Comments on: Employees Can’t Be Fired for Surfing Porn on the Job

By: VICTORIA

VICTORIA — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:45:49 +0000

I THINK THAT THE COURT THAT AWARDED THESE MEN THE MONEYS AND THE “RIGHT” TO DO ANYTHIN EXCEPT THEIR JOB AND JOB RELATED THINGS SHOULD ALL BE DIS-BARRED FROM PRACTICING ANY KIND OF LAW BECAUSE THEY ARE A DISGRACE TO THEIR PROFESSION. I PERSONALLY DO NOT BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING EXCEPT YOUR JOB AND BE PAID FOR IT. WHAT YOU DO ON YOUR OFF HOURS IS YOUR BUSINESS, BUT I DO NOT THINK ITS RIGHT FOR THE COURTS TO SAY PEOPLE ON THE JOB CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT AND BE PAID FOR IT. THATS JUST NOT RIGHT. PEOPLE WONDER WHY ALL THESE COMPANIES ARE GOING OUT OF THE USA TO HIRE WORKERS…

By: Cole H

Cole H — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:10:36 +0000

What’s the difference between looking at field and stream magazine, or,say, Elle, and pornography or any other website? My answer: personal taste. My next question: Does an employer have the right to fire an employee for any reason they want, or happen to have?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:38:49 +0000

I fully agree with mr.Clissmann, make and clarify the rules. and Duane H is right on every count. Since I am somewhat familiar with this case, it does seem like CP IS “Shooting a mosquito with a shotgun” ( to use Duane’s words ). Some of the comments I’ve read here are very far off base. Most here don’t realise the life these men live, the risks they take, the hours they work. I agree with the Nor. courts, this was an unjust action on the part of Conoco Phillips. These men had 2 choices, resign, or be fired, and it involved more than only 2 men. There is very much more to this story. No mr. Ville, Norway is NOT the US, but we are more fair than you think. And i am not seeing upside down, only listening across the pond.

By: Lee

Lee — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:32:01 +0000

For #10: Jeez, Richard must be one of those freaky die-hard conservative fascists with all his ranting and raving, which includes worshiping GW Bush. If you really want to meet a real stupid person, just look at yourself in the mirror, Richard. [sorry folks, I couldn't resist. People who resort to knee-jerk name calling deserve to have it right back at them]

By: Ville

Ville — Wed, 04 May 2005 05:40:52 +0000

Okay this is getting repetitive (see #19 and #20), but… once again… Norway is not the US! As long as you see this from viewpoint of the American workplace you are seeing upside down. In the US you apparently can dismiss an employee unless there is some specific reason preventing it, so you are all trying to think why these people couldn’t be dismissed. The reason is simple, in Norway you can’t dismiss an employee unless you have a specific reason allowing it. And that reason must either be in the law, negotiated by the trade union and the industry association, or must be in the contract of employment between the employer and the employee. The ConocoPhilips must have felt that one of the acceptable reasons applies to surfing porn, they were wrong. I am Finnish myself and the Norwegian system probably is slightly different and I know nothing about this particular case, but my GUESS is that they tried to claim that surfing porn distracted them to the point of gross negligence (taking the pay but deliberately not doing their work), but couldn’t prove that it had actually had a significant effect on the employees work performance.

By: Chalk

Chalk — Wed, 04 May 2005 03:54:50 +0000

This is interesting that Aunty Spam would report this incident in this manner. What if an employee was surfing Lockergnome.com while at work? Is that grounds for dismissal? Inappropriate use of company bandwidth/equipment? If any non work related sites are acceptable then who decides which are moral and which are not? If someone of age decides to view porn while on a break, whether through the net or on a DVD, who says where the line is drawn? If there is a line - it had better be clear and it better apply to all staff including EXECUTIVES. I’m not condoning porn at work, but there are many more timewasters available on line that suck company resources just as quickly.

By: Kinel

Kinel — Tue, 03 May 2005 23:06:49 +0000

On the face of it Bizarre but seems to me more like an example of the not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. As others have already pointed out, an oil rig is nothing like an office/factory/shop etc. I know because I work on one. You are typically away for 2, 3 or even 4 weeks at a stint working on a 12 hours on/12 hours off rota so you can imagine you have a large amount of free time to occupy and the Internet is one of the few ways of passing some of it. My employer (ChevronTeaxaco) has a clear usage policy in place backed up by strict filtering on it?s proxy server. Presumably Conoco Philips have (or had!) neither which a court could legitimately view as permitting it and I have little doubt that this played a large part in the reaching of the decision.

By: Ville

Ville — Tue, 03 May 2005 21:21:40 +0000

Norway is not the US. Do not assume legal costs to be anywhere near what they would be in the US. In the nordic countries both trade unions and industry associations permanently employ lawyers specializing on labor disputes. This quarantees that if either the employee or the employer has a valid reason to take a dispute to the courts they can afford to do so. I’d assume both Statoil and the employees used union/association lawyers (experienced specialists) and paid ZIP over their normal membership payments.

By: Ville

Ville — Tue, 03 May 2005 20:43:40 +0000

Norway not the US. People, the Norwegian labor market works entirely different from the US system. Employees have more rights and protections by law, industry wide contracts (between industry organizations and the unions), and the specific contract of employment they have with their employer. Specifically, an employer can’t dismiss an employee (unilaterally break a binding legal contract) without a reason SPECIFICALLY allowed under the terms of the contract. You can’t unilaterally and arbitrarily break legal contracts you make in the US either, can you?

By: tOM

tOM — Tue, 03 May 2005 19:12:44 +0000

I bet that $40,000 was all eaten up, and more, by the costs of going to three different courts. It’s not as if there were a surfeit of dames and private internet access on some remote oilfield.