[keylogging at the office] le'sigh

[boredsilly]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

If it's at all possible, get in touch with your former employer, tell them you realize how stupid you were. Do NOT offer any excuses about how you thought they were being hacked; it won't fly. Ask if you can be allowed to resign instead.

I have to echo shrdlu's recommendation because you don't want to be fired unless you plan to be self employed for the next 10 years. Most employers ask if you've ever been fired on the application and you won't make it past Human Resources unless it's been years since the termination or you have a connection inside their IT department. Your best bet, regardless of how you feel about them, is to pursue what shrdlu mentioned.

[Voltage Spike]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

Most employers ask if you've ever been fired on the application and you won't make it past Human Resources unless it's been years since the termination or you have a connection inside their IT department.

What is your obligation to answer that statement truthfully, though? Most of the employers around here have an official policy of not answering questions about former employees. Human Resources will confirm a previous employment status, but they will not reveal why that status changed or an indication of performance. HR also prohibits current employees from discussing former co-workers with other companies.

I suppose the new employer could make you sign the statement, but I can't imagine it would have ramifications other than providing an easy excuse to termiante the employee if the truth were revealed. By that time, however, you have hopefully been able to prove yourself as an invaluable employee, though.

[streaker69]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

What is your obligation to answer that statement truthfully, though? Most of the employers around here have an official policy of not answering questions about former employees. Human Resources will confirm a previous employment status, but they will not reveal why that status changed or an indication of performance. HR also prohibits current employees from discussing former co-workers with other companies.

I suppose the new employer could make you sign the statement, but I can't imagine it would have ramifications other than providing an easy excuse to termiante the employee if the truth were revealed. By that time, however, you have hopefully been able to prove yourself as an invaluable employee, though.

I know this is true of PA, the OP may want to check his local laws regarding what is actually revealed during the hiring process. In PA, former employers may only verify employment but no other information.

Chances are those laws were put in place to prevent blackballing potential employees and keep vindictive former employers from making nasty and untrue statements about someone that may have been a good worker, but had a personality conflict with management.

Since many of us here are in IT, I'm sure we can all understand personality conflicts with management.

[shrdlu]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

What is your obligation to answer that statement truthfully, though? Most of the employers around here have an official policy of not answering questions about former employees. Human Resources will confirm a previous employment status, but they will not reveal why that status changed or an indication of performance. HR also prohibits current employees from discussing former co-workers with other companies.

Let me play Devil's Advocate here. Actually, let me speak from experience as well. What you say about HR is very true. On the other hand, there's gossip, and even better, there's access to things like credit reports and those underground connections to the state, and unemployment insurance. There's Lexis Nexis, Experian, and any number of frightening places that have more information about you than you can imagine.

I suppose the new employer could make you sign the statement, but I can't imagine it would have ramifications other than providing an easy excuse to termiante the employee if the truth were revealed. By that time, however, you have hopefully been able to prove yourself as an invaluable employee, though.

It's instant firing, in any case I can think of. Seriously, it's a bag of pain that you don't want to open. Proving that you're invaluable will not save you. To quote:

"Help will not arrive in time."

[Voltage Spike]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

Let me play Devil's Advocate here.

If all of us agreed on every subject then there would be little need for these forums.

What you say about HR is very true. On the other hand, there's gossip, and even better, there's access to things like credit reports and those underground connections to the state, and unemployment insurance. There's Lexis Nexis, Experian, and any number of frightening places that have more information about you than you can imagine.

All of which is to say that it may be difficult to hide a blemish on your record. I was more concerned with the consequences of attempting to do so. In other words, if your choice (ignoring self-employment) is between ostracism from the corporate world or maintaining your privacy (possibly through prevarication or telling a lie), why choose the former?

It's instant firing, in any case I can think of. Seriously, it's a bag of pain that you don't want to open.

I hadn't realized it was so bad at most places. I would have to assume, then, the question of termination is usually written? (You'll have to excuse my ignorance. I don't change employers often enough to have the experience.) What possible reason would an employer have for firing a productive employee who may have lied about an unrelated situation? (Especially if the action was based on gossip or "underground connections".) Have other people found this to be the case?

[shrdlu]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

If all of us agreed on every subject then there would be little need for these forums.

I think in this case I see it from a different perspective. It isn't agree or disagree, so much as seeing it from the management side, rather than from the employee. I will say again that I'm commenting here for future readers as much as anything.

All of which is to say that it may be difficult to hide a blemish on your record. I was more concerned with the consequences of attempting to do so. In other words, if your choice (ignoring self-employment) is between ostracism from the corporate world or maintaining your privacy (possibly through prevarication or telling a lie), why choose the former?

There's a third, easy road. Yes, easy. No need to give details, but (if asked), just say that you weren't a good fit at your last company, and that you've taken it as the learning experience that it was meant to be. In most states in the US (perhaps in all), HR will say very little other than that a person was indeed employed, and the dates of employment. Your objective is not not lie about why you left (you being a generic "you" in this case), but rather that you value the things that you learned while employed. Then name them.

I hadn't realized it was so bad at most places. I would have to assume, then, the question of termination is usually written?

Reason for leaving is usually part of the information asked for each previous place of employment. I recommend having a good one, preferably as noncommittal as possible. At this time, there are so many places downsizing that a simple "mutual agreement" or "not a good fit" is plenty. Sure, it opens you up to questions, but honesty is good. Brevity is also.

(You'll have to excuse my ignorance. I don't change employers often enough to have the experience.) What possible reason would an employer have for firing a productive employee who may have lied about an unrelated situation? (Especially if the action was based on gossip or "underground connections".) Have other people found this to be the case?

"May have lied?" We were talking about someone lying, not about suspicions of same. When I say underground, it is not with the same connotation as you might be giving it. Although it is not ethical to do so, nearly all corporations have some way of gaining insider information to places such as Worker's Compensation, and Unemployment Compensation. It isn't ethical, and it sucks, but it happens, and some of the people that do it would disagree about the difference between lying about past employment, or breaking rules on getting information. Personally, I don't approve of either.

When I say gossip, I am not referring to the over the back fence kind, but to the fact that the world is actually pretty small. I'll bet that all those events that were initially related have been the topic of after hours hanging out, and lunches with friends. People talk. It's a fact of life.

[streaker69]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

I hadn't realized it was so bad at most places. I would have to assume, then, the question of termination is usually written? (You'll have to excuse my ignorance. I don't change employers often enough to have the experience.) What possible reason would an employer have for firing a productive employee who may have lied about an unrelated situation? (Especially if the action was based on gossip or "underground connections".) Have other people found this to be the case?

In my own personal experience, if a manager wants to get rid of you, they'll find (trump up) any reason they possibly can to do so. HR many times is complicit, or just plain ignorant of the issues between a manager and an employee.

I was once fired from a job because my manager, who had effectively conducted a corporate coup to remove the previous manager, did everything he could to fire me. Even to the point of stealing a laptop and then blaming it upon me, all because he was the older brother of a guy that married an ex-girlfriend of mine. What I didn't know at the time when he started working there that he was that guys brother. I didn't find that out until much later when I started looking into a couple of things.

[Voltage Spike]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

There's a third, easy road. Yes, easy. No need to give details, but (if asked), just say that you weren't a good fit at your last company, and that you've taken it as the learning experience that it was meant to be.

Which is why I included prevarication as an option. I am glad to hear that evasion is still effective.

Reason for leaving is usually part of the information asked for each previous place of employment. I recommend having a good one, preferably as noncommittal as possible. At this time, there are so many places downsizing that a simple "mutual agreement" or "not a good fit" is plenty. Sure, it opens you up to questions, but honesty is good. Brevity is also.

It sounds as though it would be difficult for the employee to admit to the firing (unless the employee was quite foolish) and equally difficult for the management to later claim that they employee lied about their previous employment status (since it would be verbal).

"May have lied?" We were talking about someone lying, not about suspicions of same.

I said "may" because I would imagine it would be difficult to use rumors and friendly discussion as evidence of the lie.

I also recognize that right-to-work states, in theory, don't have the same issues, but I always imagine that any moderately-sized company would record some sort of justification for security against any retaliation.

When I say underground, it is not with the same connotation as you might be giving it. Although it is not ethical to do so, nearly all corporations have some way of gaining insider information to places such as Worker's Compensation, and Unemployment Compensation.

I understand what you meant, but I'm not clear on the legal status of such information.

Thank you for humoring my curiosity, shrdlu.

In my own personal experience, if a manager wants to get rid of you, they'll find (trump up) any reason they possibly can to do so.

I acknowledge that this happens, but my world view has trouble integrating the firing of an employee who didn't care to admit to a firing (extreme conditions excluded, of course). I suppose a manager could become personally upset at having hired someone that another, possibly more respected, company didn't want, but I imagine that it would strain, not break, the relationship.

[Schuyler]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

So, while we're discussing state standards for employment, can anyone define my own state's (MA) "at-will" employment? In my limited understanding it means that you can be removed from your job without cause, so long as you don't have a contract that stipulates otherwise.

I'm guessing it's more nuanced than that though, and if this isn't the right place for it / is dragging this conversation too far off topic, my apologies. Just curious from the above conversations.

[streaker69]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

So, while we're discussing state standards for employment, can anyone define my own state's (MA) "at-will" employment? In my limited understanding it means that you can be removed from your job without cause, so long as you don't have a contract that stipulates otherwise.

Yeap, that's pretty much what it means.

http://research.lawyers.com/Massachu...achusetts.html

[bombnav]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

WOW I did not realize just how cut throat IT work was. It seems were I work (aerospace) no one gets fired.. but we all do have DOD clearances which may drive the behaviors toward the calm side as no-one wants to lose theirs.

I was a civil servant for a bit when I retired from the USAF and those folks seem to have a job for life.... Lots of gov IT jobs.. try usajobs.gov. Not my style, I perfer being a contractor.

In my own personal experience, if a manager wants to get rid of you, they'll find (trump up) any reason they possibly can to do so. HR many times is complicit, or just plain ignorant of the issues between a manager and an employee.

I was once fired from a job because my manager, who had effectively conducted a corporate coup to remove the previous manager, did everything he could to fire me. Even to the point of stealing a laptop and then blaming it upon me, all because he was the older brother of a guy that married an ex-girlfriend of mine. What I didn't know at the time when he started working there that he was that guys brother. I didn't find that out until much later when I started looking into a couple of things.

[bjaming]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

Well, after more reflection I think I am going to send an email to the CIO and try to be apologetic but not submissive and further explain my actions. Quite frankly, I'm not going to miss this job and despite the horrible economy I think I will be just fine.

I will however chalk this one up to a learning experience and work on my "business acumen"

whatever the hell that means..

[theprez98]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

Well, after more reflection I think I am going to send an email to the CIO and try to be apologetic but not submissive and further explain my actions. Quite frankly, I'm not going to miss this job and despite the horrible economy I think I will be just fine.

I will however chalk this one up to a learning experience and work on my "business acumen"

whatever the hell that means..

You might be careful about what you admit to on paper as it could subject you to further problems.

[valanx]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

You might be careful about what you admit to on paper as it could subject you to further problems.

Quite.

If something like this happened I'd honestly take it in stride and learn from the experience rather than telling the world that the job is no big loss. Would I hire you if you consider your last full time job trivial? Probably not. I want someone who wants to work and considers their employment mutually important. Why stay at a position if you consider the company misaligned with your values? Look for other work that is more inline with your plans.

I'm sure that we have all had points in our respective career paths where a roadblock has surfaced and we stumbled. The difference is in how you learn from the experience. Expecting that your next job will have someone of a differing personality or mindset than the last job is probably not a good idea. People in similar positions share similar traits. Yes, I know, not all the time. I'll say more often than not though.

Consider that in this situation, you caused the incident. Your now former employer will replace you and move on. You will have to make a change in how you conduct yourself to avoid this happening again. The community is not as big as you may think it is, and you very well could cross paths with someone from that organization again.

[xor]

Re: [keylogging at the office] le'sigh

I'm sure that we have all had points in our respective career paths where a roadblock has surfaced and we stumbled. The difference is in how you learn from the experience. Expecting that your next job will have someone of a differing personality or mindset than the last job is probably not a good idea. People in similar positions share similar traits. Yes, I know, not all the time. I'll say more often than not though.
.

Let me paraphrase, the world is run by @#$HOLES, get use to it.


xor