Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

If you carefully re-read my post, you'll notice that I didn't say it was a right.

cu

Yep, and the workers that continued to abuse the system or attempted to abuse it were fired. The other workers either maintained or increased productivity in all cases. Overall, productivity increases in double digits between no-blocking and proper blocking implementations.

Did you take into account that before email and common internet access, that workers managed to work while at work....

No, ethics don't change, at least GOOD Ethics don't change, people just become more tolerant of abuse than before.

Which changes nothing - at work you work.

Yes, it is a loss, but, it can be controlled also.

Absolutely. To me, this is simply a first (and obvious) sign of the company's general attitude towards it's employees.

With most people, respect and trust go both ways, although there are obvious abusers who need to be handled.

My current employer proceeds under the assumption that if the job gets done, performance is appropriate (and your attitude isn't particularly unpleasant) then you can pretty much do whatever you want as long as it doesn't cost the company money or interfere with other employees.

Some people take smoke breaks every hour, others surf the web, some like to take personal calls, some like naps. I'm partial to taking the CEO and/or VP out drinking myself (I don't drink, but they're good company) which can often kill the better part of a day (or three).

Some people just work work work until they burn out. From our experience, the latter makes a great contractor, but a horrible employee.

Yes,it's like that in many european countries. And if the company has a work council, they have to be present, while personal logs are being viewed.

- and that's where employees get the attitude from, that they think they have a right to use company resources for private pleasure.

But if they signed a policy not to do that, they still can be fired for abusing their "right". The procedure just makes a big fuzz and the employer is looked at as dictator, who doesnt't respect privacy.

And the funny part: if the employer allows personal email use per policy, then he is considered "provider of telkom services" and therefore has to adhere to the same principles as any email provider.

What's next - the employee sues his employer for not backing up personal emails?

So I say: don't allow personal use of company resources per policy, install technical measures to prevent it, and then allow e.g. surfing outside the office hours and for lunchbreak. Or install a couple surfing stations, that are separated from your network and are being reset to default every night. They can use webmail - no need for pop etc. Chat? No. Personal phone calls? of course.(the collegue in the same room will get annoyed pretty soon...)

And no, you can't bring your personal laptop into the premises.

just my 2c,

If warned beforehand, that's fair enough. I'm absolutely convinced though, that those who were fired weren't that crucial to the companies anyway.

There are 3 grades of lies: Small lies, big lies and statistics.

Did you take into account that the world is changing and mankind evolves?

Ethics are manmade and changes over time. History proves you wrong.

I'm just glad I don't work for any of the companies that have been hurt by your old school thinking.

And I'm glad that you've not hurt any of the companys that we work for.

When you consider a double digit increase in productivity in every case, that means there is a LOT of cost to the company that lets it continue.

So, while you look at it as a personal right, most companies look at your "right" as a real cost to them, and since few people actually control their personal actions at a reasonable level, it amounts to very real costs to companies.

We had one chap that was day-trading, and when we cut off the stock sites he complained, then we found, in the phone logs, that he was on the phone with the stock company for several hours each day - his excuse was that he wasn't paid enough and needed to do this to make enough money - he was fired.

You also eluded to only lesser importance people being fired, not true, there are no important people in large companies, everyone is just a number, get use to the idea.

I never made that claim. Get your facts straight instead of setting up straw men for the sole purpose of getting the final word.

Of course. Which is way off compared to what is discussed here.

LOL. Thanks for making your view on human beings perfectly clear to everyone.

I don't need the final word, but you suggestion that companies get more productivity or better work by giving workers personal time at the office is wrong. It leads to abuse by employees.

No, it's clearly what was being discussed - we track it all and monitor it all, there is no reason to be doing PERSONAL stuff at work.

It's not a "View", it's a documented fact.

DevilsPGD wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

What color is your nose?

Brian

Precious metal of some sort would be my guess. Particularly in a lousy economy, it's never bad to have folks above you know you. It's not brown nosing, it's just smart career planning. And lo and behold, sometimes these folks are good company besides. Then again, sometimes not.

I've been friends with the upper management and most of the seniour people around the company since before I started.

omg an anti-smoke crusader.

in many companies real hours are lost from coffeedrinkers gossiping in the cafeteria as well.

DevilsPGD wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Well, that kinda puts things into a different context then.

My apologies.

Brian

That's your opinion. In my part of the world we increase productivity by motivating people - not by putting them in handcuffs.

We weren't discussing that kind of clear abuse.

there really is no need for your constant advertising..

It's a tradeoff. You never made one single personal phone call while at work, of course..

Your "facts" are just opinions based on statistics and a sad view on human beings.

Not at all. Learn to think dialectical.

Thanks for supporting my point.

The only UNMOTIVATED people would be the ones that believe it is their right to use company resources for personal business, and those are the type of people that most companies don't want.

If you have no expectation to be able to abuse company resources you can't be unmotivated by not abusing them.

Yes, we were, we were talking about detecting personal use.

There is no need for your constantly stating that YOUR personal needs are more important that the company.

Sure, and I've asked before I did. The same would be true for personal internet use - if you get permission then it's permitted, if you don't have permission and just assume that you can violate company policy then you're abusing the relationship.

It's sad that you don't see people for their real selves, that you miss all of the bad things that people do, it means you will always be part of the group missing security violations that could easily compromise networks.

Motivated people make personal phone calls now and then. Motivated people visit non work related internet sites now and then to refresh their brains. All people need to take a break of some kind now and then - otherwise they burn out. Healthy workers understand that. It's not about personal "rights" as you call it - it's about common sense and human understanding.

Occasional use does not necessarily equal abuse.

Again use abuse. Your example of course is a clear example of abuse and if management can't detect things like that without technical monitoring it's just a case of bad management.

Which I haven't done, so your statement is nonsense.

Amen.

No reason to state the obvious.

This is getting too off topic.

Motivated people often abuse company policy also, but that doesn't make them good employees.

Most companies tolerate a little violation of company policy, but, if you're going to use "Policy" as a means to enforce rules, well, if you don't apply it the same to everyone then you'll have a hard time when you fire someone for violating the rules that others are breaking, at least legally you will have problems.

You're on the side that people should be able to use the company network as needed as long as they get their work done. I'm on the side that sees networks compromised by those types of people and believes that personal use should not be permitted because of the loss of productivity and risk to the network.

We'll have to agree to disagree on principals.