4 ms·

It's a shame anyone has to do jobs like these. But forcing people to do it? (I assume the alternative was not to have a job there at all.) That's ridiculous.

It's a shame anyone has to do jobs like these. But forcing people to do it? (I assume the alternative was not to have a job there at all.) That's ridiculous. I also tend to believe the former employees about the rest of the working conditions. At the very least, the employee has a clear history of having problems with the work, and the company should have been better about handling this. There's no way they could fail to foresee that this work could have terrible effects on someone's mind.

abstractbeliefs 10y ago
While this case is really tragic, and improvements can be made, I don't think it's fair really to say these people were _forced_ to do this work. You say that the other option was to not work at Microsoft, well, this means they aren't being forced. They had the choice to not work that job role. Workers are not entitled to shop around within a company for a role that suits them, and companies are not obliged to offer the job role that an employee wants.
- paulcole 10y ago
  > companies are not obliged to offer the job role that an employee wants Now go over to the "open office plan" comments and watch developers act like they're being tortured if they have to sit next to someone who might talk and it's their god-given right to demand a soundproof private office. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13373526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13373526
- hackits 10y ago
  I wouldn't say not obliged, entitled to a position. They advertised for a position, you convinced them you're a fit for the position. They've chosen you out of a pool of candidates that suites the job. They offer you a employment contract detailing the role, and responsibilities. You accept said contract and term's or write counter proposal. After accepting the position you shut up and do your job you where hired to do.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    Because no company has ever been less than truthful when describing a role and it's responsibilities.
  - colemickens 10y ago
    Maybe you should re-read the article and you'd realize it was NOT a job they signed up to do. If only people read the articles instead of leaping to defend face-less huge corporations.
    - hackits 10y ago
      Whats so hard to grasp? Some people seem to be jumping to conclusion on this. You're hired for a position that is detailed out in your EMPLOYMENT contract. If you get to your job and find out you have to kill kittens instead of the job description YOU'RE choosing to carry out the task. No one is forcing you to do it. On moral grounds and ethical ground I would resign instantly and contact the authority of the kind of material stored on the server.
      - colemickens 10y ago
        Not going to repeat myself about whether it's a choice. There's better comments in this thread. >and contact the authorize of the kind of material stored on the server. Uh, I don't think you understand how this works. I'm sure if you tell the FBI that Microsoft works to remove child pornography from OneDrive and report the offenders they're going to say "Okay...?".
        hackits 10y ago
        You're hired for a position to perform administration of OneDrive accounts. You're not hired to remove `Child pornography` from one drive or look at that shit. Its night and day that it's completely out of scope of the job description. The next step is simple you talk with your manager that the content viewed is out of scope of the scope of works in the contract (border line criminal material) that you refuse to view the content during the course of your work.
- EnFinlay 10y ago
  Workers are entitled to their safety, which is why OSHA and similar things exist. Blue collar situations are very similar to this, and I'm sure no one would defend a woodshop that had bandaids instead of hand guards and eye protection. When a job has risks the company is responsible for proper mitigation and control.
hackits 10y ago
I don't know how they could be `forcing` people to do it. Last time I checked you have your own agency and can decide to stay or leave on moral grounds. I would imagine that interviewee's will be acceptance of your role change if they understand you required part of your job to view questionable material.

abstractbeliefs 10y ago

While this case is really tragic, and improvements can be made, I don't think it's fair really to say these people were _forced_ to do this work. You say that the other option was to not work at Microsoft, well, this means they aren't being forced. They had the choice to not work that job role. Workers are not entitled to shop around within a company for a role that suits them, and companies are not obliged to offer the job role that an employee wants.

paulcole 10y ago
> companies are not obliged to offer the job role that an employee wants Now go over to the "open office plan" comments and watch developers act like they're being tortured if they have to sit next to someone who might talk and it's their god-given right to demand a soundproof private office. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13373526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13373526
hackits 10y ago
I wouldn't say not obliged, entitled to a position. They advertised for a position, you convinced them you're a fit for the position. They've chosen you out of a pool of candidates that suites the job. They offer you a employment contract detailing the role, and responsibilities. You accept said contract and term's or write counter proposal. After accepting the position you shut up and do your job you where hired to do.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Because no company has ever been less than truthful when describing a role and it's responsibilities.
- colemickens 10y ago
  Maybe you should re-read the article and you'd realize it was NOT a job they signed up to do. If only people read the articles instead of leaping to defend face-less huge corporations.
  - hackits 10y ago
    Whats so hard to grasp? Some people seem to be jumping to conclusion on this. You're hired for a position that is detailed out in your EMPLOYMENT contract. If you get to your job and find out you have to kill kittens instead of the job description YOU'RE choosing to carry out the task. No one is forcing you to do it. On moral grounds and ethical ground I would resign instantly and contact the authority of the kind of material stored on the server.
    - colemickens 10y ago
      Not going to repeat myself about whether it's a choice. There's better comments in this thread. >and contact the authorize of the kind of material stored on the server. Uh, I don't think you understand how this works. I'm sure if you tell the FBI that Microsoft works to remove child pornography from OneDrive and report the offenders they're going to say "Okay...?".
      - hackits 10y ago
        You're hired for a position to perform administration of OneDrive accounts. You're not hired to remove `Child pornography` from one drive or look at that shit. Its night and day that it's completely out of scope of the job description. The next step is simple you talk with your manager that the content viewed is out of scope of the scope of works in the contract (border line criminal material) that you refuse to view the content during the course of your work.
EnFinlay 10y ago
Workers are entitled to their safety, which is why OSHA and similar things exist. Blue collar situations are very similar to this, and I'm sure no one would defend a woodshop that had bandaids instead of hand guards and eye protection. When a job has risks the company is responsible for proper mitigation and control.

hackits 10y ago

I don't know how they could be `forcing` people to do it. Last time I checked you have your own agency and can decide to stay or leave on moral grounds. I would imagine that interviewee's will be acceptance of your role change if they understand you required part of your job to view questionable material.