Virginian-Pilot, The (Norfolk, VA) December 6, 1999 Column: TECHWISE ALL THE E-MAIL THAT IS NOT FIT TO PRINT COSTS WORKERS JOBS Author: MICHAEL CLARK AND AKWELI PARKER Edition: FINAL It's a moment from Dilbertian Hell: the boss taps you on the shoulder and quietly tells you to clean out your desk and go home. You, a loyal employee for years with pretty decent performance ratings, can muster only one feeble word: ``Why?'' ``The e-mails,'' Boss says with a disapproving, paternal look. All of a sudden the office seems real stuffy. Sweat rings form under your arms. They've been watching you, and They aren't happy. Last week, the ``They'' in question was The New York Times Co., which pulled the plug on the jobs and e-mail activities of some 20 or more employees in Norfolk's World Trade Center. The workers' alleged transgression: sending e-mail that was ``inappropriate and offensive.'' The latest reports put the number of employees at 23, despite a confirmation from the company last week that there were 20. Though there's still a trace of doubt about the number, call 'em the ``Times 23.'' We do. They got caught in one of America's favorite office pastimes. According to an online survey commissioned by munchie maker Nabisco Inc., Internet-surfing is the No. 1 break activity during the workday. But there's surfing for relaxation and there's surfing for . . . porn. We won't argue the relaxation case there, but it's probably not a good idea at work, no matter what the benefits are. Will the Times 23 fade into the annals of corporate decision-making, a footnote in employer handbook history, or will they take back their old jobs? Can they sue the mighty Times and make a stand for employee e-mail rights? Don't bet on any court victories. Any lawyer worth his Gucci loafers will tell you that savvy companies clearly state in their employee handbooks what's OK and what's not OK in Internet-related activities. Employees who violate the policy have little room to argue. This very beacon of free speech, The Virginian-Pilot, explicitly forbids us from, well, explicit e-mails and downloads on company-owned equipment. But everybody wants to talk about the ``Times 23.'' Newsday called on Wednesday. Christopher Frankie, a business reporter for the Long Island-based daily newspaper, wanted some info on the Times 23. Jeffrey Toobin, ace writer of The New Yorker and point man on the OJ case, called on Thursday, to chat about what was going on. ``I find this amazing,'' Toobin said. But, so far, it's hard to find hard and fast evidence of exactly what workplace sins the Times 23 committed by e-mail. The Times' story is merely to confirm that employees were fired for policy violations. Trickles of information could be had on PilotOnline.com's Talknet, where the question was: ``Should downloading and forwarding pornography from the Internet be a firing offense at the office?'' Posted at 8:12 a.m. Tuesday, the day after the firings, the first message came from someone claiming to be a member of the Times 23. There was a need to set the record straight, the former employee wrote. ``I personally never downloaded porn,'' the message went. ``I may have received it in my e-mail, unsolicited, but never once did I seek out and download it. I doubt that the other 19 employees did either.'' The firings, the employee added, reflect company loyalty to employees. Two interview requests e-mailed to the message poster were both met with ``No comment'' responses. Another self-described Times employee, not a member of the Times 23, posted a message on Talknet. The Times 23 were in the wrong, the employee wrote. They should not have been using company e-mail for those purposes, but . . . ``This was NOT a ring of hard-core porn freaks, or sexual harassers. This was an extended group of 23+ very talented and dedicated people who've worked together & known each other for years, and who unfortunately passed some off-color jokes & emails around.'' The current employee claims the ``circle'' is a lot bigger than 23 people. Practically all of the Times' 200 employees in Norfolk use company e-mail for purposes other than work, the employee said. Co-workers send PG-rated stories, R-rated jokes and pictures. Still unnamed, the current Times employee responded to an e-mail interview request. ``The worst I've personally seen anyone receive during my time here has been R-rated pictures & jokes,'' the employee wrote. Admitting that they were juvenile, trashy and completely unrelated to work, the employee called them ``stuff you'd expect from the `Porky's' movies.'' The rumor mill at the Times' Norfolk office, however, says the e-mail that got the Times 23 the ax had some celebrity film clips in it, the current employee added. We pondered researching this allegedly inappropriate material to judge for ourselves - for professional purposes only, of course. After about two seconds, we both decided, ``Nah, not a good career move.'' Back on Talknet, however, the current employee's posting says the company acted arbitrarily and the Times 23 were out on the street, less than four weeks before Christmas. This matter might turn more mysterious before it clears up. The Times 23 are laying low, and not identifying themselves. Another man who claimed to be one of the Times 23 called Thursday. He wouldn't give his name, but said that the truth hadn't come out yet. The Times 23 employees were sticking together, he said, networking, looking out for one another. They will provide more information about their situation in the future, he promised. Then, he hung up. The phone will probably ring again this week. Reach Michael Clark at 446-2247 or mclark(AT)pilotonline.com Reach Akweli Parker at 446-2318 or akweli(AT)pilotonline.com Copyright (c) 1999 The Virginian-Pilot |