Getting Fired for Disboard Surfing at Work?

[bgirldeb]

im at work now

 

[kaytieeldr]

Smokers have no right to additional breaks just because they smoke.

Understood; but while smokers can smoke during authorized breaks, surfers can't surf then

 

[Bob NC]

How about if we substituted "surfed the web", with something else. Like maybe "played ping pong?"

"Yeah, I was at work for 8 hours today, but I played ping pong for a couple of those hours."

"My boss really has no problem with me playing ping pong all day as long as I get my work done."

Or maybe substitute "surfed the web", with "took a nap?"

"If it gets a little slow, I take a nap until I find something to do."

"What business is it of my employer if I nap all day as long as my work gets done?."

I don't understand why anyone feels they have the "right", to send personal emails or surf the net while at work.

 

[Kimberly]

 

[luvsJack]

For me its not that I think I have a "right" to surf the web and there are lots of times that I don't surf at all during work hours. BUT, there are times that I have nothing to do. NOTHING, zero, zilch. I have cleaned my office, I have cleaned the break room but I have nothing left to do.

I get 100% of my work done and always before needed.

Now, Friday I was doing something that had been assigned to someone else. She did not get it done although someone asked her for it in mid November. She may be facing a reprimand next week.

 

[Bob NC]

Just curious why you even opened this thread again?

 

[DawnM]

Oh, I know what you are talking about. We could get Disneyland tickets from work for a discount.

Dawn

It was a plan for discounts for WDW and DL. Corporations and Disney had an agreement. You got it thru your place of work. It was discontinued, I think in the late 80's or early 90's.

 

[DawnM]

Take a nap?

I am picturing George Costanza with the bed under his desk!

I am not currently working, but I was able to get online for personal use as long as I did it during breaks. DH's work is the same way.

Dawn

How about if we substituted "surfed the web", with something else. Like maybe "played ping pong?"

"Yeah, I was at work for 8 hours today, but I played ping pong for a couple of those hours."

"My boss really has no problem with me playing ping pong all day as long as I get my work done."

Or maybe substitute "surfed the web", with "took a nap?"

"If it gets a little slow, I take a nap until I find something to do."

"What business is it of my employer if I nap all day as long as my work gets done?."

I don't understand why anyone feels they have the "right", to send personal emails or surf the net while at work.

 

[PatsGirl]

I'd fire someone for excessive use of company time/property for personal business if it wasn't approved/discussed before-hand. Would I fire someone for checking their email or cellphone messages a few times a day? No. Would I fire that same person for replying to all the messages he receives everyday if they aren't an emergency or require immediate attention (and that doesn't include the guest list for Friday's happy hour, lol)? Yes. Do it on your own time.

The company is paying you to WORK for them and if they don't provide you with enough work to keep you busy for the hours you are scheduled, shame on them. God knows there are enough people out there willing to work for their salaries Unfortunately, where I work the employees barely have enough time to take a bathroom break outside of their lunch time. There is a fine line between enough work and too much work

FWIW, I'd also let the smoker go who has to have a cig break every 45 minutes. I watch the smokers (non nursing department, mostly management and business department personnel) in my building take a 10 minute break at least every hour, then bathroom breaks and a lunch break. In all, they are probably putting in 6 hours of work instead of 7 and yes, it does make a difference to those of us who are not leaving the desk for the same break. I'd let the person who surfs the web outside their normal (2) 10-minute breaks and lunch break go. I'd let the person who shows up 15 minutes late all the time go.

When I was a boss, I was tough but fair. Now I'm just a pee-on at the bottom of the totem pole but I don't abuse my employer. I work when I'm supposed to work and when my work is done, I help someone else catch up.

 

[Kimberly]

Just curious why you even opened this thread again?

Because I can't resist a bold topic in my subscriptions folder. And it's a very polarizing topic, from what I can tell.

I think I should just go into my office today just to play on the internet.

 

[rie'smom]

Understood; but while smokers can smoke during authorized breaks, surfers can't surf then

 

[kaytieeldr]

How about if we substituted "surfed the web", with something else. Like maybe "played ping pong?"

Well, that last job, when they were looking for new facilities it was right after the dot.com bust. One of the office spaces they they seriously considered had a putting green.

"Yeah, I was at work for 8 hours today, but I practiced my putt for a couple of those hours."

"My boss really has no problem with me playing golf all day as long as I get my work done."

Or maybe substitute "surfed the web", with "took a nap?"

I swear, I don't have a story to match every one of your facetious suggestions but... years ago, my very first full time job was in a discount department store (think Walmart with class). About 10:30 one morning, they noticed one of the electronics salesmen asleep in the luggage aisle

 

[ldymcbth]

If companies are going to punish people for internet usage, then there need to be clearly defined rules and the monitoring of internet activity needs to be done by people who are not idiots and who can see that an automatic page refresh on cnn.com or gmail.com, for example, is different from reloading the main disboards page 50 times a day.

I no longer work outside the home, but when I worked in corporate America (for 12+ years) I can tell you that I RARELY had enough work to keep me busy for my 8 hours a day. And even though I communicated that with my bosses, nothing was ever done about it. So I took long lunches, read novels at my desk, surfed the internet, wrote personal correspondence, etc. And I don't feel guilty about it now, nor did I feel guilty about it then.

 

[Kimberly]

I will say one thing though to my fellow DISers. While I defend an employee's use of the internet at work, whether it be the news or research, I do draw the line at some things.

Forums are one of them, especially when you post from my company's IP address. Lurking is fine... just don't post under my IP, or visit a site which could potentially damage my company.

 

[manning]

How about if we substituted "surfed the web", with something else. Like maybe "played ping pong?"

"Yeah, I was at work for 8 hours today, but I played ping pong for a couple of those hours."

"My boss really has no problem with me playing ping pong all day as long as I get my work done."

Or maybe substitute "surfed the web", with "took a nap?"

"If it gets a little slow, I take a nap until I find something to do."

"What business is it of my employer if I nap all day as long as my work gets done?."


I don't understand why anyone feels they have the "right", to send personal emails or surf the net while at work.

When you are on the computer you are using computer time that your employer is paying for.


Question. How can you find something to do when you are asleep??

 

[Dax]

This conversation is SERIOUSLY hampering my DIS at work time...

 

[disneychrista]

The law may not say that, but where in the law does it say a firm can't choose to allow it.

All I was saying is that the states labor law entitles employees to X breaks of Y minutes per Z hours worked. The labor law does not give smokers F additional breaks. Of course employers can give anyone additional breaks for whatever reason. Or just choose to ignore that smokers are likely away from their desks for additional time each day.

 

[RockAndRollBallerina]

You know, child care is a very different type of business. Your center is only as good as your staff and your staff is only as good as the way they are treated. Regardless of your policies, the ways in which you are presenting them would make me think twice about working for you~"they will not use them . . ."

Also, I hope that if you are making them turn in their cell phones, you make darn sure you are NEVER without phone service and some way of every employee being able to call out in an emergency. One of the points on the license check in this state is that cell phones are available to the staff. In case of fire you have to get the kids out quickly. Once out you have to have some way to call parents. Also on the playground there needs to be some way to call emergency personel if necessary.

First off, put yourself in the shoes of parents coming through a day care center for a tour where they might take their kids while they are off at work. Does seeing staff members texting on their phones, checking their facebook page, twitter, every few minutes while watching other peoples children really leave a good impression on the parents? I don't think so. Neither does it leave a good impression on the parents when they clearly see that a staff member is using the internet for non work purposes and shopping for clothing and or the latest accessories a good impression either? Nope.

Needless to say we do make sure that the person who drives the van to pick up kids from school or drop them off has a cell phone on them en route, the director, and co-director also have phones on them issued to them by us that are to be used in the event of an emergency. We also have a PA system built in the center as well with an intercom in each class room and a few scattered outside by the playground so that they are able to call into the office in the case of an emergency. On top of that we do have easy access emergency cards in both the office, and each classroom that the teachers are trained to take them out of the building in the event of a fire along with 3 company issued cell phones. As far as emergencies for staff members on the job rather it be death in the family, family member in the hospital, and ect, family needs to call in to the office and then we will hand the land line phone off to them.

 

[Lauralee]

I just want to point out, everything the quoted poster wrote is prefaced with qualifiers. Not once did she make any definitive statement about your company or the people who run it; please reread the post you quoted carefully. Everything is "suspect", "sounds like", "[her] experience", "hazard a guess", "[her] own hypothesis]"...

Nope, no question in my mind what she said and who she was talking about. I can pick her post apart again if you want, but I know, and you also probably know, that a clever wordsmith can effortlessly veil insults.

But for kicks, let's go ahead and do it. I will be placing emphasis on certain phrases and words she used with bolding.

- "Based on your descriptions and how you handle your employees, I suspect that your business (whatever it is) is staffed by minimum wage or underpaid workers"

Do you want to debate about whom she is talking? Do you doubt that the word "underpaid" means anything other than not paying an an employee enough, or not what they are due?

- "and it's easy for you to find a replacement for your "cog"."

So, she "suspects" that's it's easy for me to find a replacement......again she's talking about me.

- "Based on Bama's descriptions, however, it sounds like he (she?) has a business where more specialized people are needed, therefore it would be more difficult to for him (her?) to find another person to replace the non-functioning cog."

And what is the purpose of pointing out that Bama has a business where his/her more specialized people are MORE difficult for him/her to replace? More difficult than whom? Her use of the word "however" makes this statement a comparison of the previous statement about my employees being easy to replace.

- 'It's been my experience that the higher functioning cogs are not only more difficult to replace, it's unlikely that these types of cogs would be the kinds of people who would abuse the internet policy in the first place. I'd hazard a guess that you really wouldn't have to police their usage at all because their level of work is such that they ARE an asset to their employer. But I wouldn't question a good policy of monitoring internet usage for the entire network if only to keep a tight reign on security issues such as downloaded bugs and whatnot."

Here she is still clearly talking about Bama's type of cogs. I do believe that the word "you" I bolded could be a generalized you, not referring specifically to me. She hazarded a guess about how the higher functioning cog's level of work is such that they ARE an asset to their employer...versus what? Is she insinuating the opposite then? Per her statement earlier, what type of cog is the opposite of a higher functioning cog? Perhaps a minimum wage or underpaid cog? She doesn't question the need for a policy that calls for monitoring usage to keep a tight rein on security issues. I have no issue with this statement.

- "Therefore, based on your posts and attitudes toward employees, and my own hypothesis gathered from them,"

Here we go! She's starting to form a hypothesis about my posts and what she perceives my attitudes to be...

- "I can honestly understand why employees stealing from you would "burn your butt"

I did say that employees "wasting time online" is a hot button with me....

- "because you've likely had that happen in the past. To which I would have to say:"

Yes, I did state on one of my PP's that I equate employee theft of time as no different than other types of employee theft.

Ok now watch, here comes her summary paragraph....

- "When you treat a human being like they have no value, that they're easily replaceable, and they're just a thief anyway, then no matter how moral and upstanding that person was when they got there, they will eventually be ground down into the valueless thief that you've been treating them like."

She's drawing her conclusion now.....she clearly has an issue with the way she thinks we value our employees; the ones we pay minimum wage to or underpay; I am the obviously inferred "you" in this paragraph; I apparently said that our employees are EASILY replaceable, I referred to employees' wasting of time being no different than any other type of emloyee theft; and the grand finale......."they will eventually be ground down into the valueless thief that you've been treating them like."

Because in her opinion we are treating employees like thieves, (because we chose to start monitoring internet usage because some employees were abusing the privilege and continued to even after being warned???, see my posts #65 and #82 in this thread), they will eventually be ground down into being a valueless thief.

Wow, that was interesting.

So, therefore, in spite of the occasional "qualifiers" she used, I still believe that her post was written about me.

 

[HappyFingers]

yawn

im stil at work
2hrs to go after a long nightshift

the dis is just one of a number of forums i visit (whilst at work)