Specific e-mail monitoring 1

[Draxus]

The last company I worked for implemented e-mail and web monitoring software.

The intention was to scan all e-mails for certain keywords and report users with the highest incidents to the senior management. For web use we were to produce a 'top five' list of users with dates, times and sites visited.

The policy was made public to all employees.

My director asked me if it was possible to single out certain users and intercept their mail. His reasoning was there was an employee who he wanted to fire but needed grounds to do so. He hoped to gain evidence of anything that could be used in a dismissal.

As far as I'm aware the employee hadn't done anything, wasn't even suspected of doing anything.

Thoughts?



CompTIA A+ Certified, Dell Certified Technician.

 

[CajunCenturion]

I have no problem with a public known policy that email is being monitored.

I do have a problem with singling out certain employees and going on a witch hunt. If management has documented probable cause, then enhanced monitoring has some validity, but to look for grounds for firing is IMHO not acceptable.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SQLSister]

This is a go to HR issue to me. I would point out tothe supervisor that the firing wouldn;t hold up unless it was done properly and that you needde to discuss the legal ramifications of the doing this with HR and maybe the company lawyer before you could agree to do this to ensure that everything was properly executed in a way that would hold up in court.

 

[DrJavaJoe]

After which you will be the one that is single out

 

[CajunCenturion]

<jest>
Yeah, that SQLSister is such a trouble-maker. But at least she's our trouble-maker.
</jest>

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[mjinks61]

SQL brings up a good point. I would also want the director's request to me in writing for backup to CMA. In todays workplace, it has become nearly impossible to fire someone without legal ramificatons, even if the employee's work is sub-par. Your director may simply be wanting to cover his own a** before fireing an employee who is not pulling his/her own weight, and needing documentaion to support his decision and keep the company out of court.

Isn't it 5:00PM yet?

 

[SQLSister]

Cajun,

I'm not a Trouble-Maker, but I did find out yesterday that I have become the High Priestess of the Sacred Advil. That's almost as good as being a trouble-maker, right?

 

[lespaul]

Does that mean we have to bow to you now, O Holy One?

[ROFL]

Leslie

 

[CajunCenturion]

I am truly humbled to be in your presence SQLSister. :-D

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[benlinkknilneb]

I just got this mental image of Ewoks...


Seriously, Draxus, I would never want to be a part of something like that... and if they require you to do it, get your orders in writing so you have a way to pass the buck.

Ben
A programmer was drowning. Lots of people watched but did nothing. They couldn't understand why he yelled &quot;F1!&quot;

 

[lionelhill]

Looking for excuses to fire someone is pretty shabby behaviour. I mean, how would that director feel if someone senior to him asked you to monitor his e-mail in the hopes of finding grounds to get rid of him?

If you are obliged to do things like this (by the necessity of earning a living), I'd be inclined to ask for written instructions to do the job. It covers you if things get nasty, but also points out to the director in question that his actions are his, and will be attributed to him, personally, if it comes to it. That often focusses the mind.

 

[Draxus]

Maybe it's just me, but I've been party to many similar situations to this over the years.

These were for different companies, all in the UK. Now I'm in the US the attitude seems a lot different....

CompTIA A+ Certified, Dell Certified Technician.

 

[SQLSister]

lespaul, nah, I only make people I don't like bow to me in order to obtain the sacred Advil. Hmmmm that reminds me, we have a major deadline next week (100th anniversary of flight! Look for us at Kitty Hawk if you are going to be there.), I need to go buy some more...

 

[benlinkknilneb]

I personally have a problem with someone who's trying to find a way to fire people. If there's some sort of obvious, documented reason, then yes, they need to be fired... however... if they're only suspected of something, with no real way to even back up the suspicion, it could be that they just don't like each other... and that's not a good reason to fire someone.

Guess I wouldn't survive too long in the UK...

Ben
A programmer was drowning. Lots of people watched but did nothing. They couldn't understand why he yelled &quot;F1!&quot;

 

[SQLSister]

Ben, to be fair, this manager may be trying to get from I have a suspicion to documented proof. He may have overhead a conversation that made him feel uneasy about something or maybe a client this person deals with extensively dropped the company suddenly with no explanation or any one of a thousand things. At least he is looking for proof before firing. However, whether the reason is valid or not, it is in the IT person's and the company's best interest if the procedures for doing the monitoring are clearly discussed (and documented) with those who will have to deal with the ramifications of the firing to make sure it is done in a proper manner which will stand up in a court of law. You must remember company email is NOT private and the company does have a right to read it and to use it against you in a firing or some other action. And lawyers suing the company also have a right to supena (Sp?) it as well. But if the firing is to stick, then it is incumbent on us to make sure that the proper legal processes are followed. If they are, then there is no reason to object to monitoring the email.

 

[benlinkknilneb]

I may have been misunderstood...

I have no problems with email being monitored or used against someone... IF and ONLY IF there is some sort of substance to the suspicion. The way Draxus wrote it, I got the impression that it was more of a witch-hunt sort of thing. From the first post:

His reasoning was there was an employee who he wanted to fire but needed grounds to do so.

This, in my opinion, smacks of &quot;I don't like ____... let me read his email to see if he's been doing something I can fire him for.&quot; THIS seems to me to be an unethical use of the monitoring policy... and those are the people that I have problems with.

Ben
A programmer was drowning. Lots of people watched but did nothing. They couldn't understand why he yelled &quot;F1!&quot;

 

[SQLSister]

I agree that a witch hunt is an unethical use of monitoring, that is why you have to go through HR to do it. IF HR agrees there is cause for concern, then I'm fine with the monitoring. You will note I did not recommend he do it without the concurrence of other parties. I would even go so far as to suggest they create a formal policy for requests of this nature needing approval from specific people (HR, Legal, CEO, whoever) before the IT department can agree to them. Then you can more easily turn down these requests if necessary until the proper people are informed.

 

[lionelhill]

From the original posting:
&quot;he wanted to fire but needed grounds to do so&quot;

This is not a &quot;presumed innocent until proven otherwise&quot; statement. It is a clear statement of a desire to collect one-sided evidence with a single aim in mind. I hope the director didn't really mean that, and merely expressed himself badly.