Reading employee E-Mails

Any presonal correspondence should not be shared on someone else's time, equipment and bandwidth. They are 100% right in reading the mail, or at least being ABLE to.
I have set up a SPAM filter for one client where I can flag mail being sent by certain employees and have it sent to someone else in stead of the recipient.

I can literally say that ANY mail leaving with selected keywords such as 'resume' or the 'bosses name' for eg. be captured and forwarded to the boss, I can choose whether to send to the intended recipient too or it is up to the 'interceptor' to approve and forward the email as normal. This is done without ANYNOE having any knowledge of the intercept.

I can also intercept email to a specific address, like a competitor or many other variables that are administrator configured. NO there is no law broken in these methods.

The bottom line is simply common sense.

DON'T use company email for personal mail unless it is okay.
ANYTHING you do send via company email is no longer YOUR email but the comapny's and they are free to deal with it as they choose.

On someone else's email system, you have NO user rights to privacy. The company is 100% justilfied in reading SOME or ALL email without crossing any lines.

They are justified, capable and right in handling mail via their server in ANY way they want to.

i have been asked to secretly monitor email sends from certain 'questionable' employees and it has been thier death with the company they were with.

No you have no rights, yes tha company can do what they want to.
If it is private or censored, do it from home, online email or not at all, the choice is yours not your employers. When on company time, the choice is the company's not yours.

by voldar Feb 16, 2004

how big should be the Manager mailbox when he decide to do that for 300 users LOL. And then, add the time to read these e-mails, I think that the manager will not have any time to really do his job but just reading e-mails! Sorry folks, but I think this is just something like "let's give a job to our Exchange administrator!" rather then really have a DISCUSSION or a NOTICE with the employees about the use of the office e-mails.
It's a funny idea anyway.
I agree with you that you can always filter the messages, but to read EVERYTHING is way toooooo much!

Of course my example was an extreme to iterate my point.

the main use for this type of thing is a sales rep for example, if he was looking at other companies or said to be sending his resume out from his company email account, you could flag any mail leaving from his address or even flag mail from him that has a specific attatchment, ie. Resume.doc, pdf etc.

I don't know if there is really any use in reading ALL mail unless prompted to do so in search for something specific. It is not unlawful though and completely understandable if the boss has a reason to be weary of a persons mail.

by jdumbrille Feb 17, 2004

The problem is defining time that belongs to someone else. Yes, the intellectual and physical property belongs to the company. And yes the new tools are compelling in their elegance.

We have to wake up to the fact that we're co-creating value with our employees; they have the same intelligence potential as we do. The problem is that these kinds of spying initiatives have a habit of dumbing down organizations, and , I believe, reveal a paucity of intelligence and imagination among the managers that instigate them.

If there is a risk of terrorism or othere extreme and unwanted acts within the organization, a key word spider may be deployed on emails to detect this, with alerts triggering. End of story. Middle management should get back to work! Bean counting of this sort is worth an iota of return compared to positive motivation of employees and good planning.

If there is an issue that employees are wasting time, or performing some form of 'moonlighting' at work, if the organization cant detect the employees lack of engagement except through an electronic eye it is in trouble. And if these acts persist, maybe look at your the managment's qualities and procedures, rather than the faults of staff.

Employees already know they are being watched, and are dependent on the organizaiton. Stressing this relationship more turns the organizaation into a gulag, and can only exacerbate opposition. In fact, no one wants to be disengaged. The job of management is to provide the tools to bring ouot the best in employees; the job of upper management is to motivate middle managers to engage in real productivity that leverages more productivity among others.

As many have written, upper management in a good company is rarely obsessed about 'doing the right thing' as they are doing things right.

Excellent post and dispription of the issue. You clarified what I couldnt express properly.

The original poster has no idea as to WHY these emails are being read all of a sudden.

This is most likely to stop a specific form of abuse of narrow down abuse to a single employee.

Perhaps someone is sending email to competitors and the company has been alerted. Now in my case I haev the login ID's and passwords for over 260 employees at four different comanies as well as server access. I could easily login and send email under multiple names and have it untraceable to a specific person. If I did that and company B got mail then called the boss at company A to say he was getting email that shouldn't be sent to him for whatever reason, company A may deploy such a method to trace who is sending what to whom and when.

It is a bit of a wild scenarion but not an impossible one by any means. If you don't know WHY you are being asked to do something you can ask but they are not obligated to share this info with you.

There may be a valid reason for needing this information, someone may be sending inappropriate mail to people under the company's guise but from multiple accounts, this is easily taced by email tracking this way. It isn't new, it isn't illegal and you never know, it may not be unjustified.

by highlander718 Feb 17, 2004

everything you say is correct. But ! There should be an official company policy that contains all of what you just said, that users are familiar with, they are "indoctrinated" with, and are signing for the reading and understanding of it.
After that ... it's their own risk they are taking.

It doesn't need to be reiterated to employees that company email and web services are for company useage ONLY, this goes without saying.

by dc_guy Feb 16, 2004

If the employees are not aware that the company is doing this, then technically that's their problem. Unless this is a tiny company with no legal counsel, they were told about all company policies when they hired in. If they signed something without reading it, again, technically that's their problem. As for the rest of your remarks, of course you're right. It does undermine morale, it creates an us-versus-them mentality, it makes their "we're all one big team" brainwashing program look as hypocritical as it really is, in the long run their brightest and most creative employees will leave and they'll become an "employer of last resort" for people who can't get jobs anywhere else. Nonetheless this doesn't change the fact that they have a legal right to read all e-mail. If you want to be a good guy, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to quietly let somebody know what's happening and let them tell their friends. That's probably all the company wants anyway: to minimize personal use of company resources, and to make sure that nothing comes out of their network that could get the company in legal trouble. Somewhere along the way we handed control of our civilization over to lawyers. They lie awake thinking up ways to get one citizen or corporation to sue another so they can collect their fees. A casual remark in a personal e-mail, taken out of context, could be ruinous. As I've said many times: With some things, it doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong. They just ARE. You have to learn to live in the universe you were born into. Think of it as a cosmic test, like finding all the loopholes in the tax code.

The only point I feel that you mentioned without it beig relevant is "they were told about all company policies when they hired in. If they signed something without reading it, again, technically that's their problem. "

In the case of company property abuse, you need no formal policy in place. You can simply divert and read ALL employee mail for whatever reason YOU see fit. It does not constitute something that needs to be itemized our outlined at all.

I don't have to tell you to drive safe when you borrow my car, I don't have to tell you to close your bedroom drapes if you sleep in my home just in case a neighbour looks in. This is a given and does not need to be reiterated to anyone. If you have an accident you can't sue me for not warning you before driving wrecklessly in my car, and if you see your nudes all over the web next week, it wasn't my fault for not telling you the neighbour likes to peer in the bedroom windows.

by highlander718 Feb 17, 2004

you're right technically. But...it's "nice to do"
and a company taht gives something on self respect will communicate all the policies (not only e-mail or communication related) to theiremployees. And jsut to make sure employee will not come up with excuses it just makes sense to make them sign. Same as with the safety regulations if you want.

by jkaras Feb 16, 2004

I see everyones point but what does that say about the employer? You cannot have a respectable productive environment when your being watched specifically to fire people to control payroll (achieving turnover), bottom line that is the purpose. Your manager's job is to keep you busy and provide feedback on completion of daily tasks. If your manager is effective this wouldnt need to be done. Companies want undying loyalty and to die for the good of the company, but bottom line they dont care about you or your needs only their profit and this is the proof. Good business is good business and employees respond better in an open situation. You can try to justify unprofessional behavior all you want but two wrongs dont make a right.

Let's say, Johnny Sales rep at ABC widgets has had a bad month now lets say that has been the last FOUR months.

Johnny Sales rep has been helped by the sales manager and seems all piss and vinegar and no apparent reason for slumping is seen.

Jenny secretary, quietly mentions that Johnny has been doing side work for BCD widgets and is thinking of leaving.

Now you can't just fire the guy on a whim. You can't justify his lack of sales as being due to other interests, you can't confirm the conflict of interest.

You flag all mail being sent from Johnny Sales rep going out to BCD Widgets to be diverted to the BOSS although the original email is still sent to his intended recipient.

The boss sees his sales rep offering ABC's customer info to BCD widgets, sending his resume to BCD widgets.

At this point the BOSS can fire Johnny Sales rep on the spot without notice, stat a suit against Johnny for sharing company information, contact BCD widgets that he has done this and print all said emails for use as evidence in court.

Johnny will not likely be hired by BCD widgets as he has shown poor employability, your information that has been provided to BCD will be ercovered and a no contest clause placed on the accounts. You can sue Johnny for wages paid during this time.

the employer who was ripping off ABC and trying to get hired by BCD is screwed. He broke the law, will be prosecuted and will not be taking trade secrets to the other guy.

This can all be resolved in four or five emails, it shows nothing that would have been resolved by conversation or a good manager. A mole must be removed, they will SEEM eager and like a good hard working employee, but until you REALLY know what is going on inside your organization, you have no idea. The ONLY way this is resolved is by intercepting correspondence.

by hal 9000 Feb 16, 2004

I see a lot of people using the telephone instead of their e-mail in most companies that I visit. While I don't think for a minute that there is anything wrong with this action it is only "Human Nature" to get away with all that you can and it is much easier to pickup a phone than to send an e-mail and a lot harder to trace as well.

I know of one sales person who when confronted with a complaint about lack of spare parts for a "New" piece of plant instead of making all the right noises just said "well what's you're problem? why didn't you come to me first?" He then sold them 2 new pieces of plant at a discount but made money for the company and had the broken machines back in second hand stock until the parts arrived 6 months latter.

While it probably was not the desired action it did solve the problem and save the customer money as well.

Col

by av . Feb 16, 2004

As long as the employee has signed an acceptable use policy for email that states that email is company property and there should be no expectation of privacy, the company can do whatever they want with the emails. The company risks liability if they do not have such a policy in place or fail to act on inappropriate use.

Employees that use the company email system for personal business are cheating the company because they are being paid to work. Minimal personal use is ok, but some people are so addicted to email I'm amazed they have any time to do the job they were hired for.

From a legal standpoint, the company can also be held liable for the content of the emails. Any company that is not regularly reviewing the email activities of their employees will be quite shocked when they do.

As the lucky person who gets to run reports on email usage and give them to management, I can say I know more than I want to know about some of the people that work for our company. I am truly amazed that some employees think its ok to send and receive 100 personal emails a day - anything ranging from dirty jokes to intimate details of their life. They plan vacations, order drugs online, shop, etc. Everything but what they were hired to do - work.

Its unfortunate that companies have to resort to reading emails, but I don't blame them.

"The company risks liability if they do not have such a policy in place or fail to act on inappropriate use."

As I've said before, in Canada at least, policies like that are just padding however not required in a court of law. You do not have the right to send personal information, store personal information or discuss personal information over a company's business equipment investment.

If I lend you my car to go to the store and you have an accident because I didn't tell you to drive carefully, am I responsible? NO. If I am going to send my wife out to follow you and you don't go to the store but go to the drive in instead, is my wife following you wrongly? No.

It's MY car, I don't have to tell you if I will check up on your driving habits.

In a company, you need policies to say what is appropriate conduct in the office, not to state that you cannot send personal or priivate information on a network. Nor am I obligated to inform you of any attempts to find out what you are doing at the office. It is MY office, MY equipment, I pay you to work here.

I can't intercept your HOME email or hotmail (unless used at work) but as for MY email, you are just allowed to use it, abuse or misuse of equipment on MY time, that I pay for you to work in MY office, I have every right to view, read, capture and listen to whatever I want to without ANY warning or repercussions.

Personal or unprofessional email is MY concern and I can do what ever I want to ensure it is not abused. If you don't like it, you may work somewhere else but you can't legaly do anything about my 'snooping' through your activities, phone calls or email in the office.

Some company's track and record ALL personal phone calls and have done for years, it is never raised as an issue because most employees don't realize employers can do that. They can and believe me, they do, I've configured the systems in Canada AND the USA. Your BOSS may and will record you telephone calls, the ONLY stipulation by the FCC is that it can't be recorded by a third party OUTSIDE the organization, ie. You can't have a PI intercept calls, but you can tape them yourself and they are admissible in court.

Does your boss record your calls? How do you know?

So all an employer has to do is create a policy like a non competitive agreement as well as anyother policy to take away any rights of the employee? Where does it end that the employer can rewrite policy to increase turnover to post more profits. Lets face it, it is the number one way to increase profit by reducing the workforce for cheaper labor, that shows their great managorial skills because profit is all that matters, not good leadership. There are many many companies that exploit and break the laws to get the most out of employees whether in white collar or blue collar jobs and its getting worse. Management is like having kids, you wanted them, you take care of them, its no one else's responsibility, so go be a manager not a dirtbag. Everyone has bought into the professionalism mantra that if they were doing their job in the first place but no one says that of the manager that doesnt get involved and instead of dealing with the situation, removes it by not investing the time that is required per their job. I'm sure you will teach your children that he who has the gold makes the rules so get your gold and screw everyone else.

The issue is less one of what than of how.

A company has an obligation to control the use of its resources as a financial and potential legal issue. Outbound information in the form of voice, electronic data, or other media reflect on the company as well as the individual employee. Most employees have no problem with this.

When the company management openly states this and indicates that phone calls may be monitored, emails read, and only approved media are allowed out they are showing respect for the employee. It is worth stating to counter the sense of ownership that comes with being given "your phone number, your email address, your cube" when the employee starts work. Semantics can be powerful stuff.

Now when a company makes no such statement, they risk violating the trust of their employees. When something is done secretively, it carries with it the stigma of being a shameful action.

Simple respect is the issue, and an open approach demonstrates this I think.

The small percentage of employees who abuse company resources by intent will still get caught. However, the vast majority who do not will not feel lumped in with those that do.

as this is something the employer has al of a sudden asked for, I will be assumptive in saying there's probably a good reason not to tell people.

If it is someone clever that is using multiple accounts in the office to send offensive or threatening email, there is a need to review ALL communications, who's logged in as who and when.

This may be much more important than posted, it may be criminal activity that could lead to the company being sued over email. Yes it is not moral to simply read everyone's mail, I don't think anyone wuold really be that bored though, they are obviously looking for something pecific but don't have the means in place to do so, therefore just review it all. It may even be a certain sender they want to monitor, yet they don't want to let on who it is, therefore all mail is captured.

There is simply not enough information provided to make negative or moral judgements in this case.

by oldefar Feb 16, 2004

I suspect we all experience that little voice that says "This doesn't seem right" and too often we choose not to listen. Instead, we rationalize with issues like legality, or inside knowledge we aren't privvy to, or that we are just doing our jobs, following orders.

Your inner voice apparently thinks this action is unethical, that it betrays a trust, and that it will be counter productive in the long run. I think that voice is probably right.

Your choices are limited.

You can raise your concern at the decision point. You may get no response, you may get a response that confirms your concerns, and you may identify yourself as an ethical person which may enhance or end your career where you are.

You can go along and keep your concerns to yourself. If the action turns out to have a valid justification there is no impact to you. If your concerns are valid, you will need to learn to sleep nights with whatever guilt you feel.

Unfortunately, you have to live with your choices and your actions. No one else can do that for you. For legal advice, see a lawyer.

Best of luck with whichever way you go on this.

After reading your thoughts I relate to public cameras the same way.

I have no problem with camera's in stores, offices etc. as long as thet aren't intruding on mypersonal privacy (ie. the washroom or a webcam of my acivities).

I am not doing anything that would be cause for alarm in public, therefore the cameras have nothing to do with me, they are not there for the purpose of watching my daily activities unless i'm doing something wrong.

If that little voice tells me I shouldn't do something or I am looking to see if there are any cameras around, there probably should be cameras around.

by hal 9000 Feb 16, 2004

Argument about cameras which seem to end up in change rooms in department stores provided that these are only used for making sure that nothing gets stolen I don't have a problem with them being there but can you be sure that certain pictures will not end up in the public domain?

It all falls back to the person who is responsible for monitoring these things and if they can be zoomed in for closeups of more than just faces.

Col

by hal 9000 Feb 16, 2004

There is always a record of it if there are any repercussions from an e-mail that was supposed to be sent form a company or someone within that company so even if the person was to delete it off their workstation there is always a copy available in case of some form of legal action if only to prove that it never originated from where ever.

Think of it more as an Emergency Backup System as this is the most cost effective way to do something like this. However there is the temptation to read all these e-mails which defeats the whole purpose of e-mails in the first place.

For example if a sales person sends out a quote for a sale/job/repair or whatever and it gets diverted to another station to be read before sending we are back to the days of snail mail where a letter has to pass through several departments before it gets sent. So instead of the recipient getting an immediate reply to a question they are kept waiting for up to several days for the request that they originally asked for to be filled.

Under these circumstances most people would just take their work elsewhere and I might add quite rightly as well.

As a backup for legal purposes and the occasional glossing through it is a good idea but anything else is self defeating.

Col

You are saying that it should be allowed because we might loose money. In your case if there is an investigation that the employee is dealing in theft, then I can see that. However what if an employee is doing just fine, meeting deadlines, works well with others but makes far more than the others and has the least amount of responsibility and doesnt want to be promoted? The company has an employee that is overpaid that can get two for the price of one, why not then find a reason like email abuse to fire that person? Or how about a boss that dislikes his employee or is racist and wants them out? All he/she has to do is gather email content that they are not doing their job. The email is not offensive, doesnt contain company secrets but is just basic correspondance that took all of 5 minutes from the company which could be called a break. Does this person deserve to be fired as a bad seed? Professionalism and a respectful work place only works when both sides make an attempt. The manager accepted the responsibility to be a good manager that looks out for both company and employee to grow because they dont wish to invest time isnt an excuse. Power corrupts and if a manager has a bad employee they need to work to improve the employee, not take a cheap way out. This is the same tactic that locks the loyal employee out when fired not letting them leave with any dignity and the excuse is its best for morale?

Lastly I doubt that you want your government eaves dropping on you without do cause, why do you think its ok in the work place. Snooping is snooping and you were raised as a child that it is rude and good people dont indulge in that behavior. You dont own any of your email the email company does so do they have a right to copy any information to make them more profitable? Morals always comes before money and everyone has bought into that line of crapola of professionalism in the workplace that doesnt exist, especially in invading privacy. Fire someone cause they cant do the job, not a chicken s#$%$ way.

But you have also drawn to conclusions in that the person mau be completely innocent.

Firstly, if you need to fire someone, there are a thousand ways to do it that don't involve wasting so much time and resources.

You are jumping to a conclusion that it is unjust as the person hasn't done anything wrong or it may be racial. The absolute bottom line, we DON'T know why this is being done, neither does the original poster. There are resons that would justify this, abusive or offensive email from the company, I've seen people run a dating service via company mail, it may have been offensive or threatening mail sent to someone. You just don't know.

To complain that your boss is imoral is fine, LEAVE the company. To complain that your boss is doing something for a reason you are unaware of is just a waste of time. You have NO idea why so you simply CAN'T question the morality beghind it.

by hal 9000 Feb 18, 2004

The Government does listen in to al telephone communications across the country that they administer. No matter if it is a phone cal, fax or email or for that matter an SMS message.

This has become a lot more prevalent and followed up since Sept 11.

After all we currently do not want terrorists using our infracture to perform acts of terror against us do we?

Col

by tomsal Feb 17, 2004

First of all, here in my state it is 100% legal for the employer to monitor all business communications (including email and phone) that are done on premises, during company time and in the context of the employee-employer relationship (I.E. you have to work for the company).

And what's more is that you don't have to even inform the employees of your doing so.

All that legal stuff aside...I see no wrong in this.

Believe me I'm one of the first who'll scream for privacy protection, ethics, etc. etc. -- on personal issues or on personal time. However when you are at work, paid to do a job, you are NOT on personal time. So you are fully responsible for your actions - and you'll get no sympathy from me if you chose to be rude, type inappropriate material in your emails, etc.

Personally this is a no-brainer issue to me.

Personal Time, Personal Issues -- its no one's damn business.

Work Time -- it *IS* the company's business.

by worker bee Feb 17, 2004

Often the line between work time and personal time is not always so clear. Working in IT today all too often means unlimited unpaid overtime and 24/7 on call support. If my employer is going to intrude on my personal time then I don't see a problem working on personal stuff on their time. Especially if my employer thinks all 24 hours of every day is "their time". They used to have a saying in the old Soviet Union that went "They pretend to pay us so we pretend to work."

Of course working contract is a whole different deal. If I am being paid for every hour I work then I work every hour I am paid. And I do it with a smile.

Well said Tom and I agree wholeheartedly!

Work is work, like I was saying to someone else. If you were sendig personal MAIL each day using a company stamp, company letterhead, company envelope and writing it on company time would you be upset if the company wanted to know what you're sending?

When you use someone else's time, resouces and money they are 100% entitled to knwo what, when , how , who etc. If you feel unjustified or dirty, go run your own business.

by jdumbrille Feb 17, 2004

Oz Media, forgive me for speculation, but it seems you are sitting on this discussion simply to force your poiint of view. Some good points can be made on either side. Tracking has its uses, and it's legal.
Its worth noting that the company is using the time and human resources of its employees. From a social engineering perspective, it is very questionable that management should pry into small-fry time or letterhead abuses, or that prying into resumes sent from work and personal emails will make the environment more successful.

Finally, I'll add that this discussion group owes some of its popularity to employees "taking a break" from their scripted work; not all the readers here are managers who are looking for hard facts about how to deal with this issue.
But a strict boss may argue that engagement in a forum that is not work related may be stimulating enough, but is not what they are being paid for and is therefore a waste of time. In this forum's case, the conclusion may be correct. Stamped out personal work, like stamped out discourse, will weaken the fabric of the community, not strengthen it.

by topesblues Feb 17, 2004

Yes it?s legal. Necessary is a different story. I believe if there?s a performance problem with an employee because their writing E-Mails all day or making personal excessive personal phone calls then take that up with the employee on an individual basis. Warn them, monitor their E-Mail and then do what is appropriate. If the problem is wide spread, talk to your people and say, there?s a problem with E-mail abuse and we are going to be looking at what?s coming in and being sent. If it doesn?t stop there will be consequences. This crap where there not telling the employees this will and has created disrespect for management. I myself have lost respect for some people I used to like. I also don?t have the same company loyalty that I used to have. Yes its written somewhere in a bundle of papers that the worker got during their hiring but most of your non technical people have no idea that management is watching your e-mails. I guess the real kicker is that the managers who want to make sure there employees aren?t waisng time sending E-mail are the same one?s that want me to open web pages so they can make airplane reservations for there vacation or open sports site for there fantasy football leagues!

What if the email is threatening, pornographic or advertising something illegal on a company letterhead/domain?

If it is a legal issue, ONE person may be the target but to reduce suspician (even from the net admin)they have just asked that ALL mail is intercepted, they may only review one employees mail for a relevant reason. Not enough info to pass judgement.

The company (any company) that makes direct phones, user email, and Internet access available to everyone and then spends money on controlling or monitoring it is foolish.

These should be provided based on need. That need is determined by the business manager. If he needs tools to monitor for abuse, outside of the fact it shows a manager who is unaware of what his people do, then let him make that request.

Meantime, no access equals no abuse, and costs less as well.

Phones faxes and email are business tools used to conduct business. If the employer feels they are being misused or someone is sending illegal, threatening or abusive/offensive email, this could come back as a law suit and hurt the company. They have every right to monitor someone's email. If they KNOW who the abuse is from, it may be better to catch him/her in the act.
They may not want to let on that they know who is abusing the system, they would then ask for ALL email instead of an individuals, what if the IT guy is in on the abuse, he warns the offender and it stops only to start a few months later?

I was asked to do the exact same thing on THREE different occasions with TWO different companies. One user was sending data to a competitor, another was running a dating service, the last was sending offensive email that prompted a law suit against the company, not the user until he was found out by having HIS mail flagged and forwarded to the appropriate person, in that case it was a police detective.

I've applied SPAM protection for a company that was being threatened with a lawsuit because it's employees were gettnig SPAM with offensive titles.
The lady had a good point, she didn't want to see such subject lines in her office email, they hadn't done anything to reduce the SPAM. By adding protection they are no longer liable as they are taking steps to reduce this abuse.

These types of issues make companies nervous, if they are told someone is abusing email, they have every right to collect email from everyone or a specific person without them knowing and try to find the offender.

What makes me chuckle is the amount of personal privacy rights some people feel they are entitled to when conducting business on someone elses private premises and while using their equipment.

by passwordchanged Feb 17, 2004

so you've lost respect for some people there, big deal. That's better that than loosing your job.

by topesblues Feb 17, 2004

it is.

by tomsal Feb 17, 2004

As far as losing respect over the fact that someone is a friend of yours and they monitored emails of their employees without notifying them...sound like you take work too personal.

At work -- work is first, I am purpose driven. There to do a job and do it to the best of my ability. Because my job is better done through team work and communication I put effort into both skills when needed. However, I don't care about making friends at work. It so happens I have made some good friends through previous "jobs" before and we still keep in touch, but that is a bonus - not the objective.

Now to be truly sincere ask yourself , and be bluntly honest, how many supposed "friends" do you have at your work -- or are they just nice people that you work with and afterhours they don't give a damn about you?

I value friendship highly, I'd even say higher than most in today's world - but man you have to see work for work and separate the personal aspects of it.

Just like over the years I've let very few work problems bother me afterhours...I leave it at the door when I get home. Its just not worth the hassle or the worry (or the drama for that matter).

Finally, all things I say here keep in mind I am for professionalism, not being rude, not talking down to people. And I don't just monitor someone for no reason whatsoever.

But I won't lose sleep over "losing a work friend" due to having to monitor them based on reasons given to me by HR or OPS.

Its work. I'm not here to hang out and make friends.

by topesblues Feb 17, 2004

When I said that I lost respect for people I liked I meant a professional respect. I don?t hang out with these people after work. I hardly talk to them when I?m at work. However I thought these were good people to work with. These policies aren?t going to affect my job just my attitude towards it.

I have worked as a manager of a large call center, where we'd all go drinking everynight (bar in the same tower)and hang out on weekends. We even slept around within our 200+ person group.

When it came to work, we acted as employees and employer. At 4:30 we were friends. Some people had a had time determining the difference and were quite shocked when I sent them packing. Others would see my on firing day (every Monday at least 15 gone)and say they really enjoyed working for me and I'd get them a job with a friend's call center down the street the same day.

We would the meet as always and do beers, go out on the town or whatever.

Work was work, my 'friends' didn't take offense when I fired them and remained friends. I not firing or hiring FRIENDS, I am hiring and firing EMPLOYEES and they were all respectful that I didn't want to fire everyone but that was the turnover in the numbers game, meet me after work (that I would find for them) and I'll buy you a beer.

Work - Play two VERY differet things.

If you are feeling guilty about not telling an associate he is being monitored, don't. You are doing your job, he may NOT be doing his, that's for the employer to decide though and shouldn't have ANY bearing on a personal friendship/relationship.

What company have you ever worked for that lets you just take stuff home if you need it?

What company have you worked for that allows staff to snail mail letters all day to friends and fanily while the company supplies the stamps?

Did they need to tell you you couldn't do this or is it assumed?

The employee would have NO grounds to question instant dismissal for misuse of company equipment.

As I've said, we don't know WHY the company is doing this in this particular case, I'm sure they may have a valid reason though because I've been asked to flag mail the same way from specific users that was with VERY good reason.

by highlander718 Feb 18, 2004

Apparently users know they cannot send letters or take home company property, but they don't know (or don't want to know) that the same thing apply to e-mail. Now, they might think that this is free stuff (although it obviously isn't), same as they think about phone calls (what about those?), so it's different fro mtheir perspective. That's why, a company (and mine does) should have a written policy that users are signing.

Now, again, you're right about the fact that policy/no-policy, user is at fault if they use company e-mail or Internet resources for personal purpose. As I said, it's just a "nice thing to do" to "remind" them about these things. It's an employee, part of your team, it would be absurd to loose an excelent acomplisher because he made the mistake of sending personal e-mails. This way you avoid the moral guilt on teh companmy side, even id technicaly and legaly you (as a company) are right. Why would it hurt to inform users and make the understand ? I think it's good for both the company and the user.

The 'NICE' thing to do is let people know. The question was asking whether other companies do this and I can say YES, because I've set it up.

Is it moral? Well borderline, but a letter isn't imperative, it should go without saying.

nobody ever had to tell me about company email and web policies, it goes as common sense. Perhaps many people have a lack of common sense or have poor judgement toward such matters but I'bve always seen it as a given rule.

If a person has such bad judgement that they would not realize the email and phone the company has provided is for business use (probably why it didn't come loaded with Webshots, Incredimail and a few games)I don't know if that is an employee I want on MY team, I wonder how they would work out when they actually have to make a decision. Are we talking about special needs people here or a useful employee?

You won't need zoom Colin!

Reading your post, the bottom line is that a company has a right to control their assets as they see fit, most employees have no idea of all the reasons for how, and therefore the correct response is to get with the company program.

Taking that same approach to another realm of power, money, and control, one could say that a country has a right to control it assets as it sees fit, that most citizens have no idea of all the reasons for how, and therefore the correct response is to get with the national program.

Of course, no one would mistake that second paragraph as your position. It makes me wonder then why we should sacrifice our internal guides on right and wrong, proper and improper, when in the business environment.

I agree, your country can control it's assets as it sees fit and only neccessary information is provided to the citizens on a need to know basis.
Unfortunately everyone in the world hears about it daily, we just don't care unless it involves or threatens us.

What I don't agree with is you country controlling it's assets by involving other countries or seeknig to improve it's assets at teh expense of another nation. This is not a topic here though and I'm not going down THAT road again.

But a company is private, your country and government isn't, not exactly two peas in the same pod and the two cannot be compared.

If you come to my house, I have every right to know EXACTLY what you are doing at every minute you are in my house. It would make you feel uncomfortable and you may not visit next time but it is my home and I can do as I please, my home is private as is everything IN my home, just like a business, not a country.

Some companies are private, some are not. Likewise, some aspects of governments are legitimately secret at any moment in time.

Regardless, with government, business, and all other social interactions I think all of us are better off when we question that which makes us uncomfortable. I think we all impact the world we live in by what we accept, be it questionable business practices, questionable government policies, or questionable behavior from those we deal with.

Not everyone can start a successful business, anymore than everyone can paint a beautiful painting, design an efficient network, write a classic book, write or play beautiful music, or any number of other jobs that require both inherent and developed skills. As a result, we each owe each other a level of respect in how we deal with them and a responsibility to challange what we see as unethical.

All businesses if they want to be in business must have a business license from the government. This is to insure that the said business is conducting business in a fair and legal way towards both employees and customers. If they dont want to comply then either they get sued or dont get into business. There are lines that both have to adhere to so just because its our business doesnt mean its ok. The same could be said for your house that any abuse or what have you accept if you want to live there regardless of a crime. As long as it is due to an investigation pertaining to suspected theft or harrassment I'm ok and agree with your point, but not arbitrarily to see if somebody MIGHT be up to something (basically strong evidence or witness to accounts). The license doesnt give them the ok to do whatever they wish, if we allow this what next?

By saying that the poster has no idea what is going on I am not saying that the person needs to get with the program at all. This may be confidential information, it may even involve the poster himself. The compnay is not obligated to explain why it makes decisions, the company pays you and you are simply obligated to perform whatever tasks they ask of you (within reason)without questioning their motives. If you want complete control, start a business.

I don't think anyone has questioned the legal right of a company to act as indicated in the original post, and I don't think anyone has taken the position that they have a right to use company resources for personal purposes.

What has been raised is the issue of approach. The company has a right to look inside my briefcase when I bring in or out of the company facilities. They may have a right to open it while it is sitting in the cube I am using. If they were to do so without giving legitimate cause, I would let them finish (I have nothing to hide) and then I would quit. Personally, I won't work for someone who fails to give me the common respect I give them.

In the 1980's, telephone abuse was the big issue. Monitoring systems and reports to managers were the big craze. Such silliness lasted about two years. If employees were making calls to 900 numbers, the answer was simply to block such calls. If the general concern was long distance or even external local calls, these too could be limited to specific extensions requiring the access. Pay phones were placed in areas where the only need for telephones were clearly personal use. The reports - well I suppose some managers still get them and think they are managing, but every real manager saw them as a total waste of time, compute resources, and paper.

Okay, this is a morality issue over and above a legal one. Is the concern then the fact that someone will spend time reading email and justifying their position with te company? If so, who cares. I worked for many companies where I play puppy pounder all day while watching others bust ass, I was hired for knowledge not my ability to grunt.
The less you work the more money you make in most cases, that's just how it goes.
If someone wants to allocate a four month period to simply reading email, then let him do it, it's his boredom not mine.

If the company want you to have all email forwarded to them for review, then that's your job and their perogative.

I just don't see where or what the issue is then.

The employers asking for the email?
The guy doing nothing but reading it?
The fact that nobody knows about it?
All of the above should not be considered an issue but just the way the company operates and none of your business.

One major flaw I've seen in past employees are those that watch what everyone else is doing or complain what someone else is doing. My theory is do you job, do it well. Nobody will be talking about you and you can just go on happily. If someone else screws around, wastes time etc. who cares unless it effects YOUR ability to work.

What is the issue?

by jkaras Feb 18, 2004

Respect is a door that works both ways. To spend the 40+ hours that we all do on a daily basis looking out for the company should extend the same courtesy is what we are saying. People all over are getting laid off, fired for ludicrous reasons to post bigger profits due to poor management (increasing turnover), not due to effeciency or great management skills. If your stance is "if they were doing there job properly then it wouldnt be an issue" well the same can be said of management. There has to be a level of trust between management and employee, this tactic doesnt reinforce anymore than it claims respect. The people that work hard day in day out expect proper professionalism to work at be productive. A happy workplace is a productive one. Many companies incorporate email regarless of office or small business including retail. The companies have a right to protect themselves, I dont disagree, I disagree with the tactic that they are treating the employees like their scum when the management is acting like the scumbag. You say quit then, well just about every business engages in email, so where are you going to work? Furthermore you, me, as well as others monitor and post here on a highly regular basis. We abuse our internet access keeping us from being productive at work, so you or I be fired for misappropriation of rights? Are you not an asset that makes the company profitable, hard working? Does a slight dalliance diminish your contribution? Yes and no, but its managements job to make sure your doing your job thru observation not spying. Do you want to work in a place that treats you with little respect? Are you going to try to do a better job in the beliefs of advancement or are you just going to do enough to keep the paycheck? You claim you got a tough skin and I'm sure you do, but what if you got called in for just posting here, would you be upset losing your job or I deserved it? Do you respect someone that hates you this up front and honest or someone that goes behind your back smiling at you the whole time. If they are so professional why sneak when it's legal? Excuses that its their business doesnt discount the need for morality in the workplace, I'm quite sure you taught your children to repect others not money.

You make very valid points but seriously how many times has email caused your company a serious threat of safety? None I would imagine (only 911 is the only instance and there hasnt been 1 story since of email threats to national security, so its just irrational fear for justification)other than sexual harrasment, and side work that results in loss of company revenue. These situations are more evident and can start an investigation to protect, not just because, there has to be serious concern or witness complaints of violations.

by mlayton Feb 17, 2004

There is a difference between only starting to monitor and not telling the employees. In the US you should be notifying employees that monitoring MAY be used through banners at logon or the acceptable use/employee handbook that the employee signs. They also need to ensure they have not targeted any individual while monitoring. This is because the ECPA in 1986 extended wiretapping/eavesdropping to cover electronic communications. This is why pretty much wherever you call you get that "this call may be monitored..." Now if they have been saying in their banner that the communications may be monitored and they haven't ever done it, well the employees are probably too comfortable with that anyway.

"This is why pretty much wherever you call you get that "this call may be monitored"

No it isn't, the reason for the notification is that it is illegal to have a third patry monitor a conversation. If you phoned me, I could tape it and use it in court without ANY problems at all. A call center or supoprt center, does monitor for their own QA but it is a requirement of the FCC that a third party verification company reviews a predetermined amount of calls based on volume. This ensures, no misrepresentation, no misunderstandings (in the case of phone sales)........

SIDE NOTE: All those people who said they were switched to long distance carriers without knowing it, is pure crap. I've heard the tapes, as I used to monitor for the CRTC and FCC, from many people who claimed they were wrongly switched to Sprint, MCI or whoever. They're trying to avoid paying a bill, the recordings have a third party confirmig that they understand that ABC company will NOT be their carrier and the customer eagerly agreeing to the switch because they will save money.

..... you are not being monitorde because they want to record your call, they have to. As they are the ones you are dealing with, the call is reviewed by a third party, third party recording means you have to notify ONE of the other two parties. Technically they don't HAVE to tell you you are being recorded as the help desk person knows already, as long as one party knows, it is legal. They do it as a service to the customer though because many get riled at the thought and say they were illegally taped, which they wre not but it saves the BS.

Eavesdropping, it is not, you are rightly monitoring your business. Handbook, only if you are a complete idiot and wouldn't know better. Damn, I'd have fired the original poster for just starting such a discussion and questioning my methods (no offense Topes)but if you can't perform any job I ask of you without questioning my methods, I'll find someone who can. Reason for dismissal, unable to carry out company procedures as required. NEXT!

You don't HAVE to be notified,it is just a courtesy, do you REALLY think you have such rights in someone elses office/house?

by mlayton Feb 18, 2004

If you phoned me, I could tape it and use it in court without ANY problems at all.

Not really applicable everywhere - while it is true if you live in the state where Linda Tripp lives, we have all learned that - it is not true for every state. Some states require that both parties know of the recording.

Likewise, some states require that monitoring not be targeting a specific individual, and so they notify you up front that you "may be monitored", and some court cases have challenged the employees right to expectation of privacy, so the smart people doing the monitoring (which in some cases, depending on the monitoring, they have to do to protect themselves and show due care in preventing some security breaches, or they can become charged with negligence)consult their legal counsel to ensure if the purpose of the monitoring is for criminal investigation or HR proceedings, it meets the legal requirements within their state and jurisdiction.

Law enforcement, the courts, and the legal community do not always agree with the technical community, many times they are confused by terms/concepts/technologies, so it is always best to cover your assets, so to speak.

by mlayton Feb 18, 2004

...there are very MANY MANY other places where the warning on the PBX or voicemail is there for the same reason a banner exists on the IT system, in case someone uses the system "incorrectly" they can properly prosecute. that was what I was referring to above "this call may be monitored" - not call centers and other things where the whys and wherefores of monitoring is obvious.

by jdumbrille Feb 17, 2004

We know that emails are in some cases being read as a kind of personal and professional surveillance for performance appraisal. I know from a major oil company manager that they track email and internet use to get a handle on productivity.

You're right, there may be some cases that make some form of email tracking justified. Some of these cases are - if not 'wild scenarios' - at least very rare. The case of multiple emails being sent under the company's guise IS something that needs to be tracked, as some hacking has recently resulted in this kind of abuse - these hacks not necessarily instigated by employees.
It's worthwhile distinguishing between intents and processes that are inherently self defeasting, and those that are useful.

Cmon Oldefar, you know better than that and you also know exactly what I meant.

Taking into account a company's stock, even public companies only have to provide apecific criteria and financial reports for public viewing by investors. They don't have to tell investors that they are monitoring email. A company is a business, generally started by one or several people for the sole puropse of generating revenue to make the founders rich. It is in NO way shape or form, anything like a government when it comes to privacy. Even if it was, are you implying that your government is obligated to share similar info? I don't think so.

Someome buys equipment, rents a facility, installs the needed fixtures, systems and employees. Employees in an office have no personal or private business that isn't the business of the company. Whatever you do or say is 100% the company's business. Now we don't work for people like that and a certain level of exception is given if a son calls dad at the office, you get an email from a relative etc. It is due to a business owners own morals that some personal matters are able to be handled at the workplace, not by right.

When you are in a workplace you have ONE right and ONE obligation. To provide your services/expertise/talents to that company for a scheduled amount of hours each day/week. That's as far as the obligation goes. The employer is obligated to pay you a sum as previously agreed and provide you with a safe, comfortable working environment. Privaleges are too often seen as obligations and employees expect things from employers that they are not obligated to provide, such as a private email system. It IS private for the company, just not private for YOU.

I think that's where we are getting wires crossed.

A business licence has nothing to do with employee privacy in the workplace. No you can't publish everyone's social security number in the local paper, but that is a public broadcast and not in your place of business.

If your employer wanted to read ALL outbound mail just for his jollies, he is 100% entitled to and not a court in the world would see otherwise.

This is something I have learned as a QA manager for the CRTC. I have spent countless hours explaining and reiterating company communications laws. Your employer OWNS the email, just as if HE/SHE wrote it. If you are sending it, they can read it without reason. If you are using company stamps to send personal mail from the company, your employer can open that also. It may not be moral, but it is legal. Would I not be entitled to check the odometer before and after you drive My car? Of course I would, it's my property, if I let you use it, it doesn't mean I cannot control the use of it.

I don't even see how this has turned into such a lengthy discussion. Black and white, no matter HOW you feel it is or isn't moral, it is legal. If you don't like it, quit. Done deal, now you aren't the bad one, they wil find someone else who will simply forward the emails without questioning company motices or ethics.

How so? Your company decides to practice it's right to know what information is being transmitted by it's employees during work hours and you would see them with a different view?

It may not be as up front as saying, we will be monitoring email and anything unprofessional will not be tolerated? THey REALLY shouldn't need to, privacy in the workplace cannot be assumed.

Yes it is VERY detrimental for a company to raise incertainty and doubt in its employees as you have shown yourself. You have been so bothered by this that you've posted to gether opinion and make some sense out of your own feelings. THis is completely normal and accepted.

The company is not wrong in any way. It may be unwelcomed by employees and it may not even mean that reading non-work related email will get people fired, it may be just a gauge. Some freetime or innocent email must be OK I'm sure, they are probably looking for abuse somewhere.

I recentlt did an ROI for a company's SPAM. Taking the number of users, average number of spam mail, deletion time etc into account. Their solution was $3000.00 the hardware to run it another $4500.00. When shown that just a FEW minutes deleting SPAM each day added up to over $14,000 in lost employee revenue each year, I can nuderstand why a company would be concered even if each employee sent TWO personal emails per day. This can add up to an entire years salary for another employee!

I am not trying to push my point of view, when I see someone assuming something that I already know as fact, I will respond to clear up any misconceptions. Such as 'Your calls being recorded by call centers for the legality surrounding eavesdropping.'

Whereas it is due to a third party being required to tape the call, third party means ONE or BOTH other parties must know about the recording.

You have a point regarding morale, but isn't this being done secretly anyway? If nobody knows, how is morale damaged?

by hal 9000 Feb 18, 2004

There have ben quite a few Public Servants fired for using their computers to look at inappropriate web sites and when confronted by their actions they seem to think that it is "Their" computer to do with as they wish and not the property of the Government that they work for.

Granted most of these problems do accrue after hours or on lunch breaks but they are used to look up certain web sites and pas some pictures on to their friends as well. Lets face it we all do it when we find something funny we like to share it around but the line needs to be drawn when there is some porn being sent to people who are offended by it the trick here is to know who will and will not be offended by anything that you may send or receive.

Col

by topesblues Feb 18, 2004

Ok, so we know that a company has the right to look at E-Mail. What?s the advantage of not telling the employee? Unless there doing something illegal.

That is the important question here. Are you privvy to such information?
Is the person being targeted someone you may be well aquianted with? Is this someone who maybe works in YOUR department? If so, it would not be wise to inform you, or any other management. It may be a very sensitive reason that only a few are aware of? Managers may just be told to act on 'something' and not know why.

without the facts, you can't pass judgement, I think that's sume up my views. They aren't breaking a law, they may be immoral but in the long run it may be for everyone's benefit. You just don't know.

But they don't apply to me in most cases.

"You say quit then, well just about every business engages in email, so where are you going to work?"
>>If you can't work for a company without using email for personal reasons, then you shouldn't be working and shuld be at home with your PC.

"Furthermore you, me, as well as others monitor and post here on a highly regular basis. We abuse our internet access keeping us from being productive at work, so you or I be fired for misappropriation of rights? Are you not an asset that makes the company profitable, hard working? Does a slight dalliance diminish your contribution? Yes and no, but its managements job to make sure your doing your job thru observation not spying."
>>This is case dependant, the Employer may NEED to filter ALL mail in order to actually target a single user, instead of singling out one employee from the pack.

"Do you want to work in a place that treats you with little respect? Are you going to try to do a better job in the beliefs of advancement or are you just going to do enough to keep the paycheck?"
I'm at home, I work for myself not a company. I got sick and tired of the politics and underhanded techniques that are being questioned here. Seeing as the employer is free to do as he wishes when I'm on his time, I decided if I want ti MY way, I must do my own thing. Ever since I was young, I hated working for someone else, if I get bored, I find somethig new to do or a new way to generate income without working for someone.

"You claim you got a tough skin and I'm sure you do, but what if you got called in for just posting here, would you be upset losing your job or I deserved it?" Yes, of course I would say I deserved it, because I did. This isn't court or baseball, there's no three strike rule. SOME employers will give the employee the benefit of the doubt by warning you, yet they don't have to by any means.
"If they are so professional why sneak when it's legal?" I don't know if it is sneaking. IF the police needed to be aware of something, then it would not be sneaky to catch the offender.

"You make very valid points but seriously how many times has email caused your company a serious threat of safety?" Safety? NONE. MONEY? Could have been thousands and several times. Lawsuits usually cost companies money, not employees. Lets say someone is sending offensive email within a company under different guises or from multiplt accounts. Employes could and should sue you for not stopping it. I letter or warning may be a temporary fix, but reviewing mail for the offense will be the end all of it, 911 wasn't an issue in Canada, we don't have to watch a national threat level each day, we simply don't have one.

As for serious concern or witness complaints, who's to say that in his case there isn't?
Becuase the IT guy wasn't told about it?

You have good points and I understand the morals surrounding it. Morals are very situation dependant, in this case the situation has not been made clear, possibly the whole problem, but this may have also been a completely logical next step that is being kept quiet for a specific reason.

If I worked for a company that asked me to read email all day, I'd probably take a few easy paychecks and be gone in no time to find something more fullfilling. I wonder how the managers feel about having to do this every day, are they impressed too, or would they rather be getting more meaningful tasks done?
Do they also think that this is a good way for them to manage their departments? I sure hope not.

There must be an underlying reason, no employer no matter how bored or nosey, would justify the wasted time unless absolutely beccessary.

"Some states require that both parties know of the recording." know state laws vary quite a bit, but the FCC rules are national and they ned to be in order to be effective.

in 6 years with regulating call centers and a family member who is a corporate communications lawyer, i have never heard of BOTH parties needing to know about a recording. What if your center is in India and takes calls from all over the USA? Do you need a different set of rules for each incoming call based on caller ID?

The law was passed in 1986 as part of the telecommunications deregulation act and remains intact today with no ammendments.

It is not state law it is federal law.

by mlayton Feb 18, 2004

when you said "If you phoned me, I could tape it and use it in court without ANY problems at all." which was what I was referencing.

Corporate communications, as I have said before, bring different challenges when it comes to legality because different states can interpret the same law in different ways - countries can interpret it still completely differently. If you have a center in India what is legal in India is not necessarily true in the US. Which state in the US is irrelevant at that point.

I stand by the original statement that I think I made, if I didn't, I meant to - that they ought to check with corporate counsel and you should always notify employees of monitoring or not monitor - because otherwise, even if you have the right, who needs the expense of going to court? But if the company has been posting banners forever and just started monitoring, then they are fine.

Basic Computer Security courses tell you that.