General > General Technical Chat
Strange Company rules and manipulations
Red Squirrel:
I hate excessive rules and the world is filled with them now days. I believe in using common sense and case per case basis, but sadly not how society works. Though if there is no specifics for those indecent exposure rules it may very well be a case per case basis thing. So say something you're wearing is a tad on the risky side you'd probably just be approached and asked not to wear that again rather than immediately get in trouble because you are over some arbitrary measurement limit of how much skin is exposed or something.
I consider myself lucky my company is not riddled with rules but as a professional environment I think everyone is just expected to follow common sense with everything. The good thing with broad rules is typically if someone feels you are against, there is no way to measure it, so rather than being cut and dry and getting in trouble, you'll get a warning or a friendly request first before getting in trouble.
At the end of the day though when it comes with anything if I have to ask myself "is this allowed?" chances are the answer is probably no. On subject of dress code my company is quite liberal which is nice. I can wear shorts and tshirt to work. But that said I would not wear a shirt with offensive writing, or ripped up shorts etc.
T3sl4co1l:
--- Quote from: Red Squirrel on September 21, 2019, 02:15:44 am ---I consider myself lucky my company is not riddled with rules but as a professional environment I think everyone is just expected to follow common sense with everything. The good thing with broad rules is typically if someone feels you are against, there is no way to measure it, so rather than being cut and dry and getting in trouble, you'll get a warning or a friendly request first before getting in trouble.
At the end of the day though when it comes with anything if I have to ask myself "is this allowed?" chances are the answer is probably no.
--- End quote ---
This.
Rules are there because agitators insist they be put there.
If you feel it necessary to push the line, you shouldn't be doing that in the first place. Once in a while -- accidentally say -- that's fine. There needs to be some forgiveness for that. To do otherwise would be just mean. To draw a hard line, removes that forgiveness, and makes the system worse for everyone.
There seem to be more rules in places where there are more agitators, or min-maxers. Places with lots of employees (or on an even broader scale, countries with lots of citizens). Places where traits like psychopathy are present by default, or are specifically concentrated (say, military, finance).
Tim
Rick Law:
--- Quote from: windsmurf on September 21, 2019, 12:11:17 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on September 20, 2019, 11:57:42 pm ---
--- Quote from: Brutte on September 19, 2019, 07:20:05 pm ---One of my former corporations had an official regulation that we were not allowed to archive any emails that "could be of any value to government authorities" in case of a potential investigation and litigation. The limit was set to 3 months, older emails were wiped out.
I suppose all corporations have these rules.
--- End quote ---
I've never heard of such a rule, and never worked at company that had that.
--- End quote ---
Its becoming more common in the U.S. ... email records tend to hurt companies in court more than help them.
--- End quote ---
For those not in the USA and had not participated in related process, it can seem kind of strange. I am not a lawyer, but I participated in related processes before. So here is my layman's understanding:
In the USA, we have something call discovery process in a law suit. Say if I sue my company for for sexual harassment from co-workers, somewhere early in the processes (pre-trial), discovery process starts - lawyers from my side can look at the company (defendant) records in search of supporting evidence.
Almost any company would have someone who said something stupid some time, and there is always a chance some juror who may interpret something innocent as something evil.
If you start to destroy things when a law suit is filed, even if you did that before a court order to preserve evidence, you are destroying evidence. If a long long time before there is any legal proceeding in the works, email got destroyed as regular company policy (that all emails are NOT stored after X days), they are gone. You merely destroyed your property but you did not obstruct justice (which would be a felony).
So, if the benefit of having the record is exceeded by the risk of someone filing some gold-digging law suit... Folks here are smart, I can stop here.
T3sl4co1l:
Which I think also connects with the "you shouldn't be doing that" premise. Consider a shady Enron-like company that's covering their ass with such a practice.
In my experience, in engineering (and on the nicer side of that, I would dare say, or guess), records are kept, because we are indeed doing our job, and if legal got involved, we're only going to end up proving that.
Better still not to even get involved in the first place; I've yet to be involved in, or work with someone who has been involved in, contract disputes that went to the courts. This, I imagine, takes good vetting not just of your employees and managers (and your managers knowing their employees' capabilities well), but of your customers as well.
Tim
EEEnthusiast:
Another strange rule was to not allow female workers to stay beyond 8pm in the office, in order to avoid sexual harassment. However, they also enacted another policy to prevent gender discrimination in the office. These two are self contradictory.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version