Fun e-mails put husband's job at risk

[Mntsnow]

FIVE years ago, Queensland's Maree Land sent her husband some naughty e-mails as a joke.

Now the Redcliffe public servant's $80,000-a-year job is under threat after his bosses branded the long-forgotten e-mails obscene.

They have demanded that Keith Land show cause why he shouldn't be sacked from the State Housing Department after 14 years.

"It's unjust," Mrs Land said. "If we had to sell our house to fight this we would."

Mr Land has been suspended for six months on full pay over 73 e-mails on his work computer, including some from colleagues.

Read more at News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10886694%255E421,00.html)

Whats your take on this subject?

[davidw]

I think company policy at that time (meaning the intended recipient was fully aware of the rules - at that time) should be in effect. If new rules came up and overruled prior rules, I think there should be legal action against the company.

This really sounds like a case of "excuse" to get rid of higher-paid, older and nearing retirement type employess (to replace with younger and lower paid).

[GohanSSJ]

I think it's a really bad excuse, i mean first of all they are emails, i mean it's nothing which would be able to cause a company problems, and second it was 5 years ago, why bring it up now?

[Cowboybooter]

As little as 5 years ago, a lot of companies over here had sketchy, if any policies regarding e-mail communication. Many still don't!

He was a little dumb for saving them to a file, that could be the offence they sack him for.

I think it's a little harsh, personally!

If he was planning some kind of crime, naturally he should be subjected to the full retribution, but a coupla risque e-mails from his wife is no big deal!

Just my take on it!

:)

Bob

[Mortis]

Hmm... at face value- overkill. If it wasn't for the timelines, I think if there was clear policy and education about the mandates, than disciplinary action would be appropriate. There is cause and reason (personnel as well as technical) for such policies and procedures, unfortunately. However, 6 months paid is harsh and confusing... sends mixed signals.

I don't think complete information is available to the reporter or relayed by the article.

Hmm.