This room is a virtual chat room, one couldnt seriously construct a legitmate reason for being in this part of the website during work hours - however you could elsewhere as you stick to the defence of discoursing relevant work issues etc. Not here. So you could be fired.

How do you feel about that and arent the boundaries becoming ever more blurred???

Hi,

Interesting question, and a nice attempt to 'wee on our parade' ;)

My response would be: how would an employer know that you'd posted here as opposed to in the other forums - we're all entitled to breaks under health and safety, and if you so chose to post here during one, then so be it. We'll never tell, and we can quickly (ahem) disguise any post should we need to on a member's behalf.

In any case, I doubt you'd get into too much trouble as a call centre person posting on a call centre information resource, regardless of what you're talking about - so long as it doesn't slag your company off, say...

John

Interesting question, and a nice attempt to 'wee on our parade' ;)

No sir, I object to this assumptive remark.

I simply pose the question that discussion in chat rooms are not permitted as viable uses of the internet in most work places. The issue of how staff us their time is entirely different to an internet usage policy.

One cant call a loved one on the phone simply for a chat, whats changed in the virtual world where one 'chats' with strangers via a screen?

Besides this is a 'Pub' these kind of debates rage all the time in pubs, its very appropriate and timely.

As the world developes its interesting to discuss the ramifications of new developments as they impact our lives.

Well, nobody is forced to be here. I am sure that it's possible, just as it's possible to be fired for no reason at all. Whether or not it's likely is another matter entirely. I think it probably boils down to precisely what an employee does or doesn't do, rather than when or where they do it; for instance, downloading dodgy images is v.bad whilst talking about call centre matters if you happen to work in a call centre is not so bad - but it's a perception thing and not really anything which we can make provisions for, either way*.

John

* Save for the inclusion of a 'boss' key. If only...

Depending on your working environment and particularly the strength of your IT Dept - it is higly likely that an employees internet usage goes relatively unmonitored.

The exception to this is firwell software which bans URL's and web pages based on certain keywords i.e. sex. This software is useful and definately serves a purpose in the workplace.

I think the interesting point about use of the internet and your work - is where does the employers rights and responsibilities end? In a recent case in Scotland a bloke from a well known High St book shop, was dismissed for comments made on his own personal Blog - out of hours and at home. The bloke hand't directly named his employer - but also had left enough clues about whom he worked for.

Its all a bit blurry when you think about it.

Where does use of the companys' technology start and end?

Is it Ok to call my wife and have a risque conversation?
Is it OK to call a 'private shop' and order some books?

Now thats just using a phone, how about if I use a PC and do the same thing? How risque is risque?

Where do employers rights of ownership and employee's freewill start and end?

Stuart,

There's a big difference between specifically and intentionally casting negative opinions about your employer and simply talking about the footie of a dull Thursday morning (say).

Of course, there are shades of grey inbetween, and the employer ought to look objectively and with open-mindedness onto any 'observed' net indiscretion.

John

"Where do employers rights of ownership and employee's freewill start and end?"

Therein lies the real question: at what point does reasonable, non-intrusive use turn into excessive and/or intrusive use?

I think employers ought to look at all the angles and say to themselves: "is this so bad" - and if they deem the answer to that to be 'yes' - say in the bookseller case - then at least they are thinking about it and not following some inflexible acceptable use policy document that the employee probably never read nor signed...

After all, look at it from the employee's perspective: if you disagree with an employer's AUP - what stance can you take that won't negatively affect you other than to reluctantly sign it? Isn't that a kind of 'duress' (I think that's the term)?

John

A lot of management manage their staff *rse about face. Why worry if they're spending time on the internet?

I believe that most important thing is that they're producing the results they need to; and this is normally answering a good number of calls and providing each one with a high level of service.

If an agent can do this whilst having a chat; what's the harm?

Regards,
DB

<<<<<>>>>>


The harm apparently comes from the phrase "...conduct likely to bring (the employer) into disrepute..." usually written into all contracts.

This is all dwon to the employers interpretation but shouldnt we expect more?

What about freedom of speech, how is this or blogging for that matter any different to say a conversation overheard in a pub (no pun intended). We are all free (subject to defamtion laws) to express our opinion about our employer - but can we expect to remain in a job afterwards?

I see it, I see it! It's there! The Crux of the argument! Me sir! Sir!

"...bring (the employer) into disrepute"

Exactly. SO, it's not where or when you do it, nor necessarily the medium you use*, but what you actually express by way of opinion.

So, as long as nobody says naughty things about their employers we'll be fine. Which kinda rules out a pretty significant proportion of pub talk, but hey...

John

* Spoken opinion being equally as valid as web posting being as valid as scrawling it in cubicle three in the gents...

Mmmm it is the medium you use. One is a published forum.

There is difference between verbally "sounding off" in a socially relaxed atmosphere where one might expect some degree of privacy or acceptance that one's words were not for repetition and deliberately placing a written record of one's untested grievances on an insecure and international public forum.

The degree of the moan is also the issue as is the duty of confidentially that employees have to their employers.

"insecure and international public forum"

Wotcha. International, public and forum I can live with, but insecure? Hey, it's gotta be extremely secure, 'cause we use Windows!*

Back to your point, I concede that the medium may make a difference but only after taking what was actually said/written/alleged into consideration.

John

* sarcasm: just in case anyone thought I was serious...

..there's going to be trouble when you two meet outside the Kebab shop.

Interesting topic i may say

I believe most companies are no longer living in the dark ages where opressive restrictions are laid down on their staff ie our company have special computers set up so staff without p,c or internet access can have internet access during lunch and general breaks and any company in my opionion who don,t allow this should be named and shamed for their oppresive measures

I also believe that people need somewhere to go to to vent their frustrations about the bad treatment they are receiving from their companies ie i know my girlfriend is being treated quite badly by her company and the only person she can vent this to is me as her internet access is quite restricted

We all live in the internet age it prety much exists in all our daily lives and it can be of great benefit as a diversion for people stuck at a desk doing quite a stressful hum drum job as it opens up a whole world of possibilities and yes you can land on a slighty dodgy site now and again lol whoops by mistake of course

And if employers are trying to catch out there staff on sites such as this then it is obvious that they have nothing better to do with their time than harrass their staff and at the same time not keeping their eye on the ball getting results for their business which is probalby all ready being achieved by the very same people who come to this site in the first place

We are all grown ups in the working world and know the difference between abusing a company benefit or using it with moderation and yes it can be abused but as long as the employer gets the results who cares hey

That,s me off the soap box again

There are a few clear differences between phone calls and internet/email.

Internet and email produce a written record of what has been said, and are accessible by a wider audience than moaning to your friends and family by phone. So beware if it is to the detriment of the company! There was an interesting article on blogs on this a few weeks ago at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4167629.stm

Even if what you have to say is nothing to do with your work, the difference between pc and phone usage during your breaks is clear too. Phone calls cost, and emails don't. So I wouldn't mind someone checking such sites as this on breaks or using hotmail, but I would object to them using the company phone for more than the occasional quick call.

Re the earlier comment about who can tell when you posted - erm all posts here have a time against them. And even so, most IT departments can tell when sites were accessed, and how much bandwidth was taken up.

Z

As John says, an interesting topic and close to my heart.

My agents are entirely results based, if they can achieve their targets with 2 calls a day then it's fine by me. I'm a huge believer in minimising the number of potentially nuisance calls that can be made, as we should all be. The right call, to the right person, at the right time is what brings home the bacon.

Predictably, in our case, a lot of the background to these calls is discovered via the internet - which is where the sticking point comes with unenlightened IT departments. Sadly you and I know that the products that us hardware/software suppliers provide are used by all sorts of end-users. Some of the more financially desirable end-users may trade in areas intensely disliked by IT departments, we still need information about them in order to do our jobs properly (I'm not talking illegal here). It's a bit of a vicious circle, sites disliked and actively banned by net security, often depend heavily on technology - the kind of technology we provide as our bread and butter- as the technology increases, the desirability of web contact with them decreases.

I think what I'm trying to say is that what we need is a 'friendly face of IT', more training in the intelligent and safe use of the www. I believe it is still the case that most viruses are introduced by unwary users opening attachments, this is ridiculous in any organisation, anyone with access to a potentially vulnerable should have received some training in how to use it.

I'm sure there are companies out there who do run their IT with the users in mind, I've never really found one. How many disasters both corporate and personal could have been averted if users had access to some kind of travelling 'IT clinic', alerting them to problems, re-inforcing basic security principles, addressing basic problems that might be considered too trivial for a 'helpdesk error log' - who decides on the degree of triviality? the user?

An agent that is given a degree of informed freedom of choice is more likely to make the right decision than a mistrusted, over-bound and disgruntled one.

Of course this is a wholly utopian attitude, but giving people the impression of trust while protecting and monitoring behind the scenes, to me, is a sensible, adult, way to treat people.

To summarise, the way we treat our employers depends on the way they treat us.

I'll get my coat.....

Off topic, but...

"it is still the case that most viruses are introduced by unwary users opening attachments"

There is an answer - this explains a bit - and if only more organisations would realise how much of the virus/spyware/hacking, etc. threat could be removed by simply doing as I have done, the world would be a much happier place...

John

Employers are responsible for their employees' activities when using the Internet. For example, if software for use in an organisation is obtained illegally, the employer is liable even if it was obtained without his or her knowledge or permission. Similarly, information on a company's website or in its email can give rise to legal action against the company. Employers are responsible if employees send email messages which are defamatory or which breach confidentiality or contract. Any such messages will be disclosable for the purposes of legal action. In the case of Western Provident Association v Norwich Union, it was shown that untrue and damaging statements about alleged financial problems at Western Provident were circulating on Norwich Union's internal email. This resulted in Norwich Union having to pay £450,000 in damages and costs.

In order to reduce liability, employers must be able to prove that they have a policy in place to prevent illegal actions and that appropriate steps are taken to enforce this policy.