General discussion


On a Contract and having issues, need input.

By danielnicholson ·
I am an I.T. Professional and have a contract with a city school system. Things are are less than perect with the entire system suffering from gross mismanagement. The most recent incident involves an I.T. employee that was supposed to helping (hands on) with a roll out. He was given specific instruction of what his responsibilities were. In a total of 32 man hours (in which he honestly worked about 2.5 hours) I have lots of video of this person sleeping right in front of me when he should have been working, surfing the net, etc.

I brought this issue to the Director of IT, showed her the videos and basicly she was unresponsive.

What would you do?
exit the contract early? Go to the School Super?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

40 total posts (Page 4 of 4)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I guess it's a living, eh?

by DeleteMyStuff In reply to Yes Canada's laws protect ...

You wrote <b>"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."</b>
The original post that began the entire thread stated <b>"I have lots of video of this person sleeping right in front of me..."</b><br/><br/>
Excuse me, but which one us veered away from the original issue? I was indeed talking about video surveillance. You're dragging a red herring with all the first and fourth amendment stuff.<br/><br/>
You won't get off the hook using the subject <b>"Yes Canada's laws protect people not companies"</b> either.<br/><br/>
Elsewhere you make a big deal that <b>"I have two corporate attorneys in the family, my brother's firm is the counsel for some of North Americas's largest corporations."</b> So I surmise that you are merely idealizing that Canada protects people, not companies and your feelings don't run all that deep. It sounds to just makes a good tag line for your countervailing commentary.<br/><br/>
So which do you prefer ...paying lip service to protecting the common folk or helping spend the money your family makes enabling Corporate North America to run roughshod over them?<br/><br/>
Some of your ideas and comments are incongruous.

Collapse -

Not it's not different

by Oz_Media In reply to I guess it's a living, eh ...

In the case of this specific issue, they only grey area is that the person taking video was not the emplyer and wasn't asked to monitor the employees actions by his employer.

Other than that, if your employer suspects you of not performing your job, he can tape you, intercept and read your emails, listen to and record your phone calls (the latter two which can usually be done without suspect or reason), this is evidence to be used in defense if needed and is completely legal.

If you were talking on your own phone at lunchtime (or even a shared company phone or one where you were authorized to make a personal call), sleeping in or faking illness on the couch at home, he has no right to record your calls or use video surveillance surveillance in order to prosecute you.

There are many very stringent laws that state exactly what you are getting at, but you are defining/applying it wrong.

In this case, surveillance while you are supposed to have privacy, does not mean you have privacy from your employer monitoring your performance and communications while at work. It does apply in many ways ,such as protecting your privacy from outside surveillance i.e. insurance companies can't set up surveillance in your home, your office (if you work in a private office and not a retail store or other public place)etc. That is what you seem to be confusing with an employers right to monitor his employees performance and use of company equipment.

In the case here, it is even less private because he is technically a public empoyee, being paid from tax dollars and threfore his performance is and can be made public knowledge.

Thre ar VERY few, VERY thin angles of defense(due to the person who taped it here without resuest) but nothing that would ever stall judgement for more than a moment.

In another view, it is also completely legal to video tape another person in a public place. A public school is not a place of personal privacy.(this is in a public shcool I think, right?)

As for the rest of your flame, after your complaining about people picking on poor widdle metapwogwammer; Canada's laws are mainly in place to see that the employers is protected from employee abuse and the employee is protected from employment abuse (its multifacted), such as overwork, underpay, wrongful dismissal etc.

You surmise, without any real consideration, that someone working as legal defense for a corporation, simply sues employes or protects the company from being sued by employees.

Yes, wrongful dismissal cases do make up a number of cases in such a company, but the majority of these are people seeking something which they are not entitled to, or people who willfully defame the company, (whether libel or slanderous) without just cause. Such people can cost companies millions, billions of dolars.

Defending the company against such actions costs hundreds of thousands so the ocmpany has it's best interests in having its own in-house counsel onc a sizable amounts of money are on th line; they aren't ambulance chasers or insurance lawyers. 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.

Then there are the legalities behind competitive advertising, vendor issues (missed payments or breached contracts), development, safety and security etc.

But once again, a truly brilliant, rash conclusion...well done. Try slowing down and thinking about it from a few differnt angles next time, it's not always as first percieved, especially law. As I always say to such thoughtless comments, give your head a shake and think again.

What if YOUR employee was not performing work while you paid him to, do you not think you should have the right to get proof of your reason to fire him?

Collapse -

You're making my case.

by DeleteMyStuff In reply to Not it's not different

You: <i>"Defending the company against such actions costs hundreds of thousands..."</i><br/><br/>
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: <i>"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."</i><br/><br/>
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.

Collapse -

Don't be silly

by Oz_Media In reply to Not it's not different

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 public employee, 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.

Collapse -

Apologies to the Yankers

by Oz_Media In reply to My Apology...

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.

Collapse -

You're good

by Tig2 In reply to Apologies to the Yankers

I'm a Yank but you have never held it against me. I know that you don't hate AMERICANS, you just can't stand stupidity. You teach me to look at things objectively... not judge them subjectively.

And I have learned that your opinions are to be considered. They have merit- even when I disagree.

I am certain that we will all understand that you were speaking to ONE person.

Are moose turds good??? Should I consider them for the table? Recipes????

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to You're good

Youi would have to ask our new resident legal expert, he seems to understand the Canadian lifestyle. I just wonder if he/she could point out Canada on a globe, or even America for that matter.

For his/her information: Canada is just southeast of Iraq, slightly west of America. What a dolt, don't get your feet wet in the Pacific (that's an ocean, see: 'large body of water')!

Collapse -

No clear winners in this court case...

by DeleteMyStuff In reply to Try studying some law

<b>...but the employer definitely did not prevail if you bother to read it.</b>
I won't bother to post links to numerous attorneys who are citing this case and several others similar to it as significant to the issue of employees rights to privacy in the workplace, in America anyway. I'm sure you would be able to refute quite verbosely.<br/><br/>
One big point I would like to make is that, aside from our argument about the legality of video surveillance, this matter is about a contractor who is sandwiched between an employee and his employer, providing documentation of misconduct to a supervisor who is "basically ...unresponsive." Someone else has addressed the problem of going over her head ("What are you THINKING?"), but who do think is going to cover the contractor's back and say "Oh, yes, I'm in full agreement and cooperation with a non-employee video taping and photographing one of my employees, and I'm going to discipline that employee straight away." I don't think even you with your great altruism would touch that one, would you OZ?
Also, some one of your regular buddies mentioned an ad hominem attack on my part. You are not the poster boy for tact yourself. They may be used to your tone, but not everyone is. If you go around saying "I bet you are... [whatever]" and you start with your rude and self-agrandizing comments, you're just as guilty of an unjustified attack as anyone else. I don't care how long you've been on the playground, you've got TiggerTwo and Kiltie and a number of your other regular posse blowing smoke up your a$$ as you say, about how smart you are. You're not the only one with an opinion or an interpretation on every topic. I may not always be 100% right but you are probably as wrong about me in general as I am about you.<br/><br/>
There are two sides to every story, and <b>I'm sure your history book says that the Brits lost interest in America and decided to pull out and abandon the crude lot of us here, right?</b> My history book says we threw you out, red coats and all. America doesn't have a franchise on top leadership problems ...we just don't permit ours to inbreed or remain in power for more than eight years. Maybe you Brits should <b>"pull out"</b> once again and try to get some new blood in the lineage.<br/><br/>

Collapse -

Your case

by Oz_Media In reply to No clear winners in this ...

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.

Information such as: "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."

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.
America's View
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.

Britain's view
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.
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:

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.

Collapse -

You should contact

by zlitocook In reply to On a Contract and having ...

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.

Back to Hardware Forum
40 total posts (Page 4 of 4)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04

Related Discussions

Related Forums