DWP Take draconian measures to enforce IT policy?

[Rumad]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3600686.stm

Or are te DWP just a bunch of perverts?

I actually find that one being proscuted a little disconcerting.

[Benjitrons]

I think people should be punished for tossing it off at work

[roadrunner_0]

to be quite honest, i would never even dream of looking at porn at work, i think that it really is a bad bad thing to do, what you do at home in your own time is a different matter of course, however, i think that now that they have been disiplined, the matter should be dropped, they have that black mark on their records, no more is needed.

[Rumad]

The trouble you have is simple. While they are guilty of downloading and looking at porn, the real issue is how they expect he disciplinary to stand up?

It took them eight months to get te evidence, fair enough that one of those individuals did something illegal and he should be charged, but how can you get the disciplinary to stand when you have waited 8 months to bring it to the employee's attention?

Unless you have continually ensured they are aware of the IT policy I doubt very much that the disciplinary actions would be enforceable beyond the verbal stage.

I don't agree with what they have done, but at the end of the day unless that poicy has been communicated regularly and then action taken within a few days or weeks of the incident I am unsure of there legal standing.

Also why on earth don't they have filters not allowing anyone to visit porn sites like most decent companies and wat sor of pervered letch do you have to be to be employed there?

[JonnyBGood]

By the way if you read that link you'll see that images of child pornography were also downloaded (presumably not by all 227 people). Just in case anyone missed that little tidbit.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

i think that it really is a bad bad thing to do.

Why? Obviously if people are doing it in plain view and making others view deliberately uncomfortable then you've got a point. There have been instances where men have brought in porn magazines and then made female members of staff uncomfortable, etc, etc.

But if someone spent an hour playing flash (lol, pun) games on the internet, would that really be that much better than watching porn?

The media often mentions stress in the work place, maybe a good wank is what most people need, eh?

Originally Posted by From the Article

Mr Webb, Lib Dem work and pensions spokesman, told BBC News Online all 227 people disciplined should have been sacked.

He said: "Any public servants who accesses porn sites at work should lose their jobs.

"It is assisting filth and paedophiles and is a security risk. There has to be a zero tolerance approach."

This is utterly stupid. What the hell does "assisting filth" mean anyway, and I don't see how it's "assisting paedophiles" in any meaningful sense. Obviously if they are running some kind of child porn server from their PCs then fair enough, but I suspect the vast, vast majority weren't.

If the issue is about security (I presume he means people downloading spyware and such) then there should be network security measures in place anyway, and porn isn't automatically dangerous to computers for Christ's sake.

If the DWP's biggest problem is their staff looking at porn then all our futures might be brighter than I originally had imagined.

[JonnyBGood]

Not running after paedophiles with a burning torch screaming at them assists them dante, I would have thought you knew that

[Rumad]

well i think the lib dems are jus trying to score some points on the labour party.

I am concerned however that they seriously needed a 8 month sting operation for something you can limit by placing content control software in place. Sort of smacks at the beaureacracy we have on a government level here.

On a side note I think we should all vote dante as prime minister - his social policy of allowing masterbation at work is a real squirt in the eye of authority

[roadrunner_0]

trust me, they will have needed that long to build up the evidence, curiously, we cannot convince our IT dept of the fact that we all have to use each others computers in my workplace, so currently i am typing this on a computer logged in as one of my colleagues, so, if they wanted to discipline anyone about unsuitable use of work comuters, she would be the first to get it
however, i believe that pron in the workplace is wrong, and, every time i open an explorer window, i get a nice little hopepage up that tells me that i MUST NOT use this computer in an unsuitable way or i could fase diciplinary action, so personally, i think that the diciplinary action would stand up just fine.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

trust me, they will have needed that long to build up the evidence, curiously, we cannot convince our IT dept of the fact that we all have to use each others computers in my workplace, so currently i am typing this on a computer logged in as one of my colleagues, so, if they wanted to discipline anyone about unsuitable use of work comuters, she would be the first to get it
however, i believe that pron in the workplace is wrong, and, every time i open an explorer window, i get a nice little hopepage up that tells me that i MUST NOT use this computer in an unsuitable way or i could fase diciplinary action, so personally, i think that the diciplinary action would stand up just fine.

IN that instance you are being advised of the policy. I doubt the DWP is that astute or the hole would have been covered many moons ago.

Also the 8 months IS excessive.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Rumad

On a side note I think we should all vote dante as prime minister

I'd vote for him. Just another 10 million votes needed then

[skiddy]

Oi.

My political campaign is firmly in place, with half of London* already supporting me.

You can piss right off if you think I'm accepting any kind of 'opposition' without resorting to seedy deals with the underground crime rings of Newcastle.



*A London based railway vehicle carriage thing.

[roadrunner_0]

why is 8 months excessive?
1. they probably wanted to make sure that they had everyone who was accessing 'improper' sites.
2. they had to make sure that it wasnt just a one off accident, but persistent abuse of the system

and, quite frankly, if they are govt. their policy should be that they are WELL advised on the rules concerning personal use of computers in work time, as its a big issue dont you know!

[mist]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

1. they probably wanted to make sure that they had everyone who was accessing 'improper' sites.

spend 8 months watching people look at porn, or notice it happening and send an e-mail around telling them to stop.

somehow, i suspect the effect would be the same - other than the network admins getting to look at porn for 8 months and the bosses getting a headline

obviously, the child porn is a different issue, however i get the impression that wasn't relevant to the majority of cases

-mist

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Rumad

The trouble you have is simple. While they are guilty of downloading and looking at porn, the real issue is how they expect he disciplinary to stand up?

It took them eight months to get te evidence, fair enough that one of those individuals did something illegal and he should be charged, but how can you get the disciplinary to stand when you have waited 8 months to bring it to the employee's attention?

Unless you have continually ensured they are aware of the IT policy I doubt very much that the disciplinary actions would be enforceable beyond the verbal stage.

I don't agree with what they have done, but at the end of the day unless that poicy has been communicated regularly and then action taken within a few days or weeks of the incident I am unsure of there legal standing.

Also why on earth don't they have filters not allowing anyone to visit porn sites like most decent companies and wat sor of pervered letch do you have to be to be employed there?

If someone is quite willing to stand up in court and say 'Yes I did download pr0n at work but I wasn't told it was wrong to do so, therfore I shouldn't have been sacked' they will look like the biggest arsehole on the planet.

The 8 month thing is a bit crap though, I always knew within minutes if someone was looking at pr0n and a quiet word usually did the trick.

~Vaio~

[Embroglio]

you should have just shouted across the office "hey tom, you having a nice wank over there?"

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by Embroglio

you should have just shouted across the office "hey tom, you having a nice wank over there?"

Yup, that's a quiet word all right

~Vaio~

[NibNub]

Trust me, they block EVERYTHING dodgy - it's FAR from unusual to be unable to access the DWP's own sites ffs. Just keep getting 'BLOCKPAGE' coming up referring you to the DWP's IT policy.

Re: the Eight month delay - well we've just entered pay negotiations and blimey! how timely! Now we're all a bunch of Perverts as well as lazy Pen Pushers <sigh>.

Incidentally, thats just over 200 pervert employees out of 130,000 in total over an eight month period - i would imagine compared to many other organisations thats positively puritanical.

[roadrunner_0]

you arent getting it, if they work for the government, they will have been given plenty of both warnings and advice, it will flash up on their computer screens when they login, they will have been issued a code of practice which using the internet and e mail, there are loads of things that the govt issues to both its staff and its local authorities.
so, a single e mail wouldnt have worked, i would say that they probably needed evidence of repeat transgressions to be able to give the full warnings.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

ythey will have been issued a code of practice which using the internet and e mail, there are loads of things that the govt issues to both its staff and its local authorities.

Doesn't the general code of conduct specify you not to use the internet for any non-business related matter? In theory, I'm not supposed to send/receive personal e-mails while at work, let alone forum posting, etc. If this was a crackdown against all internet usage then you'd have a point, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Are you in violation of your works computer policy by using someone's elses login AND posting on forums?

Anyway, I'll ask again - what's wrong with porn per se?

I think you are wrong on the e-mail thing not working. The code of conduct which comes up at my work is so automated that it's a pavlovian reflex to click "OK" on it. Even though I've seen it hundreds of times over the last two years, I couldn't tell you what it says. A personal e-mail which said "Yesterday you looked at Pikey-Porn.com* 17 times. Please don't do this again or you'll be disciplined, and a general e-mail will go to all staff detailing your browsing habits." I would _definitely_ pay attention to.

* = Domain name registration pending.

[Sunday8pm]

Unless your job criteria specifies that you should look at pornographic material on the internet then I absolutely have no sympathies for the retards that are all getting sacked here.

What I see is people scared of being forced to actually work harder for their money.... oh noes.

[Dace]

What a coincidence.

DWP is getting rid of a shit load of people.

I somehow suspect that Gordy is getting his excuse in early.

Or at least reducing sympathy towards the department.

ISNT POLITICS GENIUS!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

What I see is people scared of being forced to actually work harder for their money.... oh noes.

There's always an issue of being reasonable. Your contract doesn't generally say your job is to talk to your colleague about Eastenders, or that you should go to the toilet, or check your on-line banking while at work, or try to sort out a doctors appointment on the company phone, or a thousand other things that most people do.

If this is something that is effecting people's work then fine. But beyond blanket "OMG it's PORN!!!!!!!!" I don't see the justification for a disproportionately harsh response in this case. If we are firing people for wasting time on the 'net then fine, but people waste time in a hell of a lot of other ways too and there should be some kind of parity.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There's always an issue of being reasonable. Your contract doesn't generally say your job is to talk to your colleague about Eastenders, or that you should go to the toilet, or check your on-line banking while at work, or try to sort out a doctors appointment on the company phone, or a thousand other things that most people do.

If this is something that is effecting people's work then fine. But beyond blanket "OMG it's PORN!!!!!!!!" I don't see the justification for a disproportionately harsh response in this case. If we are firing people for wasting time on the 'net then fine, but people waste time in a hell of a lot of other ways too and there should be some kind of parity.

I think this is the crux of any action against the disciplinaries for the use of internet for looking at porn. As far as I knw if the policy has never been implemented and fully used, then they have an argument of unfair discriminatory action. Surely porn is bad, but if the general internet policy is no using email and internet for personal purposes you have the tribunal argument that while your actions were not nrmal or against company policy that by taking 8 months to gather evidence and not using a reasonable and fair approach you have acted in a discriminatory way. The fact the employee has done wrong is not key here, just whether the policy has been enforced in a fair reasonable manner.

Employee tribunals are littered with cases of unfair dismissal based on things like this.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Dace

What a coincidence.

DWP is getting rid of a shit load of people.

I somehow suspect that Gordy is getting his excuse in early.

Or at least reducing sympathy towards the department.

ISNT POLITICS GENIUS!

You missed out [/tinfoil]

But yah prolly is spin.

That aside if you are going to look at porn at work you are a ****ing monkey that needs sacked.

[madi]

the strict filters we have here mean that masses of stuff is blocked
but we arent supposed to go on the internet during work time at all anyway

(but
i have a crap PC and querying the patient administration system of the largest NHS trust in the country takes several minutes everytime,
and as they wont give me a second PC to work on while it is rumbling away i feel fully justified in claiming those minutes as my own time and this is all my PC can manage simultaneously

honest guv)

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Doesn't the general code of conduct specify you not to use the internet for any non-business related matter? In theory, I'm not supposed to send/receive personal e-mails while at work, let alone forum posting, etc. If this was a crackdown against all internet usage then you'd have a point, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Are you in violation of your works computer policy by using someone's elses login AND posting on forums?

Anyway, I'll ask again - what's wrong with porn per se?

I think you are wrong on the e-mail thing not working. The code of conduct which comes up at my work is so automated that it's a pavlovian reflex to click "OK" on it. Even though I've seen it hundreds of times over the last two years, I couldn't tell you what it says. A personal e-mail which said "Yesterday you looked at Pikey-Porn.com* 17 times. Please don't do this again or you'll be disciplined, and a general e-mail will go to all staff detailing your browsing habits." I would _definitely_ pay attention to.

* = Domain name registration pending.

ah, but it doesnt actually matter, as long as they are seen to be putting those warnings there, then they are covered against tribunal action, and rumad, the length of the evidence gathering will actually work for them, not against them, if any of the dismissed employees try to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

ah, but it doesnt actually matter, as long as they are seen to be putting those warnings there, then they are covered against tribunal action, and rumad, the length of the evidence gathering will actually work for them, not against them, if any of the dismissed employees try to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

I'm not arguing whether their dismissals will hold up, I'm arguing over whether it's morally right. Unless they are trying to fire people (as Dace suggests) if there is an easier way of dealing with the problem that should be taken. It's easy to say "SACK THEM!" as some reflex, but many of these people will undoubtedly have families to support, mortgages to pay, etc, etc...

[Sunday8pm]

Well if they have families to support, why were they looking at porn?

I'm sorry but looking at porn at work is just as bad as dipping your hand in the till etc etc etc.

If you are going to engage in extra cirricular activity that can be tracked and recorded then you are a ****ing muppet.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Well if they have families to support, why were they looking at porn?

Funny, I knew someone was going to say this. Yes, it was probably a mistake. But a mistake worth being fired over? Hardly.

I'm sorry but looking at porn at work is just as bad as dipping your hand in the till etc etc etc.

Please justify this comment. Putting your hand in the till is theft and is a criminal offence. Porn isn't even in the same category.

If you are going to engage in extra cirricular activity that can be tracked and recorded then you are a ****ing muppet.

Probably. But don't quite a few people here use the forums from work? That makes them all ****ing muppets too. Pretty much anything internet related can be monitored after all.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

you arent getting it, if they work for the government, they will have been given plenty of both warnings and advice, it will flash up on their computer screens when they login, they will have been issued a code of practice which using the internet and e mail, there are loads of things that the govt issues to both its staff and its local authorities.
so, a single e mail wouldnt have worked, i would say that they probably needed evidence of repeat transgressions to be able to give the full warnings.

I worked for NHS primary care trus in reading around 2 years ago for a year. I was given no policy in internet usage.

Don't assume every department will receive the same advice.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

ah, but it doesnt actually matter, as long as they are seen to be putting those warnings there, then they are covered against tribunal action, and rumad, the length of the evidence gathering will actually work for them, not against them, if any of the dismissed employees try to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

Actually your wrong here.

Its not JUST been seen, its actual application of that policy as well. If someone can prove they are been made a scapegoat when they have ineffectually implemented the policy without actually actioning it on a fair and consistent basis you do have grounds for unfair dismissal. As I say employent law is littered with such cases where policy has not been even handedly applied. That is regardless of the infringement. I actually got out of a gross misconduct charge by arguing this and head office actually pushed it down to a verbal warning in a previous job when I was a student and had time to look these things up

[roadrunner_0]

yes, but the whole point in them getting evidence over 8 months is so that they are seen as being fair by monitoring thw whole department!

EDIT: oh yeah, and the govt advice has started being implemented within the last 2 years, so you may not have seen it, however, everyone who works for the govt *should* (im not saying [u]will[/i] you notice) recieve this advice

[Rumad]

yes but has it been fairly and consistently applied?

I think a gross misconduct charge would be hard to prove and enforce. They have not implemented that policy previously and there is no mention of other types of internet use offences.

If they had warned all employee's on all internet use thats fine, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

I do think verbal warnings (apart from the paedo who has been shopped to the authorities) would be enforceable, but if I was one of the employee's been disciplined would be straight down the CAB office for legal support against grss misconduct charges about the lack of cinsistency in approach and the fact that no attempt was to deviate my behaviour earlier with a warning before those charges were brought.

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

EDIT: oh yeah, and the govt advice has started being implemented within the last 2 years, so you may not have seen it, however, everyone who works for the govt *should* (im not saying [u]will[/i] you notice) recieve this advice

I am sure it has happened, but with decentralisd offices hings ike internet policy may not be widely distributed throughout all branches. Also no attempt has been made to rectify behaviour.

Were I worked previous me and a friend used the internet alot. However to be fair a warning was issued to all staff over misuse of internet and email facilities and if it continued actin would be taken against the individuals concerned.

By doing this had me or my mate been disciplined I doubt I would have had a leg to stand on, but if they had not done this I would have argued any disciplinary proceedings as no attempt was made to communicate that policy what I would consider a fair and consistent manner.

[roadrunner_0]

your not getting it! it doesnt matter! no unfair dismissal claim can ever be proved from this as they have done it department wide! over a course of months so that they have enough evidence to back it up, and that is all that they care about!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

your not getting it! it doesnt matter! no unfair dismissal claim can ever be proved from this as they have done it department wide! over a course of months so that they have enough evidence to back it up, and that is all that they care about!

Not really, it's not as simple as that. For a policy to be upheld it needs to be shown not only to be applied fairly across the organisation but include reasonable steps for warning, etc.

Imagine if your boss came to you and said "We've been monitoring everyone's internet usage for the last 6 months, you've been posting on an internet forum, therefore you're sacked." - would you not find this slightly unfair?

[roadrunner_0]

yes, but, if it came to tribunal, they could argue that i have been fully breifed in the companies internet policy, and the punishments which would apply if i misused it, so i wouldnt be confident of getting an unfair dismissal claim through.
HOWEVER, this wouldnt happen, due to the fact that our policy clearly states that a number of diciplinary steps would be taken before dismissal

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

yes, but, if it came to tribunal, they could argue that i have been fully breifed in the companies internet policy, and the punishments which would apply if i misused it, so i wouldnt be confident of getting an unfair dismissal claim through.
HOWEVER, this wouldnt happen, due to the fact that our policy clearly states that a number of diciplinary steps would be taken before dismissal

It really isn't that simple.

I have a business and i have 300 employees (theoretically for this argument). I implement a policy no personal use of email and internet and I send various memo's and warn the staff at briefings.

However, during that period I do not enforce it as I have stated. I leave it for 2 years and then i accuse 20 of thse staff of misusing the internet for personal reasons. In a disciplinary proceeding like this you have to prove that since its inception you have applied it across the board with all employee's and that action has been taken in cases against those staff. If you cannot prove that you have taken that action and you have warned all staff that action will be taken (not just through little pop up messages but also through staff manager/supervisor interface) and that previous action was taken against all employee's, you have an argument that you are being made a scapegoat at best and at worst you are being discriminatorily treated.

Law is never that black and white and unless the employer can prove that they have enfoced policy within that branch for all cases I think they will have grounds for unfair dismissal.

I can understand what you say and your POV, but they seriously do have a case for unfair dismissal if they have not had informal warninsg previously or they have not been given verbal warnings.

[roadrunner_0]

yes, i know its not that simple, but, quite frankly, the people who got dismissed must have done something pretty bad, and may not want it all dragged out.
(but yes i do understand what you are saying as well )

[IncubusGod]

Its harsh and I doubt they'll get away with it as easy as they would like.
If no warnings were issued before the action, then they are on shakey ground.

But I don't think anyone can have any complaints about being in trouble for looking up porn in work.

[Dante Hicks]

No-one has given a solid argument for why looking at porn is so evil despite it being compared to theft and rr calling it really bad.

[roadrunner_0]

dont you know? porn is just not the done thing at work

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

dont you know? porn is just not the done thing at work

OK, so long as there is a well thought rational reason behind all of this.

[IncubusGod]

Heh, well I don't think it's evil or anything. It's just an extreeme example of dossing about in work. It really should be treated the same as if the employees were browsing any other sites, but it wont ofc.

Plus these politicans and high ranking civil servants are all musty old fashioned wankers who preach moral values and then go home, lube up and find interesting new serving suggestions for cucumbers.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

OK, so long as there is a well thought rational reason behind all of this.

of course there is! irrationality is the center of british life!

[Leshy]

Next week, roadrunner_0 will fire people for playing N*Sync music at work.

[roadrunner_0]

that'll learn them to listen to crap music!

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Its harsh and I doubt they'll get away with it as easy as they would like.
If no warnings were issued before the action, then they are on shakey ground.

But I don't think anyone can have any complaints about being in trouble for looking up porn in work.

Yep agreed - its against company policy, but I doubt they have the right to yell gross misconduct. Verbal warning for 6 months and then as you get more consistent, then you probably have grounds for gross misconduct and implementing it as a sackable offence.

Verbals are off your record in six months anyway