This discussion seems to be getting quite muddled. We seem to be confusing what an employer CAN do legally with what she SHOULD do as a good manager. We also seemed to be confusing the two different, though related issues, of what a business should do to ensure the smooth running of the business of the institution and what an employer needs to do to cover herself when disciplining an employee for misusing company equipment. Legally an employer can go through any work records or space they want but most don't. (Who has the time?) However, there may come a time in the course of the normal business day that you do need to access an employee's or co-worker's files. Has no one else but me needed a crucial file or data from a vacationing colleague to complete a grant report or some other time sensitive task? Or how about trying to reconstruct a project completed by an employee no longer with the museum? Access to records, whatever the media, in such circumstances is essential. (And don't forget the many ways our archives and libraries benefit from companies, including our own, with well organized files with clear and observed retention schedules) Having policies on computer use that covers accessibility, compatibility, organization, retention of files, and software issues related to piracy, viruses, congestion of disk space, and regular back ups would be prudent of any museum interested in keeping the business running smoothly. Of course it would also be prudent for employers to spend the money to purchase enough licenses of the right software, virus protection, back up software and hardware, and other stuff to make some of these issues less important. The issue of misuse of computer equipment such as playing games, sending or receiving pornographic or racist material, or doing excessive amounts of personal business is different from the issue of using computers effectively. Policies regarding improper use of computer equipment, like many policies regarding employee conduct, are put in writing in an employee manual as much to cover an employer's butt if someone needs firing as they are to provide actual guidance in conduct. For example a policy regarding punctuality may be lightly enforced. I am often a few minutes late, but my boss usually overlooks it because I often stay late, take work home, work on weekends, and am always there in a pinch to help out regardless of what comp. time or overtime policies dictate. However, if a person's work suffers from habitual tardiness, then you must have a written policy addressing lateness before any formal disciplinary procedure can proceed. That is, if you want to cover yourself and your company from action if the procedure eventually leads to termination. How are you going to a convince a judge or jury that firing a person for a rule that does not officially exist was NOT the result of racism, gender bias, or sexual harassment? That's a witness box I don't want to be in. A computer example: Like a previous poster I found personal documents on a museum computer. (at a previous site) Unlike that poster I opened the files for three reasons. 1) While I too encouraged employees to use museum computers in off hours, this hourly employee had clearly done so on museum time (as evidenced by creation and modification dates of documents), 2) she did so not on a clerical computer to be found on a employee's desk, but on a terminal dedicated to educational use by museum visitors. (Why there was a word processing program on the thing is still a mystery). and 3) Her work was shabby in general and having clear evidence of infractions of a written policy gave us support when the disciplinary procedures neared the termination stage. Now I am no expert on law or human resources. But everything that I do know from those experts I have worked with tells me that in order to cover your company from wrongful termination suits you must have a written employee manual with clear and reasonable policies, even if those policies are enforced only when said infractions effect job performance. 99% of employers and 99% of employees do not need written policies 99% of the time. Most of us can pretty much agree on what appropriate and effective professional behavior is most of the time. But well documented policies and well documented disciplinary procedures are essential to protect your museum if it has to fire someone and that person takes legal action. And let us not forget the liability a company has if an employee were to commit a crime, or even just do something technically legal but possibly actionable (such as sexually harass someone or send out racist material, jokes, or threats via a company's email system) with his computer. By having clear, written guidelines against such behavior, the company stands a much better chance of defending itself against action than if it doesn't. I do not agree with the poster that having said policies ,and occasionally enforcing them more strictly due to abuse, punishes everyone for the transgressions of the few. I think we can all agree that a good manager should not create an air of distrust among her staff by randomly snooping in employee files, electronic or paper. And I agree with Ms. Chamberlain that an overwhelming majority of museum managers respect that privacy. I also agree that the vast majority of employees earn that trust by not abusing computer equipment. Any employer or employee who betrays the trust of the other by abusing rights and responsibilities (whether concerning computer's, telephones, or paper clips) will help to foster an unhealthy work environment that is counterproductive to the museum's mission. I am comfortable saying that 99.9% of the museum profession understands that. Clear, written policies help protect all parties concerned from capricious behavior by either side when that .1% poisons an otherwise healthy work environment. Matthew White B&O Railroad Museum (On his own time on a company computer)