Re: Airbus pic

In article <47AE6FA7.9453916@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
says...
krw wrote:

In article <47AE0968.AD5CC7F4@xxxxxxxxxx>, paulh@xxxxxxxxxx says...
krw wrote:

In article <47ACA15A.5B825A54@xxxxxxxxxx>, paulh@xxxxxxxxxx says...

[snip]

Boeing canned Stoneciepher for writing a few love letters to his
girlfriend. They claimed it might have been an 'embarrasement'. There
are far more embarrasing things going on over there than Harry's love
life. Things that can have a material effect on shareholder value. I
dumped my stock some time ago.

More like they thought it could put them in the middle of a
harassment suit. He violated the rules, bye. ...if that's the
whole story.

Back when I was at Boeing (when Stoneciepher was still there) they had
no rules prohibiting 'fraternization' between employees, unless it
became unwanted. If they did, they'd have to fire a significant portion
of their workforce. In fact it was a den of nepotism.

Using their facilities and time? I doubt they smiled upon it and
told the kiddies to have fun, but be safe.

In fact, they did have a few cases where employees were paying far too
much attention to their co-workers consensual personal affairs.
Management informed them that their display of moral indignation could
produce the very 'hostile work environment' prohibited by policy.

That one goes both ways. It depends on circumstances, certainly.

In an interesting twist, one of the people expressing disapproval turned
out to be gay and pissed off that the subject of his affection was
dating women.

Yes, that could easily go as far as harassment.

Boeing actually has a pretty enlightened policy regarding employee
behavior when its not driven by company politics.

Again, on company time and with company resources? BTW, when is any
thing in a large corporation not driven by company politics. ;-)

They have a pretty reasonable policy with regard to that as well.

You could surf the 'net and use e-mail for non company purposes on
breaks.

Different issue. My PPOE had a similar view of the Internet. It
was available for "personal" use, but we were *strongly* reminded
that use of their resources was at management discretion and that we
were representing the company when doing so (I.e. no visiting
playboy.com). They excused this use because they were in the
computing business and the Internet was a big part of the industry.

They took the position that employees should use their own
judgment about what was and was not appropriate. If one's behavior
resulted in a legitimate complaint, well, you should have known better.

That "legitimate complaint" can be in the form of a lawsuit, naming
the corporation, their executives, and the cafeteria help.
Corporations are pretty leery about such things.

On the other hand, people that got too bent out of shape about other
employees personal lives got a 'Does not play well with others' stamp in
their personnel file and got transferred to a cal-cert lab buried deep
in the bowels of the factory where they were never seen again. ;-)

*THEN* the law suits fly!

If anything, they were a little too forgiving about people who didn't
produce.

That happens but again, different issue.

That's why the Stoneciepher incident was so far out of character.

Maybe you don't know the whole story?

--
Keith
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Airbus pic
    ... They claimed it might have been an 'embarrasement'. ... thing in a large corporation not driven by company politics. ... They took the position that employees should use their own ... their personnel file and got transferred to a cal-cert lab buried deep ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Airbus pic
    ... They claimed it might have been an 'embarrasement'. ... They have a pretty reasonable policy with regard to that as well. ... My PPOE had a similar view of the Internet. ... I took all the proxy logs with me on a couple CD's when I left ...
    (sci.electronics.design)