digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at msnbc.msn.com

Your boss declares martial law on Facebook

msnbc.msn.com — This just in: Your employer doesn’t want you social networking on company time.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • AlbinoRaven, on 05/11/2008, -0/+26You would be hard pressed to find any censorware that let's most, if any social interaction traffic through. Rule of thumb, if messaging isn't run by local IT support, then you'll have to do it on your own time.
    • Drahkar, on 05/11/2008, -0/+13Yea, I don't know why this is newsworthy. Most large companies these days don't want you doing personal things on company time.
      • fkr3, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7These days? What days were they okay with it?
    • yuanzhoulu, on 05/11/2008, -4/+5what if you work at Facebook?
    • mcquitty, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Strange. My company has Facebook Fridays. Everyone is expected to have a Facebook page, including the CEO.
  • keltin, on 05/11/2008, -0/+22Messaging? Heck they don't even allow you to check email that isn't in the company mailbox.
    • yuanzhoulu, on 05/11/2008, -4/+17btw, in most other countries i have worked in i have NEVER seen this kind of level of company censoring. most places i've worked besides the US the companies just let you do whatever you want online and measure your work by what you do and not how you accomplish it. if you think better and are inspired by being online, that should be the way you work.

      while the US as a country grants freedom, i have always felt that the actual freedom you get in this country is zip, given the amount of freedom they give you in US schools and US companies, both of which you kind of have to go to if you're the average person. you only get freedom if you're not employed, it seems.
      • Hood15, on 05/11/2008, -5/+6Well, you're on their time. You have the freedom to find another job. It's kind of like if you go to an amusement park, you have to follow their rules (i.e. smoking in designated places, and other things) that doesn't mean that you don't have freedom, it means they have rules for you to ensure everyone else has a good time and what not.
        • tomatensaft, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Not a good argument. The fact that I'm on their time doesn't mean, that they can tell me when to go to WC, as long as it is within reasonable limits.
    • clickwir, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4Well they are paying you to work, after all.
    • Cytranic, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7No No, its like this in America, its just you have to be in the IT Department.
    • pault107, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4I can understand the locking down of sites like Facebook, but IM can actually have a positive effect on a company as long as it's not abused. I often IM fellow programmers with regards to programming issues and stuff like that. I can either Google for 10 minutes and get an answer or IM someone that gives me an answer in 30 seconds. And Vice versa, I often get questions via IM that I can answer without thinking. On a world wide scale, that's a win-win.

      Saying that, spending three hours on Facebook is an entirely different story.
      • AlbinoRaven, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Actually IM is one of the only things as the systems architect I let through for the Dev and Admin folks. It saves an assload on mail storage on the SAN and if someone want to save a code snippet or how to do something they chuck the idea up on the discussion forums in the IT group site in the office for future reference.
  • Totz83, on 05/11/2008, -3/+49Bloody right too, why should employers pay for extra bandwidth to be used for non work related issues. Thank god I'm unemployed!
    • yuanzhoulu, on 05/11/2008, -2/+17in general, in R&D and intellectual environments, it helps a lot to not block or censor anything, and measure employees based on their work output. if the best way an employee works is to socialise online and chat and think that way, so be it. later on if they haven't produced anything, you know why.

      as a grad student this policy works fantastically. nothing is censored at all; there are those students that are socialising online half the time and stay really late instead, and those who don't socialise online and just get down to it and leave early. it all works out, everyone is measured by their work output based on weekly meetings.
      • mirunit, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4If only university worked like business right?
    • ElbertF, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11Thank God I'm self-employed. I can IM, e-mail and masturbate whatever the ***** I want.
      • MtheoryX, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Masturbate whatever you want? Well what is it you want to...forget it.
      • Raiku, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Wooo!
    • Gerz1219, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4Ironically, people wasting time on social networking sites actually *creates* jobs. Let's say there's four people in a department who are all spending 25% of their day on Facebook, while still getting all the department's work done. If they actually worked during that lost Facebook time, it would quickly become apparent that their department was overstaffed, and one of them would be fired. From my experience, a good way to prevent downsizing is to work slower.
      • MarvelZombie, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7...and that's why American jobs are going overseas.
        • Gerz1219, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7No, they're going overseas because you can pay an Indian worker one-third as much as an American worker to do the same job. Nobody over here wants to take a 66% paycut, so there's no way for Americans to compete.

          By the way, I've had some experience with this -- outsourced Indian workers actually milk their work significantly more than American workers. Since under Indian labor laws, employers don't have to pay for downtime, there's an incentive for Indian employees to work slow, and Indian middle management will unnecessarily split simple tasks between multiple workers just to ensure that everybody is getting paid. They can take three times as long to do anything and the New York office doesn't complain because the labor is dirt cheap and there's no accountability.
  • ahpro, on 05/11/2008, -1/+10Why don't they just block the site from being accessed from work?
    • WilliamDavis, on 05/11/2008, -11/+2Uh... because I work there and use the computer and have the right to visit any site I want.
      • Qumahlin, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11lol, I can only hope your being sarcastic and are not that dumb
        • fkr3, on 05/11/2008, -6/+1..... you lose.

          But don't be disheartened. Hope for something easier next time.
      • NYC10004, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Seriously William,
        Do you really think you have the right to be paid to use the companies utilities and systems to do anything personal?
        I was pissed off when Digg was censored at my workplace last week, but I understood why. I'm getting paid to work for the company for 8 hours a day with one for lunch. I have no entitlement to get paid while I surf of chat it up.
    • yuanzhoulu, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4stupid idea. let employees be responsible. measure their work output not their work process. let them be happy, give them a little fun, and they'll be more excited to work and will naturally work better. if they're irresponsible enough to be on it all day, you as a boss would know it because they wouldn't have accomplished anything after a week.
      • Hood15, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4Why are you saying the same thing in every comment? We get it, measure by output. The thing is, not all corporations have the time to measure every single person's output. Instead, they'd rather block the ***** they don't want you at so they don't have to babysit you.
        • senatorpjt, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Then these people will just have to bring in magazines to read. The people that are wasting time on Facebook aren't going to suddenly become productive because you block it. These sort of people have always existed and will always exist.
      • hexydes, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1This is the new philosophy of thinking, and it's no small surprise that the tech industry is leading the way (like all things, nowadays).

        People don't like to work straight for eight hours a day on a small set of tasks. That's just not how we were programmed to function. Most people can only give an hour or two of attention to something at a time, at best. If taking breaks in-between lets you get your mind out of the box for a bit, and actually makes you more productive at the task at hand, would that be pretty stupid for a business to try and micro-manage every aspect of what you do throughout the day?

        The smartest thing businesses can do today is 1) give every employee a laptop, rather than a desktop, and 2) let them work from home at least one day per week. Aside from being able to use that as a huge recruitment tool, you'll find that while people may only work 5-6 hours in a given 8 hour work day, if they have a laptop at home, most of the time they will make up the balance at home. All you then measure them on is the quality and quantity of their work, not their ability to work 8 hours at a time.
    • issachar, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Because it's not my job as the IT guy to make a list of all the sites you may not access while at work. My job is to make sure the network and PC's run properly so you can do your job. It's YOUR responsibility as an employee to do your job.

      Plus we don't want to block those sites because we really don't mind if you use the company PC to check your facebook page during your lunch break.
  • SpookyDIGG, on 05/11/2008, -9/+35If you are on company time, getting paid by the company to do work then guess what...you should be working!!! Get yer heads out of yer butt stop screwing around on company time and get some work done.
    • toxicityj, on 05/11/2008, -2/+31I say who cares what I do as long as my work gets done. And guess what? It does!
      • GoatRoper, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8And if your work is getting done thats fine, it is when your work suddenly slacks that the first thing they will look at is your access report and then the parties over.
        • toxicityj, on 05/11/2008, -1/+9I agree. I say that it's good for a business to allow their employees some time to goof around on the internet. It's good for morale and provides a much needed break. I spent some time working as a web developer at a local web design firm and after a few hours of reworking (and by reworking I mean dumbing down) my CSS to work in IE6, I needed 15-30 minutes to just relax on Digg or talk on GTalk or w/e. business owners forget what its like to be an employee and think everyone should work non-stop from 9 to 5 and think a small (i got half an hour) lunch break is all you need during an 8 hour workday.
          • pault107, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3I completely agree. I am more productive if I take a five minute break every hour or so compared to working four hours straight, break for lunch, then another four hours.
      • mcphatty, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5everything is getting done, thats good. but since you have extra time, you should take on some other duties.. at least thats what a manager would say
        • yuanzhoulu, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5not really. work should be reasonable (i.e. should be able to be gotten done in 30-55 hours a week, or so) and if you choose to then spend 100 hours at the workplace and spend half of that time socialising, instead of doing your socialising at home and working at work, that should be perfectly fine. especially if it makes you a happier employee, more willing to devote time to company interests, if it makes you inspired to think of new ideas, and so on.

          in general, if the job nature is that you're paid by work and not by hour, you shouldn't have to deal with this kind of censoring crap.
          • Hood15, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Why should they pay you to socialize? Do it with your cell phone on your lunch break. You're on their time, you should be doing their work.

            You mention by being paid by work instead of hour but that is not commonly the case and I'm guessing 90% of those jobs don't care. But if you're at their place and doing their work and on their time, you do what they want; no socializing.
          • hexydes, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Of course, it's up to the business to make that decision. However, making it would be a poor decision.

            The relationship between an employee and an employer is give-and-take. The employer pays the employee, the employee does work for the employer. If you want to look at it at its most basic level (which you have with your comment), then that is true. However, how much does employee happiness, which in turn increases employee productivity, as well as company loyalty, factor into the equation?

            For example: at my work, most people have laptops. My work is very cool about just wanting people to get projects done in a timely manner; they don't block Internet access at all (well, maybe Torrents, I've never tried that). If you can get your projects done on time, and need to use the Internet to take breaks in-between, they couldn't care less. Additionally, people are able to work from home a few days a week if they want to (part of our green policy, but also to help employees).

            Now, at face-value, to you, that may seem like people screwing around. However, because of that, I LOVE working for my company. I actually enjoy working for them, and will always go the extra mile to make sure that they remain in a good position. I'm also more productive because of my laptop. I may only work 30 hours a week in the office, but I bring work home with me, and often work well-above that amount.

            So it's up to you if you want to continue to force the draconian policy that you mentioned, but it has been proven time and again the more that you try to control employees' work habits, the more they will resent you and try to simply skate the system. Conversely, the nicer you are, the more relaxed you are, and the more large-goal-oriented you are with them, the more they will respect you, and go the extra mile for you.
      • MarvelZombie, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2What a manager will wonder is, how much more would you be getting done if you had even more time to focus? The bottom line is, you don't get paid to have fun. That's life.
      • arcticJKL, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1As long as your not an hourly employee seems fine to me
    • ultrafez, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3There are two schools of thought here... there's the idea that all non-productive internet access should be banned - which is the strategy that you would take with people with no self-discipline. Or there's the other strategy where you are allowed to access whatever you want - on the condition that you get your work done. I think for mature responsible adults, the second option is preferable - can we not be trusted to get our work done? It will obviously show if you've been wasting time, when your boss discovers that your project isn't completed on time.
      • cubicledrone, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2The managers are not mature responsible adults.
    • xanadont, on 05/11/2008, -0/+10Never mind that promoting morale is the best tool an employer can use for increased productivity. As an employer, I don't care what the hell you do (as long as it's legal). If you're getting your work done, the happier you are the better. All things being the same, I'd much rather have a pleasant work environment where employees are free to work OR play.
      • Trichomonas, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1People may be able to meet deadlines but that doesn't mean their work is at the quality that it could be at. Maybe, because they procrastinated which reduced the quality of their work.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm with you when it comes to high morale and having the employees actually want to do their work. However, I still think Internet access should be limited. It also comes down to the sort of employees you have and their individual personalities so it's very hard to take one side for every office.
      • ultrafez, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Makes me think of what it'd be like to work at Google.
  • FuckXboxx, on 05/11/2008, -9/+2Great example of the MSM desensitizing people to the notion of martial law.
    • ElectricC0wb0y, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7you're a great example of a dickweed shoving his dick inside an xbox to get off.
      • FuckXboxx, on 05/11/2008, -5/+3Lol...i'd rather die than touch an Xbox.
        • Moduliz0r, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4HAHA.
          You're funny! I should actually put a gun to your head and force you to play on an Xbox.
          I bet you'd do it.

          For the record, I signed in just to bury your comment.
  • CDoug03, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5That article is way too long. I think we all know that if you are doing something other than work at work, your odds of being fired go up exponentially.
  • Typhoon2009, on 05/11/2008, -1/+14I don't know how people can get 'addicted' to using Facebook all the time. Maybe it's because most of my friends don't have a Facebook profile, but I just don't spend that much time on it. At school people try to use proxies all the time to get around the school's web filter... can't ya just wait until after school? And at work, well, you should be WORKING not being a leech that feeds off of the payroll without doing anything. If you don't like it, the bread line is that way.
    • Scorps111, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Ultrasurf, use that.
      • diggnitarial, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1Q- I don't know how people can get 'addicted' to using Facebook all the time
        A- Maybe it's because most of my friends don't have a Facebook profile
    • skidooer, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Facebook is pretty useless if none of your friends use it. In this part of the world virtually everyone has an account, so the usefulness increases dramatically.
    • krisscofield, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1There's a bread line?
    • senatorpjt, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Almost everyone I know has facebook now, but I still don't get it. I think it's more of a girl thing anyway, none of the guys I know bother updating it, and all the girls are constantly updating it with inane *****.
  • GoatRoper, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13As the enterprise's web nazi I block the entire dating/relationships category BECAUSE of MySpace and Facebook. If you ever took the time to watch exactly how much time people waste on those sites you would see that for some people it makes them completely unproductive. Are some if not most people able to work effectively with it being open yes, but even if 80% are able to it is the other 20% that are dragging you down that ruin it for everyone else.
    • threemagic, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13When do you look at those stats, before or after you post on digg?
      • GoatRoper, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4Our content filtering provider actually JUST started categorizing Digg under dating/relationships because you can make profiles here now. We quickly turned around and put a rule in opening it back up to our 17000-ish employees. Why? Because it is is still a great source for tech info, trends, etc.
        • Hood15, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Don't forget the (not-so) funny images, Hillary sucks news, and Barrack Obama is a pimp sections.
        • MtheoryX, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Holy *****! There's still relevant tech news on digg?

          Had me fooled.
    • ssn697, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4I just told my boss (me), if I ever spend more than one half of one percent of my internet time on MySpace and/or Facebook, I need to be banned from the Internet as a whole...
  • tcpip4lyfe, on 05/11/2008, -3/+10I work as the network admin of a small company (100 people) and when I got there I immediately setup keyword blocking on our router to block myspace, facebook, and searches for the word "proxy." I was not a very popular guy for a week or so but they got over it. Since then I have created rules to open up facebook for a couple workstations over lunch because some moms told me facebook was the only way they can actually communicate with their daughters.
    • threemagic, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2you should look into dan's guardian (http://dansguardian.org/). a lot more powerful than keyword blocking.
      • tcpip4lyfe, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3We're getting a cisco firewall with the sec bundle so I wouldn't need an open source solution anymore but it looks like a cool project though and I'm sure I'll use it at some point in my career. Thanks for that.
        • cphelps, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1We just got the sec bundle a couple months back. I was hated for about 3-4 weeks but as you said, people got over it and now they get their work done.
    • cplusplus, on 05/11/2008, -6/+4Maybe you should have waited for your boss to ask you to block those sites before you did it.
      • Qumahlin, on 05/11/2008, -0/+9You've clearly never worked as a network admin. Most network admins are the ones that the boss asks "what should we do", an admin who sits around waiting for a higher up to dictate new policy is a bad admin unless thats the way your company works. Most smaller companies however rely on the admin to do what they feel is best.
        • ceralon, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1100% Agreed. My boss will sit with me, the HR manager and operations manager and they will all ask me how we can solve or fix an issue. Then they ask for consequences, and how it will effect employee morale. Sometimes I do things, then explain what I did. I've never gotten a negative feedback. I remember at one time, in our Admin dept, our CFO came back from a trip and nothing got done. He asked for the web filter logs and said block the top 5 sites that were visited. I said what if its google? He said they don't need to be on google that much.
        • tcpip4lyfe, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1That's exactly how it works at my job too. Most of the time the IT director (who is a developer, not an admin) will ask how I did it and then say that he didn't know our router could do that. I've never had him anyone higher up say I need to change it back. In small start ups like this you are usually on your own trying to find ways to make work more productive through IT. It's the main reason I like working for smaller companies because there is still room to invent policy and have still the freedom to implement it without creating huge presentations and spending a ton of time analyzing cost/benefit.
        • cplusplus, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Actually, I have worked as a network admin. I was careful not to play the gestapo. Taking the initiative to make the network faster or more reliable is good. But volunteering to spy on (or blocking) your fellow employees is a bit tacky.
    • ingxia, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7perfect example of IT creating a problem so they can "solve" it
    • willynilly, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1If I worked for a company that treated me like a baby, I'd act like one. Then quit.
  • gethelaw, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6"This just in?" Are you kidding me? MSN is really on top of their game...
  • theculchie1, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2In work we only block sites if management get in a tizzy about something or if the site is some sort of threat to the corporate network. Before we blocked Bebo and Facebook they were accounting for 3/4 of all hits on our proxy server.
  • babylonian, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4At my school, Facebook is blocked under the category "dating / personals". So not only are you not allowed to access it, you feel a little it embarrassed for trying.
    • willynilly, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1As indeed you should.

      Facebook: GET OVER IT.
  • buftar, on 05/11/2008, -1/+11It's funny how this article protests that we are not children, yet it's written like a mother scolding a child. This is one radical in-your-face journalist that really speaks to my generation! Tubular dude!
    With regards to the content, social networking on the company's time, if your use of any site is occasional and does not violate the policies of your company (including sexual harassment), how is going on facebook or myspace at all different from the average smoker taking half a dozen cigarette breaks on the company's dime? I know the article is really focusing on heavy-hitters, but blocking them affects the casual viewer, the one that follows the rules and looks at it as a temporary diversion, a break from work.
    I can't look on facebook but I can leave my building for ten minutes and come back smelling like an ash-tray? Companies need to evolve and mature with the times, and that includes making provisions for those who take internet breaks instead of smoke breaks.
    • oldgal, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3If people aren't getting the job done that they are paid to do or if they are abusing company assets then there should be disciplinary action. Shouldn't matter what the cause is. Since corporations have locked down email and web-sites I have watched stress levels increase. There is not nearly as much laughter anymore and without laughter many of us become creativity constipated.
  • Mitchellkohl, on 05/11/2008, -1/+14"Do You Facebook on Company Time?" Since when is facebook a verb?
  • spiritflare1, on 05/11/2008, -4/+2i agree it's the employers dime, so discretion is best - if your employer allows your to surf, then do it on your lunch hour - otherwise, as an employer, am i paying you to slack off during regular hrs, not to mention consuming my bandwith? common sense people, come on. the last place i worked, the majority of users identified spent time surfing plentyoffish.com, and when the employer blocked it, they complained. They were spending on average 2.0hrs per day looking for dates. I don't think that was in the job description.
  • vw2005, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Wow..... this was "news" 8 months ago.

    BFD ... work time is work time. Common sense ...... would YOU pay someone out-of-pocket to go on facebook ?
  • methos75, on 05/11/2008, -4/+1On the Internet Break time thing, I agree but there is a huge difference here in that browsing sites like facebook causes a strain on the network, and that is where the issue arises. My company has actually made web browsing during lunch a fireable offense, because so many were browsing during their lunch break, that the network would slow down so bad that those who were actually working could not complete their jobs.
    • gravyboy, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Which really just means that your infrastructure is outdated...
  • jimmies, on 05/11/2008, -6/+3Blah. I'll use Facebook at work and I'll work when I'm on my own time at home. It's called "being responsible" and getting your ***** done when it needs to be done.
    • AlvesLopes, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2How can an IT guy make a filter based on that? 99% of the lazy buggers just dont produce and are bad professionals.
      • jimmies, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Newflash: IT isn't the solution to every business problem that exists. That's a business management issue. If an employee isn't producing, fire them - it's pretty simple.
        • cubicledrone, on 05/11/2008, -2/+0If an employee isn't producing, it's the manager's responsibility. Fire the manager.
  • seandfeeney, on 05/11/2008, -6/+1no shyt!
  • TWhid, on 05/11/2008, -6/+1congrats on the Digg front page Helen :-)
  • GoatRoper, on 05/11/2008, -4/+2For the record Digg just got categorized by our content filtering provider under the same category as facebook and myspace. Why? Because of the shouts feature and the profiles you can create. We couldn't have 17000 people go without Digg so we opened it back up but I wonder if Digg thought that one through or not when providing those features.
    • jdpalite, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4How is Digg any less distracting/addictive than Facebook?
      • GoatRoper, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1It can certainly be distracting but to be relegated to the same category as myspace just doesn't seem fitting.
  • WilliamDavis, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5Barack Obama has a plan for how government and employers can work together to fix this prblem.
  • Plower, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1"700 hundred respondents"

    hmmm....that's a weird way to say 70,000 but I guess it works
  • NachoBusiness, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7On my first "real job" after college I decided to be all cute by using Telnet to log into my ISP's unix server and read LiveJournal using a text browser (obviously I'm dating myself to circa 2000 here). For a while it worked - my coworkers we getting bitched at for spending all day on eBay and Yahoo games, and for 6 months I was doing fine. Then the IT guy somehow discovered my sins and I got in a lot of trouble.

    Moral of the story: Just give up. You cannot have fun on the work computers. Sorry.
  • ceralon, on 05/11/2008, -2/+6Imagine this, we have three T1 lines, we need another but money is tight. So we've actually split one T1 for voice / data.

    We were still having problems with QOS on our T1. The VOIP kept echoing and had nasty feed back. Our bandwidth was at about 90% utilization at all times.

    I installed the untangle appliance for web filter as a try out - open source.. www.untangle.com

    First websites block were myspace, facebook, and youtube. Do you know my bandwidth is less than 10% used now?

    Work productivity has gone UP. And another policy we enforced due to the web filter logs, "personal email is tolerated, but not guaranteed" -- Too many users use personal email, sure we all need to pay a bill or do something.. But it is getting out of hand. People try to complain about the tight Nazi regime we've become in the past 6 months, but I explain to them that when they worked for companies 10 years ago, I am 100% sure the boss Limited long distance usage.
    • osbjmg, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Or you could use a priority queue to send voice traffic first, like everyone else.

      You could also hire an office linebacker like Terry Tate, commie.
    • clickwir, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2That's exactly the case that hundreds of small/med companies face. It's more of a technical problem that has a simple solution than most people realize.
      It's simply that these unwork related sites are putting too much strain on the infrastructure.
    • cubicledrone, on 05/11/2008, -2/+0Work productivity goes up when workers are threatened with starvation too. If you don't treat your employees like professionals you will always employ unprofessional employees. Managers in 1960 had no problem with productivity, because they knew how to manage. Simple as that.
  • Netrilix, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8I'd say there's a huge difference between salary and hourly pay. If you're paid a salary and can get your work done within the allotted time frame, it's fine to spend a little personal time in between. But if you're paid by the hour, and spend some of those company hours doing personal things, you're directly hurting the company.
    • JointVenture, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Engineers get paid hourly.
      • korvan504521, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2not all of us. I put in 60 hours average a week for my salaried job.
        • JointVenture, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I know that, I was just making a point that not all "hourly" jobs are entry level, low paying etc.
    • cubicledrone, on 05/11/2008, -3/+1In other words, if you're a rat ***** lying cheat bald-headed management douchecannon, you're allowed to be a human being. If you actually do work, you're a piece of ***** and will be treated that way.

      The word you're looking for is "slavery."
      • issachar, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Let me guess. You get paid by the hour and haven't clued into the fact that if you're on a salary there's no such thing as "overtime".
      • docbob84, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Dude, being paid on an hourly basis is DEFINITELY the way to go. I bet you get to leave your job when you punch out, and don't have to worry about it until you punch in again the next day; if you're on a wage and do work at home, you're stupid, it's voluntary. But that is a luxury many of us do not have, some peoples' "workday" never really ends. There are many, MANY people out there that will tell you "if I only made minimum wage, I'd be rich!"
  • ingxia, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2not a surprise considering a co-worker-friend of mine was moved to a different location in the office presumably because we talked and were too good of friends (whenever I ask to move closer I only hear "it's very political" or "we're getting some consultants soon that are moving there" or "it's very expensive to move somebody" etc. Meanwhile empty cubes have sat around for 3-4 months and we're not hiring.
  • osbjmg, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Some companies have perks such as daycare, free drinks, etc... not sure why it has to be you work for the company 100% of the day. If I didn't have a work-sponsored gym (which they don't have to do) and lunch brought in once a week to make up for me having to work through lunch, I would likely leave. The free drinks make things nicer too. I am just making the point the company does what it wants to retain people and you do what you want to keep working there. You don't owe the company anything, and it doesn't owe you outside of paying you for getting your job done.
  • thenet411, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6One of the companies I consult for had open, unfettered access to all Internet sites for all employees. Then they installed a Barracuda Web Filter and started monitoring access prior to blocking anything. The reports generated by the web filter were astonishing. It had been assumed that their employees were professionals and did not visit sites that were inappropriate. Boy, were they wrong. They found multiple violations of their accepted use policy (which users agreed to each and every time they log in to their workstations) so they began to block most unacceptable sites for their "professional" employees and blocked Internet access all together for hourly employees. Even still, blocked attempts to access restricted sites continued by several "professional" employees who apparently didn't know that pipe traffic was logged. After a round of firings due to multiple violations of the accepted use policy, the access attempts stopped and their bandwidth and WAN link traffic plumeted. Leaving much more bandwidth available for remote applications and useful web surfing. I almost hate to say it but fear is a useful tool to keep employees in line.
    • ninepointfive, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Fear of terrorism also keeps the people in-line.
  • blankoboy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Shouldn't the company be using websense to block sites like this in the first place? Duh...
    • issachar, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0No, it's not the IT department's job to make you work. Our job is to make sure the network and PC's run properly. It's not our problem if an employee isn't working.
  • marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1I don't use facebook but I do go on AIM to talk with my friend while at work. I also go on IRC to chat as well as get technical stuff sorted out (programming related channels on freenode). Both IRC and AIM are not allowed protocols @ work so I simply ssh into my home box and use naim and irssi.
  • Kestral, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4If the company makes you take work home or think about the business during your time, then it's all fair game.
  • Fetttson, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1This doesn't really apply to me, since I work for a social networking company. :)
  • Boracho, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Dugg because I am using an SSH tunnel to access Digg and Facebook from work right now!
  • ArgusDrake, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I don't see IT as the solution to this problem. Ideally, your employees would have the work ethic to actually... do their work. Measuring employee productivity and acting accordingly is the more sensible solution. The only -real- problem with employees using the time at work for browsing social networking sites is the loss in productivity as they devote time away from their work to do these things. If, somehow, an employee is able to occasionally glance at Facebook or Digg or what have you, and still produce quality work at a greater rate than most, why should he be penalized?

    Of course, if by monitoring output the manager realizes that this person isn't productive, assuming there's any level of competition for his job, he will probably be replaced by someone who actually does their work. The bottom line is, the worker's habits and distractions don't matter to company profits, his output does.
  • IceX, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Work net should be used for work purposes.
  • superyounan1, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1why not just do what they're paying you to do
  • senatorpjt, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Sometimes there's downtime at work and it really sucks when you don't have internet access. Also, lunch breaks, etc - if I get a hour for lunch, what am I supposed to do with it? It doesn't take an hour to eat a sandwich, and it's not enough time to go anywhere. Also, there's the general feeling of being treated like a child by your employer. I don't use the "fun" internet very much at work, and I generally only do it when I need a break for a few minutes. If the internet weren't there, I'd just be staring at the wall, not working instead.
    Also, I have to digg the article for mentioning King Missile's "Take Stuff From Work.", even if the rest of it sucks. Haven't heard it in ages.
    • mogobufflo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Before the Internet, people found other ways to spend their down time. Read a paper, do a crossword, keep a book handy, or maybe even try having a conversation with another human being.
      • ecidnac, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Those aren't "other ways". We just do all of those things online now... And if those things were acceptable in then past, their modern equivalent should be acceptable now.
  • gravyboy, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Shouldn't companies be using things like Facebook as productivity enhancers - I could see Facebook being a quite good collaboration tool...

    The trick to managing people well is not forcing them into behaving a certain way but using the way that they act already to your advantage.
    • RyFo18, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1They're still gonna waste company time, and having facebook there for them to use even if the company is trying to benefit from it is terrible idea. Just ban it in the first place. Who really has to go on facebook while they are at work for 30 mins. I'm sorry that's a sad addiction if you really have to know what everyone else is doing while you are at work.
  • BenderFlexo, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Anyone find it curious that Microsoft is responsible for this article? Are they not in the market for Facebook?
  • Quaitemp, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1At work we are -encouraged- to join and use on-line communities like facebook, even during work hours.
    (BTW, we are hiring; http://www.opera.com/jobs )
  • mogobufflo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I suspect that the real problem here is the job itself. Most people would understand that going on these site on company time isn't acceptable. But the jobs people have these days, sitting in cubicles, staring at a screen all day and tethered to a phone, are so soul-sucking, degrading, and dull, and people are so alienated from each other, even when they sit next to them every day for years, that they need those sites to feel connected and human.
  • afclark, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Honeywell blocks it's employees to reach Digg.com because of Social Networking.
  • KaJuN4, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Does this mean you can get fired twice? Once for visiting those sites while on company time and fired again because your private life looks bad for the company?
  • Black6x, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Pepsi blocked Digg for a couple of days. I think they categorized it as a dating site. Who knew.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.