Man Fired For Looking At Gun Web Sites

[reverserboy]

Depending on what I'm doing,there can be lots of downtime where I work. I would never surf on any company computer however. That's what laptops & netbooks are for.

[headcase]

I am still not sure what the exact point of debate is in this thread...

In this Commonwealth, you can fire anyone, for any reason, except protected classes that would be covered under anti discrimination law.

According to the OP, the guy was doing something not work related on company equipment. Unless he can prove discrimination of a protected sort took place, then he has no case. Apparently a judge ruled he did not do so.

Was this about guns, or was this about firing someone for reasons other than the stated one? We will not know unless the company answers that question truthfully. Personally, I feel that given just the reported parameters, there is more going on than was stated, but that is an opinion.

I don't think guns were anything more than a smokescreen for something else, but even if they were not, and this is played out at face value, they had every right to boot him. Sucks but it is what it is. Surfing anything on company time that is not company related, which is where the comparison of gun sites to porn holds water, is not a protected activity that shields you from being fired.

[nlcrsn]

Well they didnt bother to reply to my email. Guess I'll send another!

[General Geoff]

Your not supposed to be browsing any sites during work, any. Unless it pretains to WORK. Companys also have excessive email issues. WORK only.. Just like phone calls and personal phones...ALL ARE ANTI WORK.. As far as your lunch break, Dunno how this would apply.

Humans are not robots. They are dynamic creatures with finite attention spans and depend on creativity and imagination to accomplish a lot; and often a bit of leisure activity during work can make their productivity increase well beyond what it would be if they spent every moment of their allotted shift focused like a laser beam to business-related things only.

It only becomes a problem when work duties are neglected, forgotten or significantly delayed because of leisure.

[exceltoexcel]

That's the problem. To initiate a case like this you must report it to the EEOC within 180 days. They have to review it and approve it for the case to go forward IANAL. That happened, his heart condition is the discrimination and he's arguing that the policy was selective only to justify the EEOA violation. Since he had a prior documented complaint with HR on this issue prior to the action, the company is screwed!

It has nothing to do with his violation of policy, but rather the selective use of policy to discriminate. Expect to hear moreon this story!

Originally Posted by headcase

I am still not sure what the exact point of debate is in this thread...

In this Commonwealth, you can fire anyone, for any reason, except protected classes that would be covered under anti discrimination law.

According to the OP, the guy was doing something not work related on company equipment. Unless he can prove discrimination of a protected sort took place, then he has no case. Apparently a judge ruled he did not do so.

Was this about guns, or was this about firing someone for reasons other than the stated one? We will not know unless the company answers that question truthfully. Personally, I feel that given just the reported parameters, there is more going on than was stated, but that is an opinion.

I don't think guns were anything more than a smokescreen for something else, but even if they were not, and this is played out at face value, they had every right to boot him. Sucks but it is what it is. Surfing anything on company time that is not company related, which is where the comparison of gun sites to porn holds water, is not a protected activity that shields you from being fired.

[BufordTPisser]

Originally Posted by truecrimson

A lot of jobs have down time. Sometimes there is a lot of down time. During that down time what is the difference between watching TV, reading a book, gossiping, reading Cosmopolitan magazine, and surfing the net? What is the difference between surfing e bay or facebook, and surfing gun stuff?

The pro gun contingent at work is one of the reasons I decided to go staff. I have no idea what administrations take on it is, but the staff is very pro gun.

The biggest difference is that they have a policy in place to prevent internet usage on company time. It is not about stealing time or resources, it is about information security. I am an information security consultant by trade, and you would not believe the stupidity that I have seen. I have been in doctors offices where a doctor was viewing a patients record on one screen, and viewing e-bay and chatting via IM on the other screen. And so what if it was Mossbergs site, are they immune to phishing attacks or redirectors? Even sites like MSN, MSNBC, CNN, and most of the major sites have at one time or another been used to serve up malware.

Now all of that being said, there is no way that anyone who is ever fired for violation of an internet usage policy should ever lose an Unemployment Compensation case or an EEOC case. I have yet to work for a company that has a policy that forbids internet usage on company time that enforces it equally across the board. And that is the part that will hang them every time. I have testified on both sides of this issue. And the only case where the person lost was one where we documented each and every violation and warning that we issued. And she admitted that she violated the policy knowingly and willingly because she believed that others did so also.

[BufordTPisser]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

in general, being a slave driving taskmaster is about the worst way to get people to be productive. allowing them to integrate their work and life is generally a good way to get people to be productive.

Well hopefully for your sake and the sake of others, your doctor, your financial adviser, your bank, your mortgage broker, etc. etc. etc, are not surfing on company time on the same computers that they use for your personal records. If I can get onto a system, I can abuse a system.

I am not saying what they did to this guy is not wrong, I do not know enough of the particulars of the case.

[BufordTPisser]

Originally Posted by exceltoexcel

That's the problem. To initiate a case like this you must report it to the EEOC within 180 days. They have to review it and approve it for the case to go forward IANAL. That happened, his heart condition is the discrimination and he's arguing that the policy was selective only to justify the EEOA violation. Since he had a prior documented complaint with HR on this issue prior to the action, the company is screwed!

It has nothing to do with his violation of policy, but rather the selective use of policy to discriminate. Expect to hear moreon this story!

You hit the nail on the head. But headcase is right in that this story really has nothing to do with guns. And as the EEOC or PHRC complaints go forward, it places the burden of proof on the employer. The employee only has to make the claim. I have been through these types of cases as the employer representative, and as expert witness for employee's. Most times employers settle. That way they keep the blemishes of a lost case off of their record.

[Exbiker]

Originally Posted by BufordTPisser

Now all of that being said, there is no way that anyone who is ever fired for violation of an internet usage policy should ever lose an Unemployment Compensation case or an EEOC case. I have yet to work for a company that has a policy that forbids internet usage on company time that enforces it equally across the board. And that is the part that will hang them every time. I have testified on both sides of this issue. And the only case where the person lost was one where we documented each and every violation and warning that we issued. And she admitted that she violated the policy knowingly and willingly because she believed that others did so also.

First let me say that if you are anybody else is surfing the net on time that you are being compensated for you should be fired. Period. As far as nobody losing a case for being fired for using the web while working, I say you are young or naive. I`ve seen it done way more then once.I also see you are from Florida, well Pa is an at will state and you can be fired just because the boss feels like it.

[BufordTPisser]

Originally Posted by Exbiker

First let me say that if you are anybody else is surfing the net on time that you are being compensated for you should be fired. Period. As far as nobody losing a case for being fired for using the web while working, I say you are young or naive. I`ve seen it done way more then once.I also see you are from Florida, well Pa is an at will state and you can be fired just because the boss feels like it.

First off ExBiker, I just moved from PA to FL. I know the difference between At Will states and Right to Work States. As for being young, thanks, I consider 48 to be young. My comment that people being fired and losing their UC case is based on knowing that most companies do not enforce their policies equally. I know that people get fired for this all the time. I also know that people lose their cases all the time, but that is because they do not have good representation in those cases.

And most of all you and I are in total agreement about that "if you are anybody else is surfing the net on time that you are being compensated for you should be fired." Unfortunately in most companies the internet usage policy is only used to get rid of someone who they do not wish to retain. And in almost every company that I have ever worked for, management was the worst abusers of those policies. And if someone does get fired for violating that policy, subpoena the log files of everyone immediately or as soon as possible. Even if they erase them, you can still retrieve them.