anti online

[catch]

No, that is naive..............even the most moronic employee knows that you pay them to work, not spend your time in idle P2P chit-chat. If they are not aware that it is wrong, they should be doing nothing more complex than cleaning latrines, for which a PC and P2P applications are not required.

Have you ever been to a real company?

I used to think this as well... my first revelation was about seven years ago when I was walking through a Lockheed-Martin engineering department. About half the employees were literally looking blankly at the ceiling or out the window, with no papers on their desk and no programs open on their computer. The other half was broken into maybe three groups:

1. Actively job searching.
2. Clearly personal phone calls
3. Other non-work related activities (including one manager who was actually developing his personal porn website that he had hosted on company bandwidth)

No, I am not making any of this up.

Your average employee falls into one of a few groups as well.

1. Good worker, works a solid nine hours everyday only stopping for a 45 minute lunch. These people usually have an IQ of about 80 and tend to be quite friendly.
2. Good worker who feels that so long as they finish all their work, they can use their time as they see fit.
3. Bitter worker who feels underpaid for the genius they really are and squander time as they see fit, barely achieving minimum goals.
4. (The most common) An overall good worker, who understands that company time is to be spent doing company work... but sometimes gets bored, or has trouble focusing, has personal business preoccupying them, or maybe they just feel unappreciated after being shunned by a superior, or maybe... just maybe they were having an off day where they just plain don't feel like doing work.

And back to the original point... with no agreed to policy... the work place becomes a totalitarian regime... where punishments are arbitrarily dealt on the whims of the managers. This makes employees uncomfortable, less productive, and more likely to jump ship. (Especially if they feel their employer finds them better suited to scrub toilets everytime they have an off day.)

cheers,

catch

[nihil]

Have you ever been to a real company?

Yes, and rather more than you have I would say

Lockheed Martin? I have worked in Aerospace and Defence, these organisations are contract driven..............no contract means no work, but the company accepts that..............they retain core staff to be able to bid for the next contract. These are not "real companies" in the 9-5 sense.

What we have here is a girl working in an office in the Phillipines............she sends stuff out to customers, which suggests sales order processing or customer support.

Where I obviously have far more experience than you is in the management of teams of junior staff. If you allow one of them to not pull their weight, this has a very detrimental effect on the morale of the rest of the team.

Introducing draconian "policies" is also bad management style as you are perceived to be punishing the team for the actions of the individual.

The manager's approach in this case seems to be to "ground" the individual.

Whether P2P/IM applications should be allowed in the first place is not the issue here...........the OP is looking for a way to prevent a particular individual from abusing the system.

[MrLinus]

Whether P2P/IM applications should be allowed in the first place is not the issue here...........the OP is looking for a way to prevent a particular individual from abusing the system.

Restrictions on the local OS through local or group policies and application level prevention through firewalls (depending on the firewall -- might be as simple as blocking access to a specific set of IPs related to IMing) as well as a verbal discussion about why it's not allowed might be helpful. I have seen environments that Catch describes and I do know that if you just go in and "slam the door shut" you end up with a "us vs. them" attitude. Not very conducive or productive, IMO.

BOFH is funny but I think in today's environment is necessary. Back in the 80s and early 90s only a handful truly understand the OS and there was a small percentage that use it. Today EVERYONE in the company uses a computer. It's to our benefit, IMO, that we get the user on our side. This can help in regards to troubleshooting, security related issues and just doing their job. I look at a classroom setting and see students regularly surfing and such (regardless of how interested they are or how much their mark depends on their attention to the subject at hand).

On the other hand, I've seen the other spectrum and that largely depends on the environment itself. Some environments with low morale seem to have more "surfers" while those with a tighter nit seem to have fewer surfers and more "true workers". For some environments a little surfing is ok. But I think it does need to be tempered.

It's that old common sense concept.

[catch]

Yes, and rather more than you have I would say

How's that working out for you?

Lockheed Martin? I have worked in Aerospace and Defence, these organisations are contract driven..............no contract means no work, but the company accepts that..............they retain core staff to be able to bid for the next contract. These are not "real companies" in the 9-5 sense.

Gee, no kidding. They were the most glaring example... and were working on a THAAD project at the time.

Where I obviously have far more experience than you is in the management of teams of junior staff. If you allow one of them to not pull their weight, this has a very detrimental effect on the morale of the rest of the team.

So much arrogance. Which of the four catagories of worker did I post that would not pull their weight?

Introducing draconian "policies" is also bad management style as you are perceived to be punishing the team for the actions of the individual.

Who said anything about draconian policies? I merely said that a policy should be in place so the user at least knows what is expected of them and what is not tolerated in as explicit a manner as possible. The policy may state: "Using Instant Messaging programs are fine so long as management feels it doesn't effect the quality or quantity of your work."

The manager's approach in this case seems to be to "ground" the individual.

By not communicating with them? How is simply changing a user's work environment behind their back "grounding" them?

Whether P2P/IM applications should be allowed in the first place is not the issue here...........the OP is looking for a way to prevent a particular individual from abusing the system.

The issue here is that management isn't clearly communicating to the user that they are doing something inappropriate. The user prolly figures that if they are doing their job (customer support or whatever) and still have time to chat, then all is well. Why should they think any differently?

Basically every single psychology and organizational behavior study indicates that people will act with a maturity level commensurate to the level shown to them.

cheers,

catch

[zENGER]

A solution I've used before in a small network that didn't have any rules based solutions was to setup the machine as a static IP with no gateway set, and then restrict the user from being able to access the network setup. The computer can now function only on the local network.

[scratchONtheBOX]

Work Work Work

Job in the Philippines? Let me see… There should be a lot of scenario that I could visualize related to this during my working days back there.

Company 1 – there is this particular department (since I am working in a “Group of Company”), wherein they were just spending the remaining days of their work doing personal chatting in IM. But still they have this style of doing it during break-time (12NN-1PM) while the others sleep (including me). The point is, IM is actually allowed by the MIS Dept., since they use it to communicate with customers and other entities, but for personal use - should not be obvious. Because once the DEPARTMENT BOSS found it out, will screw them all perhaps.

In the scenario wherein the OP presented, I think the problem is (maybe), the BOSS catches the employee one time of doing IMing while waiting for a very important report that is URGENTLY needed. The employee is VERY important to the BOSS since she is capable of doing the JOB (that is why the BOSS don’t want to TELL to STOP IMing directly or personally because maybe the EMPLOYEE will think of this approach as STRICT and may change the attitude of EMPLOYEE including the TEAM once directly told that it is prohibited. The fact is EMPLOYEES are VIGILANT and reacts very NEGATIVELY especially if there are no known POLICIES aside from, let’s say START - DO YOUR WORK - FINISH IT – STOP.


Company 2 – In my last company there that I am working, IM is allowed again. I think the question falls in the ABUSE section. We are in the TECHNICAL SUPPORT environment and IM comes in handy especially when we have SATELLITE OFFICES and PEOPLE on the move. We use IM primarily to communicate with our MOBILE TEAM. FROM-IM-TO-CELLPHONE type of communication. It is FREE and very USEFUL in a fast-phase environment. But about ABUSE of use, we have a RULE for that one. Before we use specific services and facilities in the workplace, the ADMIN should know it. PERSONAL reasons can be tolerated as long as it is not ABUSIVE. Who will decide? Think of it as a mutual understanding between each member of the team. WORK-LOAD is one factor, since we are people on the move, staying in chat for a long time may never occur. Phone ringing here, server needs to be checked there, need to assist the DB ADMIN. Keep the employees busy while enjoying their type of work could solve the issue. The reason why they are there is work. And the reason why they use IM should be related to work.


Company 3 – My job here in KSA. As a secretary, I am allowed to use IM. Even the BOSS see me chatting with our supplier about important matters. The use of such service falls again to the ABUSE section.

In one-way or the other, the BOSS should re-think of the ideas about preventing EMPLOYEES about such SERVICE. If your company is customer-service oriented, perhaps having a POLICY about using the Internet or IM should be moderated but not prohibited. IM could be of use the same way we use it in our company. You can also present to EMPLOYEES about being aware of using IM or the Internet. A good presentation as well as the goal of not abusing such would enlighten them (not scare them). As an Admin, it is your primary goal to secure the network. IM could be dangerous if not properly used.

And at the end, remember that WORK is still WORK, abusive employees even though they are considered as assets could jeopardize the company’s operation if they continue to abuse something.


Yo!

[nihil]

Hmmm?

How's that working out for you?

Just fine thanks............the time I spent as an auditor has given me a very broad experience...........of which I would seem to have some 27 years more than yourself?

My comments have the intent of demonstration that a "Fortune 500 Company" is not the only approach, and is certainly not appropriate in all circumstances or parts of the World

Gee, no kidding. They were the most glaring example... and were working on a THAAD project at the time.

Glad I don't have any stock...............you do not have a hope in hell of getting the JSF............can I sell you a few Eurofighters OH! if your date of birth is correct in your profile, you would have been 21/22 at the time.................fresh out of college and full of "textbook"?

So much arrogance. Which of the four catagories of worker did I post that would not pull their weight?

Errrrrrrrrrr "experience" is spelt just like I have there.............I don't accept your categories............they are gross oversimplifications. When you have worked in countries and amongst cultures different from your own you may well appreciate this?

Who said anything about draconian policies? I merely said that a policy should be in place so the user at least knows what is expected of them and what is not tolerated in as explicit a manner as possible. The policy may state: "Using Instant Messaging programs are fine so long as management feels it doesn't effect the quality or quantity of your work."

Not all practices are based on formality.............in some environments and societies people actually respect eachother..........they become displeased when this trust is abused?

By not communicating with them? How is simply changing a user's work environment behind their back "grounding" them?

WE have no evidence of communication or lack of it? WE are BOTH speculating?

The issue here is that management isn't clearly communicating to the user that they are doing something inappropriate. The user prolly figures that if they are doing their job (customer support or whatever) and still have time to chat, then all is well. Why should they think any differently?

Comment as above..................if you cannot do something all of a sudden, that might be a hint? and if you are not doing anything that different from your colleagues, you will know, and so will they.

Apart from a boss/employee personality clash (a very real possibility I suppose?) I think that this could well be a "softly, softly" management style.

[catch]

I am having difficulty comprehending that you feel no policy is required and the organization should just fly by the seat of its pants.

Whenever management has an issue they should just arbitrarily use technological means to impose their will upon the employees?

You are not going to change my mind on this subject... having a policy IS a best practice!

I guess we agree to disagree.

cheers,

catch

PS. Is RISC an OS?

[nihil]

PS. Is RISC an OS?

In the UK it is

http://www.jellybaby.net/rougol/riscos/index.html

Although I am well aware that it originated from a processor design concept (Reduced Instruction Set)

I guess we agree to disagree.

Actually we don't

You are not going to change my mind on this subject... having a policy IS a best practice!

Absolutely, totally, utterly, unequivocally, .............(can't be bothered to get my Roget's Thesaurus), CORRECT!

My "arguments" as you probably see them, are not based on best practice..........rather:

1. We have an existing situation
2. The country and culture are not our own.
3. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"

In other words they are more "observations"