Start-up network admins read this:
-
I used to run IT for a small company that I was also a shareholder in. Most of the staff were good and we allowed some personal use of the internet and initially we had no blocking tools. However, some staff started to take liberties and would spend two or three hours a day (and sometimes more) on non-work sites, despite this being a busy small company with lots of work to do. So we installed WebSense and blocked most clearly non-work sites except first thing in the morning, lunchtime and evenings. We allowed quota-managed access of 1 hour a day for non-work related stuff. I had absolutely no problems doing this - spending half you working day on non-work browsing etc. is unfair to the staff that did not and costs our company money - why should I pay people to do this? To be honest if they had objected strongly to the restrictions we would have fired them.
'Howard
Howard Richards wrote:
To be honest if they had objected strongly to the restrictions we would have fired them.
If you thought they were being that non-productive, why didn't you just fire them in the first place?
Grim
(aka Toby)
MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL GO
(0 row(s) affected)
-
Shog9 wrote:
Well, if surgeons are late, that's a problem regardless of why. I'd say the first thing to do in that case is to bring the slow slicer in and ask, "what's up?"
This person is the net admin, why would he care if doctors are late until someone forces him to do something. In all probablility, he is busy putting out other important network fires.
Shog9 wrote:
Maybe if you get Harry Seldon as your adviser you can keep things running smoothly by subtly tweaking things and never actually talking to individual people about what their problems are... but this is Real Life.
Oh, like a reality tv show?:)
Later, JoeSox "Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work." -Aristotle CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ Last.fm
JoeSox wrote:
"Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work." -Aristotle
Considering your position in this thread, I find your signature highly ironic.
Grim
(aka Toby)
MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL GO
(0 row(s) affected)
-
Ok I have seen this in way too many companies in the last couple days: website blocking. Guys this is not right, it inspires distrust and a us and them mentality between management and workers. I am not saying that you cannot block anything, in fact i have a long list of what you can block:
- Pornography
After that there is nothing that truly justifies blocking. Buy I hear screaming.... "What about productivity".... well I will tell you how I handle this: I monitor the browsing habits of every employee. This means I can get the amount of time that is spent browsing certain websites and I graph it all. Then I spend a couple minutes every week looking through the graphs and look for the high browsing activity. If this happens to be MySpace then I look at which employees are using it the most and make a note of it. If this happens continually I just have a casual conversation with them and ask they don't visit the site as much. Now I have hardly had to do that because they know I will pick it up on it and also they are generally a great bunch anyway. One thing to be careful about here is that you may upset an employee if you come out of the blue and tell them to stop reading so many emails, so just use tact. Also it helps to do it in a group without specifying certain people. Does anyone have a strict network administrator?
Brad Australian - Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript" A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
Try working for the government. I work on as a software engineer on a US Air Force base and we can't get to a bunch of stuff, including: 1) Any freeware/shareware sites (makes finding code samples a tad difficult) 2) Any email sites (Yahoo, webmail, etc) 3) Anything remotely "adult" oriented, including many sites with blogs 4) The best... any ActiveX, Flash, Java or other "active" content from anything but a .MIL or .GOV domain. The web pages comes up, but the controls on the page are replaced with a "removed" message. Yeah, it's a very limited internet capability here due to Uncle Sam's overly zealous security measures.
-
JoeSox wrote:
"Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work." -Aristotle
Considering your position in this thread, I find your signature highly ironic.
Grim
(aka Toby)
MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL GO
(0 row(s) affected)
Grimolfr wrote:
Considering your position in this thread, I find your signature highly ironic.
The topic is: abuse of employer property and the costs to the employer. If ones pleasure is coming from an abuse, that is not really what my sig quote is about.
Later, JoeSox "Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work." -Aristotle CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ Last.fm
-
Two things:
- That is not exactly the most credible source as they are trying to sell something through that document.
- I agree, sexual or abusive content is unacceptable in the workplace and should not ever be tolerated.
That being said that does not change the fact that employees should not have websites blocked (apart from pornographic ones)
Brad Australian - unknown PHP Developer on "Job Prospect" Requirement: * Experience working with XML, XSL, XPath Comment: and other things starting with X.
Bradml wrote:
That is not exactly the most credible source as they are trying to sell something through that document.
That was not my point. You stated you didn't understand what I was talking about (abuse of employer property and its cost to the employer) That document has many facts nomatter whom the publisher is to display what I was talking about.
Bradml wrote:
I agree, sexual or abusive content is unacceptable in the workplace and should not ever be tolerated.
What about the other points?
Later, JoeSox "Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work." -Aristotle CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ Last.fm
-
Howard Richards wrote:
To be honest if they had objected strongly to the restrictions we would have fired them.
If you thought they were being that non-productive, why didn't you just fire them in the first place?
Grim
(aka Toby)
MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL GO
(0 row(s) affected)
It was better to remove the access than just fire people immediately. They had a warning about it and then we put in place the blocks. That way they could not commit the 'crime' so we didn't have to worry about what they were up to (at least in one respect!!). They also were able to focus better when they did need to use the web for personal stuff as they knew they had an hour's grace - so they didn't just browse around and lose track of time.
'Howard
-
Grimolfr wrote:
Considering your position in this thread, I find your signature highly ironic.
The topic is: abuse of employer property and the costs to the employer. If ones pleasure is coming from an abuse, that is not really what my sig quote is about.
Later, JoeSox "Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work." -Aristotle CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ Last.fm
JoeSox wrote:
The topic is: abuse of employer property and the costs to the employer.
And therein lies your problem. You don't get what this thread is really about, which is an employer's responsibility NOT to treat their employees like indentured servants for 40+ hours a week. I imagine that if you really run your business the way you talk, you probably have a very difficult time retaining talented personnel.
Grim
(aka Toby)
MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL GO
(0 row(s) affected)
-
Shog just happens to be a valuable asset to any company, regardless of how happy he is...
Brad Australian - unknown PHP Developer on "Job Prospect" Requirement: * Experience working with XML, XSL, XPath Comment: and other things starting with X.
-
Ok I have seen this in way too many companies in the last couple days: website blocking. Guys this is not right, it inspires distrust and a us and them mentality between management and workers. I am not saying that you cannot block anything, in fact i have a long list of what you can block:
- Pornography
After that there is nothing that truly justifies blocking. Buy I hear screaming.... "What about productivity".... well I will tell you how I handle this: I monitor the browsing habits of every employee. This means I can get the amount of time that is spent browsing certain websites and I graph it all. Then I spend a couple minutes every week looking through the graphs and look for the high browsing activity. If this happens to be MySpace then I look at which employees are using it the most and make a note of it. If this happens continually I just have a casual conversation with them and ask they don't visit the site as much. Now I have hardly had to do that because they know I will pick it up on it and also they are generally a great bunch anyway. One thing to be careful about here is that you may upset an employee if you come out of the blue and tell them to stop reading so many emails, so just use tact. Also it helps to do it in a group without specifying certain people. Does anyone have a strict network administrator?
Brad Australian - Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript" A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
You know, I don't know where the sales guy got the virus that almost hosed our whole network, but he doesn't need to go to porn sites at work. I block those sites now because I honestly believe it was a mistake, and I also think it could happen again. It's not a matter of distrust of their intentions... it's a matter of distrust of their ability to stay away from harmful web sites. I don't do it to keep people off certain sites. Actually I prefer it when people can check out Myspace or the CodeProject Lounge during the day to break up the boredom. And I think it's actually good for productivity for people to have access to things like their personal email, bank accounts, bill pay, and that kind of stuff, because it keeps them from leaving the office to take care of that. I just don't want them doing stupid things with their computers and I don't have time to make everybody an expert on security. I prefer your method though (the OP method)... what do you use to do your analysis?
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for freeware tools and articles. -
Ok I have seen this in way too many companies in the last couple days: website blocking. Guys this is not right, it inspires distrust and a us and them mentality between management and workers. I am not saying that you cannot block anything, in fact i have a long list of what you can block:
- Pornography
After that there is nothing that truly justifies blocking. Buy I hear screaming.... "What about productivity".... well I will tell you how I handle this: I monitor the browsing habits of every employee. This means I can get the amount of time that is spent browsing certain websites and I graph it all. Then I spend a couple minutes every week looking through the graphs and look for the high browsing activity. If this happens to be MySpace then I look at which employees are using it the most and make a note of it. If this happens continually I just have a casual conversation with them and ask they don't visit the site as much. Now I have hardly had to do that because they know I will pick it up on it and also they are generally a great bunch anyway. One thing to be careful about here is that you may upset an employee if you come out of the blue and tell them to stop reading so many emails, so just use tact. Also it helps to do it in a group without specifying certain people. Does anyone have a strict network administrator?
Brad Australian - Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript" A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
- Productivity. There are numerous studies (rather than opinions) about what impacts productivity. Morale is one I believe (which would seem to be common sense.) I suspect a company that spends time blocking is probably going to have other policies that are likely to produce lower moral than that of other companies. I do note that companies are more than willing to make decisions about productivity without any real evidence of the impact yet are unwilling to make the choices necessary to implement those things that actually have the evidence that demonstrates increased productivity. One of those that comes to mind is that private offices lead to increased productivity in software developement. How many cube farms and shared offices have you seen? - Bringing in a laptop. Just as a rather obnoxious analogy I note that some companies in the past have attempted to restrict bathroom breaks (even in non manufacturing environments) in the name of 'productivity'. Would you suggest that everyone impacted by such a rule as that, and able to afford it of course, should bring in a port-a-potty every day? - Time management Taking a 15 minute break is of course something that someone can do. However what if I happen to be waiting for a long running test that takes somewhere between 10 and 20 minutes to run? I can of course just sit there and stare at the screen mindlessly. Or take a 15 minute walk which means that if the test completes in 10 minutes then I will miss those extra 5 minutes. Not to mention that a 15 minute walk means going outside unless perhaps you are suggesting that everyone should pace the corridors like a large cat in a zoo? And once outdoors what do you suppose that the reality is for a company with low moral that the walk is going to be limited to 15 minutes? - Management If management can't effectively guage the productivity of its workers then that sounds like a management failure. That is such a basic failure for a company that it would suggest that the management of such a company is failing completely. And that is going to have more of an impact on the bottom line of a company than any negative press. Of course blaming the internet or media or water cooler conversations (etc, etc...) is a time honored occupation amoung poor managers used to deflect focus from their own poor skills. Effective management doesn't need to look for excuses for why productivity is low, because it isn't low. At well managed companies employees are spending time happily doing their job a
-
You know, I don't know where the sales guy got the virus that almost hosed our whole network, but he doesn't need to go to porn sites at work. I block those sites now because I honestly believe it was a mistake, and I also think it could happen again. It's not a matter of distrust of their intentions... it's a matter of distrust of their ability to stay away from harmful web sites. I don't do it to keep people off certain sites. Actually I prefer it when people can check out Myspace or the CodeProject Lounge during the day to break up the boredom. And I think it's actually good for productivity for people to have access to things like their personal email, bank accounts, bill pay, and that kind of stuff, because it keeps them from leaving the office to take care of that. I just don't want them doing stupid things with their computers and I don't have time to make everybody an expert on security. I prefer your method though (the OP method)... what do you use to do your analysis?
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for freeware tools and articles. -
Try working for the government. I work on as a software engineer on a US Air Force base and we can't get to a bunch of stuff, including: 1) Any freeware/shareware sites (makes finding code samples a tad difficult) 2) Any email sites (Yahoo, webmail, etc) 3) Anything remotely "adult" oriented, including many sites with blogs 4) The best... any ActiveX, Flash, Java or other "active" content from anything but a .MIL or .GOV domain. The web pages comes up, but the controls on the page are replaced with a "removed" message. Yeah, it's a very limited internet capability here due to Uncle Sam's overly zealous security measures.
PSU Steve wrote:
Try working for the government. I work on as a software engineer on a US Air Force base and we can't get to a bunch of stuff,
It is possible of course that that is merely a security rather than a productivity issue. For the US gov and many US state govs doing anything on a government owned computer that is not work related is a criminal offense. I believe at least with the US gov that it can be prosecuted as a felony. And it has been that way for something like 30 years. So in terms of productivity it would seem more effective (productivity) to merely gather the group together and tell them that accessing web email at lunch can get them 5 years in prison.
-
I used to run IT for a small company that I was also a shareholder in. Most of the staff were good and we allowed some personal use of the internet and initially we had no blocking tools. However, some staff started to take liberties and would spend two or three hours a day (and sometimes more) on non-work sites, despite this being a busy small company with lots of work to do. So we installed WebSense and blocked most clearly non-work sites except first thing in the morning, lunchtime and evenings. We allowed quota-managed access of 1 hour a day for non-work related stuff. I had absolutely no problems doing this - spending half you working day on non-work browsing etc. is unfair to the staff that did not and costs our company money - why should I pay people to do this? To be honest if they had objected strongly to the restrictions we would have fired them.
'Howard
Howard Richards wrote:
I had absolutely no problems doing this - spending half you working day on non-work browsing etc. is unfair to the staff that did not and costs our company money - why should I pay people to do this?
Hmmm...I just spent 8 months working 60+ hour work weeks and I got one comp day. At another company I spent 18 months working 60+ hour work weeks and I got three unofficial comp days. Both were salaried positions of course. So presumably to provide fairness for all, when people work extra hours at your company you insist long and hard that they get paid overtime or are provided the equivalent comp (and usable comp time)?
Howard Richards wrote:
However, some staff started to take liberties and would spend two or three hours a day (and sometimes more) on non-work sites, despite this being a busy small company with lots of work to do.
Presumably you consider that those employees were not doing their job correctly. So what exactly were the manager(s) of those employees doing? Why did you not consider that the manager of those employees was not being an effective manager? If that is not the point of being a manager then what is?
-
Andymac4182 wrote:
a week straight if I don't do anything else I am completely burnt out and sick of the project.
This seems to be a common thread, people doing what they do not want to do. I know in a developer position there are times when you have to push through on some things that are not that great or happen to do code that you think is stupid just because a client wants it, if you tire of a project after only a week on it, I think it is more you are burnt out on the company and maybe it is time for a change. Additionally, there is 24 hours in a day, 8 of which some people spend at work (not including lunch). That still leaves, even with travel, 12 hours per day to relax and browse the web or whatever a person wants. If you need more time, just ask for some unpaid time off or take some time during the day and then work late, but the business should get their time for which they paid. When I take a contract on a job, I do not tell them I need some time to play or get my mind clear, I cannot charge them for time to relax. Imagine receiving and invoice with x amount of hours of relaxation time. I am sure that would never be paid :)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: 20 Years to Web standards or a New Dream? Latest Tech Blog Post: Corel Lightning - what is the plan?
Rocky Moore wrote:
Additionally, there is 24 hours in a day, 8 of which some people spend at work (not including lunch). That still leaves, even with travel, 12 hours per day to relax and browse the web or whatever a person wants. If you need more time, just ask for some unpaid time off or take some time during the day and then work late, but the business should get their time for which they paid.
You forgot sleep in that 12 hours. So what about the times that you are between projects? What should somebody do then?
CleaKO
"I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that.'" - Tommy (Tommy Boy)
"Fill it up again! Fill it up again! Once it hits your lips, it's so good!" - Frank the Tank (Old School) -
JoeSox wrote:
The topic is: abuse of employer property and the costs to the employer.
And therein lies your problem. You don't get what this thread is really about, which is an employer's responsibility NOT to treat their employees like indentured servants for 40+ hours a week. I imagine that if you really run your business the way you talk, you probably have a very difficult time retaining talented personnel.
Grim
(aka Toby)
MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL GO
(0 row(s) affected)
Grimolfr wrote:
And therein lies your problem.
Problem?
Grimolfr wrote:
You don't get what this thread is really about, which is an employer's responsibility NOT to treat their employees like indentured servants for 40+ hours a week.
How are they doing this by addressing abuse of company property? Would bringing in funny videos during a trial proceedings so the judge doesn't feel like an indentured servant be appropraite? No, he may call a recess go for a walk, make a phone call, go walk with a friend.
Later, JoeSox "Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work." -Aristotle CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ Last.fm
-
Bradml wrote:
I'm sorry, I don;t see how this is related.
Well that's obvious.:rolleyes: Here, check these[^] stats out. Its an older document but I bet todays numbers of even worse.
Later, JoeSox "Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work." -Aristotle CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ Last.fm
The link was supposed to be convincing? This was from a company that makes money locking down employee Internet access. Do you also trust the mechanic that tells you that you need to pay him $1,500 for a head gasket replacement to correct that engine overheating problem? Or, do you get a second opinion? In my experience browsing controls that attempt to go beyond removing access to the most extreme or egregious websites limit productivity without really providing the effective limits on abuse that they're intended to provide. I'm routinely restricted from getting access to answers to technical questions just because they happen to be hosted on a site that indicates "chat" or some such thing in its metadata but I can come to the CP Lounge and lurk and discuss topics that aren't really related to improving my job performance. I can look up supermodels and movie stars any time I want if they are mentioned on Wikipedia but I'm barred from IMDB and, apparently, the sys admins think that prevents me from wasting my time on "entertainment" topics. The point being that a lot of time and energy are wasted on trying to fine tune the prevention when what they really should focus on is addressing any abuse if/when it occurs.
-
Two things:
- That is not exactly the most credible source as they are trying to sell something through that document.
- I agree, sexual or abusive content is unacceptable in the workplace and should not ever be tolerated.
That being said that does not change the fact that employees should not have websites blocked (apart from pornographic ones)
Brad Australian - unknown PHP Developer on "Job Prospect" Requirement: * Experience working with XML, XSL, XPath Comment: and other things starting with X.
Bradml wrote:
That being said that does not change the fact that employees should not have websites blocked (apart from pornographic ones)
Agreed... I think having websites blocked shows a lack of respect and trust in the judgement of the employee. And it seems like Joesox is dodging this issue by asking the question "yeah well, why don't they just bring their own laptops in and use them for their short relaxation periods?". Why should they have to? It doesn't make sense to me to deny people responsible for your company's success such a basic freedom. They're the ones working on the products without which your company wouldn't exist... there's a lot of responsibility there already if they're doing their jobs correctly - so why treat them like irresponsible children who can't be trusted? Why disrespect them over such a trivial thing?
-
The link was supposed to be convincing? This was from a company that makes money locking down employee Internet access. Do you also trust the mechanic that tells you that you need to pay him $1,500 for a head gasket replacement to correct that engine overheating problem? Or, do you get a second opinion? In my experience browsing controls that attempt to go beyond removing access to the most extreme or egregious websites limit productivity without really providing the effective limits on abuse that they're intended to provide. I'm routinely restricted from getting access to answers to technical questions just because they happen to be hosted on a site that indicates "chat" or some such thing in its metadata but I can come to the CP Lounge and lurk and discuss topics that aren't really related to improving my job performance. I can look up supermodels and movie stars any time I want if they are mentioned on Wikipedia but I'm barred from IMDB and, apparently, the sys admins think that prevents me from wasting my time on "entertainment" topics. The point being that a lot of time and energy are wasted on trying to fine tune the prevention when what they really should focus on is addressing any abuse if/when it occurs.
cjbauman wrote:
In my experience browsing controls that attempt to go beyond removing access to the most extreme or egregious websites limit productivity without really providing the effective limits on abuse that they're intended to provide.
cjbauman wrote:
I'm routinely restricted from getting access to answers to technical questions just because they happen to be hosted on a site that indicates "chat" or some such thing in its metadata but I can come to the CP Lounge and lurk and discuss topics that aren't really related to improving my job performance.
Sounds like your network admin's policy sucks. What is your admin's advise or workaround?
Later, JoeSox "Pleasure in the job puts perfection in the work." -Aristotle CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ Last.fm
-
I think you are missing the main point. What do you suppose to do at work ? Yes, right.....work. When a company blocks websites that are not related to work (sexual, video, chat etc..etc..). It says more about the employees then the company. Appearantly the employees don't have the common sense to do some private surfing at home. You get paid to work, not to be "at" work.
Remc0 wrote:
You get paid to work, not to be "at" work.
If you're an exempt employee working an average of 12 hours a day, then your statement doesn't hold. You're getting paid for an expected 40 hours, if you're there for 70, then what? In my case, launching a debug build of our app for the PocketPC takes 5 minutes. So I read CodeProject during that time. There is NO work to do. And, no, you can't type code while its launching since DevStudio can't figure out how to compile in the background.
This statement was never false.
-
Brad, You clearly have never owned your own business. An employee does not have an "right" to do anything besides work when they are at work and on shift, and take appropriate breaks. Just because you are on a break does not mean that your employer must provide you with access to the Internet over the company network either. If your attitude is different, you wouldn't be working for us. That being said, no employer (in their right mind) wants to waste time policing you, and if you were the kind of employee that had to be reminded to be working instead of screwing off, then you wouldn't be working there long. On the other hand, the valued employee that gets their work done, pulls their weight, and is a team player... well who cares if he is on EBay or MySpace when you walk into his/her office? They get their stuff done, and so clearly they don't need a babysitter. We prefer to hire those that do not require a baby sitter. :)
Stick^ wrote:
You clearly have never owned your own business.
You clearly haven't been paying attention then, since Brad owns his company.
This statement was never false.