On a Contract and having issues, need input.

.
Why do you care if this employee is not working as s/he should? What concern is it of yours?

You are a contractor. If I were you, I would [u]stay completely out of employer-employee issues[/u]. Why are you injecting yourself into [I]THEIR[/I] business like that?

Yeah. Go over the boss' head. That is [I]REALLY[/I] going to help you win hearts and minds.

Not that it's the case here but I once opened a satellite office with a guy who, as I later found out, suffered from narcolepsy.

So while I was working out deals and calling clients, I would hear BING,BING,BING,BING BING behind me as he doexd of with his hand on the mouse. A quick nudge and he'd come to, be fine and then withing 20 minitues, BING,BING,BING,BING BING again.

It was actually quite funny, hell I was making money hand over fist anyway, but due to other 'political' issues with the company we were working for, we ended up closing the office. Goo dthing though, if you walked out our back door, it was 7 counted steps until we were in the back door of our favorite watering hole. Liquid lunches anyone? Talk about a daily 3 hour piss up, we rarely went back to the office after lunch and ended up schmoozing our clients at the pub instead. Oh well, most are still clients of mine anyway, no great loss. But a funny issue with a friend who I found out has a medical isue that just caused him to sleep as soon as it was quiet for 30 second (really, 30 seconds and it was lights out for him, poor guy!).

Sorry about the tiggy wiggy thing, its been a looooooong day, tomorrow's even longer! groan!

The company that contracted you. You should never record or do any thing that records, use a keyboard logger or any thing like that. It would look bad on your record and resume.
Because you could be looked at like a stalker, a person who targets others or a person who targets others to get ahead.
You need to let the company that contracts you that you seem to be doing all the work. Document your work and how much you have done to get the job done. And ask your employer to to ask the same thing from the other guy.
It all comes down to what you have done and what he has done.

'Cos you are about to get [b]FLAMED[/b] big time.

Your apology doesn't wash, sure, you noticed the location mistake, but you didn't apologise for your personal attack, that compounds your problem.

However, it may be the case, that your posts are so [i]over the top[/i] that nobody will feel bothered to [b]slap[/b] you.

I certainly don't feel like it (waste of my time), but some may not feel so shy.

Good luck, mate, make sure your insurance premiums are up to date.

EDIT: I am selling ringside seats around the arena, popcorn and soda available (beer if I am bribed)

I will leave the flame for Oz, as he is a big boy and can handle this well enough on his own.

a few points on the post though.

First of all, Oz didn't say the First Amendment had ANYTHING to do with privacy. Re-read what he said and you will see he was clearly refering to the ignorant people that post that they have "Freedom of Speech", so they should be free to say what they want, when they want, where they want. These people are a source of shame to other Americans to have such ignorance displayed on a global scale.

If you go back to the original idea of the discussion, you have NO EXPECTATION of privacy in the work place, and EVEN LESS if you work for the Government (schools are under government).

Everything he said is dead on, and no amount of attacks based on sterio-typing will change that. Getting personal at that level, at least make it funny so people will think your making a joke, instead of posting like you did, showing that you were the joke instead.

Boy are you mature or what.

As for as your assertations, surely you can regonize the difference between a search by law enforcement and the rights of an employer to monitor the workplace.

Even your own site shows that under the right circumstances employers are able to legally install video surveillance. Much hinges on whether or not the presence of such equipment is made known.

Your wonderful site of policy requirements is from Corrections Canada. The people who run the jails. Perhaps you'd like to read up on the differnce between a policy and a law.

As for your Library of Parliament site (wonderful place to visit if you are ever in Ottawa) it is from a committee report on Police Powers and Drug Related Offences. How is that pertinent to the rights of an employer to have cameras in the workplace?

If you want to be taken at all seriously, stop the stupid ad hominems, and don't use sites out of context. Someone like me might actually read them.

James

Of absolute ignorance in your post.

To come onto an international board and be that offensive tells me that you spend the greater part of your online time in places like MySpace. Kindly take your flames there.

My guess? I doubt that Oz will even bother to reply. I am certain that he has a better use of his time. But I like Oz and have a more difficult time tolerating an unjustified attack on him.

You, sir, are an ass. Thank you so very much for making that so glaringly apparent.

Down under? What, under as in Canada or England?

I am actually have studied a LOT of corporate law, I have two corporate attorneys in the family, my brother's firm is the counsel for some of North Americas's largest corporations. I work in the music and enterainment industry IN AMERICA and have spent more than enough time in US courtrooms to se ehow your three ring circus operates.

If you actualy have the idea that your employer does not have a right to monitor use of the equipment they own and pay you to operate on their time, you are sadly mistaken. I have worked with the CRTC and FCC with regards to business telecom, email and chat privacy, I have sat in on countless cases of privacy invasion, wrongful dismissal due to abuse or misuse of corporate property etc. I am not about to learn anything from some clown of a Yankee with the equivalent of a grade 3 education (anywhere else in the world), that claims he is knowledgable on a subject because his friends are pigs?! Your only comment was not to prove your point but to go on and on about how much Australians drink for lunch, whlie your generalization shows a simply clueless opinion and proves you haven't been outside of your littel corner of redkneck America in the 17 years you've been alive.

So while you suggest I am a piss tank Auatrlian and have no idea what US law is, you couldnt' be more mistaken.

Your closing quip, which I guess you feel makes you appear somewhat intelligent, starts out with a humorous retort from a British Comedy Troupe that I grew up laughing with(in my actual country of citizenship), not some mouth-breathing, lackwit American like yourself or what Americans consider humour, Rosanne, America's Funniest Home Videos etc. The only clever programming you have ever stolen was teh endless line of British Sitcom pinoffs that you so gladly feel are American creations. You live in a country known for inventing little or nothing but utilizing teh inventions of others while claiming they are American, a coutry that relies on the world for it's resources as it has no idea how to manage the needs of the gluttonous pigs that exist within its borders. Your country is the laughing stock of the world, the people are the brunt of all jokes, uneducated, blindly led by government, raised on BS history, but you know all this becauis eyou have a friend that's been to Hawaii, right?

While you actually try to make comments that seemingly make you appear clever, you were wrong in all your assertions; including the fact that I was referring to the fourth ammendment and not the first. I was comparing you to the other shoe-gazing, moronic Americans of far below average intelligence, that actually believe the right to free speech means you can speak freely when and where you want to.

As for your pig friends, so what; I know many too, very corrupt and stupid ones too. I have seen them torn to pieces one at a time in courtrooms for decades now as their misguided conclusions of law appliction are proven wrong.

Go back to the playground and try your BS with the children who may see you as clever, it sure won't be here: http://tinyurl.com/6

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time. I wave my private parts at your aunties, you empty headed animal food trough water. I unclog my nose at you, you and all your knees bent running around. Goi and boil your bottom, you wiper of other people's bottoms.

But you also posted a non-applicable law that, if INVESTIGATED properly, you will see has nothing to do with the case at hand at all, except to make you look like an idiot.

If you read a little closer, that law is with regards to video surviellance, not your employers ability to monitor use of his hardware and employees whil eon his dime.

As always people take law out of context, exactly what I was referring to with the Zfirst ammendment.

"a private office, a change room or a single office in an open office environment). "

Private office? Do you feel that when your employer pays you to work in his building and lets you have an office that it is considered a PRIVATE office? Give your head a shake, son. That's HIS office, not YOUR private office.

A private office in an open office environment, look at the application properly and you will find it refers to shared office environments, where you lease an office in a building that leases offices to multiple clients, consultants, small business etc. Not your employers offices.

My god, you lot are dumb sometimes; you run with little out of context quotes and think you look clever, only because the reality is you dont have a friggin clue what you are talking about but try to look equal anyway.

Again, http://tinyurl.com/6

What a stupid tosser, no wonder people look at Americans as morons, what else are they supposed to think when pillocks like you shout from the rooftops abotu the land of the free?

[b]Land of the free, my a$$[/b], LOL, you incarcerate more people than any other country on Earth.

Like I said before, not a clue!

okay I generalized yoru population pretty good in my last post, you guys know the portion of your population I am referring to though, if not read teh idiots post to get an example.

OM, aka. Moose Turd Eater.

Your case is not even remotely applicable in this case at all.

To begin with "a residential facility for abused children," says just about evrything right there. I believe we are discussing a school funded by the public. Therefore employees of that school district are thus public employees, contracted or not.

My friends?? Don't have too many of those here, you haven't been around long enough to know better, but thanks for th attempte flattery all the same.

James RL is a Canadian political encyclopedia, he supports what he knows and nothing else. James doesn't 'take sides' he will argue against me or correct me just as easily as with me. I have learned to listen carefully to his comments thoughm he is almost always right and very inciteful.

Tigger, a friendly peer to most here, not antagonistic and prefers everyone just gets along and has fun with it all. Tiggers don't take sides, they agree with what Tiggers feel is right.

Kiltie, first time I have ever seen a post from Kiltie, no personal alliance going on there either, just more rash conclusions and character generalizations...against other peers now. Sad.

My history books consist of history from several countries, so thre was a lot to measure and compare. Who was it that simply marched in a burned down The White House?

Actually, as you only buy into US sources (dangerously narrow mind you have, isn't it?) you will most likely agre that Wikipedia would be a reliable source of such information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

Information such as: [i]"Despite several notable successes by U.S. frigates and the menace of American privateers to British trade, the Royal Navy established a strict blockade of American trade causing economic hardship. On land, the U.S. invasion of Canada was swiftly repulsed, and British forces counterattacked across the border, burning Washington, D.C., and occupying the territories that would later become the state of Maine. But the British counteroffensive was turned back at Lake Champlain, Baltimore, and New Orleans. The Treaty of Ghent (ratified in 1815) restored the status quo ante bellum --that is the exact geographical situation as before."[/i]

America failed at invading Northrn Canada, America also failed at stopping the Royal Navy's control of trade. They did, however stop Britains advances. You are also missing the fact that while this was a great achivement for America, the Napoleonic war was of far greater importance to Britain and that Britain's energies and resources (including a major portion of the navy) were focused elsewhere.
[b]America's View[/b]
[i]The United States did gain a measure of international respect for managing to battle the British Empire to a standstill. The morale of the citizens was high because they had fought one of the great military powers of the world and managed to survive, which increased feelings of nationalism; the war has often been called the "Second War of Independence." The war also contributed to the demise of the Federalist Party, which had opposed the war.[/i]

[b]Britain's view[/b]
[i]Unlike in Canada, the war is scarcely remembered in Great Britain. Chiefly, this is because it was overshadowed by the dramatic events of the contemporary Napoleonic Wars ? 1815, the year of the Treaty of Ghent, was also the year of the Battle of Waterloo ? and because Britain neither gained nor lost by the peace settlement.[/i]
Canada and Britain's forces have always combined and fought together of many fronts as a formidable force tough.

But as you are sure, being an American that gets only the right picture compared to the rest of the world's propaganda:

Wikipedia is a resource that welcomes contribution and correction to it's horribly incorrect account of facts.

Maybe you can set them straight too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia

Before you offer som estupid reply again, study the Treaty of Ghent, as for the British running away, The British did not leave Maine until April 1815, at which time they took large sums of money retained from duties in occupied Maine. This money, called the "Castine Fund", was used in the establishment of Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Learn to read, if you really want to get into it, JamesRL is a great mind to discuss Canadian, British, US occupations in North America.

You'll get the hang of it soon, god only knows how many years it took me to learn how to play TR games.

You: "Defending the company against such actions costs hundreds of thousands..."

That's exactly my point in my original post before you jumped in with the insults. It costs money to defend an alleged civil tort. A small, one-person consulting company can't afford to pay out money in defense costs any more than a large corporation can. It was a practical piece of advice on minding your own business or possibly paying the consequences. Anyone who thinks, as you seem to, that civil tort is a black and white, off-the-shelf, one size fits all, yummy treat out of the legal gumball machine is either naive or simply feeding their own ego. You sure aren't taking into consideration what verdict a jury of my ignorant peers from my little redneck corner of the world, as you say, would mete out. I'll try to get a feel for what issues might launch you into a slobbering, socio-political frenzied heap and preface my posts to those with "From my little redneck corner of the world..." just to avoid anyone confusing my unintelligent babbling with your ever-contrary, but always-correct-on-every-subject philosophical, legal, intellectual, musical, technological, historical and idealogical musings. At least I can serve as an irritating speck of sand to stimulate the great OyZter into bringing forth yet another pearl of wisdom from within its grand shell.

You: "The company lawyers also go to bat for the employees when employers want to change salary, cut back hours tc. The lawyers act as advisors so that the employer doesn't treat employees unfairly, employers don't have to know all the laws, they have a company to run."

Right, and the company lawyers also make sure that the employees get visits from Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy at least once a year. You're playing sematical games with that statement. What planet are "North Americas's largest corporations" on anyway that their attorneys represent employees interests as you imply. Corporate attorneys protect the company from taking actions adverse to employees that maximize profitability or minimize loss ...period. You don't seriously expect anyone to buy this snake oil do you? You rolled the dice on this one and came up snake eyes.

With all due respect, you're being rediculous if you are trying to attribute your first statement to me! But like it or not, criminals do still have rights while violating the law. Unless maybe you're linked to terrorism by the US, but that's another thread altogether.

The plaintiffs in this case were obviously not the specific target of the surveillance, as the judgement explains. During the day when plaintiffs were at work, the recording device was deactivated.

The ISSUES ON APPEAL, and therefore germane to the topic of video surveillance by employers in the workplace are:

The arguments made by the parties present four issues:
(1) is publication a
necessary element of plaintiffs? cause of action for invasion of privacy and, if so, did defendants defeat it?
(2) were plaintiffs? expectations of privacy reasonable?
(3) did
defendants conclusively establish that the surveillance was, under the circumstances,
justified? and
(4) did defendants defeat plaintiffs? causes of action for the infliction of emotional distress?

That an appeals court would reverse a summary judgement for the defendant and take up the issue is significant in my mind. Oz's original statement on the matter is "If you presume you have a right to ANY privacy, outside of the washroom, while you are at work, you are sadly mistaken." Well this case says different.

The opinion regarding issue 1 states "A plaintiff is harmed when his or her privacy is invaded in an offensive manner without consent, not when information gained from the intrusion is disclosed or published." Then later "Thus, we conclude that the mere placement of the surveillance equipment on the shelf in plaintiffs? office itself invaded their privacy because it allowed the defendants, or anyone with access to the storage room, to ?activate? the surveillance system at any
time during the day without plaintiffs? knowledge, thus at least presenting the
possibility of unwanted access to private data about plaintiffs."

The defendant didn't even activate the equipment in this case. Its mere presence and the possibility that it could be activated constituted the invasion of privacy.

As for issue 2, the reasonable expectation of privacy the court said "While plaintiffs did not enjoy complete and absolute privacy in their office, it
was reasonable for them to expect images of them in their office with the door closed
would not be transmitted to another portion of the building." I ask you and anyone else who cares to comment, am I "sadly mistaken" or did the court say that employees do under some circumstances have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a closed office that belongs to the employer?

Issue 3, is the employer required to establish some justification for the surveillance? "Defendants argue that their surveillance was necessary and justified to catch whoever was accessing illicit pornographic websites in the early hours of the morning... The only evidence, however, offered by defendants to show their need to engage in this surveillance is the declaration of Tom Foster, the computer technician, and the deposition of Hitchcock. While Foster stated that in July 2002 the web logs he maintained for Jillsides in their mainframe computer indicated that illicit pornographic websites had been accessed, he offered no description of the type of sites accessed, how frequently, or their web addresses."

Issue 4, emotional distress ...big deal.

So if I understand THE COURT'S account correctly, in very plain language, the employer needs justification to engage in the surveillance, right? Oz said "You can be spied on, have your email read and tracked, have your calls monitored etc. without ANY possible chance of claiming your privacy was invaded." Well sorry, but the way I read it, Oz is just plain wrong ...it's not absolute by any stretch of the imagination.

Now HAL, about the matter of the rights of pedophiles, and criminal prosecutions ...I agree that it is a shame that criminals of the most dispicable type should escape justice based on a technicality such as an invasion of their privacy, BUT IT HAPPENS! You KNOW it does, and you're being overly emotional when you say not one court in the entire world would stop a prosecution on those grounds. Don't bet on it partner.

While you continually focus on a case that is so far removed from teh topic of discussion it's hardly relevant, all you are doing is wasting keystrokes.

Simply because there is a long time appeal, this also does nto mean there is a great deal of question as to teh verdict, you make it seem so tricky and unique, it's not.

now, go and find a relevant case ad post your findings again.

try looking for the same issue happening in a public building such as a school or city office where the public is completely entitled to know how public tax money is being spent.

the ONLY thing that raises ANY grey area in teh case at hand, is the fact that a fellow employee video taped him, but even then, it is a public school and a public employee filming another public employee.

It's not different that when police use private video captured at public events to prosecute offenders. There is no privacy un a public building, unless in such a place as to where it woul dbe considered otherwise indecent.

Don't play the game with me, this is something I know very well. you are blatantly mislead, that's all, you can either be a grown up and conceded that your initial reply was hasty and unthoughtful, or you can simply keep digging deeper and deeper until you have changed the subject enough that you have a point based on a different issue, as you are attempting to do now. It's common, not clever though.

You haev no case, I could post thousands of questionable cases but they arent' even remotely close to what we are discussing here. Stay on track.

This is a [b]public employee[/b], not a private consulting firm. No a home based child care program, not a self employed person in his own office. No grey area at all, as ou insist on suggesting. your case as you've presented it, wouldn't even be accepted as evidence of a similar defense/decision.

Once a private consulting firm or a contracted person enters the public domain of the tax payer, your also accept prosecution under public accessinility laws. the public can contact the secretary treasurer of the district and gain nonpersonal details on anyone his money is spent on, costs of projects etc.

As for your last hope of You sure aren't... "taking into consideration what verdict a jury "
Only in some beatnick hillbilly corner of dark America would such a blatantly justified case of wrongful dismissal be tried in front of a jury and not until 5-10 years of previous legal judgements were overturned.

The chances of such a thing happening are so slim it doesn't warrant discussion.

You are just hanging onto the slimmest, most remote possibilities in order to justify any relation between your comments and the real case at hand, not being realistic.

YOu are actually trying to say that if a pubic employee was video taped in a public place, and then fired fro not working as contracted by the public employer, that some retarded lawyer woul dspend many years seekgin justification for his dismissal? Like I've said already, give your head a shake, this is a real life, not Columbo .

What are teh chances of an employee earning $30.00/hr actualy spending a minimum of tens of thousands in defense in order to get a job back that he was fired from for sleeping?

What is teh chance of a lwyer taking the casde rtop begin with? 0.000%. They want money but they are not stupid, losing such a case, especially after years of high profile media, would be more detrimental that any sum of money would be worth. Would legal aid support such a case? Not a hope.

Why not? Because there is no hope of winnign such an ridiculous case.

the bext thing he could do would be to open a civil suit against teh person who tapoed him, and then through some stroke of luck, find a judge who didn't consider a public employee in a public building to NOT be a public employee in a public building.

This doesn't have any relevance or relation at all to the case you are trying to state, and that case is merely undergoing another lengthy appeal process, just as this would be doing so fruitlessly.

Like I said too mahny times now, while you sem to have SOME legal knowledge, your application and interpretation needs work, there is no worthy legal recourse in this case.