Sacked for using ebay at work? It's your employer's fault!

[tkingdoll]

Or so claim the idiot union officials at Neath Port Talbot council, in response to nine workers losing their jobs for using ebay for up to two hours a day in work time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7005703.stm

This quote staggered me:

Quote:

Union officials have blamed bosses for "putting temptation in their way" - by allowing access to the internet.

I'm sorry...what? So if someone was sacked because they spent all day drawing doodles and making paper aeroplanes, is it the company's fault for providing paper?

CLEARLY the internet is provided for work use in work time and for personal use during breaks. CLEARLY there is a company policy stating this. Every local council has one. CLEARLY these employees were just taking the piss and CLEARLY these idiot union officials have no concept of personal responsibility and work ethic.

Hey, the supermarket employee who was sacked for zooming around the car park in a trolley should blame his employer for providing such a temptation. Everyone knows trolleys are fun! wheeee!

This makes me mad. I hate what unions have become.

Talking of which, is anyone going to clue the Royal Mail union that their actions are going to lose their members more jobs than the proposed cuts would? My hubby works for the competition and the amount of new business he's gained as a direct result of the strikes is staggering.

[kittynh]

WHOA!!!

I remember one of my husbands first jobs was computer security. It was frankly amazing how many people trolled porn and spelled out plans of affairs and even tax cheating and lying on company expense accounts... right on line.

Back then, a lot of people didn't understand that the computer saves everything, and that where you visit can be tracked.

The company was clear, anything you write or anyplace you visit... the company can SEE.

[Alareth]

RadioShack has a publicly available internet terminal in most stores. A few years ago, after the systems were first installed there was a memo advising us to discouarge customers from accessing e-mail and private information on them because it was monitored and not secure.

Once when I tried warning a customer of this, and he proceeded to do it anyway and threatened to sue us if we read his mail.

I find people generally are not capable of graping the concept of private intranet/internet. It's the same people that scream about the First Amendment and freedom of speech on a privately owned forum.

[tkingdoll]

Originally Posted by Alareth

I find people generally are not capable of graping the concept of private intranet/internet. It's the same people that scream about the First Amendment and freedom of speech on a privately owned forum.

But most people are capable of grasping the concept 'don't shop on your employer's time', or even 'don't bite the hand that feeds you'.

These people deserved to lose their jobs. They deserve to be sued for the wasted man hours, too, but that never happens. Not even sure if it's possible.

[Jimbo07]

Don't post at JREF on company time!

Seriously.

I don't know what it is about employees. There must be more going on. If a person completes their work on-time, and the work is of sufficient quality, and company privacy policy is not violated, (whew) and nothing is done to embarrass the company, people should be allowed to do what they want, be it:
- keeping a web browser open
- doodling
- spinning in their chair
- going for coffee
- taking long lunches

It's all about results, as far as I'm concerned. Worse than using eBay, I'd bet, was that they were lousy employees. Of course, it's not the union's mandate to admit this...

[tkingdoll]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Don't post at JREF on company time!

Seriously.

I don't know what it is about employees. There must be more going on. If a person completes their work on-time, and the work is of sufficient quality, and company privacy policy is not violated, (whew) and nothing is done to embarrass the company, people should be allowed to do what they want, be it:
- keeping a web browser open
- doodling
- spinning in their chair
- going for coffee
- taking long lunches

It's all about results, as far as I'm concerned. Worse than using eBay, I'd bet, was that they were lousy employees. Of course, it's not the union's mandate to admit this...

I own the company

Yes, you can be sure that if the best performing person in the company was using eBay for two hours a day, they'd find a reason to give her a warning instead of the sack. (Titter, see what I did there?). But it's rare that a brilliantly-performing employee slacks off for two hours a day. It's also extremely important to realise what impact the slacker has on other, perhaps less brilliantly-performing employees. Most offices just can't get away with saying "this person is allowed to look at eBay during working time but you are not because you are a slower typist and it takes you ages to get anything done".

I think the scenario you describe is what most businesses allow, within reason. However, local councils have strict internet use policies that employees agree to as part of their contract and this was simply in breach of that.

ETA: I've just remembered something that happened many years ago. I worked for a large media company in a huge open office of about 400 people, and was the best-performing member of the marketing team, often working over to finish tight projects when others were jobsworths about it. I didn't mind, I am a workhorse. Anyway, even if I'd left at 9pm the previous evening, my manager would give me grief if I was late the next day. When I questioned her about what seemed like an unfair policy, she said "the other 400 members of staff don't see you leaving late. They see you arriving late."

I thought she had an excellent point.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

But it's rare that a brilliantly-performing employee slacks off for two hours a day.

It's hard to say. How much time is lost by keeping a browser open? How much time is lost on "informal" coffee breaks? On re-work? Even a top performer will lose bits and pieces of the day. My question is: how did they measure time lost?

Quote:

It's also extremely important to realise what impact the slacker has on other, perhaps less brilliantly-performing employees. Most offices just can't get away with saying "this person is allowed to look at eBay during working time but you are not because you are a slower typist and it takes you ages to get anything done".

It also depends on the type of job, and office, I suppose. I'm an engineer, and like Dilbert I feel justified in asking, "can I charge for time I spent thinking about the project in the shower?" Of course not. Likewise, my immediate superiors don't dissuade me from keeping a browser window open. The quality of my work doesn't suffer.

Quote:

I think the scenario you describe is what most businesses allow, within reason.

Yes. That's why the also have usage guidelines and content filters. The idea is more to prevent the company from being embarrassed.

Quote:

However, local councils have strict internet use policies that employees agree to as part of their contract and this was simply in breach of that.

After a highly inappropriate email was sent at a company I worked at, the knee-jerk senior management response was, "No personal emails. Ever." I agree that one should abide by the usage policy, while keeping in mind that some tend to be abusive (esp. government agencies (where I've worked, as well)).

Quote:

"the other 400 members of staff don't see you leaving late. They see you arriving late."

I thought she had an excellent point.

I agree. There's office politics, and other time wasters that I've pointed out. I just think there's a little more to the story, is all...

ETA: Yes I saw it... clever girl...

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Yes, you can be sure that if the best performing person in the company was using eBay for two hours a day, they'd find a reason to give her a warning instead of the sack. (Titter, see what I did there?). But it's rare that a brilliantly-performing employee slacks off for two hours a day. It's also extremely important to realise what impact the slacker has on other, perhaps less brilliantly-performing employees. Most offices just can't get away with saying "this person is allowed to look at eBay during working time but you are not because you are a slower typist and it takes you ages to get anything done".

Isn't this the difference between a (monthly) salary and an (hourly) wage?

I haven't been a wage-employee in a long time; my job is the sort of thing that it doesn't make sense to divide into two hour chunks. I have a fixed set of time commitments (classes I need to teach) and a much more flexible set of research/service committments (I need to get X journal articles out every Y years). So if I decided that I was not going to write a line of research or read anything that didn't have word bubbles for six months straight, that doesn't directly impact my productivity.

Two hours on Ebay is nothing.

But more generally, even when I was on wages, I typically had a fixed target -- I need to assemble X widgets in Y hours. If I could do that in Y-2 hours, the other two hours were (as I saw it) mine as I saw fit. Isn't that what all those Work smarter, not harder motivational posters mean?

It really does sound like at least partially bad management to me. If the people are getting "enough" work done, it shouldn't matter if they're reading Ebay, smoking on the stoop, or taking two-hour lunch breaks. If management can't accept that, and management simply demands that they work at full speed all the time -- well, that's just asking for burnout and slacking off. If the job is vaguely enough defined that management can't measure their output, then management should come up with a better evaluation scheme.

[tkingdoll]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Isn't this the difference between a (monthly) salary and an (hourly) wage?

I haven't been a wage-employee in a long time; my job is the sort of thing that it doesn't make sense to divide into two hour chunks. I have a fixed set of time commitments (classes I need to teach) and a much more flexible set of research/service committments (I need to get X journal articles out every Y years). So if I decided that I was not going to write a line of research or read anything that didn't have word bubbles for six months straight, that doesn't directly impact my productivity.

Two hours on Ebay is nothing.

But more generally, even when I was on wages, I typically had a fixed target -- I need to assemble X widgets in Y hours. If I could do that in Y-2 hours, the other two hours were (as I saw it) mine as I saw fit. Isn't that what all those Work smarter, not harder motivational posters mean?

It really does sound like at least partially bad management to me. If the people are getting "enough" work done, it shouldn't matter if they're reading Ebay, smoking on the stoop, or taking two-hour lunch breaks. If management can't accept that, and management simply demands that they work at full speed all the time -- well, that's just asking for burnout and slacking off. If the job is vaguely enough defined that management can't measure their output, then management should come up with a better evaluation scheme.

So you agree with the union official who said it's the employer's fault for putting temptation in their way?

I'd be interested to know if that union official would give the same defence for a sweet shop worker who was sacked for eating the stock.

If a member of my staff spent two hours a day on eBay instead of working I'd sack them without a moment's hesitation. If they tried to say it was my fault for providing net access in the first place, I'd wonder why I was ever dumb enough to hire someone with that bad a work ethic.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by drkitten

It really does sound like at least partially bad management to me. If the people are getting "enough" work done, it shouldn't matter if they're reading Ebay, smoking on the stoop, or taking two-hour lunch breaks. If management can't accept that, and management simply demands that they work at full speed all the time -- well, that's just asking for burnout and slacking off. If the job is vaguely enough defined that management can't measure their output, then management should come up with a better evaluation scheme.

Yes, but this is how some union shops are run. Put the chickens on the line for 8 hours. Don't do anything else. Again, it depends on the type of work being done, and the culture in which it's done.

I don't agree with what the union was saying, but it was probably doing its job. It's like a defence lawyer in that respect. Yes, you know the person is guilty, but it is not your job to determine guilt. Union and legal defences can get wonky...

[J_E_R]

Originally Posted by drkitten

It really does sound like at least partially bad management to me. If the people are getting "enough" work done, it shouldn't matter if they're reading Ebay, smoking on the stoop, or taking two-hour lunch breaks. If management can't accept that, and management simply demands that they work at full speed all the time -- well, that's just asking for burnout and slacking off. If the job is vaguely enough defined that management can't measure their output, then management should come up with a better evaluation scheme.

Why not just cut their hours down then? What is the point of paying someone for two hours of nothing when you can just send them home?

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think anyone says that the union's excuse is not full of crap. But as for if being on the internet for 2 hours in one day is wrong, well it depends on the job. Was there work for the person to do at the time they where on the internet? Is the person getting their job done?

Why is this worse than spending 2 hours in a meeting that accomplishes nothing useful for anyone?

THere are jobs that reading novels at work can be fine, or even sleeping. It depends on if there is work that the person is avoiding or not.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

ETA: I've just remembered something that happened many years ago. I worked for a large media company in a huge open office of about 400 people, and was the best-performing member of the marketing team, often working over to finish tight projects when others were jobsworths about it. I didn't mind, I am a workhorse. Anyway, even if I'd left at 9pm the previous evening, my manager would give me grief if I was late the next day. When I questioned her about what seemed like an unfair policy, she said "the other 400 members of staff don't see you leaving late. They see you arriving late."

I thought she had an excellent point.

I think she's completely wrong. She's saying that the feebleminded complaints of slackers and deadweights counts more than you and your performance.

I get snide comments from my coworkers because I leave at 3 in the afternoon. They're not there when I get in at 6 a.m., though. They don't notice when I don't take lunch, or that I never take my two permitted 15 minute breaks. And they certainly aren't around on Saturdays and Sundays when I come in to get more work done, or when I work a fifteen hour day once a month to get the financial close done.

If my boss minded what those people said, she would be stuck trying to convince one of them to do my job because I'd be gone. She knows that the way to keep good workers in the company and keep their work good is to not pay more attention to the bad workers' whinings than to the good workers' results.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

and CLEARLY these idiot union officials have no concept of personal responsibility and work ethic.

or not, it is part of their job to defend their members, in much the same way that a private lawer would. If a lawers were making this argument would you say that the lawer did not understand personal responsiility?

For the public sector at large union memebrship is pretty much just legal insurance.

[BrianSI]

... and that's what's wrong with unions and lawyers.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by J_E_R

Why not just cut their hours down then? What is the point of paying someone for two hours of nothing when you can just send them home?

In a well-managed shop, lots of reasons. Any sensible manager wants to have a little bit of excess capacity in reserve, against the inevitable peak in the workload or sudden illness that knocks out one of your workers. One of the reasons the US airline network is breaking down is because costs and capacity have been cut so far that there is NO excess capacity in the system. As a result, almost any minor delay ends up propagating and delaying thousands or tens of thousands of passengers....

[tkingdoll]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I think she's completely wrong. She's saying that the feebleminded complaints of slackers and deadweights counts more than you and your performance.

I get snide comments from my coworkers because I leave at 3 in the afternoon. They're not there when I get in at 6 a.m., though. They don't notice when I don't take lunch, or that I never take my two permitted 15 minute breaks. And they certainly aren't around on Saturdays and Sundays when I come in to get more work done, or when I work a fifteen hour day once a month to get the financial close done.

If my boss minded what those people said, she would be stuck trying to convince one of them to do my job because I'd be gone. She knows that the way to keep good workers in the company and keep their work good is to not pay more attention to the bad workers' whinings than to the good workers' results.

It's not the whining, it's the copying. If one person is allowed to work flexible hours, then everyone has to be. And as the company did not have a flexi-time policy, but each employee signed up to work contracted hours (9am to 5:30pm), a manager would struggle to discipline a late worker if a colleague is allowed to be late without being disciplined.

Basically, breaching your contract (e.g. by being late) is a discipliniary matter and that has to be applied fairly consistently. Whether I choose to work past 5:30pm was up to me, but I'd signed a contract to be there at 9am same as everyone else.

[TragicMonkey]

You mean your coworkers, if they saw someone else do something wrong, would rush to copy that behavior because they thought they could get away with it?

Argh. So would mine. It's amazing how much an office full of adults is like a kindergarten. "But Judy came in five minutes late!" "Someone ate my lunch from the fridge!" "Well, Mary gets to wear flip-flops!" "Carl didn't cover his tattoo all the way!" "I can wear as much perfume as I want!" "I don't want to make trouble, but Joan's skirt is very short and she looks slutty so I thought you should know."

It's really, really depressing sometimes when I realize that I (I!!!!) am one of the most mature, responsible, professional adults in my place of work.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by BrianSI

... and that's what's wrong with unions and lawyers.

And the only thing worse than unions and lawyers? Not having unions and lawyers.

[tkingdoll]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

You mean your coworkers, if they saw someone else do something wrong, would rush to copy that behavior because they thought they could get away with it?

Argh. So would mine. It's amazing how much an office full of adults is like a kindergarten. "But Judy came in five minutes late!" "Someone ate my lunch from the fridge!" "Well, Mary gets to wear flip-flops!" "Carl didn't cover his tattoo all the way!" "I can wear as much perfume as I want!" "I don't want to make trouble, but Joan's skirt is very short and she looks slutty so I thought you should know."

It's really, really depressing sometimes when I realize that I (I!!!!) am one of the most mature, responsible, professional adults in my place of work.

Yes, which is one of the reasons why I now work for myself. Large offices are insane.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by drkitten

I haven't been a wage-employee in a long time; my job is the sort of thing that it doesn't make sense to divide into two hour chunks. I have a fixed set of time commitments (classes I need to teach) and a much more flexible set of research/service committments (I need to get X journal articles out every Y years). So if I decided that I was not going to write a line of research or read anything that didn't have word bubbles for six months straight, that doesn't directly impact my productivity.

Two hours on Ebay is nothing.

But more generally, even when I was on wages, I typically had a fixed target -- I need to assemble X widgets in Y hours. If I could do that in Y-2 hours, the other two hours were (as I saw it) mine as I saw fit. Isn't that what all those Work smarter, not harder motivational posters mean?

It really does sound like at least partially bad management to me. If the people are getting "enough" work done, it shouldn't matter if they're reading Ebay, smoking on the stoop, or taking two-hour lunch breaks. If management can't accept that, and management simply demands that they work at full speed all the time -- well, that's just asking for burnout and slacking off. If the job is vaguely enough defined that management can't measure their output, then management should come up with a better evaluation scheme.

An intelligent manager considers the *results* first. Of course, if your job is to answer the phone and provide tech support, and you spend 2 hours on eBay instead of doing that, it's a problem. But if your job is to hand over a project with a certain deadline, well, why should anyone care how you got to it.

I heard that in Japan, the number of hours worked is very important to employers, and so everyone stays late, but there's a lot of slacking off. Go figure.

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

So you agree with the union official who said it's the employer's fault for putting temptation in their way?

What? That's not at all what she said. Read again.

Quote:

If a member of my staff spent two hours a day on eBay instead of working I'd sack them without a moment's hesitation. If they tried to say it was my fault for providing net access in the first place, I'd wonder why I was ever dumb enough to hire someone with that bad a work ethic.

What if this staff member was the most productive one who always delivered on time, or even earlier than others?

[tkingdoll]

I didn't say that's what drkitten said, I asked if she agreed with the union's position. There's a clue in the little squiggle/dot combo at the end of the sentence, they are used to denote a question.

[Morrigan]

You didn't just ask, though, you implied she did, with the "So you agree... ?". So please spare me the condescending remarks.

(Imagine if I had said, "So you are agree you are an evil bitch who eats babies?" )

[tkingdoll]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

You didn't just ask, though, you implied she did, with the "So you agree... ?". So please spare me the condescending remarks.

(Imagine if I had said, "So you are agree you are an evil bitch who eats babies?" )

Excuse me? You don't get to decide what my meaning was. I have told you it was a direct question, and a direct question is exactly what it was. I'm not sure who the hell you think you are, ascribing motive to my words and then calling me a liar about it. Some sort of evil baby-eater, perhaps.

[Morrigan]

Whoa, who the hell pissed in your cereals? Take a chill pill and reread what I wrote instead of having a knee jerk reaction. I said there was an implication in your question. You say you didn't mean to imply anything, and that's fine. But I saw the implication, and I even gave an analogous example to demonstrate that it was there.

Saying "you implied it" does not mean you did so on purpose, so no, I was not "ascribing motives" nor was I calling you a liar. By your account the implication of her agreement was not intentional, but then I would suggest you phrase your "direct questions" better next time. Perhaps like, say, "Do you agree with the union official who said it's the employer's fault for putting temptation in their way?" rather than "So you agree...".

That's just a suggestion, now, so don't get so excited. :P

[tkingdoll]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Whoa, who the hell pissed in your cereals? Take a chill pill and reread what I wrote instead of having a knee jerk reaction. I said there was an implication in your question. You say you didn't mean to imply anything, and that's fine. But I saw the implication, and I even gave an analogous example to demonstrate that it was there.

Saying "you implied it" does not mean you did so on purpose, so no, I was not "ascribing motives" nor was I calling you a liar. By your account the implication of her agreement was not intentional, but then I would suggest you phrase your "direct questions" better next time. Perhaps like, say, "Do you agree with the union official who said it's the employer's fault for putting temptation in their way?" rather than "So you agree...".

That's just a suggestion, now, so don't get so excited. :P

Oh alright. Have it your way