Should Employers Be Allowed To Disable Browsing?

design@divergentweb.com · #1 (**permalink**) 10-22-2003, 10:01 PM

For Rhys, Maniactive and like-minded individuals:

For those new to this debate the question was asked how one could disable web browsing and allow email? These quotes I have posted below are from that thread "Disable Web Browsing" and since I was curious enough, I have posted responses to portions of their comments below.

Maniactive: "...it appears that management can't find anything better to do than to waste time and money limiting people's access to vital information........Why doesn't the company work on policies/programs that develop an environment of trust between employees and owner/managers?"

Actually, developing and monitoring policies that address activities that are not allowed and can easily be avoided with **less** work is a waste of time. The fact that the Internet has "vital information" is of no consequence here - its not required for the performance of this job.

Rhys: "...I graduated from high school a LONG time ago and expect to be treated as an adult .... The few times I've been forced to work under "Mickey Mouse" conditions, I've found myself spending quite a lot of company time figuring out ways to defeat their restrictions, just to get even."

So, in other words although you insist that you've graduated from high school, your words here demonstrate the mentality remains? I am confused.

minstrel · #2 (**permalink**) 10-22-2003, 11:02 PM

Unlike the original thread that spawned this one, the question here is NOT "CAN the employer police employees by cutting off internet access?" but "SHOULD the employer police employees in such ways?".

An employer has the right to do pretty much whatever s/he chooses within the prevailing labor laws of the country in which the company exists. On the other hand, in my view, treating employees like untrustworthy children is not even close to the best way to encourage loyalty and productivity - quite the contrary, as Rhys has suggested.

I've made my decision: I have tendered my resignation from Police Corp, Inc., and I'm on my way to join maniactive and Rhys (I hope you guys have fresh coffee).

design@divergentweb.com · #3 (**permalink**) 10-23-2003, 01:37 AM

I don't see the point of providing surfing access to employees who do not need it to perform their job. I don't see the point in giving a manager one more employee activity to monitor - especially an activity that should not be happening. I think in any case where you can avoid a problem, instead of monitoring against it you have done everyone involved a favor.

In a world where everyone can be trusted to follow company policy this would all be a non-issue. You three may be sterling examples of employees that would sit in the office each day and stick to email and never open your browsers, but not everyoe else is so trustworthy.

redcircle · #4 (**permalink**) 10-23-2003, 01:49 AM

I have had several jobs that using the internet for business purposes was essential.

Trust from employees can be very hard to keep track of.

Maintaining a blacklist and whitelist can be very time consuming.

I have worked at companies that have implimented both practices. The biggest pain in the arse was the whitelist method. especially if the comapny you are trying to reach has subdomains, sister domains etc.

If you look at it from an administrative side if you are "browsing" the internet when you are supposed to be working the company is loseing money and no manager likes that. I remember when I was a lowly dish boy at a restaurant. "when you have time to lean you have time to clean" lol..

matauri · #5 (**permalink**) 10-23-2003, 02:54 AM

As a previous business owner, I do not pay empoyees to surf the net. It is not a matter of whether they can be trusted. It is a matter that those overheads or delays in production/service are passsed on to me - the consumer. Why should I have a service/product increase in price to accomodate a worker surfing the net?

But on to the trust factor.... please, dont try and tell me that you are 100% trustworthy in your use of a work comp. No downloads? No unneccessary chatting/emails? No visiting WPW when you should be doing something else ?(sorry Mods! LOL)

You go to work to work. If you are lucky enough to get privilages of using the net to surf, then it is a benefit..not an expected. A bit like having a company car, your lucky if you have one, but just another employee if you dont.

:-)

Cindy

wenwilder · #6 (**permalink**) 10-23-2003, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matauri

No visiting WPW when you should be doing something else ?(sorry Mods! LOL)

Cindy

Have you been peeking over my shoulder? ;) If I couldn't browse the internet I couldn't view clients sites, if I couldn't view clients sites I coudln't tell them what needs to be 'fixed' and then I wouldn't get paid, but....that's me and I own the business!

When I was a corporate, breifcase carring moron *hands head in shame* the sister sites I would go to for the company always had one main issue: Someone or multiple someone's were always downloading files they were not supposed to, surfing to websites they were not supposed to be viewing (i.e. porn sites) and the list went on and on. I never once saw a 'good' way to handle this matter.

No matter how the problem is handled it's going to offend or upset someone. The employer, empoyee's, site adiminstrator, system admin, network admin, etc. Humans, contrary to popular belief are flawed! That flaw is human nature and EVERYONE is going to have a REALLY GOOD reason why they did what they shouldn't have done and why they should be allowed to do it because 'the rule don't include them' for some odd reason. Perhaps it's because they wore orange socks today, who knows?

I heard one lady argue that she just HAD to be allowed to access her yahoo email while at work. You ask why? Because...her dog was having puppies and she had to make sure she was alright. Sweet? Perhaps. A valid reason? No. And I have to ask...when did dogs learn how to email? If mine was good at it I'd be rich right now and not sitting here contemplating the problems of internet access.

The point is...I don't really have one, but it never fails that the right solution for the right problem is the wrong solution when the sun rises the next day.

Now I am off to teach my dog to type! ;)

Wynn

Sualdam · #7 (**permalink**) 10-23-2003, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minstrel

On the other hand, in my view, treating employees like untrustworthy children is not even close to the best way to encourage loyalty and productivity - quite the contrary, as Rhys has suggested.

Question: Do employers block Internet access because they want to act like ogres and annoy inncocent people? Or do employers block Internet access because there is a real and demonstrable danger of employees abusing that privilege in 10 seconds flat?

I don't agree with employers treating ALL employees like untrustworthy children.

But maybe the people's ire should be directed at those who ACT like untrustworthy children and abuse the Internet when they have access at work. They are the ones who are the cause of employers blocking access.

It's a lot more than you'd think.

Greyhawk · #8 (**permalink**) 10-23-2003, 11:46 AM

A Freind of mine works for a book company that has an associate program. I sent her an email inquiring about this program, as I had bought books online from them before, and never would have heard of them if not for her. When she asked her supervisor for the information to pass on to me she was repremanded for recieving personal emails at work. Her supervisor then accessed her email and sent me a nasty letter telling me "use the proper chanels of comunication". To make a long story short I contacted his supervisor, he lost his job they lost a few clients that I had recomended, and they changed thier policy in regards to employees and the web.

I will not deal with this company again, but this goes to show that limiting employees web access and email access can hurt your business.

Greyhawk

design@divergentweb.com · #9 (**permalink**) 10-23-2003, 11:51 AM

Redcirle, matauri, wenwilder and Sualdam all have good points which I happen to agree with. I used to be one of those semi-trustable employees years back. Now my life is on the Internet, as I do web design.

But for people whose jobs may entail only one facet of the Internet - monitoring some newsgroup, using email for customer support, or whatever, personal browsing time is a perk, a privilege, not a right. I don't think anyone has a right to access the Internet on someone else's dime, I don't find all people are trustworthy (nor do I find that all are loser porn-addicts surfing that stuff all day) and I also don't feel that an employer limiting access to [insert resource here] is treating employees like children.

;)

maniactive · #10 (**permalink**) 10-23-2003, 04:12 PM

Should employers be allowed to disable browsing?

Sure. Employers have the "right" to do whatever they want.

However, I still maintain that it's not in their best interests to do so. Here's why:

I come from a mindset that believes in the innate creativity and honesty that dwells in all people. Give them the best tools & encouragement that you can, treat people with respect, and they will go all out for the organization. That's my philosophy in a nutshell, and I'm sticking to it, by gum!

Many may believe this mind set is simple-minded or foolhardy -- but you'll often see something like "we value our employees and give them the best tools and technologies..." as part of a corporate mission, vision, or values statement -- because this mind set is seen as a best practice in the age of information. (It's even a best practice in the age of industry -- a core theme of Dale Carnegie and a host of other "how to motivate" types.)

I'm puzzled by the "it's not in the job description" argument. If answering/processing email is in the job description, then it involves dealing with people via the internet -- which implies that those who represent the company need access to competitive information, new ideas, best practices, etc. -- all of which change on a daily basis! For management to go out of its way to limit access to rapidly changing info can severely dampen employees' ability to communicate intelligently and to innovate improvements within the company on a timely basis.

So, if a manager/owner responds "but we have designated innovators within our company! People who process email are not our designated innovators -- we tell our email processors what to say to clients and how to say it..." then they probably don't come from my mindset. I believe that everyone in the company is an innovator.

But I can appreciate the mindset of fear that thinks employees are more likely to rip off the company than innovate for the company. If this is indeed the corporate environment, then the company is very likely attracting just that sort of employee. Reaping what they sow, self-fulfilling prophecy, and all that jazz.

So personally, I wouldn't want to work for a company like that, and wouldn't want to be their customer. Fear-based companies probably attract a different kind of employee and a different kind of client.

That's cool.

Like I said in the beginning, they have a right to do whatever they want. . .

minstrel · #11 (**permalink**) 10-23-2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maniactive

I come from a mindset that believes in the innate creativity and honesty that dwells in all people. Give them the best tools & encouragement that you can, treat people with respect, and they will go all out for the organization. That's my philosophy in a nutshell, and I'm sticking to it, by gum!

Many may believe this mind set is simple-minded or foolhardy -- but you'll often see something like "we value our employees and give them the best tools and technologies..." as part of a corporate mission, vision, or values statement -- because this mind set is seen as a best practice in the age of information. (It's even a best practice in the age of industry -- a core theme of Dale Carnegie and a host of other "how to motivate" types.)

In a more general way, it was also the view espoused by the American psychologist, Carl Rogers, who was criticized for what some felt was a Pollyanna view of human nature. Rogers believed that given positive recognition and encouragement (contrasted with what he called "conditions of worth"), human beings were inherently motivated to be the best that they can be. Thus, contrary to the views of Skinner and others, Rogers believe that the notion that people needed more controls to stamp out "evil" was simply wrong - he believed that attempts to "control" human nature were the source of much "evil" in human behaviour, rather than the cure.

tceperry · #12 (**permalink**) 10-24-2003, 12:55 PM

Quote:

maniactive wrote:
I come from a mindset that believes in the innate creativity and honesty that dwells in all people. Give them the best tools & encouragement that you can, treat people with respect, and they will go all out for the organization. That's my philosophy in a nutshell, and I'm sticking to it, by gum!

Many may believe this mind set is simple-minded or foolhardy -- but you'll often see something like "we value our employees and give them the best tools and technologies..." as part of a corporate mission, vision, or values statement -- because this mind set is seen as a best practice in the age of information. (It's even a best practice in the age of industry -- a core theme of Dale Carnegie and a host of other "how to motivate" types.)

I am a business owner. I have only 9 VERY good employees. I have had to discipline 4 of them for excessive personal phonecalls, excessive personal use of the internet. I have had to discipline 2 of them repeatedly. These are good people, who are also very intelligent. They understand their value to the company, and our expectations of them.

I run a decent blacklist, and extensive logging, which I review daily. Turning it off would save me and the company a great deal of time, but it would also negatively affect company morale. So I police, and enforce.

I WILL DISABLE IT if I get fed-up. Any better ideas would be welcome.

Sualdam · #13 (**permalink**) 10-24-2003, 01:08 PM

Nope. I agree with you 100%.

I think people who say employers shouldn't do this or that have never had to run a business, or are living in a fantasy land.

In a department I used to manage, an office was vacated by a manager. No one thought to have the phone disconnected or made 'internal only'. Months later an itemised phone log was sent to us (standard procedure). This one phone had sky-rocketed in external calls.

When I checked, many of the calls were to service vendors (gas, electricity, and so on). One single big one was to a private number - the location of which corresponded to the home of a female one particular supervisor was having an affair with.

Staff were literally sitting at home working out what calls they could make from this phone so they didn't have to use their home telephone. Just to save a few pennies.

I had the phone made 'internal only' and there was uproar. Every supervisor lodged complaints about the lack of trust demonstrated by management. Most admitted they'd used the phone for personal calls of a non-critical nature.

The supervisor who'd been calling his lady friend shifted operations to a fax machine on the despatch dock - the calls from which subsequently increased.

THAT is what people are like given the opportunity - certainly enough of them for employers to have every right to cut off free perks if they are abused.

Smoldering Roze · #14 (**permalink**) 10-27-2003, 03:51 PM

The corporate culture that breeds distrust and dissent amongest its employees, that encourages fear-based management discipline, is one that would ban web browsing. That certainly is not a company I care to work for, much less care to see stay in business. Companies that run autocratic methodologies do fear their employees are stealing (and a good many of them are, due to the fact there is no interest in maintaining corporate loyalty for a company that treats its employees like the red-headed stepchild). Promoting employee ownership in all aspects of the company goes far to ensure abusing of priveleges (such as web browsing) is limited to those few individuals who slipped through the cracks and requires adult supervision. Employees who have a stake in corporate ownership will ensure their peers and subordinates respect the privileges provided.

We are all adults, and as an adult, I don't expect to be treated as a child. Web browsing is now a way of life, just as chatting via IM is replacing the daily water cooler gossip mongering.

If corporations ban web browsing, how do they expect to ensure their own long-term viability and allow its employees to monitor its competitors online? To me, it simply sounds like a company who is scared of its own shadow, and should be put out of its misery.

Provided that there are precautions in place, and guidelines established, companies should allow web browsing (for the reasons pertaining to stress relief, creative idea generation, and ensures up-to-date information is at hand within the industry and competitors).
The corporatation which has an open culture generally has a much higher employee retention rate, and attracts a certain type of individual. This is just one of many policies and procedures that demolish employee morale and ensures your company is less attractive to top talent.

Chast · #15 (**permalink**) 10-27-2003, 03:58 PM

After working for several years in MIS at city hall, we use to allow everyone internet access that was at a certain level. If you abused it..bye bye internet. I use to be able to talk to another dept and walk them through their problem while visitng several motherboard sites looking for some deals. On another note, I had to fix a managers computer one day when he was out and found more porn on his hard drive than larry Flints computer and it wasn't all legal stuff either. Should he be suspended of internet rights...another programmer was always late with her deadlines. One day she complained about her system freezing up and when I went in to check it out, she had left her personal stuff on the screen. She was spending hours each day on a singles chat room looking for a new hubby. Of course her projects were never finished on time because she was chatting with a new date. All's it takes is just a couple of people to screw it up for others. The people who work for me have internet access and so far it hasn't affected my business. I also tell them up front that any misuse and they are unplugged. I am the biggest abuser and I own the company..

carbonize · #16 (**permalink**) 10-27-2003, 04:00 PM

Employers should block certain sites. For example well known porn sites or servers that use spyware cookies. It's more of a question as to where do you draw the line.

Sualdam · #17 (**permalink**) 10-27-2003, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoldering Roze

The corporate culture that breeds distrust... Companies that run autocratic methodologies do fear their employees are stealing (and a good many of them are, due to the fact there is no interest in maintaining corporate loyalty for a company that treats its employees like the red-headed stepchild).

Whoa. Whoa. Are you suggesting that employees (for example) steal because companies don't trust them?

Quote:

We are all adults, and as an adult, I don't expect to be treated as a child

Nope. Neither do I. But I'm also a realist. If someone starts stealing stuff from work, I willingly submit to the security searches. And guess what? I blame the thieves, and not the company.

My company has a good Internet policy: moderate personal use is fine. Stay away from porn. Do not engage in discussions or transactions that could affect the company. And so on.

If my company discovers that pornography is being accessed, or that illegal businesses are being run from compnay computers, that would mean that people - employess: yes, those darling little angels who can do no wrong and around whom the entire universe is supposed to revolve - have broken the rules.

Quite frankly, they have every right to choose to ban Internet access as a result, sack those involved, and prosecute if the severity warrants it.

Or alternatively, it now seems, they could award them all medals and big pay rises. Either way is good, I guess.

acornwebworks · #18 (**permalink**) 10-27-2003, 04:26 PM

Here's a synopsis of a survey on porn and work Internet access that I thought was appropos to this thread:
http://xbiz.com/articles/index.php?article_idp=770

As a boss and business owner, I allow my staff a great deal of flexibility...assuming their tasks are being done in a timely manner. And they are free to surf on their breaks and lunch hours, regardless of whether or not the tasks are done.

BUT!! I will deal with abuse. No porn is allowed, for example. I don't think it belongs in the workplace, and the liability issues are too great.

And if someone isn't as productive as I'm paying them to be and they are surfing the web on my dime, they will stop surfing the web or find another job.

That's one of the things about being treated like an adult...you have to meet the responsibilities of being an adult as well. So you get to decide for yourself whether surfing the web is more important than a paycheck.

And, you know, I'd wager that still a significant percentage of jobs out there don't have Internet access to begin with and there are no expectations on the part of employees that they'd have it.

Shoot, reading some of the previous remarks, I wonder what on earth some of you folks think people did before the Internet. Believe it or not, us old fogies survived quite nicely :-)

Kendall

Sualdam · #19 (**permalink**) 10-27-2003, 04:50 PM

Amen to that!

Glad to see there are still some normal people around :)

tviman · #20 (**permalink**) 10-27-2003, 04:55 PM

Interesting points but I think SUALDAM said it best: "...people who say employers shouldn't do this or that have never had to run a business, or are living in a fantasy land...".

There's a reason why corporations do what they do - quite simply, it's to make money. I know it's a difficult concept for some to grasp but that's what it's all about. And there are so many players that businesses have to do what it takes to maximize the bottom line. And if ending the ability to "surf" is a means to that end, then so be it.

I've read that some of you couldn't do your job if you couldn't access the 'net. Well, if that's the case then you should have been able to convince your supervisors - or they should have already recognized that. But then again, maybe they like to keep things neat and orderly. Some companies have a set of "standards" that they use to judge an employee's effectiveness. If surfing the 'net isn't needed to get the job done then employees who do are only hurting themselves, not to mention the company.

Yes, surfing is definately a means of being creative, but creative at what? Does your job require you to be creative? As a business owner, I don't pay 37 people to be creative. I have a graphics arts department, a programming department, and a sales department. They are the creative people in my organization and they know that their "creativeness" is for the betterment of the company's bottom line - and they have access to the 'net. And as others here have stated, if it's abused or it affects their job performance, can lead to termination. My bookkeeping , order desk, and shipping departments don't get paid to be creative - at least not so that they need to use the 'net.

All of my people have access to email, which is monitored - incoming and outgoing. This is one area where I'm a real stickler. If it's not company related then the address gets blocked. All my employees know this and have signed a statement to the effect that they are aware of the policy and understand the consequences of it's abuse.

One last point - I provide what I think is a nice place to work. I pay for health insurance and provide a liberal vacation/sick leave policy. I don't penalize for being late now and then (I pay for time worked), and provide free snacks and drinks. I also have a monthly "employee appreciation day" where I spring for pizzas, chinese, or other take-out for lunch. So I expect my people to get on MY wagon when they come to work for me. Those that chose not t