Posting, County Employees - Redux

SSHM;  While I respect you and your opinions, I would not urge any employee to try to beat the employer in order to blog on company time.  What if they follow your advice and still get caught doing something other than what the employer is paying them to do?  My guess is some disciplinary action, up to and including removal.

Employees:  If I was in the work force and my employer said the time on the clock is "his" and he says no unauthorized use of the time and equipment, then I'd follow that instruction.  I know that to do otherwise is to invite dismissal.  I'd have a hard time telling my spouse why I got the axe.  How could I make that look like I was being hassled out the door?

Another point is this.  At one time in my other life, I had to lay down the law about this "unauthorized" stuff.  Seems at least one of 25 accounting technicians/clerks will always stretch the point.  One would want to study;  The next would want to look at catalogues.  The shopper would say :   Well; what difference does it make what I'm reading?  Janie (student) is reading, too.  Next thing you know, work is not getting donme because this person is selling cosmetics, and that one is selling dishes and cookware.

I knew it was going on.  I did not try to catch'em at it.  But woe be unto the Office manager if a PO wasn't processed on time, or if a vendor didn't get paid on time or a petty cash reimbursement was delayed because Bob over there was ordering motorcycle parts....

Whether the methodology or the intent, "beating the system" is a very Preston-like mindset being preached by a Preston disciple. Should we be surprised? Case law supports an employers right to demand whatever they want, on the clock, using company resources. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE WORKPLACE when it comes to company resources. Your email, keylogging, screen capture, port monitoring anything and everything your employer chooses to implement to protect his company has been upheld. Under the law, there is nothing personal or private supposed to be on company property anyway. The employer has an absolute right to protect what is his from abuse or personal use.

I worked for the State of SC for 15 years before retiring. Once a week IT in Columbia would inform the Dept Supervisor and/or County Dir. of all internet/e-mail use for each desktop unit. Depending on your job, some internet use were allowed and sites were blocked. Three warning and then you were fired.

@Ed,

The intent is to educated and remove what I and others perceive as an intimidation effort aimed at County Employees. Simply put, the employees have a right to know what the law is. Any action they take is on their own. I'm simply a purveyor of information. Nothing wrong with handing out information, right? We are about open and honest government, right?

@SunnyGirl,

I'm gathering you did not bother to read the article I provided. Nor do you have a firm grasp on the law of the state of South Carolina. I'd reference the following:

Privacy: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/privacy

Specifically . . .

State Constitutional Law

Many state constitutions guarantee a right to privacy independent of the right to privacy found in the federal constitution. Those states include Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington. Some of these state constitutional provisions apply only to public sector employees, while others have been interpreted to apply generally to all state residents. Although it is difficult to make meaningful generalizations about each of these state constitutional provisions, employees' privacy interests are frequently afforded greater protection under state constitutional law than they are under the federal constitution.

Now start with your Lexis/Nexis searches to find common law that was derived by litigating under the aforementioned context. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

@cuzz,

I would wager there were two other components of your employment with the State:

1.) The rules were OBJECTIVE and not SUBJECTIVE. In other words, you had printed guidelines that were explicit in defining what was and what was not permitted, along with a defined appeal process to take something that was not permitted and make it permissable (or vice versa).

2.) In the case of the state, during the on-boarding process, you most likely signed an document relating to electronic access, rights to access, etc. As apart of that on-boarding process, said document, that would indicate that "hey, we can keylog your workstation to see what you are doing" would have been laid out as apart of the hiring process (e.g., a term of employment). Failure to disclose such activities up front or to change said procedures after the fact could be construed to be a change in the terms of employment - a change without the consent of the employee.

Welcome to the legal quagmire that the county has put itself in.

- SSHM

Geez cuzz--what were you doing for the state that you got to retire after 15 years?  You must have been a judge or in the General Assembly.  I worked for the state for 30 years before I could retire and that was at half pay.  

And SG--are you a lawyer or do you just watch Court TV like the rest of us and pretend you know the law?

Nor do you have a firm grasp on the law of the state of South Carolina.

-sshm

Maybe you should provide the actual law you are talking about, rather than telling me I don't have a firm grasp on it.
 

Oddly enough, you skipped over the conclusion or summation of the author’s opinion, on the subject of privacy in the workplace, in the link you provided.

Conclusion

It is telling that much of the law governing privacy in the workplace actually protects employers from liability for invasion of privacy claims brought by employees. In this way the law reflects a general understanding among the American public that the workplace is essentially a place for commerce, productivity, and human interaction, but normally not a place for privacy or seclusion.

For the most part, employees themselves realize that the employer owns the company and expends the resources to make it profitable. Employees generally want to be efficient and productive so they can receive better reviews and better raises. Consequently, the law gives employers wide latitude and ample discretion in dictating how their businesses will be run.

You alluded to privacy protection under a broad general statement by eNotes.com that may mislead some into believing they enjoy protections they do not have. Maybe you should Lexis/Nexis or research State law to support your position better. If you had read the entire piece, you would have noticed while South Carolina was mentioned in the paragraph you posted, it is not mentioned again as the rest of the States in the examples given. eNotes is another wiki in the making, contributions are by self proclaimed “experts”. So, a broad statement by eNotes.com, in no way shape or form qualifies as an authority on the subject. It would be tantamount to me using this forum as a reference source.

SSHM and Kandy share the same legal expertise. They only read the part of the law that helps them, then get their butts handed to them by competent lawyers or Judges disgusted by a lack of having read the whole opinion or law. LOL  There is no expectation of pivacy in a work place. Most employee handbooks have PC and telephone use guidelines. Any use of the company (or county) PC is allowed to be investigated to prevent abuse or mis-use. If that were not the case, our disguntaled county employees would be on the ATZ all day complaining about their sad work conditions.

While we are at it, if you download programs not approved by the company or county onto their system then you risk getting in a lot of trouble with your boss & IT. Very bad advice. Good thing you aren't a lawyer SSHM you could get a lot of people in a lot of bad situations with your "suggestions".

And SG--are you a lawyer or do you just watch Court TV like the rest of us and pretend you know the law?

-elliefant

HaHaHaHa!   Think they're tuning into Judge Judy after Springer goes off....

SSHM and Kandy share the same legal expertise. They only read the part of the law that helps them, then get their butts handed to them by competent lawyers or Judges disgusted by a lack of having read the whole opinion or law. LOL  There is no expectation of pivacy in a work place. Most employee handbooks have PC and telephone use guidelines. Any use of the company (or county) PC is allowed to be investigated to prevent abuse or mis-use. If that were not the case, our disguntaled county employees would be on the ATZ all day complaining about their sad work conditions.

While we are at it, if you download programs not approved by the company or county onto their system then you risk getting in a lot of trouble with your boss & IT. Very bad advice. Good thing you aren't a lawyer SSHM you could get a lot of people in a lot of bad situations with your "suggestions".

-1-opinion

Expectation of pivacy? I agree - I wouldn't expect pivacy in the workplace. Privacy now? Well, that's a different matter all to its own. I also see where you are making assumptions about employee handbooks. I'd suggest getting a definitive answer on that as no one has come forward to say for certain.

If you would actually read my notes, you would see where the suggestions I put forth involve installing NOTHING on a given County System. Besides, all MIS knows is that ancient iSeries clunker in the back room. Here's a newsflash: The rest of the world is abandoning that dinosaur. Don't cling to something because it's all you know or all you care to learn.

- SSHM