Advice

[Bali Hai]

Are you going to try to claim that the law prohibits firing an employee for this reason?

If so, please link to the law that says so. The law does not require it but it most certainly permits it.

Zigner said that, attack him/her not me.

I am fully aware of at will employment and an employee can be discriminately terminated for virtually anything that the employer thinks up un the sun.

 

[Zigner]

Zigner said that, attack him/her not me.

I am fully aware of at will employment and an employee can be discriminately terminated for virtually anything that the employer thinks up un the sun.

Ok, exactly WHERE did I say the law requires an employee to be fired in such a case?

 

[Bali Hai]

Ok, exactly WHERE did I say the law requires an employee to be fired in such a case?

You didn't, cbg said that.

You said that employers don't enforce laws.

It was cbg that presented the whole law v employer can of worms to bolster her/his position that the husband could be lawfully fired for using an employee email account for personal issues under any circumstances and in her words, "especially a case like this one".

But then qualified by saying that employers have the option to enforce or not after realizing she/he has no solid ground other than information given by a hostile witness whose "professional opinion" of the husband's actions are blackmail. The so-called witness should keep her nose restricted to her own business.

We still don't know what the "private pictures" entail. They could be anything the wife deems private.

A woman told another woman what she perceived as a threat from the husbands company email. The whole thing has taken a hysterical turn that the husband could be and probably should be hung by the balls without asking any further questions.

 

[Zigner]

You didn't, cbg said that.

No, CBG said no such thing

You said that employers don't enforce laws.

Correct - they don't.

It was cbg that presented the whole law v employer can of worms to bolster her/his position that the husband could be lawfully fired for using an employee email account for personal issues under any circumstances and in her words, "especially a case like this one".

What "can of worms"? It is simply a statement of fact. There is nothing unlawful about an employee (ie: the husband) being fired for this conduct.

But then qualified by saying that employers have the option to enforce or not after realizing she/he has no solid ground other than information given by a hostile witness whose "professional opinion" of the husband's actions are blackmail. The so-called witness should keep her nose restricted to her own business.

Enforce policy.

We still don't know what the "private pictures" entail. They could be anything the wife deems private.

Irrelevant.

A woman told another woman what she perceived as a threat from the husbands company email. The whole thing has taken a hysterical turn that the husband could be and probably should be hung by the balls without asking any further questions.

The hysterics came from you in response to the observation that the husband *could* be terminated for such an action. Not should. Could.

 

[cbg]

Actually, I didn't say that employer are required to term in that case. I said it was a termination offense, which it is. But the employer always has the choice of whether to term or not. There are few if any instances where an employer is REQUIRED to term an employee - there are a great many where he is PERMITTED to.

 

[quincy]

Bali Hai, the right of employers to terminate the employment of their employees over the employees' personal use of company computers has been litigated for a long time. Most courts have found, and continue to find, in favor of the employer.

You have Bourke v Nissan Motor Corp from 1993, Smyth v Pillsbury Co from 1996, McLaren v Microsoft Corp from 1999 and, for additional, more recent cases, and a nice review of the law as it currently stands on the rights of employers versus the privacy rights of employees, visit https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm.

It does appear you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Bali Hai]

Bali Hai, the right of employers to terminate the employment of their employees over the employees' personal use of company computers has been litigated for a long time. Most courts have found, and continue to find, in favor of the employer.

You have Bourke v Nissan Motor Corp from 1993, Smyth v Pillsbury Co from 1996, McLaren v Microsoft Corp from 1999 and, for additional, more recent cases, and a nice review of the law as it currently stands on the rights of employers versus the privacy rights of employees, visit https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm.

It does appear you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'm not arguing for or against the right of employers to discipline employees for misconduct.

As I said previously, and will spell it out for a first grader to understand:

If we are to fire anyone for abuse of employer computers, let us fire ALL abusers and not just selectively the man who was the subject of a witch hunt by two hysterical women.

If the husband has comitted a crime, the crime will be the same no matter where the email was sent from. As a matter of fact, the court won't give a damn where the email was sent from, only the wife, the hostile witness and the vindictive manhaters on this forum will for obvious transparent reasons.

 

[Zigner]

I'm not arguing for or against the right of employers to discipline employees for misconduct.

As I said previously, and will spell it out for a first grader to understand:

That's not what you said.

If we are to fire anyone for abuse of employer computers, let us fire ALL abusers and not just selectively the man who was the subject of a witch hunt by two hysterical women.

An employer is not required to fire somebody in this instance. An employer is not required to fire multiple people who have committed the same offense even. It appears that you are advocating for a law dictating who employers must fire.

If the husband has comitted a crime, the crime will be the same no matter where the email was sent from. As a matter of fact, the court won't give a damn where the email was sent from, only the wife, the hostile witness and the vindictive manhaters on this forum will for obvious transparent reasons.

Psstt - I'm far from a manhater.

 

[Bali Hai]

That's not what you said.

An employer is not required to fire somebody in this instance. An employer is not required to fire multiple people who have committed the same offense even. It appears that you are advocating for a law dictating who employers must fire.


Psstt - I'm far from a manhater.

Whatever Zigner, when a man potentially causes the loss of livelihood for a woman everyone here says he will be in big trouble! When a woman potentially causes the loss of livelihood of a man everyone says she is justified or he did to himself.

It is a hard thing to deal with denial, just give the old college try.

 

[Zigner]

Whatever Zigner, when a man potentially causes the loss of livelihood for a woman everyone here says he will be in big trouble! When a woman potentially causes the loss of livelihood of a man everyone says she is justified or he did to himself.

Your bias is shining again. As far as I am concerned, each case is fact-dependent and gender-neutral.

It is a hard thing to deal with denial, just give the old college try.

 

[cbg]

Bali, at the risk of wasting my time, it's not a question of whether it's a man losing his livelihood due to a woman's complaints, or a woman losing hers to a man's.

In this specific instance, the man, in this case, used his work email (it is irrelevant, in this instance, whether he was actually on company time or not) to make threats that have potential legal, or even criminal, consequences. Who he made them to is irrelevant. He could have made them to his brother or his best male friend and the answer would be the same. A woman could have made the same threats to a man, or to another woman, and the answer would be the same.

Knowing your bias, I went out of my way to make clear that I would be providing exactly the same answers to this set of circumstances regardless of the genders involved. It is not because of the genders involved, but because of the specific circumstances, that no one is saying, "She could be in trouble for threatening his livelihood".

In another set of circumstances, either a man or a woman could definitely be in trouble for "threatening the livelihood" of their opposite gender. Not in this case.

But I really don't expect you to acknowledge this. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances in which you would admit that any woman would be justified in any action that had adverse consequences to a man.

I noted a couple of weeks ago when one thread, written by a man, went on for three pages as everyone assured him that his ex-wife would not be able to accomplish what she wanted to accomplish and his - custody, I believe it was, though I may have the topic wrong - would be left intact. I didn't see you in that thread. I wonder why?

 

[Bali Hai]

Your bias is shining again. As far as I am concerned, each case is fact-dependent and gender-neutral.

My so-called bias is an overcompensation to level the playing field.

Each case is fact-dependent and gender-neutral? Every judge says that and that is what is called lip service. What plays out in court speaks much louder.

Go ahead and advise a man on this forum to report his wife to her employer for abuse of the employer email account. Go ahead, I dare you! We both know you won't because you would be run out of town on a rail.

 

[Zigner]

Go ahead and advise a man on this forum to report his wife to her employer for abuse of the employer email account. Go ahead, I dare you! We both know you won't because you would be run out of town on a rail.

If the situation warrants it, the I would do it. To this point, I don't think that specific scenario has come up (I could be wrong).

 

[Bali Hai]

Bali, at the risk of wasting my time, it's not a question of whether it's a man losing his livelihood due to a woman's complaints, or a woman losing hers to a man's.

In this specific instance, the man, in this case, used his work email (it is irrelevant, in this instance, whether he was actually on company time or not) to make threats that have potential legal, or even criminal, consequences. Who he made them to is irrelevant. He could have made them to his brother or his best male friend and the answer would be the same. A woman could have made the same threats to a man, or to another woman, and the answer would be the same.

Knowing your bias, I went out of my way to make clear that I would be providing exactly the same answers to this set of circumstances regardless of the genders involved. It is not because of the genders involved, but because of the specific circumstances, that no one is saying, "She could be in trouble for threatening his livelihood".

In another set of circumstances, either a man or a woman could definitely be in trouble for "threatening the livelihood" of their opposite gender. Not in this case.

But I really don't expect you to acknowledge this. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances in which you would admit that any woman would be justified in any action that had adverse consequences to a man.

I noted a couple of weeks ago when one thread, written by a man, went on for three pages as everyone assured him that his ex-wife would not be able to accomplish what she wanted to accomplish and his - custody, I believe it was, though I may have the topic wrong - would be left intact. I didn't see you in that thread. I wonder why?

I respectfully acknowledge that you have taken the time to reflect on this issue and have come to terms with it in a most positive manner.

Thank you very much for your post cbg.