[oclug] [OT] - In need of comments

[Chris Herrnberger]

On August 9, 2002 10:29 am, Jon Earle wrote:

> One thing I'd do right away however, is to schedule with the owner, a time
> to come in when the employee is not there, and do a full backup.  Should
> something happen, you have a backup who's integrity __you_ can trust.

Just one more comment on this and then I will drop it. All this advise is 
solid and wise. However it assumes a scenario of a business that is more 
complex (re: larger) and that is capable of addressing these issues. When an 
"owner" is scared of an employee as described, this is reflective of a 
smaller business, how small we don't really know. It must be small enough 
that there is probably no HR, no staff policies,  probably a very good and 
healthy shop owned by a singular person with say under 10 people. All of 
this, if correct does not negative provincial and federal standards and regs.

In this setting, which is already filled with mistrust and anxiety, and third 
party doing anything while the objectional person is still on the books, 
unless done under separate contract to enhance inhouse security procedures, 
can and probably will result in more disruption and finger pointing to the 
good Samaritan than needed. The issue here really is not a technical issue 
rather a management issue that allowed this unpopular employee to create this 
technical problem. So there are no guarantees outside of a well crafted 
contracted that the well intentions of the good Samaritan will not fall 
eventually into the same category as this situation has been allowed to 
happen in the past in the absence of detailed work polices and procedures.
Sounds beurocratic, and it is to a degree but sometimes the basics need to be 
addressed and covered to ensure that good intentions have room to grow.

chris h