Someone else pointed out how these big companies are excellent at using technology to monitor, control and fire their staff; but hostile to using technology to make their customers happy.
I'm both a shareholder and a frequent flyer (Executive Platinum) on AA.
...
I've had recent contact with the AA team regarding some problems with functionality and have found their response to be less than satisfying. The letter from "Mr. X" was well written and improved my opinion of the direction of AA as a corporate entity. Firing this guy for being honest is a tragedy, and rest assured Mr. X there are people who appreciate your candid response.
It’s easy to “design” when you’re unencumbered by things like metrics, creative direction, business acumen, sales experience, actual functionality, enterprise scale, or any thought about how a site with millions of page views and users has to function.posted by dreamyshade at 10:53 AM on November 17, 2009
...[Zappos] shows more humility than the designer, which speaks volumes about Zappos’ corporate culture and employees, and highlights a forgotten nugget of knowledge—there are real people on the other side of those sites...
When every corporate decision you make influences the bottom line, in real time no less, you seek and destroy bad PR wherever it is found...they exist to make as much money for their shareholders as possible.
"Significantly, nearly 4 out of 10 gay consumers (39%) also stated that – quality and value of products being equal – they prefer to purchase products from companies that advertise in gay and lesbian media. However, an even higher percentage (46%) also stated they prefer to purchase products from companies that provide financial and/or in-kind support to nonprofit organizations serving the gay and lesbian community over competing products from companies that do not."posted by ericb at 11:12 AM on November 17, 2009 [1 favorite]
And did you see the difference between his redesigned website and the real one?
Wow so American Airlines FINALLY started letting black people buy tickets. Talk about coming around slow on the whole segregation thing...
blogger should've gotten permission to post the email, even anonymously
"While the practice might seem like an invasion of privacy to employees, under most circumstances an employer can monitor employee Internet activity, including e-mails, browsing histories and downloaded files. When many employees are first hired by a company, they are presented with an employee handbook which details their rights and obligations while on company time. Many of these handbooks written or updated after the advent of the Internet specifically mention a "no expectation of privacy" policy when using company-owned computers, servers and printers. "No expectation of privacy" means just that; employees cannot and should not assume their electronic communications will not be examined by their employers at some point in history.posted by ericb at 11:52 AM on November 17, 2009
This does not mean that employers have the right to monitor employee Internet activity outside of the work environment, nor can they compel employees to produce e-mails composed on private e-mail providers such as Yahoo or Hotmail. The company legally owns all of the electronic equipment necessary to create and store e-mails on their own servers. It can also examine the caches and browsing histories of all company-owned computers. Some employers can even install special software designed to monitor employee Internet activity in real time from a remote location.
There is a difference between confidentiality and privacy where electronic communications at the workplace are concerned. The employee handbook may say there is no expectation of privacy, but there could be an expectation of confidentiality. In a typical scenario, an employer could discover an email containing very derogatory comments about an employee's supervisor. The employer most likely would not make the contents of that e-mail public, but he or she may decide to call the employee into his office to discuss the situation which prompted the e-mail. The information gathered when employers monitor employee Internet activity is considered to be the property of the company, but most employers realize that some communications are more sensitive than others."*
Is electronic mail private? What about voice mail?posted by ericb at 2:13 PM on November 17, 2009 [5 favorites]
In most cases, no. If an electronic mail (e-mail) system is used at a company, the employer owns it and is allowed to review its contents. Messages sent within the company as well as those that are sent from your terminal to another company or from another company to you can be subject to monitoring by your employer. This includes web-based email accounts such as Yahoo and Hotmail as well as instant messages. The same holds true for voice mail systems. In general, employees should not assume that these activities are not being monitored and are private. Several workplace privacy court cases have been decided in the employer's favor. See for example: Bourke v. Nissan, Smyth v. Pillsbury, Shoars v. Epson
"It might seem Big Brother-like for you to monitor employee e-mail, but there may be good reasons for doing so. You might suspect an employee is disclosing trade secrets, violating company policy, downloading pornography or harassing another employee via e-mail. Or you may want to make sure that communication with clients is always professional.posted by ericb at 2:18 PM on November 17, 2009
The Electronic Communication Privacy Act, also known as the Stored Communications Act, prohibits interception of electronic communications under most circumstances. However, it allows companies to monitor employees' e-mail stored on company-owned servers and in cases when employees consent to employer access to e-mail.
On top of federal law, some state courts have held that employees have a basic expectation of privacy that employers can't violate. 'The most obvious legal concern is making sure you're not setting yourself up for an invasion-of-privacy claim,' says attorney Maureen O'Neill, partner at Paul, Hastings, Jenofsky & Walker in Atlanta. To avoid that, make it clear that company e-mail is not private communication. 'Set it up so the employees have no expectation of privacy.'
O'Neill notes that a simple, practical way to do that is to put a notice on the login screen that the system is the property of the employer, and that by logging on to the employer's system, employees agree that any e-mail communications and web use may be monitored by the employer. Likewise, include a similar notice in the employee handbook."
“….Nevertheless, the City had an unofficial policy concerning pagers: When an employee exceeded the number of characters allotted to him or her by the contract with the service provider, the employee would simply pay the City for the overage. Sergeant Quon was aware of this policy and in fact had paid such charges several times. Tired of acting as a ‘bill collector,’ the officer in charge of this procedure conducted an audit that revealed Sergeant Quon's personal use of the texting feature and his often sexually explicit language when using that feature.Let me repeat: "A principle predating this decision holds that so long as employees are put on notice that they are subject to searches of electronic communications conducted on company equipment, employers may conduct such searches. The court in Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Company did not change that principle."
Sergeant Quon and others with whom he had texted sued the service provider, the City, the Police Department, and the Police Chief for invasion of constitutional privacy and related claims. The Ninth Circuit held that users of text messaging generally did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the phone numbers used to send the messages. These numbers were analogous to an address on the outside of an envelope, which is not protected by privacy. Users also do not have a reasonable expectation that the intended recipient of those messages will keep the content of the messages private. But there generally is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of the text messages against secret searches from the employer.
The court nevertheless left a large window open whereby this expectation of privacy may be diminished and employers may continue to monitor their employees' electronic communications. A principle predating this decision holds that so long as employees are put on notice that they are subject to searches of electronic communications conducted on company equipment, employers may conduct such searches. The court in Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Company did not change that principle. It noted that had the City not exercised the unofficial policy of accepting payments for overage, its actions would not have constituted an invasion of privacy. Notably, its ‘Computer Usage, Internet and E-mail Policy’ and staff meeting would have been sufficient for putting Sergeant Quon on notice that he could not expect his communications to be confidential. The unofficial policy, however, belied the official policy and obstructed whatever notice Sergeant Quon may have had of the possibility of the search.
Employers should articulate official policies that alert their employees about the proper usage of computers and associated equipment and the employer's right to monitor all usage. But Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Company shows that diligence cannot stop there. Employers must effectively communicate these policies to their employees and not undermine them by the reality of their practices. Mere technicalities—such as whether this reality is driven by an official or final policymaker—will not save employers from liability because courts will examine the ‘operational reality’ of the workplace to make their determinations.”
"In the Ninth Circuit case, the issue wasn't e-mail but text messaging. Ontario, Calif., Police Sgt. Jeff Quon sued the department and Arch Wireless, which provided service to his work-issued pager, after learning his superiors had read personal text messages he'd sent from the device, including some racy missives to his wife....Key among the many issues in the case was whether Arch Wireless violated Quon's rights by handing over the text messages to his superiors. Typically, employers have the right to access communications sent through their servers, as is usually the case with e-mail. In contrast, a user must grant permission for anyone to access electronic communications like text messages that typically are stored only temporarily, for backup purposes, by so-called third-party messaging services. The panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit, a liberal court whose jurisdiction includes California, ruled that Quon's texts—and ostensibly millions of other messages from millions of other users—are protected from employers' prying eyes."Text messages stored on third-party servers: off limits to your employer.
« Older Autumn,... | Yesterday, the little-noticed ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by demiurge at 9:15 AM on November 17, 2009