At 12:41 20/09/00 -0500, Noonan, Wesley wrote:
>I suspect that view is largely due to the fact that the company, not the
>employee, buys the computer. IOW, it is the companies "personal computer",
>not the employees... but I could be wrong...
>
>I guess I'll take the unpopular view. I agree wholeheartedly. I didn't buy
>the computer, so I have no rights to it. If the company wants to run SMS
>against it, monitor it, etc. more power to them. It's theirs anyway.
>
>My PC is at my house, where it belongs. They want me to work from my house,
>they give me a computer to do so. It works both ways. :)
I'm not gainst in the absolute. but just look at this: if my boss decides
to "keep" what
is his, then I'll do the same: I'll "keep" my time, I'll quit at 5PM, and
when I'm asked
to evaluate any task, I'll maximize the cost, and so on. but sincerely, I
prefer to quit
the company. there are too many posts available these days. In other words, I
prefer to work in a "trust" environment, where people are believed honest
and good
unless there is proof against that. to say it, I prefer "self control" over
"surf control".
>If you mean at work, I can only assume you have not worked for a company who
>has been sued (successfully) for sexual harassment as a result of people
>surfing for sexually explicit content. What goes on at home is no ones
>business, but at work, the company - not the employee - is held responsible
>in the courts for such actions, or at least that is how it works in the US.
true, but it was intending the "productivity control" context, not the
legal/reputation
side (which I volontarily avoided in my original message). so, when I say
"I prefer
them to be produtive watching porn", I mean from a productivity viewpoint.
note that
you can be pursued for sexual harassment if the content is sent by email,
which is
just another problem!
cheers,
mouss
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
