I'm not a drug addict, I swear

December 10, 2008 2:51 PM

My friend's IMs are monitored by her employer and one of her aquaintances who knows this likes to jokingly IM her things that would get flagged and possibly get her in trouble. Well... it did. How can she convince her bosses that she is not selling her body for to support her drug habit?

Essentially he IM'd her saying she has to get some help for her (non-existent) cocaine habit, and the fact that she's selling herself for drugs is going too far. All of which is untrue, but her bosses don't know that and actually do care about her.
Basically the problem lies in the fact that everything she can say to tell her bosses that it's a stupid joke- sounds like something she would say if she was trying to cover it up.
What would you do... or have you ever been in a similar situation?

posted by razzamatazm to human relations (34 comments total)

first of all bann that person from her IM account. secondly have that person write a letter making clear he was making a joke and didn't understand they were monitoring conversations and suggest they may get in touch with him. thirdly offer to take a drug test.

snooping is wrong. this company sucks.
posted by krautland at 2:55 PM on December 10, 2008 [5 favorites]

Signed affidavit from the friend stating that it was a joke and that there is no cocaine use or body selling. Written apology to both employer and employee.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:59 PM on December 10, 2008 [2 favorites]

Seconding everything krautland said and adding that she might need to dump this friend, because he kind of sounds like a dick.
posted by kate blank at 3:06 PM on December 10, 2008 [12 favorites]

Would she be willing to take a drug test (and able to pass it)? It sucks that her employer is monitoring her IMs and I don't agree with drug testing in the workplace, but that could be one way to quash this.
posted by kitty teeth at 3:15 PM on December 10, 2008 [1 favorite]

I disagree about volunteering for a drug test or asking for letters. Too much drama.

I'd advise her not to get too involved in defending herself as the accusation is ludicrous. Simply point out the reasons why this cannot be the case and keep it within the context of the job. If they persist ask for additional evidence that demonstrates I am a drug user or that something else external is getting in the way of my performance. Because a person is asked questions about illicit or unethical behavior doesn't mean they participate or practice it. End of story.

This is how employers get themselves in trouble by monitoring the trivial details of employees.

However, don't be dismissive. Just tell the employer their concerns are appreciated but the messaging was nothing more than a careless joke.
posted by ezekieldas at 3:15 PM on December 10, 2008 [11 favorites]

Everything that everyone else said.

Plus: I'd like to think that I have not been that friend.

I can say for certain, though, that I HAVE such friends, and it's seemingly impossible for them to take this kind of prospect seriously until it happens. It's like some synapse is missing. So, I think he did something dickish and probably feels terrible about it, and will probably cooperate, but need not be dumped.

I would also bet that this is all very plausible to the bosses, and that they will buy her explanation. The fact that they care about her, and have not fired her right away, is a good sign.
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 3:17 PM on December 10, 2008

When I said "everyone else," I meant pre-Ezekieldas, but good points there too. I think a reasonable opening position is to volunteer to let them call the friend (having warned him first) -- it seems less contrived as a cover-up, and less panicky -- and, if that doesn't suffice, volunteer to be tested or something else.

On the other hand, asking for proof of an effect on performance probably isn't the right way to defuse the situation.
posted by Clyde Mnestra at 3:21 PM on December 10, 2008

I have these friends. I think an honest explanation to the boss will probably be enough, especially if she can point to other logs of discussions with the same friend over IM that pose even more ludicrous suggestions.
posted by craven_morhead at 3:22 PM on December 10, 2008

I'd volunteer to take a drug test like others have said. It's overkill, but at the same time stepping up and volunteering to take one is pretty definitive in the eyes of her employer that she is a not a drug addicted prostitute. Seriously you can buy them at the drug store for cheap and it's an easy way for her to clear her name. She doesn't want a little note in her folder that is along the lines of "drug use suspected but unprovable" she wants the incident wiped clean from her employer's mind as nothing more than a joke and the drug test does that.
posted by whoaali at 3:29 PM on December 10, 2008

I wouldn't volunteer anything, I would simply say that my friend is petty, puerile, and has been dealt with and that I apologize for wasting their time. Then I would shut up if they didn't say anything else.

If, however, I was her boss (I wouldn't be snooping) but I would, most likely, get on her case about wasting paid time with the chatty chats with her friends, and probably say firmly "Stop", and maybe ask if this means that she has time to take on an increased workload.

As a supervisor, I realize that for some reason it's become popular culture to think that you must, at all times, be able to be reached by everyone you know at all times. Between instant messages, facebook, myspace, twitter, texting, and cellphones, there is a lot, lot, lot of time wasted. These are not the financial times to be demonstrating to your bosses that your job is LOLCHAT.

I wrote up a girl who worked for me because she wouldn't stop texting and facebooking. When she left for another job, it lasted 3 weeks because they caught her facebooking on company time twice after they warned her.
posted by TomMelee at 3:36 PM on December 10, 2008 [2 favorites]

The OP asked what we'd do in this situation. I responded: "Um, don't use use IM at work."


She actually needs to be on AIM for work. She works with a firm where all in office communication is done over AIM. She's already blocked the person from contacting her, and she doesn't use it to "chatty chat" with her friends.
posted by razzamatazm at 4:01 PM on December 10, 2008

I would go with the short, polite, "No I'm not a drug addict and yes, I have banned the wiseass who sent that to me. I apologize for the false alarm."

If the company has had this policy for any time at all then this is not the first, second, or thirtieth time they've encountered this scenario. Over protesting the matter will just draw attention to it and make it look like your friend *does* have something to hide.
posted by tkolar at 4:06 PM on December 10, 2008 [2 favorites]

In that case I would suggest to my bosses that you use job-specific IM names, otherwise it's completely inappropriate for them to monitor traffic, as you cannot possibly expect all your friends to know that you are DO NOT SPEAK while @ work, or even that you are AT work.
posted by TomMelee at 4:06 PM on December 10, 2008 [2 favorites]

Oh, and a sheepish grin whenever the matter is mentioned wouldn't hurt.
posted by tkolar at 4:07 PM on December 10, 2008

Signed affidavit from the friend stating that it was a joke and that there is no cocaine use or body selling.

There's nothing magic about an affidavit, that somehow makes it superior to a simple letter.
posted by jayder at 4:08 PM on December 10, 2008

She says this: "I see the trouble that using office communications for personal use can bring and am sorry for that. This whole incident is incredibly embarrassing, and while the messaging was not effecting my job performance, I can see the situations it can cause. You can be sure that such an incident will no happen in the future. Thank you."

Offers of drug tests, letters and anything else is drama. If they ask, take the drug test, say nothing. The supervisors are stupid, or they're passive aggressive and this is their way of saying that they don't wanting you messaging people but they don't want you to hate them because they want to be everyone's friends so they're masking it with this fake concern. Plus they might love drama, and I know many people just like that and will spend 15 minutes justifying to them self that if you are addicted to drugs they just want to help so they had to ask even if they thought it was fake. Keep it simple, keep the topic off the content and move on.

My work life and my personal life intertwine and part of the trade off of working weekends and nights or answering calls when I'm on vacation is that when I'm at the office I can talk to my friend I missed when he was in town because I was working my ass off to get an important project done. It makes me a happy, loyal employee who wants to take that extra project and not treated like we're back in school. I would take this as a major breach of trust and indicative of stupid management, if this is not a temporary job I would start looking for another company asap. I've sat in with upper management as they've gone through communication logs looking for real problems. Competent, smart management doesn't give a shit about things like this, they have better things to do. It always seems like the worthless, gossipy back stabbers are the ones making a big deal over things like this and if you caught their eye, you better start looking for another job or departmental switch.
posted by geoff. at 4:09 PM on December 10, 2008 [2 favorites]

I think the appropriate response is "This person has an extremely juvenile sense of humor and knew that you were monitoring my communications; this is exactly the sort of end result he hoped for. That person is no longer capable of messaging me. If you feel that my behavior or performance are actually indicative of those kinds of problems, then clearly we need to discuss that issue."

She needs to expect that her reputation has been damaged, either because they were so willing to believe she's got serious problems or because she's proved that she can't handle a potentially job-endangering social problem (if IM use is necessary for work, the correct answer is to use a work-only login and not give it out to asshole "friends" who want to get you fired, or any friends, because you're at WORK. She may want to acknowledge this to her employers - and make the change, if necessary - before they point it out themselves.).

So: extreme professionalism in dealing with the situation, admit her mistakes, start behaving more professionally overall.

But, seriously, they think she's a crack whore because someone IMd her and said so? Do they also think she's shopping for Viagra or conducting financial transactions on behalf of troubled Nigerians? Actually, she may want to check with them, in case they do actually think those things too. There's not much she can do to change their thinking if they're actually crazy people, you know?
posted by Lyn Never at 4:15 PM on December 10, 2008 [4 favorites]

[A few comments removed. Neither whether the asker should use IM at work nor whether their company should overhaul its whole IM infrastructure is part of the question here, as the asker has clarified. Please let it drop. If you need to argue askme moderation policy, take it elsewhere.]
posted by cortex at 4:18 PM on December 10, 2008

Yeah - I agree wholeheartedly geoff.

They are stupid enough to allow AIM for internal use, then wonder when chatty, external people say bad things? There are a ton of options out there for internal messaging/IM - some will even bridge to the outside world if you really, really, really want that.

Wow - this is just craziness on the employer's part. Do they monitor telephone calls too? What if someone jokingly says something off-color? But, because it is the "internet" it is bad...

Believe me - there are a ton of stupid companies out there. My wife trains people on Blackberrys - she recently got "chewed-out" in a meeting because she trained people how to take pictures with the built-in camera. Use of the camera violates company policy (though they cannot for some reason direct her to a copy of that policy) - yet, technically they can turn that Blackberry feature off remotely... but they don't... Idiots...

Good luck.
posted by jkaczor at 4:21 PM on December 10, 2008

i'm another fan of having a work IM account separate from the personal IM account. it makes it clear when you're available for casual chat vs when you're working.

it also keeps work folks from being able to IM you with work stuff when you're off the clock.
posted by rmd1023 at 4:23 PM on December 10, 2008

There are companies who have a lot of astonishingly important legal reasons to monitor IM activity. Such as, say, financial companies, where they have to monitor communications due to Federal regulations against things like insider trading.

Not all companies do this because they're Big Brother or because they don't trust their employees. And companies like that HAVE TO take allegations of drug use seriously, even more than other "normal" security level companies.

If it's not a Federal regulation that's making them do this, it could be a companywide policy for a national or multinational corporation in line with their ethics policies and could also be tied into their insurance policies - because, guess what, it costs a company money when someone who works for them needs to go into rehab.

Also, from a legal perspective, depending on the state, if they want to fire you for cause, in some cases you can say "it was my drug usage! I need help!" and they can't fire you.

I know. I work at one of the companies that has to take security seriously. All the AIM is monitored. My phone calls are monitored. My internet usage is monitored. Guess what, it's only going to be a problem if 1) I don't do my job 2) I discuss things that are seriously inappropriate or 3) I have friends who haven't grown up yet.

(While I do have #3, and am pretty sure I'm still there myself, I manage to keep them away from work.)

I think she has to get an attorney here. I would NOT get the idiotic friend involved without SIGNIFICANT coaching from the attorney. I would start with LynNever's suggestion, however, and keep it short and simple, and see how the company plans to progress. The wording there is appropriate as is the tone.

Yes, have a professional work IM account that you only use at work. Don't give it to anyone. Limit your time on personal IM. I manage to get through an entire workday without instant messaging anyone for personal reasons. It can be done.
posted by micawber at 4:32 PM on December 10, 2008

"One of my friends was screwing around with me. Sorry. It won't happen again."
posted by Saucy Intruder at 4:34 PM on December 10, 2008

To clarify some things. They do not monitor everything scouring for bad things. They do however have a few flag words and i guess the filter caught this message with a flagged word.
posted by razzamatazm at 4:35 PM on December 10, 2008

From this site: "[W]hen you are falsely accused of doing something wrong, or when your accusations against a supervisor or co-worker are denied, consider getting yourself polygraphed... Although your employer generally cannot require you to take a polygraph examination because of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, it sends a powerful message to your bosses that you were willing to submit to an objective test of your truthfulness on the subject."
posted by terranova at 4:36 PM on December 10, 2008

I work in a similar situation. I agree with others that the best initial response is to just be honest about what happened and not get too dramatic about it. If the employer pushes it further, be an open book -- offer to take a drug test, whatever they want.
posted by mattholomew at 4:48 PM on December 10, 2008

If they only flag particular words and the employees and those who message them know this, then they'd have to have employed an idiot crack whore who would have a "friend" stupid enough to say this on IM.

In other words, a real crack whore and any "friend" would talk about these things in the vaguest possible terms-- you are talking about two crimes.

Sometimes denials are true-- that's why the whole idea that addiction is marked by denial is so stupid because it creates a catch-22 whereby no matter what you say you are guilty.

I find it nearly impossible to believe that simply telling the truth to the bosses won't make this go away-- if the person had just said, you have to get help and hadn't thrown in the whoring, it would be much trickier, but do you honestly think the bosses are going to believe that of your friend? Occam's razor says stupid joke.

Either that or they know that they pay your friend so little that there's a real worry that people *would* resort to something like that... or they have a seriously low opinion of her.

If her bosses take seriously the idea that she's a crack whore, I'd imagine that her problems go way beyond having a dumb friend IM'ing her about it.
posted by Maias at 4:49 PM on December 10, 2008 [1 favorite]

Does your friend have a good, distant, or terrible relationship with her boss? If the former, go to the boss and explain the situation, and little if any of the suggests for formal letters, affidavits, etc, are necessary. A good boss will understand and, more importantly, tell the HR / internal security people to settle down.

If your friend's relationship with her boss is distant, than a more formal statement or letter might be in order, as the boss is unlikely to run interference.

If the relationship is terrible? Be contrite, formal, and professional, and hope for the best.
posted by zippy at 4:53 PM on December 10, 2008

Errr, you might be screwing yourself if the Polygraph shows up as a false positive. Drug tests in general have better false positive rates.

I'd stick to being very professional, and offer to get the IM account name changed to get rid of all personal contacts. Don't bring the friend into it except to dismiss them as an idiot. Offer to submit to drug testing but don't do it unless they want you to.
posted by benzenedream at 5:13 PM on December 10, 2008

also encrypt your IM communications, OTR supports a variety of clients
posted by zentrification at 5:31 PM on December 10, 2008

All of which is untrue, but her bosses don't know that and actually do care about her

Point of clarification, please: Does she REALLY need to say something to her boss or is she just worried? Because your post makes them sound like reasonable people, and if so, they can probably tell it was an idiot stunt.

What exactly happened, did the boss speak to her or did she get some sort of form email, what?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:05 PM on December 10, 2008

At my current job, one of my regulatory compliance responsibilities is to review 5% of all emails selected at random. If this came up, I would likely ask the employee about it unofficially. If she told me it was a joke, I would tell her, "Funny? Not so much." and that would be the end of it. I see all sorts of things such as men telling their male friends about how their wife and their girlfriend accidentally ran into each other at the store. It is amazing what people put into company emails. Keep your private life out of your work life. Lastly, one of the things I always try to remember when reviewing is that you cannot prevent someone from sending you something. The response is more important. She should have written to the friend that those kinds of jokes are not funny. remind friend that IMs are reviewed.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 7:51 PM on December 10, 2008 [1 favorite]

One AIM account for work, one for business. Separate your work and personal lives. Don't give any friends your work AIM account.

That the "friend" did this should come as no surprise. There's a history.

He should have been blocked once the pattern developed.
posted by Brian Puccio at 8:35 PM on December 10, 2008

If your friend's acquaintance does this sort of thing regularly, and all IMs are monitored, your friend could always tell her bosses to go back in the IM logs to see all the other stupid things the acquaintance has said, to prove that it was a dumb joke...
posted by jozxyqk at 3:18 AM on December 11, 2008

Nthing the separate AIM account for work.

But really, I'm surprised that they're using a public server for internal communications. Maybe this is because I work in a realm where confidentiality is an issue, but there's a reason I built up an internal jabber server for in-office instant messaging.

Be straightforward about it -- and talk to HR directly. Then, after that's resolved, at the very least get that second account, but suggest that if IM is required for use by the company, it's in the company's best interest to run their own IM server, rather than trusting a public server not to leak confidential data.
posted by eriko at 4:39 AM on December 11, 2008