk or waitress is under age but the final recipient is going to off age. but those are limited in context. Generally, if you give someone alcohol under the legal age, you are probably violating some state law in most situations.
So they would likely be carding these people anyways.
Please read the 21st amendment again. If your state were to outlaw the possession and consumption of alcohol, that mail order would be bared from shipping anything into the state at all or subject to that state's laws. This is completely because of the 21st amendment.
So if your state says the wine or whatever must be taxed before being sold or imported into the state, them it doesn't allow out of state companies to skirt that by the interstate commerce clause.
The 21st amendment deals specifically with the destination. It is constitutionally prohibited to import alcohol (spirits) into a state without obeying that destination state's laws in the process.
Now, it may be that your state's excise tax laws pertaining to alcohol are written to which there is an actual loophole regarding mail order. It may be that the mail order company simply doesn't follow the law too. But the substantial nexus is only applicable to interstate commerce issues that aren't negated by an amended constitution.
And that is a real stifling point for the commerce clause. The constitution was amended after the commerce clause was put in, so it can only be interpreted within the scope of the amendment. So the amendment takes power over the commerce clause where applicable.
Finally.. some common sense.
there wouldn't be an issues with alcohol sales like this.
When Alcohol was prohibited, then the prohibition was removed, the amendment to the constitution that removed the prohibition specifically gives the states the rights to regulate it within their boundary.
the 21st amendment didn't really legalize alcohol again or repeal every aspect of the prohibition (although it specifically states it repealed the 18th amendment), it limited the prohibition to the laws in the jurisdiction the alcohol is in at the time with respect to the commerce clause.
In essence, the federal government retained the right to regulate alcohol passing through a state to end up in another state, but reserved all rights to the destination state and of course the originating state had the same rights before it was exported.
A lot of areas do not pre-process the garbage before disposing of it. Some do.. Most commonly, where they ship their garbage to another location, likely out of state.
Or unless it goes to an incinerator.. Then it's preprocessed too.
Around my parts, garbage goes from curb to truck, to a transfer station where it gets compacted and loaded into a bigger truck, then straight to the landfill.
And can you imagine my surprise when I found out a CPAP machine had nothing to do with that?
Picture this, I was at a friends house. He his mother (all 80 year old of her) came over and started talking about a CPAP table she needed moved. I was curious to why they had a one (a Pap-smear table) at their house. She said it was little machine and offered to show me how it worked. They talked like it was nothing and I started getting weird'd out. In fact, I was downright disturbed until they told me it was for sleep apnea and asked me what I thought it was. In case you haven't figured it out, I thought it was a gynecologist table for giving pap smears.
Talk about awkward.
I agree.. I would take it further and say it's also immoral. But it happens.
It's a he said she said situation. If the fired employee complains that it's never enforced, you simply claim you never caught anyone before. If they say So and So is doing it, you call them into the office and ask them. They will likely deny it seeing how someone just got fired for doing it. You reiterate the policy making sure people know who caused the clampdown, defend yourself in court, and once things blow by, ignore it again.
It's all about perception. It's hard to change that perception when you signed a computer use document stating no personal or work only web usage or sign that you received an employee handbook with the rule written in it. In other words, if any of that is true, then you getting busted and terminated because everyone else does it has about as much chance as getting out of a speeding ticket by saying other cars were going faster then you.
I agree, but the reality is that it happens, and it will continue to happen. Most of us are completely helpless when it does happen unless we can provoke the management into making a statement of some sort in front of others to validate the claim. But with management firing and HR doing the dirty work, that opportunity isn't there for the most part.
Not too many people will have a conscious when their job and future advancement is on the line. You would literally need people to state on record that they do the same things you got fired for doing and no one punished them. That's a tuff sell unless someone else is disgruntled.. And even then, being disgruntled works against you.
What would you do if you worked somewhere where there was no internet at all? I mean seriously, you act as if that's not even possible.
How about if you got a promotion and you never touched a computer at your job again, would you quit or declare the company was doomed to die a painful death?
There are a lot of companies to which the extent of the internet is little more then routing to a remote server somewhere for information or perhaps off site backups and that's pretty much all you can reach. These companies, or more likely departments within some companies have been around longer then you have too.
Giving employees internet access and free surfing on paid time is not in the slightest a requirement to keep employees happy. Else wise you would see ports to plug in your laptop on the burger line at McDonald's. and with most smart phones now, it's completely irrelevant as you can check you email through them and even surf the web through them if you absolutely need to get your web fix. It's not a sinking ship, it's not all hands lost. In fact, if anything is lost, it's the immature idiots that the company would likely benefit from not having on the payroll in the first place.
Oh noess.. the phone was upside down.. Now the government thinks I ran over old people.
Think about that.. seriously.
Please explain exactly how that was..
I'll give you a hint, the country's growth in the 50's and 60's had to do with a lot more then an interstate freeway system.
It's all about perception. They can claim they didn't know others were doing it then drop the hammer on them too. Except them knowing that you can get fired, they just stop doing it.
After a while, things get relaxed again until they need to dick someone over.
And yes, I agree with you in principle. I just know there are limitations in practice. A friend of mine was denied unemployment compensation after being fired for excessive days missed. Of course the days missed were covered under the Family medical leave act, so they gave him his job back for 1 week then shit canned him without reason. When he tried to apply for unemployment compensation, the workplace cited that he quit and wasn't fired because he gave a 2 weeks notice some 9 months before but they talked him out of leaving at that time. OF course they didn't say anything about talking him out of quitting by giving him a hefty raise to stay.. they made it appear that he was quitting, got ill and they replaced him so he left. He couldn't do much of anything but fight it but it wasn't a good paying job anyways.
It's not about what is right or wrong.. It's about how they can make it appear to whoever is concerned. And if they are dishonest in doing that, it's a matter of the disgruntled ex employee's word against theirs.
If the checking of that email causes a virus infection because her webmail account bypasses our filtering software, Yes.
The problem with employees is that they aren't always smart when it comes to computers. Worse yet, they are completely dangerous when they think they are and ignore basic rules in the workplace. Take the idiots in the government who fell to some attack over the Christmas holidays hoping they got an email from the president.
If it's in the rule book or a known policy, just because it isn't enforced doesn't necessarily mean they give up the ability to enforce it.
All they need to do is claim they didn't catch everyone else and wasn't going to launch a witch hunt because of a disgruntled employee on his way out.
Of course, that would be looking through the colored lenses of glasses and not exactly true. The problem is where it can or can't be proven and by who.
I think the other reply said it best. It really is just a method of selective punishment and covering your own ass.. It's way of saying "this employee broke the rules which is why your personal information was leaked, it wasn't because we didn't take steps to protect it".
However, how does it feel, I don't personally care about it one way or another. The more personal use they do, the more work I get. If it starts making me look as if I'm not doing the job well, I start pointing out where the problems are coming from. And yes, access to and from the network is logged according to workstation so I do have not only a log of what IP's access what system on the internet, I also have a log of what websites they accessed which can easily be determined if it's a source of the problem or not.
I do a lot of work with companies who are borderline if not HIPPA cases. They touch aspects of insurance, payments, and so on but don't get into the actual medical records except for a small few people at the company. I deal with some companies who do taxes and financial planing and could have enough private information not only to compromise someone's identity, but to pretty much guarantee it's likely going to happen if those records get loose.
There are a lot of viruses and other things that pass through social networks or non-worked related websites that could open these people up to legal ramifications from exposure of client information. I imagine, although I don't pretend to know for sure, that even the employees who caused an infection would have a case against the company if their personal information was lost due to misuse of the internet.
Outside the risk of physical harm, I can see little difference between showing up to work drunk and getting fired and abusing the computer access policy in place with the same result. It's still a blatant violation of the rules that everyone is aware of and expected to follow. I would have a lot more empathy if we were talking about kids who forget the rules faster then they learn them. But in the real world, with real adults, too much trust is put on people and following rules to respect customer's and fellow worker's information to have that trust violated. I can see where a few special people in special cases might not be fired, but there is no reason to expect that as the norm.
Of course not.. You simply find a way to discharge that person without citing those accusations and rumors as being the reason. You can also give them crap job duties, impossible hours, and so on to make them want to quit. Be careful there though, there is a thing called constructive discharge in which someone quitting is turned it around as if you fired them because you made the workplace unbearable or something to that effect.
Bottom line, no, you do not have to continue to pay them. Just find any other reason to get rid of them. If they are protected by a union, promote them to a non-union position, tell them some company secret that you know they will blab (like you are going to lay off half the employees Christmas day) then fire them for fraternization with employees and insubordination.
Oh, and do not tell anyone your master plan as they might not like you either and blab about it on their facebook page.