What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
This Game Sucks view!
threadless.com - Grab this epic gaming tee for only $12 during the Threadless Holiday Sale!
61 Comments
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29Any friends of mine that try to sue someone for something so stupid as "tech addiction", is going to get a BlackBerry to the head.
- thebeaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25I can't stop reading Digg! Kevin, you'll be hearing from my LAWYER.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Don't know if there was a lawsuit, but in Europe, Ipods have their max volume set at a lower level because of just that worry.
- stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Personal responsibility surrenders yet again!
- DrakeTheRedEye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13That is why devices such as those come standard with a power switch and volume adjustment. You have no reason to blame the electronics industry or any company in you field. It was YOU who chose your career.
- Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I think its pathetic when a person blames another for something they brought on to themselves, (overweight from McDonalds, "imitating violent video games", etc.).
But hey, thats America's judicial system for you - maklershed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12This is so ridiculous. You'd think professional workers would be able to take some responsible for their own life. I hope anyone that goes through with this gets counter-sued for wasting their employers time.
- cyclescott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Dugg, but I'll still won't believe it until I see it. I don't know if any lawsuit would have traction.
- maklershed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I of course meant to say responsibility. I'm going to sue digg.com because the spell check didnt catch that. (sarcasm)
- DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is sort of like overweight people suing McDonalds because "the foods made them fat". Luckily a case like that in Georgia was thrown out because McDonalds isn't responsible for what you put into your body, as long as they don't misrepresent the nutrition info. I believe something like this would be used in lawsuits because the companies that make the Blackberry and other devices aren't forcing them into people's hands.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I'd say the greater harm here is never being DISconnected from work... I don't know about the rest of you, but I enjoy knowing that going home means leaving work at work. I'm not obligated to carry a cell-phone or crackberry or laptop for work (I have a cell phone, reluctantly, but only because I have an hour commute, and I also have a laptop, but not provided by work... It's my portable PC gaming rig). There is work, and there is home. I will keep them seperate as long as I possibly can.
- Computer_Kid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Suing, the American dream!
- ZenFu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You never know. I remember reading about some idiot who sued Apple because he claimed iPods might damage his hearing..
- applerumors, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wow. You are right. I almost forgot I was fat! Now I get to sue Apple, Sony, Microsoft, TiVo, MacDonald's, Wendy's, Starbucks (Frappicinos have more calories than Big Macs), Ben and Jerry's, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, Comcast..... I'm gonna be a rich fat nerd!
Now, who do I sue about my Social Anxiety Disorder? I mean, I haven't been to a party in 10 years. That's got to be somebody's fault. I blame society. Can I sue society? - davejl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6its the company that the employee works for that this article is predicting the lawsuit will be against, not the maker of the device. slightly different since the company *is* forcing the employee to use the device. Doesn't make the lawsuit valid, but does get rid of the argument made by DoctaStooge.
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6A lot of companies demand that they can reach you anytime, especially if they are paying for the service. Techies are often hit hard because they are expected to be available in case a server goes down or some other unscheduled downtime occurs.
It's smart to refuse these devices, but if the company doesn't give you a choice then you should be compensated for it. It never hurts to ask for more pay and/or more vacation time to compensate you for making yourself available 24/7 and many companies are a lot more obliging that you may think.
The bottom line is that if you are "forced" to be available at all times then the company is responsible if and when you become addicted to the device. It would probably help your case if you have proof that you tried to refuse to take the device, such as an email exchange with your boss. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Can't they just admit that they're geeks? I hate people like this...
- digitaldivider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5this is just retarded. It's not the companies fault if you get addicted to a given device. It's called self control.
- inactive, on 12/26/2008, -3/+8>> I blame society. Can I sue society?
I blame Bush! - DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6let's also blame Budweiser, Coors, Samuel Adams, Beast, Milwaukee's Best, Fosters, etc. for Alcoholism.
let's also blame Marlboro, Lucky Strike, Virginia Slims, etc. for nicotine addictions. - jefbob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I hope you have to carry a blackberry for a week and get woken up at midnight because people wait till the last minute to do things and are having problems emailing a file to another office. Many people are being FORCED to carry blackberries (myself included) and respond to problems 24/7. It has gotten to the point where I am never not working. Leave the office at 5 and still have to help people figure out how to do things. Vacation days are simply "work at home" days for me.
While I see the point that is being made, I don't think it warrants lawsuits and I would see those lawsuits as frivolous, but I like the article for simply bringing attention to the issue. - ChronicColonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"These people that can't keep it within any reasonable parameters and have these problems in their lives, at some point may say, 'My life is not all that great. How did this happen? Who can I blame for this?'," Porter, who co-authored the study with two other academics, said in an interview. "And they're going to say, 'The company.'"
Always blaming someone else for your problems never solves the problem. Unfortunately, in the litigious society we live in, the "oh woe is me" crowd will get rich or make many lawyers rich by whining. STFU!!
I love technology as much as the next person. But if your not on call and your bothered by answering your e-mail after your shift is over, turn the technology off! There is an off switch for a reason. - Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, that's what I was thinking. If I were going to sue for anything, it definitely wouldn't be that I got addicted to the tech. It would be for requiring me to be wearing multiple balls-on-a-chain, like a prisoner, at all times -- and the emotional, mental, physical and spiritual drain that it is. I don't know if I'd have a case at all (probably not), but that would seem like a better bet than "I'm addicted to it."
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Addicted to circuitry and software? Has anyone actually defined such a thing in a court? It seems to me that 20 years ago, employees who had to constantly be on the phone might have had a similar case.
Now, if your employer is forcing you to play World of Warcraft... well, that would be an airtight case. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Exactly, I used to work down in DC at the IRS, and they offered me a paid for company Blackberry, I declined the offer. A lot of companies offer these devices to employees but they don't require that you have them (Heck it saves them money if you don't) but of course if you accept their offer they are going to take every adavantage they can get to keep "connected" to the office any way they can even when your off work.
- unibomber999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Previous to crackberries, this was called being a workaholic and was your own problem to deal with. Now our nation of victims wants to turn everything into an addiction.
Until you can prove that you can be "addicted" to a device, I think you'll have a hard time suing anybody.
If the company isn't forcing you to be reachable and isn't compensating your for it, but you can't stop yourself from sending and receiving email at all times of the day, then you're a giant douche and need to get a life. - cam18, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@headzoo
I think a laptop or a desktop tower would send a better message. - Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3yeah, but did he win the case?.....
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Surprisingly, the UK has a law that limits how much their employees can work a week, and they have a decent number more holidays than we do in the US (Bank holiday? What the crap is that?). I believe the limit is somewhere between 35 to 40 hours a week (I want to say it's less than 40... Help me out, British Digg users). Despite the fact that it potentially limits some very lucrative overtime wages/bonuses, people in the UK seem to get by pretty well. I wouldn't mind seeing similar legislation here in the US. The power of unions is steadily weakening here, and the explitation of the worker grows. What's interesting is that it used to be blue-collar work that was exploited, now white-collar jobs are seeing it more and more. It's very difficult to form a union in a white collar environment.
- espek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5When will American's learn to take responsibility for their own actions?...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You know what, I think most people here don't realize something very important. Your average company would pay you pennies and have you work 24-7 if they could get away with it.
They want high profit and low costs. If they can get away with not compensating their employees for all the work they do, they'll do it.
This is nothing new, btw, there was a reason why there was so much labor agitation earlier this century. Sure, it was probably worse then, but still, it happened. But I suppose history is lost on a lot of people. - Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Anyone who sues a company because of their own addiction needs to reassess their intelligence. Give us techies some credit.
- apocalizer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You blew it with the last sentence. Thanks for polluting Digg with commentary that makes no sense, you'll be hearing from my lawyer...
- roc69x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you don't like your job, offer suggestions. If they do not heed them, quit. The companies set the parameters for a job and it is your responsibilty to adhere to them. Why don't these tech addicts try manual labor, to see how easy they have it.
- simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How dillusional can people be, an onset of addiction is purly the reponsibility of those who lack self control. Yes, it may be in the human nature to not have control over addiction, but if it's inevitable how can we prevent it then anyway? Getting rid of technology? Good luck.
The deeper dillusion here aligns itself with alcohol, tobacco, driving, sports, fun and games. Everything we do repetatively as individuals has the potential to become addicting, the very nature of it is a product of how we learn in general. We percieve patterns, and easy patterns we repeat, addiction is the minds recursion. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Tell that to all the people who received pain medications and got addicted.
- missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Uhhh...no. No such thing as tech addiction. You could call it obsessiveness, or I'm-my-boss'-bitch-itis, but it's not an addiction. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Furthermore, if a job wanted me to work at home in addition the the office, they'd better be paying me some sweet overtime. You are not where you work; there's more to life than that. Companies need to stop overworking their employees. - quoigonfishin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm a digg junkie.
Mr. Rose my attorney will be in touch ;) - shakeyshakey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's hard for someone unplug, i mean the internet has so many tubes to explore!
- miguel077, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Only in the USA. Ahhh, our beautiful sueing culture...
- stryker2you, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@doc...
Don't forget Trojan....after all the condom broke and now society has to deal with these people who want to sue for everything. - Cerebral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think that there is a real problem that is underlying here. I am not a doctor, nurse or the President of the United States of America. I have a Blackberry and am required to have it on my person at all times... 24x7, weekends, holidays you name it... oh yea vacation as well. I do not make one dime extra when I have to escape from dinner for a half an hour because Joe User can't seem to find his documents on the server that he moved yesterday to where... he doesn't remember. My personal life can be intruded upon by my employer at any given moment and guess what... I have no choice. Sure I have a choice not to work here but look at the economy, it's not like I can get a job anywhere I want to. Obviously you can tell that I am in network management and support and there is no concept of what is an EMERGENCY. I also live in FL which, for those of you who do not live here, means that at any time my company can fire me (now if I can prove malice towards my firing then I can maybe get some money in court but the fees alone would not be worth it).
So the question (which I think this article should really be about) is at what point in time does society decide that Business have gone too far? I know of companies that require you to give them your cell phone number no matter what. It is not enough that they only have your land line.
And to all the nay sayers that are going to say that I knew what I was getting into etc... we just recently within the past year have aquired these blackberries and before that there were only cell phones for emergencies.
I hope that someone does SUE... and when the presidence has been set... I'm not too far behind. - BiGSexY420, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A lawsuit like this won't happen until some starts shooting up the office because their crackberry was taken away for the weekend. Until office shootings rise these lawsuits will be thrown out, hopefully.
- DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1most companies give employees a choice to use these technologies. so in that case, my argument is not out of the question. however, if a company requires that people use a device to have a constant way of reaching you, then yes, my argument would then become invalid.
and yes, the article talks about the companies that employee the people, and not RIM or other companies like them, my mistake. - xxdesmus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would love to see someone try to sue for this.
It's absolutely pathetic. It is sad that people today cannot be held responsible for anything they do. Everyone just has to find a way to blame someone else for their problems. Suck it, grow a backbone, admit that something is your fault and fix it.
It's your own damn fault if you're too stupid to never turn off your cellphone/blackberry. - chrisek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good point.
- Cerebral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@maklershed
Bad joke... you did spell it right... you used the wrong word which is grammar. - Cerebral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ahh but in my case just like others if I use the OFF switch I can easily be FIRED!
and I am not addicted to my BB. It does a lot of wonderful things but I'd prefer to have a laptop. - Cerebral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not if you were playing in a WOW sweatshop in china!
- unitedstatians, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1a U.S. academic? what does that mean?
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is