At 01:05 PM 8/5/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
At 5:34 PM 8/5/96, James C. Sewell wrote:
This comparison breaks down completely. The police are not involved, so the language of "probable cause" is inappropriate.
Then use the language "good reason as defined by the company's policy".
Imagine Alice operates a courier service and owns and operates several delievery vehicles .
Here your example breaks down. Email is not like the courier company's vehicle at all. Bob didn't create the truck, he didn't think of it at any time as his, and he is not intending to use it to deal with someone else on a personal level. A better example would be that a letter sent through that courier company that is from Bob. If he pays for it to be delivered then he should have the right to privacy. If, however, the service is offered free to all employees, or if the paper/envelope/time was from the company then we would have the same problem... is it business-related, thus open to the whims of the employer, or is it private and off-limits? The whole question comes down to this: Is a collection of words written from an employee to another individual property of the company when it was written, edited, and transmitted by company equipment. The problem? There's no agreement on the answer to this.
(If anyone suggests that landlords cannot barge into tenant's apartments, this is a different situation. For one thing, there are usually terms and conditions spelled out in a contract about when and under what circumstances a landlord may enter the premises.)
There are often terms and conditions spelled out in employment contracts as well. I have had such contracts in every job I have held. They all went to the point of saying, in essence, anything I create on company time/equipment belongs to the company.
Just remember, as was said, once you make a policy it becomes precedence and will stick with you forever... longer if it's a bad one.
Alice the Courier Service is of course perfectly free to announce new policies, so your point is incorrect.
Granting that I meant precedent rather than prescedence I submit the following: precedent - n 1a. An act or instance used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar cases. 2. Custom or convention. They may change their policy at will, but the fact is that the decisions made today will "taint" or "shape" (depending on your point of view) the policies made tomorrow. Jim Sewell - jims@tansoft.com Tantalus Incorporated - Key West, FL