surveillance software at work

I work for a mid-size consulting company and now I'm facing dismissal
because my boss's caught me several times doing private correspondence,
chatting and downloading software from the Internet during work time.

They use statlook surveillance software which tracks your activities
while doing computer work. They monitor visited websites, total time
spent working and pausing, keystroke/click count and so forth. The
problem is, they didn't put my on a notice, they introduced the
surveillance system. I didn't know being watched. I didn't even know
they can grab the current screenshot and even follow it "live" just
like on Big Bruv.

I don't want to get a sack! What shall I do now?

JC

Re: surveillance software at work

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, John Comb wrote:

> I don't want to get a sack! What shall I do now?

This is probably futile, but how about appealing to reason? Tell them
you're sorry, you now appreciate that you were wasting too much time, and
you won't do it again. And then keep your word. It's going to be less
hassle for them to keep you than to get rid of you and hire someone else.

Of course, it might be that they hate you, and this is just a pretext to
get rid of you.

Alternatively, give them the finger, steal as much stationery as you can
carry, and walk out. Then find a job in a company which has better things
for its management to do than spy on its employees.

Oh, and get a shell account somewhere, and learn how to tunnel HTTP over
an SSH connection. Doesn't help you if they're monitoring the computer
itself, but it'll defeat network monitors.

tom

--
The tools weirdness matches its creators brain. Use entirely at your
own risk. Copy files. Trace it. Become a wizard. - man xxd

Re: surveillance software at work

It is call the university of life, you have learnt a valuable lesson.


"John Comb" <> wrote in message
news:
|I work for a mid-size consulting company and now I'm facing dismissal
| because my boss's caught me several times doing private correspondence,
| chatting and downloading software from the Internet during work time.
|
| They use statlook surveillance software which tracks your activities
| while doing computer work. They monitor visited websites, total time
| spent working and pausing, keystroke/click count and so forth. The
| problem is, they didn't put my on a notice, they introduced the
| surveillance system. I didn't know being watched. I didn't even know
| they can grab the current screenshot and even follow it "live" just
| like on Big Bruv.
|
| I don't want to get a sack! What shall I do now?
|
| JC
|

Re: surveillance software at work

John Comb wrote:
> I work for a mid-size consulting company and now I'm facing dismissal
> because my boss's caught me several times doing private correspondence,
> chatting and downloading software from the Internet during work time.

If the fact that they monitor your web usage etc was in your contract or
employee handbook, you haven't got a leg to stand on. If it wasn't, you
might have more of a case. Employee monitor without notice is a bit of a
contentious area.

Re: surveillance software at work

"John Comb" <> wrote in message
news:
snip
> I don't want to get a sack! What shall I do now?
>
> JC
>

f**k off and try to find someone who will employ someone too lazy to do the
job they are paid to do.

you took the p**s and got caught. maybe you should be in the public sector
where you are paid to f**k around and achieve nothing

Re: surveillance software at work

Allan Gould wrote:
> John Comb wrote:
>
>> I work for a mid-size consulting company and now I'm facing dismissal
>> because my boss's caught me several times doing private correspondence,
>> chatting and downloading software from the Internet during work time.
>
>
> If the fact that they monitor your web usage etc was in your contract or
> employee handbook, you haven't got a leg to stand on.

I would have thought some vague handwaving about appropriate use of
computer resources was enough. Monitoring of some kind is pretty much is
a given in any job pre or post Internet.

The Internet has been a godsend for organisations who want to get rid of
staff. It is almost guaranteed that people will use it for non-work
related purposes. It gives companies a way of firing staff however they
should follow the procedure of verbal then written warnings unless the
OP was accessing illegal content.

David

Re: surveillance software at work

Let's face it, we've all done a bit of skiving from time to time, but
this could depend on the amount of time you've been wasting / spending
on your own activities.

>>I work for a mid-size consulting company and now I'm facing dismissal
>>because my boss's caught me several times doing private correspondence,
>>chatting and downloading software from the Internet during work time.

By chatting, I assume you mean using chat or instant messaging
software, probably for lengthy periods of time.

If these were isolated incidents, try and apologise. However, if this
amounts to a couple of hours per day, then they may wish to make an
example out of you. In which case you probably don't have much of a leg
to stand on. It is their computer equipment, their network, and they
can dictate what you can and can't do with it during working hours. The
argument of privacy will carry little weight, because they can easily
prove that you have not been fulfilling your contractual obligations.

If they are going to make an example of you, the best thing you can do
is to ask them to gloss over this when they have to write you a
reference.

davidof wrote:
> Allan Gould wrote:
> > John Comb wrote:
> >
> >> I work for a mid-size consulting company and now I'm facing dismissal
> >> because my boss's caught me several times doing private correspondence,
> >> chatting and downloading software from the Internet during work time.
> >
> >
> > If the fact that they monitor your web usage etc was in your contract or
> > employee handbook, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
>
> I would have thought some vague handwaving about appropriate use of
> computer resources was enough. Monitoring of some kind is pretty much is
> a given in any job pre or post Internet.
>
> The Internet has been a godsend for organisations who want to get rid of
> staff. It is almost guaranteed that people will use it for non-work
> related purposes. It gives companies a way of firing staff however they
> should follow the procedure of verbal then written warnings unless the
> OP was accessing illegal content.
>
> David

Re: surveillance software at work

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 20:00:32 +0200, davidof
<> wrote:

>I would have thought some vague handwaving about appropriate use of
>computer resources was enough. Monitoring of some kind is pretty much is
>a given in any job pre or post Internet.

No it's not, there's a right to privacy, and any monitoring should be
by informed consent, although the law doesn't absolutely require it, I
would expect an employment tribunal not to look favourably.

Also make sure that the companies data protection registration covers
collecting and storing such information about you

Jim.

Re: surveillance software at work

John Comb wrote:
> I work for a mid-size consulting company and now I'm facing dismissal
> because my boss's caught me several times doing private correspondence,
> chatting and downloading software from the Internet during work time.
>
> They use statlook surveillance software which tracks your activities
> while doing computer work. They monitor visited websites, total time
> spent working and pausing, keystroke/click count and so forth. The
> problem is, they didn't put my on a notice, they introduced the
> surveillance system. I didn't know being watched. I didn't even know
> they can grab the current screenshot and even follow it "live" just
> like on Big Bruv.

I can imagine people saying `serves you right`. I'm not sure what the
law says, though.

Employers aren't allowed to read your private email as far as I know,
and I can't see how they can avoid doing that, even if accidentally,
using the software you describe.

The Data Protection Act might apply to storage of stuff you've been
doing.

What about the Interception of Communications Act 1985? Suppose you
did some online banking at work - they'd possibly have your passwords
etc. What if some money subsequently went missing? Do the staff doing
the spying have money problems? Possibly, if they're having to resort
to getting rid of people in such a way, rather than seeing if you're
fulfilling your obligations as an employee in terms of milestones met
and results delivered. I'm sure some people waste more time having
endless fagbreaks and talking crap around the water cooler etc.

Re: surveillance software at work

John Comb <> wrote
>I work for a mid-size consulting company and now I'm facing dismissal
>because my boss's caught me several times doing private correspondence,
>chatting and downloading software from the Internet during work time.
>
>They use statlook surveillance software which tracks your activities
>while doing computer work. They monitor visited websites, total time
>spent working and pausing, keystroke/click count and so forth. The
>problem is, they didn't put my on a notice, they introduced the
>surveillance system. I didn't know being watched. I didn't even know
>they can grab the current screenshot and even follow it "live" just
>like on Big Bruv.
>
>I don't want to get a sack! What shall I do now?
>
Reflect on those poor devils who did a fair day's work for a day's pay
and were made redundant through no fault of their own.

Then grovel, and do your private work at home.
--
Gordon Harris

Re: surveillance software at work

davidof <> wrote:
> The Internet has been a godsend for organisations who want to get rid of
> staff. It is almost guaranteed that people will use it for non-work
> related purposes. It gives companies a way of firing staff however they
> should follow the procedure of verbal then written warnings unless the
> OP was accessing illegal content.

Depends on the job... a colleague of mine jumped up and nearly hit the
ceiling when our (female) boss came over to his desk as he had some porn
on his screen. She totally didn't give a damn. It was all quite amusing.

Axel

Re: surveillance software at work

John Comb wrote:
> I work for a mid-size consulting company and now I'm facing
> dismissal because my boss's caught me several times doing private
> correspondence, chatting and downloading software from the Internet
> during work time.
>
> They use statlook surveillance software which tracks your activities
> while doing computer work. They monitor visited websites, total
> time spent working and pausing, keystroke/click count and so forth.
> The problem is, they didn't put my on a notice, they introduced the
> surveillance system. I didn't know being watched. I didn't even know
> they can grab the current screenshot and even follow it "live" just
> like on Big Bruv.
>
> I don't want to get a sack! What shall I do now?

Talk to your trade union.

(cross-posted to uk.legal where you will get more a sympathetic hearing as
well as more useful advice)

Re: surveillance software at work

Allan Gould wrote:
> John Comb wrote:
>> I work for a mid-size consulting company and now I'm facing
>> dismissal because my boss's caught me several times doing private
>> correspondence, chatting and downloading software from the
>> Internet during work time.
>
> If the fact that they monitor your web usage etc was in your
> contract or employee handbook, you haven't got a leg to stand on. If it
> wasn't, you might have more of a case. Employee monitor
> without notice is a bit of a contentious area.

For "contentious", read "illegal".

Re: surveillance software at work

davidof wrote:
> Allan Gould wrote:
>> John Comb wrote:
>>
>>> I work for a mid-size consulting company and now I'm facing
>>> dismissal because my boss's caught me several times doing private
>>> correspondence, chatting and downloading software from the
>>> Internet during work time.
>>
>> If the fact that they monitor your web usage etc was in your
>> contract or employee handbook, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
>
> I would have thought some vague handwaving about appropriate use of
> computer resources was enough. Monitoring of some kind is pretty
> much is a given in any job pre or post Internet.
[snip]

If employees can never do personal stuff in work time, is it illegal for
employers to make any contact with them outside work time ?

Re: surveillance software at work

Scott2k5 wrote:
> "John Comb" <> wrote in message
> news:
> snip
>> I don't want to get a sack! What shall I do now?
>>
>> JC
>>
>
> f**k off and try to find someone who will employ someone too lazy
> to do the job they are paid to do.

Is doing personal stuff while at work incompatible with doing the job one
is paid for in your world ?
It's not in mine.

> you took the p**s and got caught. maybe you should be in the public
> sector where you are paid to f**k around and achieve nothing

Re: surveillance software at work

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:12:21 +0100, "Fergus O'Rourke"
<> wrote:

>> I would have thought some vague handwaving about appropriate use of
>> computer resources was enough. Monitoring of some kind is pretty
>> much is a given in any job pre or post Internet.
>[snip]

>If employees can never do personal stuff in work time, is it illegal for
>employers to make any contact with them outside work time ?

The contract can say pretty much what it likes. It can allow or
disallow private business during offioce hours. It can demand or not
demand that an employee do work-related activities outside the office.

At the end of the day it is going to be driven by supply and demand.
An employer is not going to stand on the letter of a contract if he
cannot afford to lose a good employee. Similarly, an employee would
be stupid to refuse to do a few things outside of the contract if he
really needs to keep the job.

--
Cynic

Re: surveillance software at work

"Fergus O'Rourke" <> wrote in message
news:
> Scott2k5 wrote:
>> "John Comb" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>> snip
>>> I don't want to get a sack! What shall I do now?
>>>
>>> JC
>>>
>>
>> f**k off and try to find someone who will employ someone too lazy
>> to do the job they are paid to do.
>
> Is doing personal stuff while at work incompatible with doing the job one
> is paid for in your world ?
> It's not in mine.
>
>> you took the p**s and got caught. maybe you should be in the public
>> sector where you are paid to f**k around and achieve nothing
>
>

I really like that reply! Succinct and to the point.

Re: surveillance software at work

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:14:42 +0100, "Fergus O'Rourke"
<> wrote:

>> f**k off and try to find someone who will employ someone too lazy
>> to do the job they are paid to do.
>
>Is doing personal stuff while at work incompatible with doing the job one
>is paid for in your world ?
>It's not in mine.

That depends upon the percentage of work time taken up by the personal
stuff.

--
Cynic

Re: surveillance software at work

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:07:52 +0100, "Fergus O'Rourke"
<> wrote:

>John Comb wrote:
>> I work for a mid-size consulting company and now I'm facing
>> dismissal because my boss's caught me several times doing private
>> correspondence, chatting and downloading software from the Internet
>> during work time.
>>
>> They use statlook surveillance software which tracks your activities
>> while doing computer work. They monitor visited websites, total
>> time spent working and pausing, keystroke/click count and so forth.
>> The problem is, they didn't put my on a notice, they introduced the
>> surveillance system. I didn't know being watched. I didn't even know
>> they can grab the current screenshot and even follow it "live" just
>> like on Big Bruv.
>>
>> I don't want to get a sack! What shall I do now?
>
>Talk to your trade union.
>
>(cross-posted to uk.legal where you will get more a sympathetic hearing as
>well as more useful advice)
>

It was spam the first time.

It still is.

he is "advertising" the product.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Waiter, there's no fly in my soup! - Kermit
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Re: surveillance software at work

Fergus O'Rourke wrote:

> Scott2k5 wrote:
>> "John Comb" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>> snip
>>> I don't want to get a sack! What shall I do now?
>>
>> f**k off and try to find someone who will employ someone too lazy
>> to do the job they are paid to do.
>
> Is doing personal stuff while at work incompatible with doing the job one
> is paid for in your world ?
> It's not in mine.

Hear, hear. One is presumably assigned a certain workload and if that
work gets done in (less than) the time allotted to it, what should anyone
care about what else you do in the rest of the time?

Re: surveillance software at work

Cynic wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 18:14:42 +0100, "Fergus O'Rourke"
> <> wrote:
>
>>> f**k off and try to find someone who will employ someone too lazy
>>> to do the job they are paid to do.
>>
>>Is doing personal stuff while at work incompatible with doing the job one
>>is paid for in your world ?
>>It's not in mine.
>
> That depends upon the percentage of work time taken up by the personal
> stuff.

Not at all. It depends on whether the work gets done. For example,
if your job is fixing faults, and if you spend a lot of your time just
waiting for faults to be reported, then what does it matter what you do
while waiting?

I remember a TV commercial purporting to show the repairs department of
some manufacturer of washing machines and similar domestic equipment,
who were trying to make the point that their equipment was exceedingly
reliable. These guys were sleeping on the job, waiting for the phone to
ring. One day the phone did ring, and they got all excited, but it was
a wrong number.

This was in the early 80s, I think. It would be unthinkable nowadays,
because the idea of making reliable goods these days is just absurd.

Re: surveillance software at work

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:57:15 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<> wrote:

>>>Is doing personal stuff while at work incompatible with doing the job one
>>>is paid for in your world ?
>>>It's not in mine.

>> That depends upon the percentage of work time taken up by the personal
>> stuff.

>Not at all. It depends on whether the work gets done. For example,
>if your job is fixing faults, and if you spend a lot of your time just
>waiting for faults to be reported, then what does it matter what you do
>while waiting?

There are few jobs where there is no useful tasks that can be done for
a large percentage of the time at work. Jobs where that is the case
usually have recreation facillities for the employees "on call" and
there will be no problems with employees doing personal business.

...
Cynic

Re: surveillance software at work

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:29:57 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<> wrote:

>> Is doing personal stuff while at work incompatible with doing the job one
>> is paid for in your world ?
>> It's not in mine.

>Hear, hear. One is presumably assigned a certain workload and if that
>work gets done in (less than) the time allotted to it, what should anyone
>care about what else you do in the rest of the time?

That depends upon whether there is any work that needs doing. I doubt
that you would appreciate a shop assistant who ignores you in a
crowded shop because she has served her quota of customers for the day
and is busy doing the crossword.

If a job involves a lot of spare time where ther is no work to do, it
could indicate that the company is over-staffed.

--
Cynic

Re: surveillance software at work

In article <fzJgg.81060$>, Ronald
Raygun <> writes

>I remember a TV commercial purporting to show the repairs department of
>some manufacturer of washing machines and similar domestic equipment,
>who were trying to make the point that their equipment was exceedingly
>reliable. These guys were sleeping on the job, waiting for the phone to
>ring. One day the phone did ring, and they got all excited, but it was
>a wrong number.
>
>This was in the early 80s, I think. It would be unthinkable nowadays,
>because the idea of making reliable goods these days is just absurd.

You are thinking of the Carlsberg Complaints Department.

It's been shut down now for lack of complaints and the people employed
there have got new jobs with the Carlberg Bank or been made redundant.
--
Mr X

Re: surveillance software at work

Cynic wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 22:29:57 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> <> wrote:
>
>>> Is doing personal stuff while at work incompatible with doing the job
>>> one is paid for in your world ?
>>> It's not in mine.
>
>>Hear, hear. One is presumably assigned a certain workload and if that
>>work gets done in (less than) the time allotted to it, what should anyone
>>care about what else you do in the rest of the time?
>
> That depends upon whether there is any work that needs doing. I doubt
> that you would appreciate a shop assistant who ignores you in a
> crowded shop because she has served her quota of customers for the day
> and is busy doing the crossword.
>
> If a job involves a lot of spare time where ther is no work to do, it
> could indicate that the company is over-staffed.

But your example is a case in point. What is the shop assistant to do
between customers? If there is only one assistant in the (small) shop,
it can hardly be called overstaffed.

Re: surveillance software at work

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:56:11 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<> wrote:

>But your example is a case in point. What is the shop assistant to do
>between customers? If there is only one assistant in the (small) shop,
>it can hardly be called overstaffed.

personal activities that can be instantly interrupted are in such
cases usually acceptable. most service stations have a TV for the
assistant, for example.

But even if I were the only customer top enter the shop all day, I
would not expect to be kept waiting while the assistant finishes a
personal phone call or completes a game on a playstation or watches
the end of a football match on TV..



--
Cynic

Re: surveillance software at work

Ronald Raygun wrote:
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>
>> Scott2k5 wrote:
>>> "John Comb" <> wrote in message
>>> news:
>>> snip
>>>> I don't want to get a sack! What shall I do now?
>>>
>>> f**k off and try to find someone who will employ someone too lazy
>>> to do the job they are paid to do.
>>
>> Is doing personal stuff while at work incompatible with doing the
>> job one is paid for in your world ?
>> It's not in mine.
>
> Hear, hear. One is presumably assigned a certain workload and if that
> work gets done in (less than) the time allotted to it, what should
> anyone care about what else you do in the rest of the time?

If it takes you longer to do the work than the allotted time, do you get
paid overtime?

Re: surveillance software at work

Cynic wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:56:11 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> <> wrote:
>
>>But your example is a case in point. What is the shop assistant to do
>>between customers? If there is only one assistant in the (small) shop,
>>it can hardly be called overstaffed.
>
> personal activities that can be instantly interrupted are in such
> cases usually acceptable. most service stations have a TV for the
> assistant, for example.

That'll be the CCTV to spot chancers outside trying to nick the flowers.

> But even if I were the only customer top enter the shop all day, I
> would not expect to be kept waiting while the assistant finishes a
> personal phone call or completes a game on a playstation or watches
> the end of a football match on TV..

Indeed not, but that doesn't mean he would have to end his phone
call. He could interrupt it, serve you, and return to it. In fact
there would even be nothing wrong with continuing the phone call
while serving you, unless serving you involves you asking him which
farm the cow came from which gave the milk for this half pound of
organic free-range GM-free vegetarian butter.

And (not that it would be any great consolation to you) the call might
*not* be personal. He might be re-ordering supplies of counterfeit
organic labels in which to re-wrap out-of-date carnivorous butter from
battery-cows reared on antifreeze from the EU wine lake stocked from
DDT-drenched vineyards.

Re: surveillance software at work

rob wrote:

> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>>
>>> Scott2k5 wrote:
>>>> "John Comb" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:
>>>> snip
>>>>> I don't want to get a sack! What shall I do now?
>>>>
>>>> f**k off and try to find someone who will employ someone too lazy
>>>> to do the job they are paid to do.
>>>
>>> Is doing personal stuff while at work incompatible with doing the
>>> job one is paid for in your world ?
>>> It's not in mine.
>>
>> Hear, hear. One is presumably assigned a certain workload and if that
>> work gets done in (less than) the time allotted to it, what should
>> anyone care about what else you do in the rest of the time?
>
> If it takes you longer to do the work than the allotted time, do you get
> paid overtime?

If the reason it took you longer was because you were doing personal stuff,
I guess you'd be expected to make up the time without extra payment.

It all depends on the nature of the work. In a "thinking" job you often
have your best ideas away from the office, so in effect you are working
while "away from" work, so it's only fair you be allowed to do non-work
stuff while "at" work.

In other jobs you might end up either doing overtime or carrying the
work forward to the next day and getting a smaller new allocation.

Re: surveillance software at work

>
> Hear, hear. One is presumably assigned a certain workload and if that
> work gets done in (less than) the time allotted to it, what should anyone
> care about what else you do in the rest of the time?

In the bad old days of British Leyland, there were quality issues with
their new cars, owners constantly having to return the cars because of
defects etc.

In order to address these issues, the management decided to switch away
from piecework - this was payment according to how much you produce.
They came up with measured day working instead, a fixed amount of work
per day.

Unfortunately, in the fine tradition of state owned industries, most of
the management hadn't got a clue about making production built cars and
the unions were able to run rings round them.

Most of the workers were able to complete the measured day in about two
hours. On the night shift, quality remained abysmal as the workers
rushed to complete their work so they could get some kip.

After a few years, it led to the notorious News of the World expose of
night shift workers asleep on sunbeds. As they were able to sleep at
night, some of the workers had got themselves another job some even in
other BL plants where they also worked another measured day.

Re: surveillance software at work

"allan tracy" wrote
> In the bad old days of British Leyland, there were
> quality issues with their new cars, owners constantly
> having to return the cars because of defects etc.
>
> In order to address these issues, the management decided to
> switch away from piecework - this was payment according
> to how much you produce. They came up with measured
> day working instead, a fixed amount of work per day.

I wonder why they didn't simply continue paying
piecework, but only pay for ones without defects...?!

[They could have increased the piece-rate slightly to
allow for components which were already faulty...]

Re: surveillance software at work

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:16:34 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<> wrote:

>> personal activities that can be instantly interrupted are in such
>> cases usually acceptable. most service stations have a TV for the
>> assistant, for example.
>
>That'll be the CCTV to spot chancers outside trying to nick the flowers.

In that case the garages I have visited have *very* interesting
forecourts, with football matches and soap operas and all sorts of
things taking place on them.

>> But even if I were the only customer top enter the shop all day, I
>> would not expect to be kept waiting while the assistant finishes a
>> personal phone call or completes a game on a playstation or watches
>> the end of a football match on TV..

>Indeed not, but that doesn't mean he would have to end his phone
>call. He could interrupt it, serve you, and return to it. In fact
>there would even be nothing wrong with continuing the phone call
>while serving you, unless serving you involves you asking him which
>farm the cow came from which gave the milk for this half pound of
>organic free-range GM-free vegetarian butter.

I would consider that to be rather rude.

>And (not that it would be any great consolation to you) the call might
>*not* be personal. He might be re-ordering supplies of counterfeit
>organic labels in which to re-wrap out-of-date carnivorous butter from
>battery-cows reared on antifreeze from the EU wine lake stocked from
>DDT-drenched vineyards.

It is usually perfectly apparent as to whether a call is personal or
business.

--
Cynic

Re: surveillance software at work

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:51:09 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<> wrote:

>If the reason it took you longer was because you were doing personal stuff,
>I guess you'd be expected to make up the time without extra payment.
>
>It all depends on the nature of the work. In a "thinking" job you often
>have your best ideas away from the office, so in effect you are working
>while "away from" work, so it's only fair you be allowed to do non-work
>stuff while "at" work.
>
>In other jobs you might end up either doing overtime or carrying the
>work forward to the next day and getting a smaller new allocation.

IOW you deliberately pretend that the job takes longer than it should
take so as to get a lower work load. Remind me not to employ you.

--
Cynic

Re: surveillance software at work

Cynic wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:51:09 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> <> wrote:
>
>>If the reason it took you longer was because you were doing personal
>>stuff, I guess you'd be expected to make up the time without extra
>>payment.
>>
>>It all depends on the nature of the work. In a "thinking" job you often
>>have your best ideas away from the office, so in effect you are working
>>while "away from" work, so it's only fair you be allowed to do non-work
>>stuff while "at" work.
>>
>>In other jobs you might end up either doing overtime or carrying the
>>work forward to the next day and getting a smaller new allocation.
>
> IOW you deliberately pretend that the job takes longer than it should
> take so as to get a lower work load.

No, that was the generic "you", I was in no way referring to myself.

> Remind me not to employ you.

Pah! I wouldn't want to work for you even if you paid me! :-)

Besides, if I were in the market for a job, I'd be after a "thinking"
job, so my final paragraph above would not apply.

There is a point, though, that the workload should be tuned to the
productivity of the worker, and if you overload him, efficiency will
suffer. I would seriously expect a worker who is given the opportunity
to take time out, be it to drink tea, make personal calls, book a holiday,
or nip to the shops, to be more productive overall than one who is not.

Re: surveillance software at work

Cynic wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:16:34 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> <> wrote:
>>
>>Indeed not, but that doesn't mean he would have to end his phone
>>call. He could interrupt it, serve you, and return to it. In fact
>>there would even be nothing wrong with continuing the phone call
>>while serving you, unless serving you involves you asking him which
>>farm the cow came from which gave the milk for this half pound of
>>organic free-range GM-free vegetarian butter.
>
> I would consider that to be rather rude.

Yes, I think you're right. I too would consider it rude of a customer
to quiz a shop attendant on the provenance of one of the products being
sold. How the hell is he supposed to know? And what right does the
customer have to presume to interrupt the attendant's phone call for
such a frivolous purpose, when his primary duty (to ring up the prices
of the items tendered and take your money) is not one deserving of his
full undivided attention? I mean, we're not talking about old fashioned
shops where all the goods are behind the counter and you have to ask for
them all to be weighed out etc, and if your fish is fresh today I'll have
one kipper, please, otherwise just give me a couple of eggs, and half an
ounce of butter to fry them in. In that case, no, he couldn't really
use the phone at the same time. They didn't have Bluetooth headsets in
those days.

>>And (not that it would be any great consolation to you) the call might
>>*not* be personal. He might be re-ordering supplies of counterfeit
>>organic labels in which to re-wrap out-of-date carnivorous butter from
>>battery-cows reared on antifreeze from the EU wine lake stocked from
>>DDT-drenched vineyards.
>
> It is usually perfectly apparent as to whether a call is personal or
> business.

But of what consequence is it whether it's one or the other, if you would
be equally offended by either?

Re: surveillance software at work

"...Yes, I think you're right. I too would consider it rude of a
customer
to quiz a shop attendant on the provenance of one of the products being

sold. How the hell is he supposed to know? And what right does the
customer have to presume to interrupt the attendant's phone call ..."

Not too far removed from the reality of customer service in the uk but
on the bright side it does make it all the more enjoyable when one does
find bright, courteous,and motivated staff (often with eastern
european accents).


J

Re: surveillance software at work

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:06:16 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<> wrote:

>> It is usually perfectly apparent as to whether a call is personal or
>> business.

>But of what consequence is it whether it's one or the other, if you would
>be equally offended by either?

But I wouldn't be equally offended.

If I am waiting to be attended to at the service counter of a
computer shop for example, and the technical support person is on the
phone to another customer sorting out their technical problem, I
regard in the same way as if I were waiting in line behind that other
customer, and am happy to wait until the support person has finished
with the call before attending to my question.

If OTOH the support person ignores me whilst he spends 15 minutes
discussing the football match or his latest girlfriend with someone on
the phone, I'd get pretty miffed.

--
Cynic

Re: surveillance software at work

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:55:18 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<> wrote:

>There is a point, though, that the workload should be tuned to the
>productivity of the worker, and if you overload him, efficiency will
>suffer. I would seriously expect a worker who is given the opportunity
>to take time out, be it to drink tea, make personal calls, book a holiday,
>or nip to the shops, to be more productive overall than one who is not.

Absolutely - it is swings and roundabouts. My employees can take the
odd hour or two off for private business pretty much without comment.
But that's because I know that they will also work an extra hour or
two on occasion when it is necessary to meet a deadline - usually
without needing to be asked. I also recognise the fact that it is
sometimes more productive to take a 15 minute break to clear your head
than to try to continue a task that requires deep concentration for
too long at a stretch.

There are however some jobs where such latitude cannot be given. If
one worker on a production line pops out to buy a newspaper in the
middle of a shift, it can stop many other employees from working also.

--
Cynic

Re: surveillance software at work

Cynic wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:06:16 GMT, Ronald Raygun
> <> wrote:
>
>>> It is usually perfectly apparent as to whether a call is personal or
>>> business.
>
>>But of what consequence is it whether it's one or the other, if you would
>>be equally offended by either?
>
> But I wouldn't be equally offended.
>
> If I am waiting to be attended to at the service counter of a
> computer shop for example, and the technical support person is on the
> phone to another customer sorting out their technical problem, I
> regard in the same way as if I were waiting in line behind that other
> customer, and am happy to wait until the support person has finished
> with the call before attending to my question.

OK, but what if the technical support person's phone rings just as he's
about to see to you, how would you feel if the caller turned out to be
another customer with a technical question, and was given priority over
you?

What if the call is work related, but not customer related, e.g. you're
in a pub waiting to get your pint poured and the only barman is on the
phone to the brewery sorting out next week's delivery (at great length,
with the conversation occasionally straying onto football scores)?

Re: surveillance software at work

> Cynic wrote:
> > If I am waiting to be attended to at the service counter of a
> > computer shop for example, and the technical support person is on
> > the phone to another customer sorting out their technical problem,
> > I regard in the same way as if I were waiting in line behind that
> > other customer, and am happy to wait until the support person
> > has finished with the call before attending to my question.
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> OK, but what if the technical support person's phone
> rings just as he's about to see to you, how would you
> feel if the caller turned out to be another customer with
> a technical question, and was given priority over you?

Especially if said customer on the phone is standing
in the queue behind you, mobile phone to face! ;-)

Re: surveillance software at work

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:34:45 GMT, Ronald Raygun
<> wrote:

>> If I am waiting to be attended to at the service counter of a
>> computer shop for example, and the technical support person is on the
>> phone to another customer sorting out their technical problem, I
>> regard in the same way as if I were waiting in line behind that other
>> customer, and am happy to wait until the support person has finished
>> with the call before attending to my question.

>OK, but what if the technical support person's phone rings just as he's
>about to see to you, how would you feel if the caller turned out to be
>another customer with a technical question, and was given priority over
>you?

TBH I think it is wrong to have serving staff answer phones at all if
it can possibly be avoided. But if that was the way the shop was set
up, I would expect the person to answer the phone and say, "I am
serving a customer at the moment, would you like to hold for 10
minutes or would you prefer to call back?" Or similar.

>What if the call is work related, but not customer related, e.g. you're
>in a pub waiting to get your pint poured and the only barman is on the
>phone to the brewery sorting out next week's delivery (at great length,
>with the conversation occasionally straying onto football scores)?

I would decide at the time whether or not I considered the situation
reasonable. The criteria is not really whether the call is or is not
business-related, but whether or not it is *important* enough to keep
a customer waiting. I'm tolerant of personal calls when they are
non-trivial, urgent and as brief as possible (arranging an emergency
baby-sitter, instructing a car mechanic etc.)

--
Cynic

Re: surveillance software at work

>> If I am waiting to be attended to at the service counter of a
>> computer shop for example, and the technical support person is on the
>> phone to another customer sorting out their technical problem, I
>> regard in the same way as if I were waiting in line behind that other
>> customer, and am happy to wait until the support person has finished
>> with the call before attending to my question.
>
> OK, but what if the technical support person's phone rings just as
> he's about to see to you, how would you feel if the caller turned out
> to be another customer with a technical question, and was given
> priority over you?
>
I appreciate that in a work situation the phone should be answered quickly.
If we are too busy with customers we tkae details and call them back.

I do have a problem with people who believe that the phone is a god whose
summons must be instantly obeyed on every occasion. Asside from times when
we are expecting an important and urgent call, ie someone in hospital or at
the airport, we ignore the phone during meals, or if we are talking with
visitors etc. Similarly I can reject calls made to my mobile at inopportune
times. It is my phone, I pay for it, I decide when to use it.

Re: surveillance software at work

rob wrote:

> I do have a problem with people who believe that the phone is a god whose
> summons must be instantly obeyed on every occasion. Asside from times
> when we are expecting an important and urgent call, ie someone in hospital
> or at the airport, we ignore the phone during meals, or if we are talking
> with visitors etc.

How do you know an unexpected call won't be important?

The trouble is that if the damn thing keeps on ringing, it creates
more of a disturbance than you're trying to avoid.

I suppose, when appropriate, you could configure your landline phone
like a mobile, i.e. get it to not ring, and to take a message. Or one
could have one's butler answer it and bring any urgent messages through
to the drawing room on a silver platter.