This isn't a shade of grey, IMO. This person was very likely an employee if the link is accurate when they describe "28 year seniority". An electrician in a plant would probably be described as "skilled trades". IOW, likely a UAW plant employee that doesn't actually assemble cars directly but keeps the plant and assembly machines functioning.

Regardless, if this was a contract employee, a confidentiality agreement would have been signed.

If you are just a visitor to a plant you are advised and agree to not shoot pictures or capture images.

I'm not an attorney but I believe that confidentiality agreements perform several functions. First and most obviously, they protect sensitive technical or commercial information from disclosure to others. One or more participants in the agreement may promise to not disclose technical or other competitive information received from the other party. If the information is revealed to another individual or company, the injured party has cause to claim a breach of contract and can seek injunctive and monetary damages.

Second, and very important, the use of confidentiality agreements can prevent the forfeiture of valuable patent rights. Under U.S. law and in other countries as well, the public disclosure of an invention can be deemed as a forfeiture of patent rights in that invention.

I won't belabor the point but I will share some advice, even though it is not solicited.

Even if you did not sign a confidentiality agreement as part of your employment, laws and legal doctrines exist that require you to keep confidential the employer’s bona fide trade secrets and confidential business information. Even without a written trade secret or confidentiality agreement, you will likely be sued if you reveal trade secrets or confidential information. At the least you can expect to be terminated.

Violating confidentiality can result in monetary judgements against you, and even jail. So yes, there are different levels of punishment in these sorts of situations.

A good definition of character is how a person acts when they don't think anyone is looking.

 

He's an electician, and likely unioned. The union will appeal to get him hired back. I wouldn't argue against them in this case.

 

In a situation like this, I don't think there's anything the union can do for him. Unions are there to protect the workers from being exploited (in theory) - they're not there to save your *** when you seriously f*ck up, like this guy did.

 

I am not going to read all of these replies, but I do want to add my humble opinion.

I have a few parts to that opinion.

1. Some will say it was no real harm and the punishment was too severe. I say, how would you know that. Any leak like that could cost GM millions. How would we know what GM is trying to do and when. They spend a lot of money on preparation and on the production line. A leak cold be very costly.

2. The man has paid a high price. I feel bad for him, but he put himself in this position now he has to live with it. He signed a non disclosure. I even know how bad it is to take pictures and I don't work there so he was very aware of what he was doing. This means he lost his integrity. What he did was wrong, he knew it was wrong and he did it anyway. It is a moral question and he was wrong. Whether it caused GM harm or not, is irrelevant. If we put mroe stock in each others moral convictions and doing the right thing and NOT doing the wrong thing, it would be a better world.

Losing one's integrity is a very serious issue to me. I know that is not the way people think these days, but my father taught me that being honest, hardworking, etc were very important morals that one should protect.

This broke those values and if I were hie employer, I woudl fire him too as much as it would hurt that I had to.

 

I'm back on the same page with guionM.

It sucks this guy lost his job. Even if he didn't sign anything (and most likely he did) he was certainly made aware that the penalty for taking photos was termination. He probably thought: 1. I'm not going to take a picture of anything too revealing; 2. I'm only going to show it to my kid to show him I'm working with the new Camaro; 3. I probably won't get caught.
He weighed his options and decided to take the picture and it cost him. If GM let him off easy because he didn't intend to do harm, they would effectively be reducing the penalty for taking pictures in the plant. More people would be willing to take the risk if they knew there was a good chance they wouldn't lose their jobs over it.

 

Wrong. The union would leave him on his own on this one if he belongs to one. This isn't a labor issue where he is facing a work-related problem. This is breaking company policy and a contract. Union would likely take as dim a view as the company does. Keep in mind, it's also their jobs and integrity on the line.

It's fine that the guy simply wanted his kids (who were probally in to cars at the very least) to see the new Camaro coming down the line. It's terrible that his kids shared those photos with thier friends who in turn posted them on the internet, which in turn came back on him.

I agree that it's sad and even depressing that this electrican lost his position due to kids posting on the internet something he likely never expected and definately never intended to wind up on the internet. But in an instance like this after the damage is done, you have to go after the source. If he signed the paper, he's responsible, even if he didn't actually post the pictures himself.

Some people can say that he doesn't deserve what happened. I have also been the recipient of some pictures over the years that were taken inside company grounds without company knowledge that I looked at, then deleted shortly afterwards without sending to anyone. I did that because I didn't want the persons to get in trouble and they trusted me. I'm not the only person on this site that has recieved pics over the years that make the Camaro assembly pictures seem almost trivial.

But the idea of leaving pictures with your enthusiastic kids that could get you in gross trouble if it got out, knowing that young people virturally live on the internet, is a bit beyond bad judgement.

 

Why does this turn into a big deal to defend this guy? If you steal fries at McD's, a camera at BestBuy, or a watch from the jewerly store you work at...you get fired. A trade secret is no different, so this guy is not an asset to the company who deserves his job back. That's not company loyalty and it sure isn't going to help GM. If this gives Ford/Toyota/etc. some leg up on Camaro he may be risking thousands of jobs long-term. Now, is it better to fire one guy now or lay off the whole plant because your competitive edge is literally walking out the door with no consequences?

 

Well said...

 

As Baretta used to say, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". When you make stupid decisions you sometimes have to pay the consequence, sorry, I have no sympathy for him.
Clyde

 

I'd like to know who ratted him out...

 

Probably his IP address and his ISP. Not that hard to put an address to an IP in a matter of minutes.

 

I don't think no trade secrets was involed in those photos if there are let me in on the secret

Me personally I come on this board to find out inside information about the Camaro, that includes spy pics, intel, etc. It wouldn't be a spy pic if it wasn't for spies relatively speaking. So if any information is useful to me and the informant gets caught I am not going to throw him/her under the bus, and say he was a dummy for doing that. I would just say to myself it is unfortunate that person got caught. I will never wish upon someone to lose their job unless I felt they did was very unethical. Some people say it’s just a job he can find another one. In these days and ages you just drop one job and pick up another.

 

Despite the added cost of the independent rear, Chevy is looking to keep base prices in the $20,000–$30,000 bracket, while the SS model could be in the mid- to upper- $30,000 range.


And some guy, in another thread, quoted some nobody named Bob Lutz I think it is, talking about the Camaro going to be a premium car. That it would be priced as such, and more than the mustang.

Just saying, if this thing launches with the same ole quality GM has been known for, with higher prices, even if the Mustang doesn't get a power upgrade, history might just repeat itself again if you know what I mean.

I didn't buy a LS1 because they were anywhere from 5k to 10k more than my current GT. It's looking like its going to be that way again.

 

Would you be able to provide some proof to back these claims up? The only reason that I ask is because it is contrary to just about everything that has been said.

 

An ls1 car will also happily hand 98% of GT's their *** on a silver platter.





As far as the guy at the plant it comes down to one thing. It doesnt matter if he took pictures of the new camaro or the new aveo. He signed a confidentiality agreement when he applied for his job, that means certain materials, ideas, and photographs do not leave the property. He violated that agreement, termination is a very suitable punishment for violating that contract. Its kind of like the dealership i work at made me sign an alcohol policy saying that i dont even have to be in consumption of alcohol at work, if im in posession (yes that includes inside my truck) and someone finds out, termination is a likely consequence.