Judge: Employee Web surfing not unreasonable

[Turkish]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Surfing the Web at work is equivalent to reading a newspaper or talking on the phone, an administrative law judge said in recommending the lightest possible punishment for a city worker accused of disregarding warnings to stay off the Internet.

The case involved Toquir Choudhri, a 14-year veteran of the Department of Education, whose office computer had been used to visit news and travel Web sites.

"It should be observed that the Internet has become the modern equivalent of a telephone or a daily newspaper, providing a combination of communication and information that most employees use as frequently in their personal lives as for their work," Administrative Law Judge John Spooner said in recommending only a reprimand for Choudhri.

The judge noted that city agencies allow workers to make personal calls if it doesn't interfere with their work performance.

Choudhri's lawyer, Martin Druyan, called the ruling "very reasonable."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/24/web.surf.ap/index.html

-------------

Awesone news

 

[JS80]

wow a reasonable judge?!?! IN NY?!?!? NO WAY@!@

 

[Turkish]

bump for this guys! come on, this means you can nef at work, isn't that awesome?

 

[her209]

True, but does the company pay for your newspaper?

 

[zanieladie]

Originally posted by: her209
True, but does the company pay for your newspaper?

LOL

 

[DeviousTrap]

Originally posted by: her209
True, but does the company pay for your newspaper?

Nobody said the company has to supply an internet connection, the same way that they don't have to supply the telephones that the employees are allowed to use for personal conversations.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: zanieladie

Originally posted by: her209
True, but does the company pay for your newspaper?

LOL

I believe my employer does.

Unfortunately, none of our workstations have internet access...there's just one that's off the main network..and it sucks (was a Pentium with NT -- was just replaced with a PII running Win98).

 

[FoBoT]

i agree
some people stand around the water cooler chatting about "Lost"
we post/read AT, same difference, just with people all over instead of strictly RL peoples

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: her209
True, but does the company pay for your newspaper?

our office building supplies copies of Wall Street Journal if you want one, they are in the lobby for the taking

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: Turkish
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: Turkish
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

ya well, you know, its news

 

[Amused]

An outrageous abuse of judicial power. The worker was told not to do something, with his employer's property no less, and directly violated that rule.

If you do not like your employer's rules, find work elsewhere. Just as an employer should find help elsewhere if his employee does not follow his rules.

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

Originally posted by: Turkish
NEW YORK (AP) -- Surfing the Web at work is equivalent to reading a newspaper or talking on the phone, an administrative law judge said in recommending the lightest possible punishment for a city worker accused of disregarding warnings to stay off the Internet.

The case involved Toquir Choudhri, a 14-year veteran of the Department of Education, whose office computer had been used to visit news and travel Web sites.

"It should be observed that the Internet has become the modern equivalent of a telephone or a daily newspaper, providing a combination of communication and information that most employees use as frequently in their personal lives as for their work," Administrative Law Judge John Spooner said in recommending only a reprimand for Choudhri.

The judge noted that city agencies allow workers to make personal calls if it doesn't interfere with their work performance.

Choudhri's lawyer, Martin Druyan, called the ruling "very reasonable."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/24/web.surf.ap/index.html

-------------

Awesone news

Is this a victory for city employees or employees for any company anywhere? This is kinda cool that this judge did that. I always wondered about the web surfing thing at work. I figure if you are doing your job, and have some down time it isn't any different than reading a magazine, newspaper, or talking to someone on the phone at work. Never could understand why some employers or bosses get so riled up about their employess surfing the net at work during down time.

 

[fitzov]

neato. I once worked in a place where one of my co-workers surfed the net all the time, and openly discussed stuff he was looking at on the web. Since he was a buddy with the boss, nothing was said. One time I clicked on Google news to see what was happening, and the boss was standing over my shoulder scowling at me.

I also know people who've been fired simply because they were not liked--the company came-up with whatever reason they could to not pay unemployment tax.

I don't believe companies should be able to fire people for lame-ass reasons.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Amused
An outrageous abuse of judicial power. The worker was told not to do something, with his employer's property no less, and directly violated that rule.

If you do not like your employer's rules, find work elsewhere. Just as an employer should find help elsewhere if his employee does not follow his rules.

I agree, though this gives my precedence to do my daily crossword online .

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: fitzov
neato. I once worked in a place where one of my co-workers surfed the net all the time, and openly discussed stuff he was looking at on the web. Since he was a buddy with the boss, nothing was said. One time I clicked on Google news to see what was happening, and the boss was standing over my shoulder scowling at me.

I also know people who've been fired simply because they were not liked--the company came-up with whatever reason they could to not pay unemployment tax.

I don't believe companies should be able to fire people for lame-ass reasons.

If you owned a company, you would want the freedom to fire anyone for any reason. It's your company.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: fitzov
neato. I once worked in a place where one of my co-workers surfed the net all the time, and openly discussed stuff he was looking at on the web. Since he was a buddy with the boss, nothing was said. One time I clicked on Google news to see what was happening, and the boss was standing over my shoulder scowling at me.

I also know people who've been fired simply because they were not liked--the company came-up with whatever reason they could to not pay unemployment tax.

I don't believe companies should be able to fire people for lame-ass reasons.

Do you believe you should be able to quit for any reason? Or should you be forced to work where you don't want to because you do not have an "acceptable" reason for leaving?

If you believe you should have the right to quit for any reason, why should an employer not have the same rights you do to terminate the employment agreement?

Finally, why would you want to work someplace you're not wanted or liked?

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: fitzov
neato. I once worked in a place where one of my co-workers surfed the net all the time, and openly discussed stuff he was looking at on the web. Since he was a buddy with the boss, nothing was said. One time I clicked on Google news to see what was happening, and the boss was standing over my shoulder scowling at me.

I also know people who've been fired simply because they were not liked--the company came-up with whatever reason they could to not pay unemployment tax.

I don't believe companies should be able to fire people for lame-ass reasons.

If you owned a company, you would want the freedom to fire anyone for any reason. It's your company.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: fitzov
neato. I once worked in a place where one of my co-workers surfed the net all the time, and openly discussed stuff he was looking at on the web. Since he was a buddy with the boss, nothing was said. One time I clicked on Google news to see what was happening, and the boss was standing over my shoulder scowling at me.

I also know people who've been fired simply because they were not liked--the company came-up with whatever reason they could to not pay unemployment tax.

I don't believe companies should be able to fire people for lame-ass reasons.

Do you believe you should be able to quit for any reason? Or should you be forced to work where you don't want to because you do not have an "acceptable" reason for leaving?

If you believe you should have the right to quit for any reason, why should an employer not have the same rights you do to terminate the employment agreement?

Finally, why would you want to work someplace you're not wanted or liked?

Quiting: a two-week notice is the standard, and if the position is management it's generally kosher to allow the employer more time to find a replacement. You don't get a notice when you're fired.

In terms of working somewhere you are not liked, it might be a matter of necessity. You need to support your family and didn't realize that the people you would be working with were a bunch of kids just out of college, for example, that had never had a real job before. You haven't found anything with the same income/benefits yet, but are looking. You don't feel you should leave a job because a couple of your co-workers doesn't like you on some level irrelevant to the job. There are any number of reasons.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: fitzov
neato. I once worked in a place where one of my co-workers surfed the net all the time, and openly discussed stuff he was looking at on the web. Since he was a buddy with the boss, nothing was said. One time I clicked on Google news to see what was happening, and the boss was standing over my shoulder scowling at me.

I also know people who've been fired simply because they were not liked--the company came-up with whatever reason they could to not pay unemployment tax.

I don't believe companies should be able to fire people for lame-ass reasons.

If you owned a company, you would want the freedom to fire anyone for any reason. It's your company.

Sure you'd want to, but so what? I want my boss to give me a raise, but that doesn't mean I have a right to it. It's my labor, so I want to sell it for more than I'm getting.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: fitzov
neato. I once worked in a place where one of my co-workers surfed the net all the time, and openly discussed stuff he was looking at on the web. Since he was a buddy with the boss, nothing was said. One time I clicked on Google news to see what was happening, and the boss was standing over my shoulder scowling at me.

I also know people who've been fired simply because they were not liked--the company came-up with whatever reason they could to not pay unemployment tax.

I don't believe companies should be able to fire people for lame-ass reasons.

If you owned a company, you would want the freedom to fire anyone for any reason. It's your company.

Nothing like being able to hold a mans livelyhood over his head eh? You guys dont seem to understand, this isnt just about a job... its about being able to provide for himself and his.

"If you dont sleep with me, you'll lose your job"
"If you as a consumer, buy products from our competition, you'll lose your job."
"I'm afraid you'll rat me out on this environmental regulation, so you're fired."
"You voted republican last year... you're fired."

One man should not have this much control over another mans ability to provide for himself. That he can dictate the terms of another mans life...And the laws are designed as such to prevent these types of blackmail abuse of power.

The unfair & sometimes shady practices of business owners makes me glad for unions and workers rights laws.

I say Nay...firing without just cause is and always shall be illegal.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: fitzov
neato. I once worked in a place where one of my co-workers surfed the net all the time, and openly discussed stuff he was looking at on the web. Since he was a buddy with the boss, nothing was said. One time I clicked on Google news to see what was happening, and the boss was standing over my shoulder scowling at me.

I also know people who've been fired simply because they were not liked--the company came-up with whatever reason they could to not pay unemployment tax.

I don't believe companies should be able to fire people for lame-ass reasons.

If you owned a company, you would want the freedom to fire anyone for any reason. It's your company.

Nothing like being able to hold a mans livelyhood over his head eh? You guys dont seem to understand, this isnt just about a job... its about being able to provide for himself and his.

"If you dont sleep with me, you'll lose your job"
"If you as a consumer, buy products from our competition, you'll lose your job."
"I'm afraid you'll rat me out on this environmental regulation, so you're fired."
"You voted republican last year... you're fired."

One man should not have this much control over another mans ability to provide for himself. That he can dictate the terms of another mans life...And the laws are designed as such to prevent these types of blackmail abuse of power.

The unfair & sometimes shady practices of business owners makes me glad for unions and workers rights laws.

I say Nay...firing without just cause is and always shall be illegal.

It isn't illegal in the US.

And no one man holds anything of the sort over yours, or anyone's head. A job is a MUTUAL agreement and one can always find employment elsewhere just as an employer can find an employee elsewhere.

Employees should have no more rights than employers and vice-versa. If you dictate that employers must give "just cause" for ending the employment agreement, than an employee MUST be held to the same standards and not allowed to quit without "just cause."

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: Amused
An outrageous abuse of judicial power. The worker was told not to do something, with his employer's property no less, and directly violated that rule.

If you do not like your employer's rules, find work elsewhere. Just as an employer should find help elsewhere if his employee does not follow his rules.

Company pays you to do a job. Do the job.

Yes it is basically the same as talking to people in the company about whatever subject but the difference is that your not interacting with those people. But your reading stuff off the net instead.

I'd prefer my workers to speak to each other then to surf the net.

My company has a no net policy apart from lunch time.

Koing

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: fitzov
neato. I once worked in a place where one of my co-workers surfed the net all the time, and openly discussed stuff he was looking at on the web. Since he was a buddy with the boss, nothing was said. One time I clicked on Google news to see what was happening, and the boss was standing over my shoulder scowling at me.

I also know people who've been fired simply because they were not liked--the company came-up with whatever reason they could to not pay unemployment tax.

I don't believe companies should be able to fire people for lame-ass reasons.

If you owned a company, you would want the freedom to fire anyone for any reason. It's your company.

Nothing like being able to hold a mans livelyhood over his head eh? You guys dont seem to understand, this isnt just about a job... its about being able to provide for himself and his.

"If you dont sleep with me, you'll lose your job"
"If you as a consumer, buy products from our competition, you'll lose your job."
"I'm afraid you'll rat me out on this environmental regulation, so you're fired."
"You voted republican last year... you're fired."

One man should not have this much control over another mans ability to provide for himself. That he can dictate the terms of another mans life...And the laws are designed as such to prevent these types of blackmail abuse of power.

The unfair & sometimes shady practices of business owners makes me glad for unions and workers rights laws.

I say Nay...firing without just cause is and always shall be illegal.

It isn't illegal in the US.

And no one man holds anything of the sort over yours, or anyone's head. A job is a MUTUAL agreement and one can always find employment elsewhere just as an employer can find an employee elsewhere.

Employees should have no more rights than employers and vice-versa. If you dictate that employers must give "just cause" for ending the employment agreement, than an employee MUST be held to the same standards and not allowed to quit without "just cause."

Fortunately, I am covered under a collective bargaining agreement (union of some sort) and cannot be fired because I wear a blue shirt on green monday.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sao123

Fortunately, I am covered under a collective bargaining agreement (union of some sort) and cannot be fired because I wear a blue shirt on green monday.

Yea for unequal rights under the law!!!