'Internet addict' dismissal case a cause for thought

Stephen Withers
Wednesday, 21 February 2007 04:13

Your IT - Home IT

The American Psychiatric Association has yet to reach a consensus view that internet addiction. As a layperson, it seems to me that while there may be problems with the definition (eg, the addiction is to the use of specific services rather than the internet in general), the element of compulsion in some people's online activities is apparent.

This case underlines the need for consistency in the formulation and application of company policies.

Don't misread this as a call for open slather in the workplace. Yes, there do need to be rules for the safety and comfort of co-workers, whether that's to avoid having people driving fork-lift trucks under the influence of alcohol, bad management decisions caused by the after-effects of the previous night's consumption of 'party drugs', or colleagues being offended by porn or hate speech visible on a computer screen.

If it is no longer acceptable to hold men and women to different standards at work, is there really any solid basis for firing internet addicts after a single warning when you go to much greater lengths to help alcoholic employees become sober?

There is also a suggestion by Diedrich that age discrimination may have been a factor, as he was due to retire in a year. IBM denies this, but presumably Pacenza's dismissal means the company will not be paying retirement benefits.

That's a whole other issue, but one that's easily solved: pensions and related benefits should be treated as deferred compensation, not a reward for long service.