http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060424/D8H6CTO80.html

In short, a New York judge has ruled that a Department of Education employee could not be fired for using the Internet while at work. It could set precedent for further rulings and even save some jobs. A lot of people do waste their time browsing the web when they should be productive - there's no denying that. But some employees do use (not abuse) their Internet access wisely, and firing them would be unflinchingly autocratic.

Of course, this does not protect anyone from using the web for illegal purposes, but only goes as far as giving some thin layer of protection for use of the technology. Hopefully there will not be reflexive abuse of this and further rulings.

Have you or anyone else you know had their job threatened for passive use of the Internet while at work? The judge sounds sensible in his later words, citing how the Internet has become such a standard part of life, both at home and at work.

What do you think?

 

 

 

Reply

i think the judges decision is fair and long as it goes along with a companies policy. i feel if a company doesn't want any internet browsing, then employees will have to sign something stating they know it is ground in getting fired. but see if an employee can't be fired for browsing the internet, then the company might have some slacker they want a reason to fire that they can't use the internet unless it's found he was doing something illegal on it.

i'm for less laws myself and i don't like laws regulating my every day life and if i owned a business, i would want it run my way without the help of the law or what others may judge in ethics and morals and what is right or wrong. i'm smart enough to do that my own self and don't need judges or lawyers or the law dictating my life

so that's more strongly in what i think....

 

 

 

Reply

I always thought americans are a bit weird, and this is another reason to believe that. Internet is a great source of information and denying your employee's access to it seems a very bad idea...

Reply

i would like to know how old you are and if you have every run a business so i know what i'm dealing with here.

there are pros and cons to both sides but because you don't understand the other side, i will explain that employees and people like to take advantage of things and like to get away with doing something they aren't supposed to do. if internet access is readily available but there is a policy that you shouldn't browse the net, then what is to enforce the non browsing when it has NOTHING to do with their work.

this wasn't part of your question i know so i will continue to say that although you find it strange if people in the workplace can't browse the net, so are you saying that people who get paid to do a job who do nothing but browse the web all day while taking away the time needed to do their REAL job properly is ok?

now granted, this case was within the educational system. it was obviously an office job and not an outdoor or traveling job. but even what your saying....someone in construction should be able to take his laptop up there and pretend to be working while he's really browsing the net

i don't know what country your from but it doesn't matter. i don't lump everyone from one country together like you do, but YOUR opinion seems a bit weird to me bud, but it wouldn't surprise me if you haven't yet graduated from high school yet and know very little about the law or businesiness practices. and even if you have graduated, i will still bet you your under 21

Reply

I think the judges ruling is absolutly stupid. If I am paying someone to do a job for me, they have no dam business farting around on the web checking their email and reading the forums at trap17. That is not what I am paying them for. If they want to surf on their break or lunch time fine, but why should I pay them to screw around? I'd fire them too.

Reply

EXACLTY!!! i feel the same way unless the browsing was within the scope of the job duties. also, company policy, as long as it doesn't break any laws, should over rule any court precidence in any specific case. but then if the employer doesn't want emplyees surfing the net, the internet should not be available in the work place to begin with! so it's partially the employers responsibility as well

if internet access is available, could it not be assumed that the internet is within the job scope?

i am not too familiar with this case but i remember reading about it her first about a year ago or so. was always curious why the judge came to his decision. i agree with you. i as an employer am allowed to create my own laws in the workplace as long as it doesn't conflict with civil rights laws or the constitution including the amendments. i wouldn't be surprised if there was an appeal to this case.

anyone know????

i have to ammend this post. i know i posted earlier on this subject only because i hate american bashers. i tried to read the article after i posted but the link is no longer good but i have a theory here. could it be that because the internet is becoming more common place, it is considered to be like the telephone? i've never heard of someone getting fired for using the telephone as long as it wasn't obstructing their job duties. do you know it's illegal to deny a person emergency access to a telephone? internet is growing. it's common place. it's a communication link just like the telephone. the internet isn't just for the hackers anymore like it was 25 years ago. the computer is an intricate part of todays society now. without reading the article, this could have something to do with it.

technology is gonna kill society ain't it....it's comin'....

Reply

The link doesn't appear to be working mate...

Reply