A moral Dilemma

I was recently running network tests using a packet sniffer on our corporate LAN. It was about 22:00 an I thought I was alone in the building. Then I came accross some packets that shouldn't have been there and so took a closer look. Upon inspection I found that someone was using a terminal in another part of the building to access porn.

I should say first that we have a policy of reporting such abuse to the abusers direct superior. It was me who instigated the procedure (I am the technical director of said company) and I have never before had any hesitation in following the procedure I have laid down.

But here's the twist, and the moral dilemma. The orientation of the sites being browsed were of a homosexual nature, and no-one in the office has any idea that the user in question is gay (except - now - me). Usually the offender would get a verbal warning from their direct supervisor. Repeat offenders (though it's never happend) then a written warning, and then fired.

In this case however, if I were to report this to his direct supervisor I would have to produce the logs and whilst the guys sexual preference makes no difference to me I am aware that this could cause him a great many more problems in the office than just the normal slapped wrists routine.

I don't want to end up losing a good employee (and he is) but I need to reconcile that against my policy on internet abuse. Suggestions please...

If you made the procedure, surely it applies to all cases and scenarios?
Therefore, the nature of the material is irrelevent, just provide the logs to his superiors. If he was breaking the policy, he needs to be dealt with. I'm sure he'd have no hesitation to sue the company if he thought for one minute that his sexuality made a slightest difference to his method of disciplinary action. Its called discrimination, and its illegal. You can't make special cases for people just because they are different to all the other cases you've had... same rules apply regardless of the nature of the pornographic material, surely?

(Or, maybe you should add a clause at the end that says "homosexual pornography is exempt from the above procedure and is considered acceptable in the workplace whereas any other variety is not")

Yes. I agree with every word.

Of course the procedure has to be implimented - regardless of the nature of the transgression. My dilema comes from my own need to know that I have taken the most compassionate course of action in this matter. The potential for suffering by the transgressor is in this instance disproportionate to than which would have been the case had he been surfing 'straight' sites, or even if he wasn't so far in the closet as to be in Narnia.

I just wondered if anyone could think of more compassionate solution than just turning the guy in and hoping the supervisor doesn't spill to his co-workers.

How about talking to the guy. Approch the guy on a non-professional level. Catch him outside on his way to his car, or meet him for lunch someday. If your so worried about being compassionate, then talk to him like a human, not an employee. Tell him somthing along the lines of...."I was admin-ing our network the other day and noticed your surfing habits ..........why don't we keep that at home."
I think the startle from the initial statement will give the idea. Nothing eles will need to be said. I dont think he is going to report you for letting him have a chance to correct this problem.

w00t w00t...I get to be on the same side of the fence as Dr Toker in a thread...LOL!

I agree one hundred percent with what he said. Yes, rules are there for a reason, but I really feel like the compassion you are showing here is more important. This man may have a LOT of reasons for not wanting it to be known what he is looking at. And it's not like he is downloading kiddie porn...there is no crime being committed, and I think that handling it EXACTLY the way Dr Toker said is the right thing to do.

Unfortunately we don't live in a black and white world, and I think that this is a definite gray area. All you have to go on is what makes you feel like you've done the right thing. I think that if you approach him one on one, and let him know that you know what he is doing, then you've done the best thing for all involved. The point of the rule is to make them stop right?
I almost guarentee that you speaking to him about it he will stop. If he doesn't, the next time you can follow the usual rules with NO concern on your part, because you've done what you felt was right this time.

Deb :D

Dr Toker --

I'd considered that - it's just doing it so as not to draw too much attention, or intimdate him. I'm wasn't concerned if /I/ could speak to /him/ on a non proffesional level - my concern was whether he could repond in a non proffesional level - after all I'm his bosses bosses boss.

I like the idea of catching him on the way to the carpark however. I could even be having a quite smoke outside when the final whistle goes...

Quote:

---

If your so worried about being compassionate

---

I actually am. As an employer I feel I have a social responsibility to those people whom I employ. Call it old fashioned, but I trade on the abilities of those I employ and feel that there is a social contract that sits alongside the ones written by HR. I actually believe all that fellowship of man stuff I talked about here, here and here .

Quote:

---

I am 21....its all downhill from here.

---

Nope - I'm 30 and it just keeps getting better :) !

deb --

Quote:

---

The point of the rule is to make them stop right?

---

Well, actually, it was originally because we had girls in the office and I'm old fashioned enough for that to embarrass me ;). I'm paying for the bandwidth anyway and within certain restrictions I don't really care what people view on their own time. But point taken. Read my reply to Dr Toker.

I agree with the personal approach. If he hasn't come out with sexuallity, which he has no obligation to do so in a work place, since heterosexuality is assumed for a male, unless you're overly feminine, in which homosexuality is implied...it would probably mortify him for anyone to know. Maybe he's not homosexual, maybe just curious about the same sex. When I make a decision, I try to look at things from the other person's perspective to the best of my ability. I had a job once working in a car dealership, in a community of snobbish people, and it made working there uncomfortable. I liked the money, and the job, but it was awkward. I ended up quitting, I dreaded having to go to work everyday and be looked upon differently, in that case for no reason except for that I wasn't the richest girl and I was working in a wealthy community.

If you feel obligated to report him, is there any way that you don't have to show the exact sites to which he went to?

i vote for the personal approach too.. it's hard to get good employees let alone try to keep them. but on the other hand to be fair, this should apply to all employees as well.. a three strike (the first one hidden) your out.. rule.
just my 2 cents.

GreekGodess--

Quote:

---

Maybe he's not homosexual, maybe just curious about the same sex.

---

Not that it matters, but actually it was a pay site for which he had a username and password. The logs would also indicate that he was uploading pictures of himself into his user profile and recieving quite a few PM style messages from 'admirers'. I got enough of the jist from tcpdump not to want any dinner.

Quote:

---

If you feel obligated to report him, is there any way that you don't have to show the exact sites to which he went to?

---

Reporting him (for slapped wrists from his direct supervisor) would be the usual procedure (and it's my procedure), but I am trying to avoid the kind of situation you describe in your post. If I report it to his supervisor I have to fill in a form with the name of the offending site(s).

So as I said, I think I prefer the more personal approach aswell, but I tried to catch him on the way out of work today (see the suggestion above by Dr toker), but he came out of the office with a number of other people and so there was no appropriate moment for a personal conversation.

Any more ideas?

This is a sticky situation. There's always the anon email..... not sure if you'd want to do that but....it'd probably be the most capable of staying "under the radar". Not too personal though.

You could always ask him to meet with you conceerning some type of company business and when the door is closed you could mention it to him.?? not too sure about that one either.

Sometimes, though, I'm afraid there is a price to pay for being too compassionate.....
Breaking your own rules is a bad precedent to set, my friend. Especially if you are in a position of authority.

This is a tough one, i don't envy your position.

Perhaps the way to handle this is not to confront the problem that has arisen between the procedure and the person directly. Firstly set up a meeting with the offender and explain how you’re going to deal with the situation. Perhaps sending out and email to all the bosses that are most likely to have to give out these verbal warning explaining that the procedure needs to be updated and you will be getting back to them. The reason for this is a situation that you did not foresee has come to your attention and you will be dealing within it personally. Once this matter is sorted the producer will be altered. Ask them to remind all employees of the current procedure and to tell them that this is soon to be updated due to innocents that have happened recently. Proceed then to sending an email to the offending person to set up a meeting in few weeks time. Then realise a slight version on the said procedure to include you the right to give the verbal warning if you consider it necessary before the meeting. Once you have stated such set a meeting up with his boss that a member of his team is to be discipline by yourself.

Have the meeting with the offender and give him the verbal warning and document it. This way you might be able not to realise the sites accessed addresses but still have given him the warning.

Kindred69

Quote:

---

Nope - I'm 30 and it just keeps getting better

---

class I got ages to go with it all just gettin better ;)

hmmmm as for the dilema am in 2 minds about it myself....

1. His sexuality should have no bearing on his punishment - straight/bi/gay doesn't matter he broke company policy and should be dealt with in the same way as everyone else
2. Because as debs says our world is not balck & white if you do bring him up about it will he be treated the same as everyone else?

hmmmmm it may not help for this case but you could have some system for future probs where an email or terminal msg is sent to the employee informing them that their surfing habits have been logged and further instances will result in disciplinary action.....that would be enough to scare them into not doing it again......hopefully.

v_Ln

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by valhallen

hmmmmm it may not help for this case but you could have some system for future probs where an email or terminal msg is sent to the employee informing them that their surfing habits have been logged and further instances will result in disciplinary action.....that would be enough to scare them into not doing it again......hopefully.

v_Ln [/B]

---

That sounds like a good idea for the future. I agree with the personal approach as well. I am the manager of our company and when there is a problem it works best for us to speak directly to the person. It helps to avoid rumours among the rest of the staff.

I was also going to suggest sending an email (NOT anonymous as KorpDeath suggested nor like asking him to a business meeting). Format the email just like you would have said it to him face to face. Explain that it is your procedure to first send one warning email and if that's not enough then do the report (I didn't quite get it if you usually send an email or not but if not this is not a big lie, is it?). Also mention that you actually pay for the bandwidth. If he continues his "surfing habits", feel very free to do the report. I don't think the boss actually checks what the page that you refer to contains but I understand your problem if the address itself says it all...

I think someone already said it, but it sounds like your policy needs to be modified slightly, so as to protect the "privacy" of the individual in the workplace (Innocent until proven guilty, right?). In the past, I've worked at places where we would depend on "two witnesses to every issue." So, the security team would basically give the "thumbs up," so to speak, and indicate that something was clearly outside policy and present that to a manager (or the appropriate person). It was then up to the manager, along with a security person (usually the security person and the security manager/director) with possibly an HR person and their manager to all sit down with the employee and say "We noticed that you violated this work policy and just wanted to let you know that we know about it - don't let it happen again." The employee's actions, essentially, would be known to only the security team and, after said report, would end up in a locked file cabinet inside a security-only lab, on a secured floor -- not until they violated the policy to the point of "further disciplinary action" were the actual logs ever put in to the employee's file...

Yeah, not a perfect system, but hopefully could protect the employee's privacy enough...

I also like (and have used - particularly with "valued" employees) the previous suggestion of "approaching the employee personally/casually" and mentioning that you knew what was going on and, "this will remain between us, just leave those practices outside of the office" sort of deal. I might also back it with "good thing I was the one that noticed, else we might not have been able to keep it private" sort of idea. The only conflict here is not having a witness there to what is/was said... but, if the employee's the sort that I think you said he was, that shouldn't be much of a problem, I'd guess.

G'luck... let us know how you deal with it and how it works.

well, i think the easiest way to have a personal chat with them would be to just walk over to his office and if he's not alone ask him to stop by your office later.

when he comes up just mention what you saw(remember that there is also the possibility that his username/pass have been compromised) and tell him that it will go no further than those walls provided it stops. tell him to consider that his verbal warning, and if he continues the policy will be followed with a written warning and then a pink slip.

if possible, it would be adventagious to record the conversation and make it clear to him before you start that you will be recording. that way if any clames are made later about what went on you will have the tape to show the truth.

there is no need to verbally list the sites, but merely say that the logs show browsing of pornographic sites which is against company policy.

if it is possible(if you keep this kind of file), update his file to show a verbal warning has been issued and also i would, as others have said, update the policy to account for nondiscript privacy issues. do not change the policy to say anything about sexualty or anything, just say that it will be handled by the person who discovers the activity if that person deturmins that divulging the actual details to the person's direct supervisor could lead to an "unhealthy work enviroment". that way it is just corporate enough to make people understand that it has to be done and just casual enough to get the point accross.

Even with a modified policy, what is supposed to be closed doors usually never is. People talk, and in this situation, if no one knew about his sexuality, even though it isn't supposed to be an issue, it will be. That's why I asked if ntsa could conceal the exact websites if he chose to report him. Especially now that there are logs of the conversations as well as uploaded pictures and a membership to the site. I realize that even a superior is supposed to keep confidentiality, but people talk, and all it takes is telling one person before the information spreads. This is more of a case of saving face rather than reprimand in my opinion. If he's not open about his sexuality and he was reported and the word got out, he could easily have a defamation of character suit on the company, if he were that type of person. There are so many things to consider. Everyone loves a good piece of juicy gossip. Hell, I'm not afraid to admit that I love a good piece of info now and again, but not when it comes at the cost of embarrassing an employee because of his sexual preference.

I'd definitely go with the personal approach, I think in all honesty, it's your best bet.