«

"Leythos" <> wrote in message
news: m...


> Bob, we work for many companies all over the USA. While most all of them
> have AUP's and other rules in place, the managers could not do their
> jobs if they sat on top of all employees all the time, it's just not
> possible to monitor suspected abusive employees and still get their own
> work done.
>
> Monitoring is a very good thing - it keeps productivity up, keeps morale
> up, and it also spots abuses by employees that can lead to compromised
> networks, sexual harassment, loss of intellectual/company data, loss of
> productivity, loss of morale, etc...
>
> As an example:
>
> Large company (at least for us), 140 users, two shifts, spread out
> across large building with many people isolated from others.
>
> Company had determined that they needed a third shift in order to meet
> current requirements.
>
> We had been telling them that the email and surfing being done by the
> employees was far beyond abuse of company policy and that we believed
> they didn't need a third shift to meet their needs.
>
> They agreed to let us install Web (HTTP/HTTPS) filtering, blocking of
> non-Business necessary sites, filtering and blocking of email, and
> limiting email (external) to only those that required external email for
> business needs.
>
> Yes, there was a lot of complaining, most of it was from the people that
> felt the company OWED them the right to surf and email friends/personal
> contact. Yes, there was about 2 days of getting the filters properly in
> place to allow all BUSINESS functions, but most of it was ready the day
> we implemented it.
>
> The factual reporting of abuse showed that more than 40% of the staff
> was spending more than 1 hour per day, beyond Lunch/Breaks, on non-
> business related email/surfing tasks. The factual reporting also showed
> that 5 employees were spending more then 6 hours per day on non-business
> related email/surfing tasks.
>
> All abusers were monitored for two weeks, all events recorded. At the
> end of two weeks all abusers were confronted by upper management and
> given the proof of their abuse, none were fired.
>
> For the first two weeks (apx), all but 2 kept their abuses to just
> lunch/breaks, then, over a period of 2 more weeks, the abuse started
> creeping into business hours and more and more time - instead of 40%, it
> was about 20%, the 5 serious abusers were fully back at it again.
>
> During a single holiday break, one person sent (yes, sent) more than 800
> emails to three people in a single shift - they were suppose to be
> processing orders that take several minutes to process.... Needless to
> say, the following shift was swamped.
>
> The 5 were presented proof of their abuse again, fired, unemployment
> denied. The rumors go around, since they were no longer there, and the
> abuse stopped for about a month, then, instead of 40%, about 10%
> returned to abusing the policy - another round of firings was done.
>
> At this time the company is operating on two shifts, has excess capacity
> without the third shift they didn't need, and overall productivity has
> increased more than 30 real percent, morale has increased with employee
> comments showing that people were really impacted by the failure of
> management to force people to do their work, forcing others to carry the
> abusers load....
>
> We've seen this say situation played out across the country - and the
> Abusive employees always claim they have a RIGHT to check personal
> email, contact friends/family at lunch/breaks, but they spill over into
> business hours, etc...
>
> If you want to do personal things then do them outside company
> hours/resources.





The word 'abuse' (and its derivatives) appears a total of 15 times in your
comment. Each time you use it to refer to the actions of employees and not
once to the potential abuses of management upon their employees by
installing such technology.

The number one abuser in the workplace has always been (and probably always
will be) management itself. So unfortunately your phraseology reflects a
biased perspective, since you earn your income from enforcing such Draconian
measures in the companies you visit.

Technology that you may help to implement for one purpose (rooting out the
'over-surfers') can easily be flipped and used for far more invasive
purposes (eg spying on + stifling the freedom of the innocent surfer).

Ok you can wash your hands of that, count your paycheck, and say 'well we
only installed for that one particular intention'. In reality you would bear
some of the responsibility for its subsequent use, be that good or evil,
since you had the moral choice to either accept or reject such a project.


--
Jon

Just Say No
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EehZHNvLJuo

"the wharf rat" <> wrote in message
news:gud6k5$3t0$...
> In article <>,

> IMHO you've (all) got this sort of backwards. Nobody does stuff
> like this just because they want to snoop, or because they want you to
> KNOW
> you're being watched. The only time anyone goes through all this trouble
> is because they feel that it's what they need to do to ensure information
> security. That's a management decision and a management responsibilty,
> and as an employee it's both rude and counterproductive to sit there and
> mutter about fascists. You knew what the deal was when you signed up,
> right?
>

This isn't the likely scenario. Here we probably have 25 happily-working
employees who will arrive at work one day to have their boss announce that
from that day onwards they will be spied upon. I would doubt very much if a
single one of them were told at their recruitment interviews

'Oh, and by the way exactly one year into your employment we'll start
spying on your surfing habits. I hope you agree? If so, sign here.'

No, Mr Boss will come out of his secluded little office one day and announce
to all and sundry that that is just the way it is and that if they don't
like it then the door is thatta way

<-----


with perhaps a few strategically positioned newspapers around the office
headlining the world's financial crisis to help Mr Joe / Miss Jill "heavily
in credit card debt" Worker to make their decisions.


> It's like going to a nudist camp (excuse me I mean a clothes free
> resort . You KNOW there's going to be naked people and you KNOW you're
> going to have to undress so wouldn't it be pretty silly to voluntarily
> sign
> up and then complain that naked guys are looking at your legs?
>




I think it's more like turning up at a standard holiday camp and the camp
leader suddenly announcing that the camp rules have changed; that in the
interests of greater transparency and to ensure that attendees can have
nothing to hide, from now on no clothes will be permitted - all except for
the camp leader who somehow still manages to remains fully clothed.




--
Jon

Just Say No
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EehZHNvLJuo

What a load of crap!


--
Windows 7 RC
http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview
http://download.live.com/wlmail


"Jon" <> wrote in message
news:#...
>
> "Leythos" <> wrote in message
> news: m...
>
>
>> Bob, we work for many companies all over the USA. While most all of them
>> have AUP's and other rules in place, the managers could not do their
>> jobs if they sat on top of all employees all the time, it's just not
>> possible to monitor suspected abusive employees and still get their own
>> work done.
>>
>> Monitoring is a very good thing - it keeps productivity up, keeps morale
>> up, and it also spots abuses by employees that can lead to compromised
>> networks, sexual harassment, loss of intellectual/company data, loss of
>> productivity, loss of morale, etc...
>>
>> As an example:
>>
>> Large company (at least for us), 140 users, two shifts, spread out
>> across large building with many people isolated from others.
>>
>> Company had determined that they needed a third shift in order to meet
>> current requirements.
>>
>> We had been telling them that the email and surfing being done by the
>> employees was far beyond abuse of company policy and that we believed
>> they didn't need a third shift to meet their needs.
>>
>> They agreed to let us install Web (HTTP/HTTPS) filtering, blocking of
>> non-Business necessary sites, filtering and blocking of email, and
>> limiting email (external) to only those that required external email for
>> business needs.
>>
>> Yes, there was a lot of complaining, most of it was from the people that
>> felt the company OWED them the right to surf and email friends/personal
>> contact. Yes, there was about 2 days of getting the filters properly in
>> place to allow all BUSINESS functions, but most of it was ready the day
>> we implemented it.
>>
>> The factual reporting of abuse showed that more than 40% of the staff
>> was spending more than 1 hour per day, beyond Lunch/Breaks, on non-
>> business related email/surfing tasks. The factual reporting also showed
>> that 5 employees were spending more then 6 hours per day on non-business
>> related email/surfing tasks.
>>
>> All abusers were monitored for two weeks, all events recorded. At the
>> end of two weeks all abusers were confronted by upper management and
>> given the proof of their abuse, none were fired.
>>
>> For the first two weeks (apx), all but 2 kept their abuses to just
>> lunch/breaks, then, over a period of 2 more weeks, the abuse started
>> creeping into business hours and more and more time - instead of 40%, it
>> was about 20%, the 5 serious abusers were fully back at it again.
>>
>> During a single holiday break, one person sent (yes, sent) more than 800
>> emails to three people in a single shift - they were suppose to be
>> processing orders that take several minutes to process.... Needless to
>> say, the following shift was swamped.
>>
>> The 5 were presented proof of their abuse again, fired, unemployment
>> denied. The rumors go around, since they were no longer there, and the
>> abuse stopped for about a month, then, instead of 40%, about 10%
>> returned to abusing the policy - another round of firings was done.
>>
>> At this time the company is operating on two shifts, has excess capacity
>> without the third shift they didn't need, and overall productivity has
>> increased more than 30 real percent, morale has increased with employee
>> comments showing that people were really impacted by the failure of
>> management to force people to do their work, forcing others to carry the
>> abusers load....
>>
>> We've seen this say situation played out across the country - and the
>> Abusive employees always claim they have a RIGHT to check personal
>> email, contact friends/family at lunch/breaks, but they spill over into
>> business hours, etc...
>>
>> If you want to do personal things then do them outside company
>> hours/resources.
>
>
>
>
>
> The word 'abuse' (and its derivatives) appears a total of 15 times in your
> comment. Each time you use it to refer to the actions of employees and not
> once to the potential abuses of management upon their employees by
> installing such technology.
>
> The number one abuser in the workplace has always been (and probably
> always will be) management itself. So unfortunately your phraseology
> reflects a biased perspective, since you earn your income from enforcing
> such Draconian measures in the companies you visit.
>
> Technology that you may help to implement for one purpose (rooting out the
> 'over-surfers') can easily be flipped and used for far more invasive
> purposes (eg spying on + stifling the freedom of the innocent surfer).
>
> Ok you can wash your hands of that, count your paycheck, and say 'well we
> only installed for that one particular intention'. In reality you would
> bear some of the responsibility for its subsequent use, be that good or
> evil, since you had the moral choice to either accept or reject such a
> project.
>
>
> --
> Jon
>
> Just Say No
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EehZHNvLJuo
>
>
>
>
>

In article <>,
says...
> The long term effect on the workplace has been ignored.
> ex. As just one data point, the effects on growing employees and
> stifling creativity on the overall business has been ignored.
>

You are very wrong, having done this for decades myself.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(remove 999 for proper email address)

Just guessing,...but maybe Jon and Bob have been fired a time or two over
abusing their usage rights and just have a chip on their shoulder. This
whole theory X & Y thing is just psycho-babble to me. I live in the real
world, and in the real world, people will do whatever they think they can
get away with.

Just my opinion....


--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

"Dave" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> What a load of crap!
>


Able to elaborate, or are you restricted to 5 word comments by the
authorities?

--
Jon

Just Say No
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EehZHNvLJuo

In article <#>,
says...
> The word 'abuse' (and its derivatives) appears a total of 15 times in your
> comment. Each time you use it to refer to the actions of employees and not
> once to the potential abuses of management upon their employees by
> installing such technology.
>

And it would appear, (sorry, I snipped the rest of your post since your
bent can be derived from the part I quoted) that you are an employee
level and not a business owner or manager.

You should adopt the ethical and honest concept as follows:

1) Employees are paid to Work.

2) Employees USE company resources for BUSINESS as permitted by the
BUSINESS.

3) Employees have no natural right to personal anything, not email, not
phone calls, not surfing, not games, etc.... unless their position
clearly permits it.

4) People do not have to apply for any job where they don't agree with
the company policy.

5) Employees "surfing" during business hours are stealing real money
from the company by loss of productivity and decreasing the availability
of network resources for business needs.

6) Employees surfing and private emails are one of the most common
threats to network security in any company.

The problem with people like you, where you believe the employee has
rights that permit abusing the company policy, wher you believe you are
entitled to email and surfing access, is that you're wrong in the USA at
least. If you can't work for 8 hours then don't take the job.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(remove 999 for proper email address)

"Phillip Windell" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Just guessing,...but maybe Jon and Bob have been fired a time or two over
> abusing their usage rights and just have a chip on their shoulder. This
> whole theory X & Y thing is just psycho-babble to me. I live in the real
> world, and in the real world, people will do whatever they think they can
> get away with.
>
> Just my opinion....
>
>
> --
> Phillip Windell
> www.wandtv.com



FWIW I've never been fired once.


Working for Wand-TV your vested interests are clear in perpetuating the myth
of the suspicious "could-be-a-crook" employee that you in the
corporate-controlled media are paid to exploit on a daily basis.


--
Jon

Just Say No
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EehZHNvLJuo

In article <#>,
says...
> This isn't the likely scenario. Here we probably have 25 happily-working
> employees who will arrive at work one day to have their boss announce that
> from that day onwards they will be spied upon. I would doubt very much if a
> single one of them were told at their recruitment interviews
>
> 'Oh, and by the way exactly one year into your employment we'll start
> spying on your surfing habits. I hope you agree? If so, sign here.'
>
> No, Mr Boss will come out of his secluded little office one day and announce
> to all and sundry that that is just the way it is and that if they don't
> like it then the door is thatta way
>

You are able to leave, if you don't agree.

In the USA, you have no right to privacy when using Company Phones or
Networks, so, even without a written policy they can monitor all
connections.

If you've got nothing to hide then you've got no problems.

If you want to work for a company that does everything the way you want
it, allows all the abuse of company resources, costs the company money
for your personal freedom, then start your own company and watch it
fail.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(remove 999 for proper email address)

In article <#>,
says...
>
> Just guessing,...but maybe Jon and Bob have been fired a time or two over
> abusing their usage rights and just have a chip on their shoulder. This
> whole theory X & Y thing is just psycho-babble to me. I live in the real
> world, and in the real world, people will do whatever they think they can
> get away with.
>
> Just my opinion....

That was my impression also.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(remove 999 for proper email address)