-----Original Message-----
From: mouss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 13:31
To: Noonan, Wesley; 'mimo'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: blcking sites
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".
I agree that self control should be the basis. That said, if they (the
company) wants to audit logs, run SMS, etc. It doesn't really bother me - as
long as it doesn't interfere with my ability to do my job. The company is
irresponsible, IMHO, if they don't do that. Look at it from this view. In
the middle of a lawsuit, a company needs to be able to say "yes, we made
every reasonable effort to provide a safe work enviroment".
For example, as my sig indicates, I do QA work. The company I work for uses
SMS for many and various things. Unfortunately, the SMS policies interfere
with some of the testing we need to do. As a result, they (IT) don't run SMS
on our (QA) boxes, however, we all sign agreements in addition to the normal
stuff, saying we aren't going to do things we shouldn't (and much of that is
left up to our good judgment). To me, this is the right way to handle it. As
long as the employees ability to effectively do their job is not hampered,
the policy is fine. Too many companies implement policies and procedures
that interfere with productivity. That is where it gets out of whack.
>From the stance of "returning the favor" to one's employer (i.e. you monitor
me, I won't put forth any extra effort or initiative), to me, that is
cutting off one's nose despite ones face.
>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!
And in that context (productivity), I happen to agree. A company I worked
for was on the receiving end of one of those complaints though, and I just
wanted to point that out. A company will (there is no maybe here) lose that
fight in the US courts if they have not gone the extra mile to keep such
happenings from occurring, and if they do occur, punish (read fire) the
employee responsible.
Take it easy.
Wes
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
