Wouldn't it be interesting...

Wouldn’t it be interesting?

When we go to work at a new place, we get presented with a “contract” of sorts. In other words, sometimes it’s an “Acceptable Use” policy.

For the record, I have no problem with this. I’ve worked at a number of places that provided Internet access to their employees, with the provision that the they (meaning the employees) did not violate the policy. In other words, employee agreed not to:

download music or video,
send or receive objectionable material,
send trade secrets,
send messages or anything else that is critical of the employer,
or various other things.

Again, I have no problem with that. The employer is providing the tools, therefore you (as the employee) must play by the rules.

My problem occurs when the employer figures that you don’t have any rights to anything else aside from what they “chose” to give you.

For example, I worked at a place that said the employees could not use their cell phones for personal use on company time. I agreed with this as it made a great deal of sense. My problem was when the training manager decided that the rules did not apply to her and made and received personal calls on her cell phone on company time. I pointed this out to my manager and then had to appear before an area manager when it was decided that I was “causing trouble” for pointing it out. I had to appear before said area manager again when the training manager got promoted. I was asked if I had a problem with it. I replied that no, I didn’t. However, apparently they (meaning the employer) had decided that the rules did not apply to managers. (And they capitalized the word “manager” but couldn’t be bothered to capitalize the word “Customer,” something else I was written up for pointing out.) You gotta love it.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could attach a “rider” of sorts to our “contract?”

“Read carefully as this is a legal, binding agreement between employer (hereinafter referred to as “you,” “employer,” or “Company”) and employee (hereinafter referred to as “I,” “employee,” or “me.”)

I agree to be bound by employer’s rules with the express provision that employer is to be bound by those same rules. Employer further agrees that any such penalties to be assessed against employee will also apply to employer.

Employee has agreed not to use employer’s assets for personal business under the express provision that employer is to be bound by those same rules. Employer further agrees that any such penalties to be assessed against employee will also apply to employer. (To wit: I agree not to use employer’s Internet connection for personal business except were as agreed to under “Acceptable Use Policy.” Employer agrees to this same restriction.)

Employee will not use any personal device for business use. Employer agrees to this restriction. Employer further agrees not to require employee to use employee’s devices for business use.

Employee does not have a Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, or any other social networking site and will not sign up for one due to well-publicized privacy concerns. Employer agrees to this restriction. Employer further agrees not to punish employee in any way, shape, or form for this.

This legal and binding document is not comprehensive, and can be changed at employee’s sole discretion. Due notice will be given in these instances.”

Wouldn’t it be interesting if we could do something like that? I’ve worked for a company that required that I use my cell phone for business use, but stated that since most plans had more than enough minutes that they need not reimburse me. Wouldn’t it be interesting if we could ensure that our employers actually are bound by the same rules they bind us to?

Wouldn’t it be nice?

Wouldn’t it be interesting?