最初由[Sedona]发布
回复:My explaination to Sedona
First of all, please accept my apology because of too strong the tone of my previous post.
I reacted out of professionalism; everyone of us in dealing with our clients must observe the rule of confidentiality.
I reacted also out of cultural clash. My post has nothing against you, but the clash that some of us, immigrants from China including myself, would disclose a case in the public in such a manner.
You don't have a file opened, but it doesn't mean you have no obligation to keep their information confidential. You, as an employee of SBT, had an informal encounter with the couple, and thus have an obligation to keep your mouth shut. Your access to the information because of SBT. Whether you are at work or not, you wear their hat.
Sorry to say that, but if you were one of my staff, you shall be disciplined, without no hesitation.
I know the details of a few very high profile discussions in 51 in the past 6 months, but I never mentioned their names, never talked about their details and never said I knew them.
Confidentiality is more than names.
This is a lesson for Chinese Canadians. To survive in Canada, we need to know their rules.
这个贴子要顶。
很遗憾看到楼主会对如此重要的东西不在意。在他们找到你的SBT哪怕只是一个咨询,他们就是你们的客户,如何可以认为“she (Mrs. Ma) wasn't even our client before getting official response from director of local office after firing internal review.”?
楼主对 CONFIDENTIALITY 的认识如此薄弱在她一开始贴子中的这一段就表露出来了:
“我当时非常同情他们的处境,也尝试帮助他们跟local office的社工进行联系,但是local office的办公人员不是休假不在,就是提出要求让我得到老两口正式授权,再传真授权书,等等等等,然后才可以代表他们进一步讨论案子具体细节。总而言之一堆人为障碍(我个人看法)。”
楼主认为代表别人办事要授权(至少在这件事上)是“一堆人为障碍”,换句话说,如果楼主有权管理这个CASE,她就可以不需要别人(一个象楼主一样热心要帮忙的人)出具授权书,而谈论和代表别人处理与那CASE有关的东西?
我相信 Sedona 只是提醒楼主要真正明白这一点。This is a serious issue. |