Privacy?

[derekleffew]

I and several others here do not disclose publicly where we work. In some cases the employer actually forbids it, for others it's to ensure that what we say here cannot in any way be mistaken as speaking for "the company."

From this article on NPR's site:

And outside the workplace, personal blogs or social media pages on services like Twitter or Facebook offer no refuge. Asked if workers can be fired for things they write on those sites, Maltby said, "Absolutely. Happens every day."

Attached is a memo that makes quite clear one anonymous company's policies. It might be a good idea for everyone to check with his/her company to see if such a policy exists and how to be compliant while still being an active and productive member of ControlBooth and other online communities.

 

[LightingMike]

Very good advice. I know of some emplyers that watch the net to see what their staff is talking about. Yes you can and I know of many people who have posted things on Facebook or other social networking sites and have been et go for their acctions.

Never relase any information that is not commonly know. As I tell everyone I know, think before you post.

 

[cdub260]

Very good advice. I know of some emplyers that watch the net to see what their staff is talking about. Yes you can and I know of many people who have posted things on Facebook or other social networking sites and have been et go for their acctions.

Never relase any information that is not commonly know. As I tell everyone I know, think before you post.

Within the last week I heard on the radio news about a teacher who was suspended for a picture one of her friends posted on Facebook of her at a bachelorette party.

Here's the story.

 

[ruinexplorer]

Man, I'm glad I was using my stage name when they took that picture!

Seriously though, most of us work in right to work situations and very few of us are irreplaceable. I know that most of us feel that what we do on our own time shouldn't come back to haunt us on work time. The fact of the matter is, this isn't a new situation, it's just faster. Even back in the day, if someone saw you doing something socially unacceptable on your own time, it could still make it back to work and you would lose your job. It's sad really that people don't realize the harm they can do to their careers when not at work.

While I disagree with how that particular situation was handled, it wasn't unreasonable. Thanks Derek for bringing this to the forefront again.

 

[Chris15]

In what is essentially the same thing, just on a different scale, consider how many celebrities, politicians etc. have had their careers seriously affected by the odd fling, drug charge, traffic accident or other impropriety...

 

[cdub260]

In what is essentially the same thing, just on a different scale, consider how many celebrities, politicians etc. have had their careers seriously affected by the odd fling, drug charge, traffic accident or other impropriety...

Sometimes just a quotation without the context.

 

[Kelite]

It's sad really that people don't realize the harm they can do to their careers when not at work.

So many things are posted on Facebook and Myspace that digitally will NEVER GO AWAY. Are you listening kiddie-winkies? They NEVER GO AWAY. Before you you show your dark side within a personal rant, please be mindful of this little snag.

 

[What Rigger?]

Derek's right...check out my new improved signature. This is in line with our new corporate wide "social media" policy.

 

[gafftaper]

Derek's right...check out my new improved signature. This is in line with our new corporate wide "social media" policy.

Wow. I suddenly feel the need to fill out a non-disclosure agreement before I even read your new signature.

Actually not a bad idea for many of you guys to put something like that in your sig.

 

[MNicolai]

Yes, employees should not turn around on the internet and give their own company a bad rep, but I think it's a terrible idea to live in a world where everything I say needs a disclaimer. It's as embarrassing as going around saying "In only my own opinion and in not necessarily anyone else's..." before every statement that's made.

Across my blog, sometimes posts will be made that will include smut, nudity, "naughty" words, and political opinions. I don't ever need to state, "by the way, these things are only in my opinion and don't represent anything my employer may think." If you have to include the disclaimer that equates to stating you're not qualified or capable of making a decision or providing advice, then don't. It's not more complicated than that. If I advise someone to set their curtains on fire, but say with a disclaimer that I take no responsibility for actions taken on my advice, it would take a lot more than a disclaimer to pull me out of that law suit.

I wouldn't hire a lighting designer who could draw me a nice light plot with lines and shapes and their disclaimer they aren't responsible for rigging collapses. I expect them to be able to provide me a solution I can safely use, and should the rigging collapse for any reason beyond there are too many lighting fixtures on it, I do not intend to hold anyone responsible who isn't.

I'm a stubborn jerk about this, but I think adults shouldn't need disclaimers to have conversations, professional or personal. My personal blog shouldn't need a disclaimer that views reflected on there do not reflect those of my employer, and likewise, I shouldn't be able to get off of the hook for terrible advice I've given just because I've said, "this is only my opinion," before having given it. Taking responsibility and being accountable is more than being good at putting disclaimers on every piece of work you've done.

Be warned, if you provide me terrible advice that you claimed to be qualified to give (and then proceeded to disclaim in some fine print somewhere) and it results in the injury of someone, I'll come after you through mazes of paperwork and legal actions until I've sought full retribution. If you mean to say, "I'm qualified to tell you what to do, but I don't think you're qualified to follow my advise appropriately and in a safe manner," then say that. Either be qualified to mean what you say, or don't say it at all. If you have reason to believe someone may misunderstand you, speak more clearly or tell them you don't want to advise them at all because you feel your advice, misinterpreted, may endanger them. Do not proceed to give your advice, though, and try and get off the hook by using your fine print disclaimer as a shield.

-----------------

This post represents the views of myself, all of my acquaintances (whether they know it or not), some kid down the street from me, and my cats. Not my dogs, though -- they only believe in afternoon naps and appropriate methods of squirrel-chasing.

 

[photoatdv]

I wouldn't hire a lighting designer who could draw me a nice light plot with lines and shapes and their disclaimer they aren't responsible for rigging collapses. I expect them to be able to provide me a solution I can safely use, and should the rigging collapse for any reason beyond there are too many lighting fixtures on it, I do not intend to hold anyone responsible who isn't.

I beg to differ on this one... a lighting designer is not a rigger. Some LD's may be qualified riggers, but not all. If told a bar has a SWL of 500lbs, then yes, the LD should be responsible for not putting 800lbs of lighting on the bar. However walking into an unknown venue, how is the LD supposed to know whether the bar is attached to structural steel or just has a couple of screws going into the wall? That's when an LD has to say this is what would look good, but I'm not qualified to determine if the bar can hold that.

I did that on a show I was doing. I looked at the construction of a bar and decided it was safe to put XXX on it, but when I brought up adding XXX more for a future production I said that they'd have to check with a buildings/ engineering person (and btw... i'm pretty sure it'd be fine... but I'm not sure). I am however sure that from a LIGHTING perspective my plans are safe (aka the lights won't burn the building down or fall off the pipe).

My expertise is lighting... I'm not a rigger/licensed electrician/pyrotechnician/ect. I can certainly say it'd look great if we put 20 macIIIs on that bar, but I don't know if it can support it. I can say I'd recommend adding more parcans, but you'll need to check with the electricians if the dimmer's supply is large enough. Likewise, I can say I think you should hire a pyro person to do green flames here and cyro there and a flash pot at the end.

 

[derekleffew]

I agree with photoatdv. A disclaimer similar to that which I've seen on almost every professional light plot:

This drawing represents visual concepts and construction suggestions only. The designer is not qualified to determine the structural appropriateness of this design and will not assume responsibility for improper engineering, construction, or handling. All materials, finishes, and construction must comply with the most stringent fire and safety codes as applicable.

Whether or not it legally exonerates the designer is a question for the judicial system.

________
The author is NOT qualified or licensed to dispense legal advice. The above is offered for informational purposes only.

 

[gafftaper]

I'm a stubborn jerk about this, but I think adults shouldn't need disclaimers to have conversations, professional or personal. My personal blog shouldn't need a disclaimer that views reflected on there do not reflect those of my employer, and likewise, I shouldn't be able to get off of the hook for terrible advice I've given just because I've said, "this is only my opinion," before having given it. Taking responsibility and being accountable is more than being good at putting disclaimers on every piece of work you've done.

Two problems with this:

1) There are many people around here (like Whatrigger? and Derek) who work for employers who would fire them if they publicly mentioned where they work. These are HUGE corporations which watch their image VERY carefully. They don't want anyone representing them self publicly as an employee of their company without complete control over the message. So not only do these people have to conceal where they work it's also wise for them to add an additional disclaimer so that just in case someone figures out where they work there is no confusion. Should it be this way? Of course not. But if you are going to work for the big boys there are some things you have to play by their rules.

2) This is the internet and it's the wild west out here man. My 3 year old is getting quite proficient at surfing it. While its true that on a professional level you don't need disclaimers with the people you work with. There are 10 year olds and crazy uncles out here reading what you post. So we need to be careful about self censoring for the safety of the both the young and untrained who might try some crazy rigging thing they read about. Thus the reason that the topics of rigging, pyro, and electrical are carefully controlled here on CB.

 

[MNicolai]

1) If you work for a company that says you can't talk about them, then you simply shouldn't talk about them. If, however, they say you can't have any kind of presence on the internet that is completely unrelated to work, that is out of line. Granted, there are some exceptions, such as the grade school teacher who posts nude photos of herself on MySpace, but it's way too harsh for an employer to look at a Facebook account of an employee, see a photo of them using a competing product at some point in time in their life, and then firing them as a result.

Example: An employee at a brewery was fired for having been spotted in a photo holding a beer can with a competitor's logo on it.

That employee should not need to put a disclaimer on his page that his personal activities were not representative of the company he worked at. And chances are if a company is going to fire someone for something so trivial, they aren't going to be concerned about whether or not a disclaimer is even in place.

Now for those CB members who are at companies that don't want their employees talking about work, then the trade off is that in a situation like this, where their purpose for being here is to discuss details of their professions, be it related or not to any specific projects they're working on, they then must either not state the company they work for, or they should assume an alias.

I don't approve of aliases, personally, but some people don't have a choice. I still believe, though, that people should be able to hold mature conversations without worrying they're going to get canned. If someone is here and says, "I don't like MAC2000's," they shouldn't need a disclaimer for us to realize that they are talking for themselves and not their employer.

2) The answer then is to not talk about those issues at all in such a public forum, which is the CB policy. If those topics were to be discussed, no disclaimer in someone's signature would deter someone from trying to interpret the discussion.

-----

For light plots, I remain stubborn enough to say, "I won't hold anyone responsible who isn't." If you design a light plot for a show in a particular venue and throw too many fixtures on something that isn't meant to support that much weight, then you haven't properly researched the matter and have designed me something I can't use. Likewise, if a touring group walks into a venue, it should be the technical director's responsibility to know their systems and rigging, and be able to advise the touring group on how many lights they can or can not hang in a given position. But if I provide you with a rigging schedule that says my electrics can support 2000#, and you then proceed to design a plot with 3000# of weight on it, then I am going to have a problem with your work, and no disclaimer in the corner of your plot is going to make me any less disappointed in you.

 

[Morpheus]

For light plots, I remain stubborn enough to say, "I won't hold anyone responsible who isn't." If you design a light plot for a show in a particular venue and throw too many fixtures on something that isn't meant to support that much weight, then you haven't properly researched the matter and have designed me something I can't use. Likewise, if a touring group walks into a venue, it should be the technical director's responsibility to know their systems and rigging, and be able to advise the touring group on how many lights they can or can not hang in a given position. But if I provide you with a rigging schedule that says my electrics can support 2000#, and you then proceed to design a plot with 3000# of weight on it, then I am going to have a problem with your work, and no disclaimer in the corner of your plot is going to make me any less disappointed in you.

...
So then how many of your set designers are structural engineers? After all, they're designing the safety of the actors/people on stage?

 

[MNicolai]

Common sense. I don't expect a scenic designer to be a structural engineer, but I do expect them to have common sense. They're building a set that has to look good and be functional, not one that needs to have careful calculations performed on it to ensure it will withstand hurricane force winds, seismic activity, and so on. Part of their expertise is at least being able to construct something safe that doesn't fall apart in a controlled environment like a theatre.

If they find themselves designing for something that is beyond their expertise, they should either consult the experts or not perform the design. They should not hand me their construction drawings for their set with a note that says "By the way, I haven' t checked that any of my work is usable, or for that matter that it will even stand. You'll need to consult a structural engineer to perform calcs on the entire set."

A disclaimer should not render you exempt from performing your duties. If you don't consider yourself qualified to build a set that is safe, just don't do it. If you do consider yourself qualified to do so, don't turn around in your disclaimer and say that you aren't.

The closest thing to a disclaimer I could agree with is for situations like lighting an arena, which would be something to the effect of "All truss shown on plot is for reference only. Final truss sizes and rigging to be determined by qualified rigger."

Trying to get a little more on-topic, though, I still don't see that any disclaimer on posts here at CB is going to keep anyone safer or protect someone from getting in trouble with their employers. If you do slip and discuss something you shouldn't about your company by explicitly saying something related to your employer or a client -- something worthy of them punishing you for -- a disclaimer won't save your behind.

What you should be doing instead is self-police. You can't alter people's interpretations of what you've said by having a note that dissociates you from your employer. That's like showing proof that you've murdered someone and then insisting you're innocent. What you can do is choose to speak clearly on a matter the first time or don't speak at all. If you do that, then there should be no problems. Should there be, then someone is likely being unreasonable in punishing you in the first place, and you probably would not have been in the clear with them just because you had a default tagline in your signature that stated you were speaking solely on your own behalf not on the behalf of your employers.

 

[Pie4Weebl]

If they find themselves designing for something that is beyond their expertise, they should either consult the experts or not perform the design. They should not hand me their construction drawings for their set with a note that says "By the way, I haven' t checked that any of my work is usable, or for that matter that it will even stand. You'll need to consult a structural engineer to perform calcs on the entire set."

Sounds to me like you need to be less worried about the set designer doing their job and start asking the TD to do theirs!

A disclaimer should not render you exempt from performing your duties. If you don't consider yourself qualified to build a set that is safe, just don't do it. If you do consider yourself qualified to do so, don't turn around in your disclaimer and say that you aren't.

None of those things are duties of designers. Designers are all artistic people, its the job of the TD's, ME's and Riggers of the world to figure out how to make those things safely happen. If a company decides to hang moving lights on truss they made in their backyard with fencing bits why would it be the liability of the person who said "I want a light there".

What you should be doing instead is self-police. You can't alter people's interpretations of what you've said by having a note that dissociates you from your employer. That's like showing proof that you've murdered someone and then insisting you're innocent. What you can do is choose to speak clearly on a matter the first time or don't speak at all. If you do that, then there should be no problems. Should there be, then someone is likely being unreasonable in punishing you in the first place, and you probably would not have been in the clear with them just because you had a default tagline in your signature that stated you were speaking solely on your own behalf not on the behalf of your employers.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that if you say dumb things or talk about about a specific event in a negative way a disclaimer will protect you.

But you seem to be missing the bigger picture here. Let's say I work for BigLightingMagInc. Let's say a moving light making made a horrible moving light, I have six in my theatre, they all break, and one shot a death ray and killed my mother. This moving light company advertises with BigLightingMagInc, so by your logic, I should give up any personal opinion I have of the product and not be able to talk about it in public, rather I should substitute the magazines opinion for my own. Perhaps we should all just make threads of PR releases instead of actual discussion.

Or what about politicians? If the company you work for has a political client can you no longer voice your opinions about politics?

Also your proof that you murdered someone thing makes no sense at all.

 

[shiben]

________
The author is NOT qualified or licensed to dispense legal advice. The above is offered for informational purposes only.

I see this becoming a meme on here, adding disclaimers to everything...

Anyhow, I agree that some level of responsibility is needed on what you say on the internet, but I also am not really comfortable with the people I work for caring about what I do at 2 AM the night before a 6PM call (and they do, for whatever reason). It irks me that companies care if I have a drink on my own time and at my own expense, or even if I play WoW or CoD MW2 (previous job had a problem with both).

 

[ruinexplorer]

The problem at hand for many companies is their own public image. Personally, they probably don't care what you do on your own time, but they do care how it may effect the company. I knew someone who used to work at one of the major American auto manufacturers in Detroit. If you drove anything other than that make of car, you had a separate lot to park in. The reason was to help promote the image of the company. If someone were to drive by and see mostly Japanese cars in their lot, they might wonder if the employees know something and don't buy that manufacturers cars (regardless if they purchased the car before they worked there).

Should we care about what people do on their own time, that's debatable. I don't think that many of the things pointed out in this thread should cause someone to lose their job. The problem comes in as to the internet infraction being the only infraction the employee had (which I often doubt). Generally speaking, even in a right to work state, an employer will be wary of dismissing an employee based on something that doesn't directly cause the company harm. But, since it is a right to work situation, the employer has the right to terminate for any reason, including "difference of opinion". Most of us work in right to work situations. Believe me, being someone who was the recipient of that right by an employer, it is difficult to use the law for your protection or get your job back (I won't discuss the details of that online, but let's say that this wasn't the first infraction by that company). In any case, an employer can terminate your employment without stating a reason, why give them ammunition by potentially tarnishing their image (online is forever)?

A disclaimer will not provide you much protection under the law, but it will add to the understanding of intent. People shouldn't need to add a disclaimer, but I don't think that most laws need to be on the books either. Problem is that people don't want to take resposibility for what they say and do. That's not to say that someone shouldn't add a disclaimer to give someone a heads up. Saying that you are not qualified as a rigger and that someone should be paying attention to loads of a design is a responsible thing to do. Putting a disclaimer as a tagline may help people to understand that you are representing yourself, your own opinions, and do not represent your employer while making them. Many of us have instead chosen an alternate way to represent ourselves as well to help ensure that we show that we are not representing our employers, and that is even with self-policing what we say.

The biggest issue here is, take advice from those of us who have been around the block a few times. You don't have to take our advice. You don't have to agree with it. The reality of the situation is that Big Brother is watching. Even if you don't think it's right or fair, this is the world we live in. You need to accept this or risk the possibility of the consequences of doing your own thing.