Should Employers Be Allowed To Disable Browsing?

[usabilityfreak]

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]

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).

[usabilityfreak]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[usabilityfreak]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

Amen to that!

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

[tviman]

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 to don't stay long.

It's my company and I can do whatever I feel is necessary to keep the doors open. If it means that I have to shut down access to the 'net then that's what I'll do.

[clambam]

I work for myself now and boy do I abuse the Internet. I'd disable my access but then I couldn't get my work done.

A couple of years ago I was working for an architectural firm in Boston. Because of the nature of the business not only were there color and black and white laser printers I could send prints to, but also large scale color and black and white plotters. I had been sending a lot of large images to one of the color plotters, so rather than having to redirect the print every time, I set the plotter as my default printer. I was either goofing off or taking a well-deserved break depending on your viewpoint and I made a purchase over the Internet. When the receipt page came up I hit Control P and forgot about it -- until I walked into the lunch room and found my boss had pinned my 4 foot x 6 foot full color receipt up on the wall. Never made that mistake again.

That said, my job depended in large part on Internet access. I was constantly downloading shareware programs to try out, which might qualify as either research or a hobby, and occasionally recommended their purchase, saving my company money in the process. If I spent 55 minutes in intense concentration working on a rendering or graphic, I don't see why my company should have begrudged me five minutes of relaxation surfing the net. Of course it's possible to abuse the privilege but I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and Internet access can be not only a tool but a perk.

[Sualdam]

I think people are either talking about extremes or very personal situations here.

In the real world, most employee workstations have Internet access. It is from that point onwards that different things happen.

There are a small number of companies who ban all Internet use for fear it COULD be abused, or don't think it is useful. They are a tiny minority.

No doubt there is a company somewhere run by new age psychoanalysts who believe that any Internet-watching by management is fascist mind control and is against all human rights (to the power of infinity). They're a minority, too. (Scary thing is, I keep coming across people who remind me of this, and who assume that 99% of corporate management are into fascist mind control, but anyway...)

So in the middle we have companies whose main concern is to make a living. They don't care one bit if someone spends half an hour sensible surfing if they've just done 3 hours of important work. They get very concerned, however, if that surfing involves porn sites. They get concerned if the employee does 30 minutes of substandard work and then surfs for 4 hours straight. They get concerned if rules are broken.

These employers are NORMAL.

[HillsCap]

When I was working on Johnston Island as a civilian contractor, we used the Army's satellite connection to provide internet connectivity.

They locked it down pretty tight, didn't allow any web surfing at all, but did allow email (when things were going well at the plant where we destroyed nerve agent... if there had been a mishap, they'd block everything).

This caused problems for some people, especially those who needed to order supplies online to be shipped to the island.

So, I found out how to 'surf the web' via email. There are servers out there that will return to your email inbox the web pages you request. If there's a form on the page and you fill it out, it won't be sent the normal way, it's sent back via email to the server, which then forwards the form contents to the proper website.

That way, if someone REALLY needed to surf the 'net, they had the ability to do so (although not as conveniently as via a web browser).

[cpr-tx]

Well, people are people and that will be the case all the time. I believe that if an employer provides the tools the employee is responsible for their proper use. If he or she abuses they should be restricted up to termination. I've never seen a job description that said "4 hrs per day on pogo" or 2hrs morning and afternoon on yahoo chat or AOL messenger!
I worked for a State angency repairing computers, I once made a 150 mile trip to fix a computer that was running slow.. Windows 95... 21 items on the task bar.. some work related mostly web pages and 3 chat programs. These were Compaq Deskpro EP6366's,64 megs ram, 3.2 gig HD's. Other agencies controlled the content allowed on the computer..Desktop Photo's, Screen savers and the like.At Johnson Space Center employees weren't allowed to access the NASA servers that you can at any time.
One agency had it set so when I went to replace a video card I couldn't install the drivers, I didn't have the permission so I had to haul the computer out 200mi for the agency to install the drivers, the computer was down for 2 weeks for something that could have been fixed on site in a half an hour!
Even with this I side with the employers yes.. cut the net off it is not a required job function. If I go into an office and I'm tasked to fix a computer I will delete all downloads that aren't work related and from the web, illeagal programs, personal email with attachments and the like. I will communicate this to a boss or manager and proceed at his direction.
Yes in some jobs the web is needed, in the field I had to order parts, get warranty info from HP/Compaq and Dell, download drivers and such.

So don't abuse this stuff the computer is a great tool and the internet is a fantastic storehouse of knowledge. At home it's gotten so that if the internet is unavailable or we only have one computer we go into shock after a day. Our home set up is usually 3 computers on a network... AND we use them!

[Markll]

Does your job require internet surfing?
Should I demand internet access while I flip burgers?
Grow up an appreciat the fact that you have a job.

[Sualdam]

Well, that's a bit harsh, but I know what you mean :)

The reality is that if you NEED to have access for your job and then you abuse it, you're in deep trouble - and you only have yourself to blame. Not your employer.

If you have it as a perk, then losing it by abusing it should be no big deal at all. And you only have yourself to blame, not your employer.

If you lose it because someone else abused it then you have them to blame. It's still not your employer's fault - he/she has a living to make.

Maybe as well as appreciating their job people should also try and understand the concept of a 'rule'. If a rule says 'no porn' and you go and view porn, well, it speaks for itself.

If you really must do it, do it at home in your own time and using your own money.

(I mean the Royal 'you' - not you personally ;))

:)

[cpr-tx]

I know that I went out in the wild blue abit there but it's not only the internet, it's every facet of the computer and it's content that can be controlled by management.And well it should be. I like the porno comment in the previous letter, but most persons do it at work because the spouse won't allow it. Rule of thumb.. treat anything you do on your computer as if you're being watched... cause you probably are!

[alienzhavelanded]

The inherent nature of my business would require internet access for employees. In this enviroment, the only good way to deal with personal web surfing would be to have a comprehensive internet policy in place and maintain a blacklist.

I agree that positions where web surfing wasn't essential to the job should/could have such access disabled.

The Martian

[AnnaHeim]

A number of valid points have been made about the use of business internet connections by employees for personal use. I'm self-employed and don't employ any extra staff at the moment however if I did, I wouldn't be too pleased if my employees spent their working hours for which I'd be paying them to work, to surf the net pleasing themselves.

It's all about productivity and the financial bottom line when you own and run a business, no matter what the size; so perhaps the solution would be to either:
1)Have a clear employment policy which prohbits the use of the internet for personal use, which is enforced by fining the offending employees and which allows for persistant policy breakers to be fired.
2)Set up a "pay-to-surf" puter in the office which employees could use during their break time, and for which the would pay out of there own pocket.

Another alternative is that as there are a growing number of Internet Cafe's all over the place, employees should be encouraged to use their lunch breaks to go and use these, where they would be free to surf and do personal email to their hearts content. Most Internet Cafe's in and around London (UK) charge £1.00 per hour in my area, so I don't think it would be unreasonable for employees to get out of the office, during the lunch break, have something to eat and use these facilities instead of the company machines.

At the end of the day I think it's all about self dicipline... if you are being paid to work, at work then you should work, and any personal surfing should be undertaken at home in your own time, on your own machine.

[pete61uk]

Should Employers Be Allowed To Disable Browsing? YES!

If the employees’ job is incompatible with browsing they don’t need it and shouldn’t have access anyway.

However, if your profession requires a high level of creativity or information gathering, browser access could be (and often is) an invaluable tool. Like data mining, how many companies have benefited hugely from that and would discontinue its use once they have started to profit from it?

The problem is that people, being human, are fallible, meaning that at least some abuse of any practice is inevitable.

As with recent developments in e-mail monitoring to prevent legal infractions, each company has to make their own risk/benefits assessment, monitor usage, create a policy and stick to it.

[minstrel]

It's all about productivity and the financial bottom line when you own and run a business, no matter what the size; so perhaps the solution would be to either:
1)Have a clear employment policy which prohbits the use of the internet for personal use, which is enforced by fining the offending employees and which allows for persistant policy breakers to be fired.
2)Set up a "pay-to-surf" puter in the office which employees could use during their break time, and for which they would pay out of there own pocket.


While I disagree with some of what AnnaHeim (great name, by the way) says here, her comments do remind me that we take for granted cheap internet and telephone access in North America and forget it doesn't exist in many parts of the world, as my siblings in various third world countries like Scotland occasionally remind me :-)

If casual surfing does in fact have a significant financial impact for a company, I would see it very differently - that would be akin to making personal long-distance phone calls at work in North America and assuming that the employer will pay the bill.

[Sualdam]

... forget it doesn't exist in many parts of the world, as my siblings in various third world countries like Scotland occasionally remind me :-)
Taking that comment seriously for a moment, I think it is outdated attitude more than actual cost. Also, I think your Scottish friends are having you on ;)

The infrastructure in the UK is such that most large companies can have always-on high bandwidth connections for a flat rate.

The problem comes when company management still think in terms of dial-up connections 8 years ago (i.e. 10p per minute). It isn't like that. although smaller companies who can still only connect through dial-up might have a very legitimate reason to want to control surfing from a financial point of view.

Last time I looked, Scotland had the railroad and there was talk of horseless carriages sometime in the near future.

[Sualdam]

...that would be akin to making personal long-distance phone calls at work in North America and assuming that the employer will pay the bill.
Exactly. And that is stealing.

There's another less emotive issue these days, too.

Any business worth it's salt won't be happy with however well it is doing. If it sells 1,000 units this year, then it must either sell more than that next year, or do it at lower cost. Often both.

When companies enter that mode, the first things to go are 'unnecessary waste'.

And guess what? Internet access as a perk (i.e. when not an essential part of the job) is an unnecessary waste. It doesn't contribute directly to output but carries an overhead, so it is often one of the first things they cut back on.

[minstrel]

I think your Scottish friends are having you on

Actually, they're sisters but they are talking about personal accounts, not corporate broadband...


Last time I looked, Scotland had the railroad and there was talk of horseless carriages sometime in the near future.

It'll never catch on... :-)

[minstrel]

Internet access as a perk (i.e. when not an essential part of the job) is an unnecessary waste. It doesn't contribute directly to output but carries an overhead, so it is often one of the first things they cut back on.

...which I think misses the point that there are many circumstances where things contribute significantly but indirectly to productivity, like morale.

[Sualdam]

I KNEW you were going to say that :)

Yes, some things contribute to morale, but impaired morale is the typical whinge of an employee who doesn't like what just happened.

It doesn't mean they're right, though.

Free Internet access where it isn't necessary is a perk. If someone abuses it, it gets cut off. Damaged morale comes way down the list of priorities when porn or wasted time are involved.

I think we've established that cutting of the web just to be a swine is bad. Cutting it off because the employee has been a swine is totally justifiable.

[minstrel]

I KNEW you were going to say that :)

Yikes! and I work so hard to be unpredictable...


I think we've established that cutting of the web just to be a swine is bad. Cutting it off because the employee has been a swine is totally justifiable.

But why not cut off the employee who has been a swine? I have do some contract work with a government department where there was a conflict between two employees. As an outsider, it seemed pretty clear to me who was in the wrong and it was hard for me to believe that the directors of the department didn't see what I saw. However, they did what government bureaucracies always do: they "punished" both employees - the safe way - thereby avoiding any possibility that the union could accuse the director of favoritism.

That breeds low morale because it sends a clear message - regardless of your individual performance, if any one messes up here, we'll punish everyone even remotely involved. That to me is unfair and cowardly and ultimately bad for productivity.

On the other hand, as I said at the outset, it's not a matter of right and wrong - the employer does indeed have a right to make the rules and enforce them in any way s/he chooses - my point is that doing so with a blunt instrument is basically shooting yourself in the foot (pardon the mixed metaphor).

[Sualdam]

Oooo. You are just being pedantic!

That's what we're talking about.

I also thought we'd established that the idea of the employer who cuts off the entire West Coast because one person looked at the cartoons is somewhat melodramatic and unrealistic.

At worst, an employer will cut off a free perk to all who receive the free perk. He's unlikely to cut off Internet access to people who actually ned it to do their jobs.

If people who need it abuse it, the employer may discipline the single guilty party. The scenario you paint is unrealistic, and playing the 'morale' card is the sign of the troublemaking employee.

If I work alongside someone who gets the sack for gross misconduct (stealing, let's say) it will affect my morale. But that doesn't mean my employer is wrong.

Reality check: the person who stole is wrong. The affect on 'morale' is that employee's fault. Not the employer's.

Forget that stuff about shooting yourself in the foot - it is based on Hollywood-style storylines that never happen in reality (or infrequently enough to be ignored). Small dips in morale iron themselves out, otherwise people leave. A successful business will survive minor issues like this, but it will NOT survive if it panders to every employee whim (including stealing and ignoring rules).

[minstrel]

"Pedantic? Moi?" - paraphrased from Fawlty Towers.


If people who need it abuse it, the employer may discipline the single guilty party. The scenario you paint is unrealistic, and playing the 'morale' card is the sign of the troublemaking employee.

If I work alongside someone who gets the sack for gross misconduct (stealing, let's say) it will affect my morale. But that doesn't mean my employer is wrong.

If someone is fired for doing something wrong, I don't think that is going to have a huge effect on morale. But if two or more people are penalized for something one person did, it will.


Small dips in morale iron themselves out, otherwise people leave. A successful business will survive minor issues like this, but it will NOT survive if it panders to every employee whim (including stealing and ignoring rules).

That was my point - people who you don't want to lose will leave, along with the people you do want to lose. I certainly wouldn't suggest that you ignore theft or other misconduct - jut don't punish the innocent along with the guilty. Because low morale is not an insignificant factor in success.

Having said that, if you run a business, run it any way you want - you're the owner - you take the risks - you get to make the decisions. I was just pointing out that indirect costs can sometimes be substantial.

Pedantic mode off. :-)

[Sualdam]

But this is where I think you are clouding the issue.

If - using that example - someone DOES get sacked (whatever the reason) then the effect of morale is huge. I assure you. In reality it is HUGE.

I can also assure you that more than 90% of employers would only cut off a perk to everyone if the abuse that prompted it had been significant from a financial point of view, i.e. lost work time, potential litigation, etc.

The good employer will weigh the dip in morale against the potential loss to him/her self. And if the scales indicate it, he will cut the perk.

In the real world, no employee is going to leave a paid job because a single free perk is cut (so stop taking my sentences out of context :)). If he/she does it will be because of other things, though they'll no doubt whine that 'morale was at an all time low because the employer didn't trust people'.

No mention of the fact people were stealing by surfing when they should have been working.

If an employer cuts free Internet access for a sound reason it does not make him/her a bad employer, nor does it precipitate an exodus to the labour offices.

Oh. It might in Hollywood. But not in the real world ;)

[minstrel]

Well, one of the great things about a forum like this, when it works well, is we can debate something and at the end agree to disagree. In this case, though, I suspect that some of the differences in what we are saying is more apparent than real.


If - using that example - someone DOES get sacked (whatever the reason) then the effect of morale is huge. I assure you. In reality it is HUGE.

We are probably looking at this from different perspectives and experience, but this is one of the places we disagree. I think it is not the application of fair consequences but the perception of injustice that is most likely to create low morale.


The good employer will weigh the dip in morale against the potential loss to him/her self. And if the scales indicate it, he will cut the perk.

I would hope this is true - I know of corporations and smaller companies in this general region where it clearly wasn't - and I think in the long run productivity did suffer.


In the real world, no employee is going to leave a paid job because a single free perk is cut (so stop taking my sentences out of context :)). If he/she does it will be because of other things, though they'll no doubt whine that 'morale was at an all time low because the employer didn't trust people'.

Your scenario is certainly a plausible and probably common one but I think there are circumstances where a single issue can be a cause for leaving, if it is perceived as a matter of principle for the employee. In one case early in my career, that certainly was the case.


If an employer cuts free Internet access for a sound reason it does not make him/her a bad employer

No... but perhaps an unwise one...

Having said all that, I don't want to leave you with the impression that I don't agree with much of what you've said. As for the rest, let's just acknowledge that we have somewhat different perceptions and leave it at that.

[minstrel]

I found this in the local paper yesterday:


Ottawa Citizen
November 9, 2003

Why Web surfing makes you a better worker
By James Gordon

The next time your boss catches you checking your personal e-mail at work, just tell him you're increasing company productivity.

A new book argues that giving employees the freedom to take care of personal business at work can contribute to less stress, improved orghanizational skills, and a better balance between work and home life.

"For a lot of people, work is 24/7 now, and work has no problem infringing on personal time," explains Claire Summers, a management professor at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia and co-editor of Personal Web USage in the Workplace: A Guide to Effective Human Resources Management. "This is one way to address that."

Ms. Simmers and co-author Murugan Anandarajan say although it's assumed that sending personal email, paying bills online, or surfing the internet decreases productivity, it can also be quite beneficial.

"It can be a very constructive way to relieve stress, and we all know how much stress there is in the workplace," she explains. "It's sort of like taking a break or squeezing a stress ball."

(snip)

While they found there were some people whose use of the internet at work was not constructive, the book's authors say companies should be more open to personal use.

Automatic monitoring and filtering of employee internet behaviour is fast and cost-effective, but it's also impersonal, Ms. Simmons says. If companies took a little more time to create a culture of trust, their employees would be much happier.

[rocky1]

I found this in the local paper yesterday:

Ottawa Citizen
November 9, 2003

Why Web surfing makes you a better worker
By James Gordon




Don't suppose you could lay your hands on a copy of that article for me? Have a few problems I'm trying to sort out with my Former Employer, Work Force Safety, and Job Service, and that article will provide the final piece of the puzzle that attorney I'm about to hire is going to need Doc!


Rocky

[carju1]

I found this in the local paper yesterday:

Ottawa Citizen
November 9, 2003

Why Web surfing makes you a better worker
By James Gordon




Don't suppose you could lay your hands on a copy of that article for me? Have a few problems I'm trying to sort out with my Former Employer, Work Force Safety, and Job Service, and that article will provide the final piece of the puzzle that attorney I'm about to hire is going to need Doc!


Rocky

Rocky you'll probably need the whole book not just an extract. I found the book at www.booksmatter.com/b1591401488.htm if its of any use to you

Julian

[rocky1]

Thanks Julian!

Rocky

[minstrel]

Ottawa Citizen
November 9, 2003
Why Web surfing makes you a better worker
By James Gordon

Don't suppose you could lay your hands on a copy of that article for me? Have a few problems I'm trying to sort out with my Former Employer, Work Force Safety, and Job Service, and that article will provide the final piece of the puzzle that attorney I'm about to hire is going to need Doc!
As a matter of fact, yes - recycling day isn't until next Monday so it was still in the newspaper bin :-)

I'll see if I can scan it and send it to you.

[rocky1]

Thanks Much Minstrel!