Access Denied
This picture should be very familiar to the many people who work at Floyd and have tried to access this blog.
The CEO ordered the block hospital-wide on the computers. I continue to wonder where Freedom of Speech and censorship comes into play.
This has just added fuel to the fire and many employees are even more curious about the blog and wondering why it is being blocked. Many remain skeptical about the manner in which the hospital is being led. This action certainly doesn't help the trust issue.
Is he afraid to have differing viewpoints and a forum in which everyone can have a voice?
Is this new forum threatening?
Is the hospital’s best interest really at the forefront when we see actions like these being implemented by our administration?
Can a public (County-owned) facility actually ban websites? Private institutions certainly are entitled, but County-owned facilities may be another matter.
We’ll let the readers decide.
posted by Anonymous at 6:30 AM
18 Comments:
Congrats. You've been gifted with the finest publicity available ... at absolutely no cost to you.
I'm envious. Where do I sign up?
Check with any business either public or private and they have the "right" to ban access of computer usage to their employees for personal use. All they have to do is advise employees of this policy. At my place of business, there has been several people lose their jobs after this kind of activity. I would say reading blogs does not fall into business use of privately owned computers. I would also say that if employees want to read this blog they would be entitled to do so on their own time and on their own computer, not on Company time, or on computers that the Taxpayors have paid for.
The question really comes down to rather a selective ban on a single website falls outside of the law.
There is a case in Kentucky challenging a similar issue and directed against Gov. Fletcher because of blocking certain sites.
The content on this site is very diverse and to block a site becuase of some issues you do not agree with may be pushing the limits.
They won't say it is the content. Their point will be that your site has been indentified as "abused" by employees on hospital time.
reminds me of efforts by labor unions to speak to employees at their workplace and the obstacles and court challenges over that access to dissent and organizing of dissent.
http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-labor.php
Electronic Frontier Foundation website discussion of legal issues surrounding workplace blogging...check it out.
Very fascist and authoritarian!
Knowledge is power, thus, the administration is afraid.
Fight on!
I would say any web site not related to job enrichment could be blocked by an employer. Especially if staff is overworked as you have said. I think that this fact alone would be sufficient to ban any personal use of a computer while on the time clock. I also think that making demeaning statements about the Hospital and the Administration would not be in the best interest of the employees. I would hope that most employees would refrain from allowing this discussion to interfer with their daily duties while in the workplace. There are far greater matters to occupy the staff than to read opinion's from the likes of you and I and everyone else that cares to comment on this blog. On the upside, they can read anything they want after they leave the workplace.
The National Labor Relations Act not only protects employees who are trying to unionize, it also any employee who "engage[s] in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." 29 U.S.C. § 157. Activities are "concerted" if multiple employees are acting together, or if the activity is part of one employee's effort to instigate collective action. Activities are "for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection" if they relate to employees' interests as employees (in other words, wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment). Efforts to change your employer's corporate disclosure policies or shareholder meeting practices, for example, would not qualify as protected under this provision.
from the EFF website
Anoymous,
Just curious as to your comment:
"There are far greater matters to occupy the staff than to read opinion's from the likes of you"
What is the "likes of you" referring to and how do you come to that conclusion. The readers would love to know as well as myself
Banning certain websites was instituted over a year ago (at least). Seems that too many employees were spending WAY too much time surfing the web - and I can vouch for this personally. There were probably days when I spent too much time on the web to be honest. I don't think it is unreasonable to block access to certain sites in the workplace. Let employees read it at home or the library or wherever -- bet your tune would change on blocking websites if people were looking at porn!
Concerning censorship, I would be more concerned with the the right-wing religious zealots out there who want to censor movies, books in the library, music and other various forms of media. There is a video store in New Albany that will not rent any George Clooney movies because of his statements against Bush, the Dixie Chicks were kept from being on the air by many country stations after their comments about Bush and my local theatre here in Corydon was inundated with petitions by a certain "Christian Church" encouraging the owner not to show the Da Vinci code (which I think he didn't - not sure).
This kind of censorship is a lot scarier than what you are griping about. If an employer wants to block an internet site because he does not want employees wasting their time on his dime, not a problem for me. Not to mention the whole morale thing - because whether you see it the same way or not, a lot of what you have said on this site has caused a lot of discord among the employees and that should not be happening. Floyd is a great place to work and even though it has its faults, the grass is usually only greener over a septic tank.
Good to have you back hothead1, even if we do disagree.
The video store and the movie theatres are private businesses and based on your reasoning, should be allowed to ban anything they want. This also includes radio stations that are private.
County or other government owned facilities do not have the same luxury. Public Libraries cannot ban certain things, and the recent challenge related to protestors at funerals in government or public cemetaries may also not stand up under free-speech.
There are zealots on all sides.
I would also disgree with this site being the cause of discord. That would be a typical response we would here from administration rather than addressing the problems and concerns.
I did not create the discord.
Freedom of speech is essential to any democracy-based political entity (like the USA), thus ANY form of censorship is usually bad.
G.Coyle has shown us at least one good reason why.
Hothead1: The kind of censorship you speak of is very bad indeed, but so is the kind HB has discussed. Again, refer to G.Coyle.
As for porn, religions, et al...
Let's get into the 21st century folks...not the 7th, not the 1st and certainly not B.C. times. Study about "then," learn about how terrible it was "then," but let's live in the 21st century!
I think u have them on the run, Healthblogger. Keep up the good work. Let's get that new outpatient surgical center built!
First of all, Dr.Dan, I do not always disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I think you have brought up some excellent points on this site - especially in regards to the "managed scare" insurance companies. You keep at 'em - I'm all for insurance reform! However, I do believe that you indeed have affected morale at Floyd.
No, you may not have created ALL of the discord, however, you have played a big part in it. How you go about things is the real problem. When you first started this blog, for example. I mean that one of the first things that you did was to "out" everyone on the board the way you did. It was spiteful and I believe illegal.
I also believe that your main goal is to discredit the CEO whatever the cost. And this whole thing about your website being blocked is ludicrous. As a business owner, how would you handle it if you found out that five of your employees were spending at least an hour each day surfing the web when they are supposed to be working?
As far as using the web on breaks, at lunch, etc., I feel that Floyd would have happily allowed this but people took advantage. I know this firsthand because last year when they started banning access to certain sites (such as jeopardy.com) I griped to the computer consultant in charge. What he told me was amazing and made sense that they would limit web usage. There were employees that they had documented that did nothing but surf for as long as six and a half hours a day. And he said that they could tell when someone was active or inactive so it wasn't just someone walking away from the computer and leaving the internet active. It really ticked me off that people were taking advantage like this because then the rest of us suffer. The point is, it is not a "selective ban on a single website" as you stated earlier. They are monitoring usage and if too many people are going to a website that is not work-related and spending a lot of time doing it, it only makes sense to do something about it as an employer - in terms of dollars and cents. When I worked at Humana, they recorded all of your calls and you were not allowed any personal calls whatsoever. They also timed lunch breaks, bathroom breaks or any time that your phone was "on hold". Big brother at its finest!
At any rate, those that are truly interested will still read your blog. Most people have computer access. Also, I do have to disagree with your statement about the public library. They have banned all kinds of websites - most of them pornographic, but some not. Go to any public library and try to get on the Al-Quaeda website.
Also, I would like to ask you, what would you do if an employee in your office started to blog about how awful your practice is and targeted you specifically? How long would they be employed?
I believe you have taken the "likes of you" out of context.
If you will read the statement again I did say "There are far greater matters to occupy the staff than to read opinion's from the likes of you and I and everyone else that cares to comment on this blog." The "likes" that I was referring to is we as citizens posting our personal opinions, on matters that have been posted for discussion. I believe that is why these sites are called BLOGS,if you have a problem with that do not post a place for comments to be written. Just post your opinion and hope everyone will read it and agree with you. As I have said before the reason I read your Blog is that you do have some informative
posting, but as of late I am sorry to say you seem to have gone off on the deep end, with your constant negative posting of FMH and the Insurance Companies. You will have some that agree with you, but you will also have some that do not. As the old saying goes "If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen." I still say an employer has the right to ban personal used of Business owned computers as long as an employee is in the building where the computers are based. Thats my opinion and you have yours, but ultimately it will be the Administration at FMH that will decide, regardless of what we or anyone else thinks. They issue the paychecks. I'm sure if you check job descriptions they do not include reading BLOGS.
To clarify a few points raised.
The goal is not to discredit the CEO. He is capable of doing that himself.
The goal is to open people's eyes to the facts that FMHHS is on a downward slope and it directly relates to decisions that are made by the administration.
I have also pushed for a smooth, transparent transition, but it has gotten to the point where that will be impossible. It is a shame that it will eventually be a finanical hardhship on Floyd that forces the needed change.
We continue to lose more services and physician loyalties because of decisions made and relationships damaged. That will be the ultimate downfall of Floyd if something doesn't change.
Using all means available to disclose some of the problems will force people to at least address them rather than covering them up or minimizing them.
My office has had it share of ups and downs for the past 13 years, and we have had employees leave. Only 2 have really left on bad terms and another was fired for stealing and one for embezzling. But overall most are happy. When we have had problems, we have at times met individually with all employees, have done surveys and have tried to address known concerns. We are not perfect in any way, but I do think we try harder than most
If I were you, I would go about my daily business, which would be taking care of my patients and God
forbid if any of them would have to go to FMH. I would make the daily rounds and inquire if they have any problems with their service while there. If so, make a formal complaint. If they don't that would mean you have no worrys.
Your life would be much simplier if you did not worry yourself with the hospital administration. If the hospital goes down the tube, with the present Administration, so be it. I'm sure the doors will not close, someone will pick up the reins. You should spend your time taking care of your patients,
and focus on what you do best.
Post a Comment
<< Home