It's going to be interesting to see which way this goes.  One factor is the
police officer/public employee spin, but another similar one is he is a
Union employee and what the employment contract they have provides in terms
of protections.

I think since this case has been in the public eye (and a couple of others
that followed it) more and more employees are developing specific policies
regarding employee use of computer equipment and communications devices
while at work and "on the clock".  

Some provide the right for incidental use and state what things can and
cannot be done (no conducting outside business, gambling, porn, peer to peer
downloads, streaming media) and many are stating "there should be no
expectation of privacy, even though incidental use is allowed".  The only
wiggle room here is what incidental means, and ensuring they apply the
standard consistently.

I'm not sure if they rule narrowly this will not be challenged in similar
cases in the future- this may not be the benchmark either side is seeking.

Larry
[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]