Tag Archives: Ontario (California)

Will Your Texting Policy Stand Up in Court?

our beautiful site

You have a mobile workforce, so you issue mobile devices to your employees. You pay for their mobile service and make sure their equipment is working. Since it’s intended for business, you have the right to read employees’ text messages. What’s more, you have a policy that says so, in so many words. All employees must acknowledge this policy when receiving their Blackberry devices or other smartphones. Legally, you might think you’re well covered — and you might be wrong. In Ontario, Calif., police officials reviewed an unusually large number of texts sent by a police sergeant named Jeff Quon. They found hundreds of sexually explicit texts. Quon sued, arguing that his bosses had no right to read the texts. The case made its way up the food chain to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the cop. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, with a final ruling expected this summer. Whatever the court eventually rules, this is unlikely to be the last employment case involving text messages, and employers find themselves setting text and other communications policies in an increasingly confusing world. “Technology is changing fast and the courts are left to catch up,” notes Jason C. Gavejian, an associate at Jackson Lewis LLP. “The biggest challenge is the interplay between federal law, and state and local law,” he adds. “In one New Jersey case, the courts ruled that employers have an obligation to make sure employees are not viewing child pornography. That requires monitoring. Now the Supreme Court may rule that monitoring is illegal.” If it does, the two rulings will be in direct conflict, and employers in New Jersey will have to choose between disobeying state and federal courts. It should be clear by now that setting an appropriate policy governing the use of mobile devices is a very serious business. But many small companies don’t take it seriously enough, says Michael McAuliffe Miller, partner in the labor and employment group at Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. “The biggest mistake companies make is that they have no policy on texting and mobile communications,” he says. “Or else, they have an off-the-shelf policy that they’ve downloaded from the Internet. Then they’re inconsistent about enforcing the policy, especially with employees everybody likes.” Develop a policy on texting If the above is a good description of how not to handle texting policy, what’s the right way to do it, especially in light of the Quon case? Unfortunately, there’s no one right way, but here are some steps that may help: Have the right people create policy. “In many companies we consult, these policies are set by an IT person,” notes James Sinclair, principal of OnSite Consulting, a hospitality industry consulting firm that specializes in helping financially troubled companies regain profitability. “I’m a big believer that these should be management decisions.” Top management should set mobile communications policy, with input from legal counsel. Update the policy often. Especially any time you provide employees with new types of devices. “One of the issues in the Quon case is that the police force’s policy had been written to apply to e-mail, not texts.” Reduce expectation of privacy. “Employers should have a policy that says employees have ‘no reasonable expectation of privacy.’ That’s the key phrase,” Miller says. The policy should be distributed to employees at regular intervals, and they should be asked to acknowledge their agreement. “Some employers make that consent interactive,” he adds. “It could be part of the employee’s log-in process.” Specify who can change policy — and who can’t. In the Quon case, the police force had a formal policy that said texts weren’t private. But a lieutenant told Quon informally that if he paid for any texts beyond the 25,000 characters a month on his pager plan, no one would read his texts. “You should have in your policy that no one but a designated senior official of the company can change the policy,” Miller says. Train managers about the policy. “You want to make sure managers get proper training so that when they inform employees about the policy they’re doing it in a uniform fashion, consistent with what the company wants to accomplish,” Gavejian says. Specify how equipment is to be used. This is a tricky question. You can’t define unauthorized use too narrowly, Gavejian says. For instance, if you write a rule against sexually explicit text messages, it won’t apply to sexually explicit images. Instead he suggests a rule that company equipment be used only for business communications. At the same time, he acknowledges, such a rule may not be realistic. “You can’t stop someone from sending a message home saying ‘I’ll be late for dinner,” he notes. “I don’t think there’s one universal policy everyone can apply. It has to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, and depending what technology you’re using.” Keep messages on your own servers. This is a potentially costly solution that isn’t right for every small company. But, because its clients’ data is always highly confidential, OnSite Consulting chose to route all e-mails and Blackberry messages through its own servers. “We worked with our general counsel and did a lot of research,” Sinclair explains. “By default, if you’re going through our server, you’re accepting our terms and conditions, and the messages are automatically copied and audited.” This solution may become more popular in the wake of the Quon case: One of the questions at issue is whether his employer had the right to demand his text messages from their pager company, and whether the pager company was right in acceding to that demand. OnSite’s server is hosted and maintained by a hosting provider, but it does physically belong to OnSite. “We made it a priority and spent a significant sum for a technology we can’t see or directly use and that does not contribute to our return on investment,” Sinclair says. “But it provides another layer of protection for our clients.” It also provides a real-world model of how to most safely handle employee communications. “We have to do it,” Sinclair says. “We can’t walk in there as a consulting company and have a less-than-perfect system ourselves.”  

Broadband Basics: Cable vs. DSL

For most small business technology applications, price is the top consideration. But when considering high-speed or broadband Internet service, that top consideration needs to be speed. That’s because slower broadband access will likely cost more money in the long run in the form of lost productivity. So, for a small business owner, the question of whether cable is faster than DSL is a salient one. The answer? It depends. Cable firms advertise speeds of up to 6 megabits per second (Mbps), but to quote a well-known auto ad disclaimer, actual speeds may vary. Because cable relies on shared bandwidth technology, if a lot of users are on at once in the immediate area, they will slow the connection. Average speeds for the telcos’ broadband rival to cable, digital subscriber line (DSL) service, go as high as 1.5 Mbps, but that rate tends to be steadier since bandwidth isn’t shared outside the office. Actual speeds, of course, vary from minute to minute for both. Small business traditionally preferred DSL More small businesses have traditionally gone for DSL. This year, 35 percent of businesses with fewer than 500 employees will have DSL versus 25 percent for cable, according to The Yankee Group, a Boston research firm. (The rest of the pie is divided by dial-up, “none” or T-1, the latter of which can be DSL or cable.) That’s changing. Over the last three or four years, many cable firms have begun targeting small businesses. “The cable companies are doing a smashup job talking about speed, speed, speed,” said Yankee Group director Steve Hilton. “It’s worked.” In response, telcos have slashed rates for DSL. Covad, a DSL provider based in San Jose, Calif., dropped its prices 30 percent over the last 18 months. Cable companies haven’t responded to the price war, so they tend to be more expensive. Covad’s DSL starts at around $50. Hilton says $90 a month is around the average a small business can expect to pay for either cable or DSL. Companies typically waive a set-up fee in return for a year or more contract. Many upgrade to T-1 The question for many fast-growing businesses is whether DSL or cable broadband service is fast and/or reliable enough. Many companies opt for the more expensive and robust T-1 service, which telcos and cable firms both provide. David McMorrow, vice president of sales for Covad, says his technicians can repair a busted T-1 line in about four hours, versus 12 to 18 hours to fix a standard DSL connection. “Businesses can’t tolerate their Internet connection being down,” Hilton says. Your business will pay for the better service, though. T-1 averages around $400 a month. But it guarantees small businesses consistent speeds of 1.5 Mbps and up. Thermal Dynamics, an Ontario, Calif., firm that makes oil coolers and power steering coolers for General Motors’ Hummer and Ford’s Mustang, respectively, bonds three T-1s to get an average speed of 4.5 Mpbs. The firm, which has about 300 U.S. employees, pays about $1,200 a month, which includes on-call support from Los Angeles T-1 provider TierZero. Hanns Schweis, IT director at Thermal Dynamics, says it’s worth the extra expense. In three years, the network only went down once and that was Verizon’s fault, not TierZero’s. Plus, the connection is fast. “Speed was a big issue,” he says. Jim Gurol, vice president of sales for TierZero, says small firms want fast pipes, too. “If their business relies on the Internet, they’ll spring for it,” he says. “We’ve got Web consultants that run a one- or two-man shop that use it.”