Comments on: Exec views dirty photos at work: Firing offense?

By: mike R

mike R — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:40:24 +0000

Funny that no one wonders what qualified as “porn.” I’m sure that everyone has an image that comes to mind, but i’m sure it is not the same for everyone. I find that what one person considers porn another would not. I think about the family man who had photos of his kids in the bath and was charged with child pornography. It was a ludicrous charge, but half thorut it was right while another half thought it was wrong. The wife had the pictures with her as well and they were “cute” and not sexually suggestive. Some consider the models for various promotions who may be in a bikini as sexually suggestive and “soft porn.” I have pictures of sculptures (naked) in my office, omg is THAT porn? They are from the museum pamphlet.

When trying to decide what is porn, it was said that it is hard to define…but I know it when I see it.

Also, take into consideration that some sights down load pictures that don’t get erased when viewing a site. You can easily click on one link in an email and have a sight pop up with 500 jpg files downloaded. If you have ever gotten one of these bogus emails and clicked the link, you could be fired based on the discussion here. It was not said that he viewed porn every day. That was supposition. It was a breakdown of the porn images that were found over a two year period.

Of course, for those who KNOW it when you see it, you probably have improper pictures on your computer and not even know it. You won’t cry foul until unreasonable demands and accusations surround you.

By: Sallie Ziskin

Sallie Ziskin — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:42:30 +0000

Peter – There is a time and place for everything.

Playboy, Hustler, etc. would not be allowed in my workplace nor sexy calendars, posters, etc. Obviously sex was on his mind and his need for porn was so intense he had to do it during business hours. That is a pervert to me and an offender in the making!

By: Kevin R

Kevin R — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:20:20 +0000

I agree with Paul 100%. If their policy had been termination then so be it. That would definitely have been appropriate. However, they waited until the media became involved to decide to terminate. That’s wrong!!

Did anyone notice they didn’t mention the wasted productivity spent responding to blogs?

By: Peter Turai

Peter Turai — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:19:29 +0000

Sallie, while viewing pornography may be objectionable to you personally and was a violation of workplace policy for this man, that does not make him a pervert or offender. Pornography, like it or not is for the most part legal for viewing by adults. There was no idication that what he was viewing was not of the legal type. And while you’re welcome to use your imagination to “fantasize” in any way you like, your assumptions of what other activities were going on in his office are pure conjecture. Just curious… are men who view Playboy or the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition also to be treated as social paraiahs not to be exposed to our female friends and family?

By: Sallie Ziskin

Sallie Ziskin — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:40:32 +0000

As a female company owner and I have an imagination of what was going on in the chair while my offender looked at his prono. Had his chair thrown out with him! It is horrific to know that someone down the hall is a pervert and doing perverted things. I have to consider the wellbeing and safety of my staff. His office was contaminated and got a thorough cleaning but the memory is still there. How can anyone give someone like this a 2nd chance? I would not expose my staff to this being. How would you like your daughter, wife, sister, mother, etc. working with this guy? This is not a forgivable “man thing” in the work environment. There is just too many things to worry about with this type of offender around. As the employer, I have much better use of my time then to be distracted by him!

By: Phil in Orlando

Phil in Orlando — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:51:23 +0000

Right you are Paul. Looking at porn on your work computer is wrong (and stupid) but it does not deserve termination or demotion. Sounds like, as usual, the company is using a obviously bad event to justify taking severe action against an employee that is a poor performer.

I see this all the time in managers, they have a poor performing employee but instead of taking action all along, they wait for some “big problem” and use that as a reason to demote or terminate.

The employee should go through progressive diciplinary procedures, as he should for anything else that does not warrent immediate termination, as noted in company policy statements.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:58:18 +0000

Sorry, ladies and gents, this is over-reacting.

A 5-day suspension is adequate for a first (and final) warning. The fact that the Washington Post jumped in on this, and the punishment changed after that is just proof that a reasonable decision was changed to an unreasonable one for the sake of political correctness, and that’s just bunk.

I realize that “one event = termination” may be appropriate in some settings (religious organizations. etc) and some actions – violence, threats, etc. may be “sentinel events” that trigger a suspension and investigation that may result in termination, but we owe it to the company to be the voice of reason.

This may not need to go through Multiple levels of corrective action, but to go for immediate termination or a career-ending demotion is not proportional response in corrective action.

HR needs to have the clarity to ask “what’s reasonable” vs politically expedient.

By: Terrence

Terrence — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:20:01 +0000

Cheryl, you found one of the very few lone oddballs. I work as CTO and CIO for a consulting company. Virtually all of our time is spent looking into resolving problems that you haven’t yet seen – so that you won’t see them. And as for the other people in my field (looking back some two and a half decades), they too seek just the same thing. They’re simply too busy solving issues that users may come up with.

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:53:49 +0000

Harry, I agree with you 100% he should be fired. Not only that, he should’ve been fired twelve years ago when he was written up for downloading pornographic images. Now, he’s in charge of our IS Department. That’s what I mean when I say, “who’s monitoring the person who monitors our computers?”

By: Harry

Harry — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:39:35 +0000

So they put him on a desk job, SO HE WOULD HAVE MORE TIME TO LOOK AT PORN, WHAT A CONCEPT…FIRE THE SOB! HE APPARENTLY IS A SICKO ANYWAY, GET RID OF HIM AND ANYONE ELSE THAT DOES THAT!

Whether or not you agree or not with me, what else does the person do! At what point do you fire someone, after 4000 times. Anyone that does this is a live ticking bomb waiting to get you a real law suit for your company.