Websurfing Damaging U.S. Productivity?

Bert writes "Ars Technica does a good job of debunking a study that claims that American business lose $178 billion a year to web surfing in the workplace. Particularly alarming is the fact that the study used the beliefs of 350 IT managers to determine how many hours a week the average employee wastes online. Like the article asks: where's the calculation of how much time we all spend answer work e-mail at home?"

Comments

Guilty as charged

[skurk]

I mean, hey - look at me, I'm at work right now, reading and posting on slashdot.
I even spent a few minutes reloading the front page so I could go for first post.

But *Ahem* Seriously though, I love my job and only surf in between tasks.
(-: (siht sdaer ssob ym esac ni tsuJ)

Re:Guilty as charged

[ucahg]

Me too! I mean, I'm on a break right now, even though I've only been at work for 19 minutes. No, I swear I'm not surfing slashdot while I work, it's during breaks! Honest!

Re:Guilty as charged

[ThatsWhatImThinking]

Between slashdot and OHUK I still find time to do other things. Sometimes...

Re:Guilty as charged

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I even spent a few minutes reloading the front page so I could go for first post.

The star sign next to your Slashdot ID says that you even spent a few *dollars* so you could get first post.

I congratulate you Sir for being a very conscientious employee: you knew you'd have to spent incredible amounts of time reloading the /. front page over and over to have a chance to get first post as a non-subscriber, but instead you decided to become a /. subscriber to be able to RTFA and post ahead of time, thereby saving time and company money!

Re:Guilty as charged

[fshalor]

I even put down "google" skills as a job requirement.

Now, sure, I surf at work for fun/pleasure/personal (*Not* that type of pleasure!)

But what about the time I've saved googling faster than a speeding library trip.

Not to mention all the online howtoos and news groups which have "real" solutions to real problems. /. , and BOFH should be required reading for any IT job. ;)

Re:Guilty as charged

[DenDave]

I know that thanks to people surfing the web at the office, it's a lot more quiet than it used to be and people smoke less.

These are also advantages that employers should understand. My productivity gets better when my office is quiet, I am to low level to get my own office so lets keep people shut up! If someone is gonna slack for the sake of slacking, internet makes no difference, the slackers used to fuck around with printers and copiers or yap about their kids etc... Those of us who do get things done are generally information soakers anyway and the internet provides our midns with something different from our work, like a breather.

If the population of employees that surf the web at work have cost companies XXX$ then it probably has more to do with poor recruitment and management then the internet.

Hire dingbats, get dingbat poo....

Re:Guilty as charged

[CrashRoX]

Its a little slow here today... well everyday. Should I waste my time surfing? Or sitting examining my cubicle wall?

Re:Guilty as charged

[dusik]

Dude, push the cubicle wall out with your feet so you can get a scenic view of the great outdoors and launch a game of Tetris!

Jeez...

Re:Guilty as charged

[CrashRoX]

great outdoors? where? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Guilty as charged

[LetterJ]

I used to work with a guy who would sit, staring at a completely empty, default WindowsXP desktop for HOURS at a time. Just stare. No dozing off, no listening to music, no spreadsheet or requirements document or text editor open even to look like he was working. Just the rolling hills wallpaper from Redmond. You could walk by on your way to a meeting and then on your way back and he wouldn't have moved an inch. Downright creepy.

BUT, he wasn't surfing the Internet, so they left him alone.

Re:Guilty as charged

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, hey - look at me, I'm at work right now, reading and posting on slashdot.
I even spent a few minutes reloading the front page so I could go for first post.

But *Ahem* Seriously though, I love my job and only surf in between tasks.
(-: (siht sdaer ssob ym esac ni tsuJ)

John,

Im going to need you to come visit my office before you go to lunch break.

thanks
the "ssob"

Re:Guilty as charged

[cHiphead]

Hell, Im late for work because I'm reading slashdot.

Cheers.

Re:Guilty as charged

[ryanov]

I wonder if I should have put that on my resume that I sent to Google to consider. ;)

Re:Guilty as charged

[sp3tt]

I don't go to work because I'm reading slashdot.

Re:Guilty as charged

[Irashtar]

Hm, I wonder if I can get my title changed to "Network information researcher"

Re:Guilty as charged

[bladesjester]

It's that big blue room that occasionally has leaky pipes.

Re:Guilty as charged

[CrashRoX]

I have only been at my job for a few months. The workload is very patchy, im either really busy for a few days or not doing anything. When I first started I didnt know what to do durring down time. So I just sat at the empty computer, stare at the wall, think about later, dozed off a few times. Now im more comfortable. Nothing like getting paid to read /. , check personal email, catch up on the news I neglect while im at home. Only downfall is I am so bored! Eight hours of surfing wears you down.

Re:Guilty as charged

[fshalor]

They probably know you've been reading using google anyways. No need to tell them. ;)

Re:Guilty as charged

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I can sympathise with that. I'm doing some contract work for the Health Service and although the pay is good there is no actual work to be done - and hasn't been for the last 3 months. Surfing the net can get boring, but that's where Spider Solataire comes in !

Re:Guilty as charged

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm worse than you. I've wasted time reading your comment about wasting time.

Re:Guilty as charged

[Anonymous Coward]

At my company, back in the good ol' days, Internet usage was logged... but not monitored. So I would take some time out of the day every now and then to check my email, or read a news article, but that's all. I just kept in mind that I may or may not be being watched, so I kept it under control. The problem is though: I had an email checker installed on my computer, and the high-ups in the office actually believed I checked my email 3,000 times in one week. They also were under the impression that I love to browse http://thumbnails.alexa.com/ (Firefox Google thumbnail plugin, anyone?)

After hours of wasted time in the boss's office trying to explain what a script is... I got kind of fed up with the situation.

So now I have my BSD server listening for SSH connections on port 80, because the company's firewall won't let you connect out on 22. Every day I come to work, I SSH in, setup a tunnel, and startup sockd. Now I have unrestricted, unmonitored Internet access... and it's totally gotten out of hand.

I used to be a good worker... I really did. They got 95% of my time. Now they get at most 60%.

Good thing I work in the IT department.

Re:Guilty as charged

[CrashRoX]

Wow did I luck out today! We had a bomb scare. That killed about 3 hours! Back to surfing!

Re:Guilty as charged

[xenoandroid]

What job is this? Sounds perfect for me.

Re:Guilty as charged

[camusflage]

I used to work with a guy who would sit, staring at a completely empty, default WindowsXP desktop for HOURS at a time. Just stare.

Peter Gibbons: Well, I generally come in at least fifteen minutes late, ah, I use the side door - that way Lumbergh can't see me, heh - after that I sorta space out for an hour.
Bob Porter: Da-uh? Space out?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah, I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch too, I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.

Re:Guilty as charged

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you've got MY job!

Actually, it's great to know I'm not the only one out there with huge amounts of down time!

In my world the internet isn't the problem, it's the solution!!!

Re:Guilty as charged

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, a person who considers themselves clever will spend more time working around an obstacle than the delay the obstacle presents. Ever take the back way to work just because the average speed is higher but the trip time is a bit more? Sitting in traffic sucks. As for rules, trust me and I behave, mistrust me and I revolt.

answer work e-mail at home?"

[Threni]

> where's the calculation of how much time we all spend answer work e-mail at
> home?"

Uh...zero. Why would I want to answer work email at home. I don't, nor do I answer phone calls from work on my mobile when I've left work. If they want to arrange paying me to do either, that's fine, but they haven't. I'm suprised this is even an issue.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Anonymous Coward]

with an attitude like that you'll never advance. I've always made myself available after hours and I've been promoted time after time with pay raises every time. My bosses see the value in the work that I do for them and they reward me for that hard work.

Unfortunately, most americans seem to think that they are owed something just for showing up for work. They seem to think that doing the smallest amount of work justifies their pay.

But if you change thinking and give 110% or more, any good boss will notice and do what he can to reward you. But there are some bosses (or companies) that don't care, then it's time to move on and find one that does.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Anonymous Coward]

People in sysadmin roles should be considered unemployed unless they are logged in at 9:30AM on Sundays. I answer work emails at home because it's easier to think without dipshits constantly interrupting me (which has happened twice while I was typing this).

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Anonymous Coward]

My bosses see the value in the work that I do for them and they reward me for that hard work.

And, they will reward you one last time. Your final reward is training the Indian resources we have hired to replace you.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why would I want to answer work email at home.

Because that is the cost of coming to work when I feel like it and leaving early if I need to.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[wdmr]

I think you have a reasonable outlook but not everyone is fortunate enough to work at a place that allows you to escape. And, the problem is that "IT Decision Makers" routinely expect well in excess of 40 hours per week from their employees. My current position is with a company that has a good work-life balance but when I was working in major corporate IT divisions I was *expected* to work more than 40 "if needed". And since we tended to get projects assigned with unrealistic deadlines, "if needed" meant "damn near always".

So if I am expected to put in extra effort and extra hours it is up to *me* to determine whether I want to do a couple surfing runs each day so long as I'm not doing things that put the company at risk (surfing porn, emailing competitors, etc). As long as I meet deadlines and my productivity is good, it's none of their business how I divvy up my time. And this doesn't even touch the fact that it is almost impossible for a senior IT worker to get a real "day off" anymore.

That being said, there is a serious problem with a minority of people who do things like daytrading, fantasy sports, shopping, etc all day long while doing the absolute minimum to avoid losing their jobs. But that is a management problem not a technology problem and it is wrong and short-sighted to punish 95% of your employees because mid-managers are too lazy (or too busy daytrading and playing fantasy football) to stay engaged in their employee's tasks and responsibilities.

I wish there were some surveys to compare the relative productivity of companies with liberal internet policies to those with a "total lockdown" mentality. My suspicion is that good management + a liberal policy would result in greater productivity (from improved morale) than an IT policy that treats the employees like untrustworthly spoiled children.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been in the IT industry for over 15 years (I know not as long as some) but it's never happened to me. I've seen dozens of co-workers lose their jobs to outsourcing, but every single boss that I've had has been so impressed with me that when push came to shove, they've made sure that I've always had and job, and always have gotten that raise.

Just because some people are lazy here in the US and it's cheaper to outsource and the outsourced people seem to do a better job, doesn't mean that there aren't Americans that do a good job and are appreciated for it.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[CmdrGravy]

First of all giving "110% or more" is impossible and it's a stupid expression which I wish people would stop using.

Secondly there's nothing wrong with his attitude, the agreement you have with your employer is that they pay you to provide certain services to them. If they aren't paying you for something then you shouldn't be doing it. This is not a bad attitude and shouldn't affect your chances for promotion or anything else. What is a problem is bosses who think you should provide services which they are not paying your for which at the end of the day is bad for you and bad for the business.

Thirdly I behave in the same way as the grandparent poster and have also been promoted regulary and received pay rises because I have performed well in the tasks I am paid to perform. I have also done a lot of out of hours support cover where I am at home and have to answer work calls but this is different because I am paid specifically to do this. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[mmarlett]

Actually, I've been reading work-related and personal email for two hours this morning. I'm still in my underwear at home and won't go into work for another two hours. Of course, I'm my own boss and there's little line for me. But when I had a corporate job, it was mostly hurry up and wait. It was second shift, and I checked my email from home every day, often hours and hours before and after I was in the office. But when I was in the office, I'd sometimes have five hours of down time a day. Surfed a lot, and I didn't mind one bit keeping on top of things from home. Often I'd come to work with a good sense of the major events of the day and spent less time catching up and more time... surfing. ;)

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Tom]

You and I are in a minority here. I even leave my company mobile at work when I leave. AFAIK I'm the only one in my company doing that.

For most people, however, the lines between work and private life have started to blur. Mail from both worlds is mixing, as are phone calls. On-call duty is expanding constantly, and even people not explicitly on duty are often called on their private mobiles to answer work questions.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[wdmr]

"Secondly there's nothing wrong with his attitude, the agreement you have with your employer is that they pay you to provide certain services to them. If they aren't paying you for something then you shouldn't be doing it. This is not a bad attitude and shouldn't affect your chances for promotion or anything else."

I agree. But until that is the point of view of most IT professionals and until most of them are willing to stick to their guns it is never going to change (in the US--not sure about things like this balance across the pond in the land of 30 hour work weeks and double-digit unemployment). From a management point of view it *will definitely* affect your chances of promotion.

It's really quite simple. If a manager has to choose between Bob, who does good work for 40 hours but leaves at 5-sharp every day or Fred, who also does good work but burns the midnight oil and carries a pager without compensation he's going to choose Fred 9 times out of 10. And since IT professionals only stick with one employer for an average of, what 4-5 years, "burnout" isn't an issue from a cynical management point of view since the guy who burns out quits and becomes someone else's problem (never mind that we all know we wouldn't burn out and would stay longer if things were more reasonable).

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[lucabrasi999]

I've always made myself available after hours and I've been promoted time after time with pay raises every time. My bosses see the value in the work that I do for them and they reward me for that hard work.

At my old employer, I used to work significant overtime. I used to come in on Saturdays. I was rewarded by that company. I left that employer eight years ago. I went directly to my current employer. Now that I am married and have a child, you can be damn sure I don't work on Saturdays or Sundays. When I leave the office, I don't look at my e-mail until the morning. I insist on receiving utilization credit for every hour worked (I am a consultant). When I take a vacation, I don't take my laptop with me.

Despite my "attitude" (as you describe it), I received significant raises over the past couple of years, when no one else in my company was getting any increase.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[CrazyTalk]

Uh...quite a bit. Well, not recently. But back when I was working on a lot of high-profile, high stress projects it was not uncommon to get emails from managers at 2:00 in the morning. I would often check my work email at least once in the evening just to help keep my head above water for the next morning. Since we were virtually expected to be working 24/7 anyway, it didn't really matter when and where I checked my office email.

The only time I was really annoyed by this was when I got a call one Saturday night while I was out to dinner at about 8:00 from a customer that I had never met, just to "kick some ideas around". It took me a good 20 minutes to politely end the conversation, but he would probably have been happy to talk for hours.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Steinfiend]

By "across the pond" I presume you mean the United Kingdom. The latest unemployment figures I could find (whilst working) for the UK is 5.2% in 2002. The US numbers for 2002 is 5.8%. Not only is the UK not in double digits, but it is less than the US.

As for 30 hour work weeks? I wish it had been like that when I was in the UK. The latest figures I can find are around 37.5 hours on average in the UK, which is admittedly less then the US. I think that might have more to do with the Government structure and restrictions than any work ethic or management differences.

Sources:
http://www.bartleby.com/151/fields/72.html
http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/wrkgtime/general/uk workhrs.htm?IsSrchRes=1

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all giving "110% or more" is impossible and it's a stupid expression which I wish people would stop using. So if you are expected to work 40 hours, and you give 100%. What happens if you work 50 hours? By my calculations that would be giving 125%, or 25% more than expected. Right??? 100% is what you are expected, so technically it's possible to give more than 100%. You obviously can't get give more than 100% at any given time, but if you put more time into the equation, you then gain a higher percentage.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[dusik]

>> "...I'm not doing things that put the company at risk (surfing porn, emailing competitors, etc)."

How does surfing porn put the company at risk? (...should I close my other tabs..?)

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[dusik]

>> "...and spent less time catching up and more time... surfing. ;)"

I'm composing a list of people not to hire. You're on it too. Next...

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[CmdrGravy]

I'm not saying that that isn't the case but that kind of behaviour is good for no one, Fred or the Company.

First of all it's not good for Fred because he has no life and is on low wage ( considering the amount of work he does ).

If Fred is promoted the company had better hope they find another sucker just like Fred or lot's of what they counted on being done for free will no longer get done.

From the companies point of view it doesn't make much sense to promote Fred, he is great value for money in the position he's in. Maybe give him a few more responsibilities and a slight pay increase but he will no doubt continue to be work on his own time whatever you pay him.

Personally I'd rather promote someone who was effective in their role and had the best chance of succeding in the new role I was promoting them into, Freds qualities are a nice bonus but not the most crucial factor in my decision.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[dusik]

>> "If they aren't paying you for something then you shouldn't be doing it. This is not a bad attitude and shouldn't affect your chances for promotion or anything else."

It shouldn't... but it does.

The real world isn't ideal.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[CmdrGravy]

Yes you can increase the effort you put in by 110% just as you outline but you cannot exert an absolute effort of 110% which is what the phrase is describing.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Threni]

> Unfortunately, most americans seem to think that they are owed something just
> for showing up for work. They seem to think that doing the smallest amount of
> work justifies their pay.

(Thanks, but I'm not American).

I work according to my contract, and my contract doesn't mention taking work emails at home, or dealing with any aspect of work outside of office hours. That's what I was talking about, in case your reading comprehension is as poor as your reply implies.

So, to go back to what we were actually discussing, assuming your contract doesn't require you to work outside office hours, why would you? Sure a company would appreciate people working extra for free - they'd be stupid not to, but you have no moral or legal reason to do so. I don't know about you, but I have a social life, and it starts when I leave work.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really quite simple. If a manager has to choose between Bob, who does good work for 40 hours but leaves at 5-sharp every day or Fred, who also does good work but burns the midnight oil and carries a pager without compensation he's going to choose Fred 9 times out of 10.

But you forget the most critical fact: perception. "Bob" does good work and goes home; "Fred" does good work but is the lapdog of the company at all times. Which do you think will get more respect in the long haul?

Answer: Bob.

Bob's got his own life, and he prioritizes work as one component of his total life. When work needs Bob, they know they *need* him and will be reasonable in their demands to get what they *need*. Bob knows how to schedule his own time, and his project estimates are reliable. Bob rarely needs to do overtime, but when he does he gets compensated for it. And because Bob actually *takes* his vacation days he remains refreshed and energetic all the time at work. Bob is human, and his 1st-line manager sees him that way. If the company loses Bob, they'll have to work harder in recruitment to find a competent replacement.

Fred OTOH is replaceable immediately. Fred slips in his estimates all the time because he thinks a few more weekend hours will get it done (it won't). Fred is also tired all the time and constantly complaining about not enough hours in the day to get his work done. After burning 70 hours every week, Fred manages to come in at only 10% higher output than Bob, and Fred's family life is suffering greatly. Fred's got a hero complex and wants the company to be completely dependent on him; his transparent attempts to be absolutely irreplaceable offend his 1st-line manager. Customers have also talked about Fred, how he's very capable but seems a little too "out there" for comfort. Management knows that Fred is on his way to burnout (possibly with a failed marriage to boot), so they are quietly looking for a replacement so they can get reasonable output without the worries.

It's all about perception. My last job I was Fred and got laid-off at the first opportunity. This time I'm Bob, and to my surprise I get *more* respect and accomodation than ever, yet my productive output remains as high as before. The very few times I let my humanity show at work have all worked out fine, because 98% of the time I'm doing exactly what I'm paid for.

It's also quite amazing (working as Bob) how resilient work itself is. If you have an emergency and need to go *now* out of town for two days, you can do that and still catch up when you get back and remain on schedule. As Fred, however, one tiny slip and everything falls apart because the weekend hours were already budgeted into the project schedule.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[mmarlett]

You forget, I'm my own boss. I'm already completely unemployable for that reason alone.

But surfing at work isn't necessarily a bad thing. I encourage my staff -- all part timers/freelancers/volunteers -- to come in and use the office computers for whatever they want whenever they want. The end result is that they have a warm fuzzy about being in the office, and I can occasionally slip in little pieces of work for them "if they've got a moment."

Granted, it's not a traditional work environment where I'm paying people to sit there by the hour.

My supervisor at my old job said, "You work on a different RPM than everyone else." And that was true. I could get done in an hour what others would spend four hours on, and usually I would do it with better quality. When I did too much work, it didn't get me any rewards from the top but certainly built up resentment with my coworkers and made office politics difficult. In the end, it was better for the moral of my coworkers if I spent a lot of time online -- usually engaged in semi-work related reading, such as how to script something to end repetitive tasks, even though I wasn't IT and any such work I did would have to go through a lot of channels to be used.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[YomikoReadman]

Agreed all the way. Most people seem to have the thought in their heads 'If I make myself a slave to my job, I'll get promoted faster and get more payraises.'. I'd kindly like to throw the BS flag on that one; all it does is encourage your employer to walk all over you and wring you for everything you're worth.

To the GP, advancing yourself at work is accomplished by showing up, doing what needs to get done, and doing it well. If you want to put forth extra effort into your job, then I'd suggest accomplishing tasks in less time than was alloted, and then utilizing your extra time to further your own skillsets, or looking for more work to do. Helping folks around your shop is never a bad thing either. However, I'll reiterate that making yourself a slave to your job, while it will get you noticed, is really just a good way to make you hate where you work.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually got yelled at yesterday for not being in the office at 5:20 when a client called requesting work done on their website.

It was not an expected call, nor was it planned or something I wa avoiding... they just happened to call at 5:20 and I wasn't here, so I got yelled at.

Also, "the I'll take a look at it tonite when i get home" wasn't acceptable either.

It's bad enough I work 8-5 instead of the 9-5 in my contract as it is...

I think it's time for a new job.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[wdmr]

If a co-worker sees you surfing porn they can sue you or the company or both claiming a "hostile work environment". The company at least would have to absorb the cost of defending themselves and even then would have to prove that they had taken reasonable steps to prevent such "harassment".

If you think this is ridiculous I will have to point out that there was a sexual harassment case brought against someone I used to work for in which one of the complaints was that he had a Rolling Stone magazine with Gillian Anderson on the cover at his desk and said she was "hot". Yes, stupid. Didn't prevent the company from having to spend money defending the suit (not to mention carrying the complainant--who was totally inept--for almost two years after she would have been fired while the case was arbitrated and then adjudicated). I have worked with people who seemed to have HR on speed-dial and were willing to use that weapon to advance or protect their positions.

Now if you happen to veer off into kiddie-porn or snuff or other illegal activities, the risk is greater as the IT assets of the corporation (firewalls, proxy servers) could be siezed as evidence.

Funny anecdote. I was doing some work on the proxy servers at one place (mgmt wanted to start getting reports on what surfing people were doing to questionable sites) and noticed a guy going to swingers sites (with nudity) and other sites that were prohibited by policy--but not well enforced at the time--between 7 and 7:45. He was a low-level tape jockey and my guess was that his boss tended to show up just before 8. So, I called the number in his profile and just said "Hey, just a friendly call. You do realize everything you do on the internet is logged?" That was the last day he hit those sites.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[wdmr]

I was thinking of continental europe, particularly Germany and France, which have relatively short work-weeks (not sure exactly--I have heard as low as 32 or 30 hours) and very high unemployment.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[andypflueger]

In your underwear??? TMI!

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[wdmr]

Oh. I think we agree on long-term benefits and anyone who works for a wise company/manager with reasonable policies needs to realize how fortunate they are. Just saying lots of managers won't see it that way. The *like* work-a-holics cause it lets them keep headcount and expenses down long enough to get promoted out of the job *they* hate.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[|<amikaze]

First of all giving "110% or more" is impossible and it's a stupid expression which I wish people would stop using.

How so? Let's say you get paid to work 8 hours/day, and you work 8 hours and 48 minutes/day because you stay late for unpaid overtime.

8hr48min = 8.8hr

8.8hr / 8hr = 1.1 = 110%

Maybe I'm missing here, but I believe that that would be giving 110% of what you're being paid for.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[blackmonday]

Make sure to come back and re-read your post when your job gets outsourced to a guy who makes 1/10th of your salary, and cares about the job just as much.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[hagrin]

Uh...zero. Why would I want to answer work email at home. I don't, nor do I answer phone calls from work on my mobile when I've left work.

Small IT shops like the one I work for (buried within a financial investments firm that didn't even have a network as of 3 years ago) require individuals not only with a vast skill set, but with the drive and motivation to continue development.

My company provides me with 2 laptops, pays me $50 per month for cell phone usage and setup VPN access so that I can work from home. It is expected that although I need to be in the office between 9-5 (although very flexible), that I am reachable via cell phone if there is a network outage or applications stop working. As the senior programmer and database administrator (and the only person with any Cisco experience), I'm called in on basically every issue that occurs after hours.

Do I like it? Not particularly, but many small IT shops have to operate in this manner because of the need for 1) 100% uptime, 2) quick and efficient response to user demands and 3) the limited manpower to accomplish these tasks.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[qwijibo]

I think the problem is that the scale is misunderstood. Most people seem to give about 5% on average, so the person who is dedicated to working half the time is actually 10x more productive.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[CmdrGravy]

Your maths are faultless and if when people say "I want you give 110% to this project" they mean I want you to put in 10% more unpaid hours than the hours we will be paying you for on this project you're absolutely correct.

However I don't think that's what the grandparent poster, or indeed anyone else, means when they say that.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[SketcheeBoy]

Must be nice. I'm thankfully not working right now, but when I was I had to email my boss files and answer calls from work. Sometimes it was beyond ridiculous. My first boyfriend was an IT manager and he'd be on any number of electronic devices in the time we were together. He always was iming, cellphone, etc the people at his job. It was insane at times. I feel like you though. The unpaid time is unspoken part of too many job descriptions

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[CmdrGravy]

Ironically it's the people who do the least work who are able to make the most impressive sounding claims to "give 3000% of my normal effort on this next project" since in real terms it may mean they only do an extra 3 mins work.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[bfischer]

Actually, if you are expected to work 40 hours a week and you worked 44, that could be considered giving 110%...

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[hondo77]

Puh-leez. If my company is going to outsource my job, it's not because I won't answer emails at home. In my experience, letting yourself be used and abused on the job isn't worth it in the grand scheme of things.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[denissmith]

My daddy always told me if you're gonna work for low wages, then hold out for long hours. On a more sober note, I can barely count the times I have recommended someone for a position within my company because of the effort and seriousness they brought to their position ( usually a low level staffer here, not a manager). The position would be a real reward for this person, conferring skills that would make them better able to get on a career trajectory. Only twice was I taken up on these suggestions. Always the refrain is as you indicate - he/she's too valuable where they are. Which means they can't replace him for what they 'under'-pay him. These are people who work through lunch - even when you demand they stop! who put in hours they don't get paid for. They actually crave the recognition that they never actually receive, because the Company makes the mistake of thinking that they can continue to take with no give back. Eventually all of the people I recommended for advancement who were too valuable have left. I wish them well.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[|<amikaze]

Hahahahaahaha. So true.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[blackmonday]

Hey, I remember you! We can still be friends. Every now and then I have to do something extra for the company i work for - work a few hours on the weekend, travel, answer a call at 9PM, whatever. It's not very often and I don't mind. It's not unfair considering how much slacking off we do at work. Imagine if you owned a company. I know I wouldn't hire someone with that attitide. See ya later.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[maxpublic]

But that is a management problem not a technology problem

Exactly right. If the employee has the time to dick around surfing the internet then the manager obviously isn't giving that employee enough work, nor keeping tabs on what that employee is doing. After all, that employee is being paid to WORK while at work, not screw around on sites like Slashdot.

It's incumbent upon the manager to make sure that the employee's day is filled with work, and to fire employees who just can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that they're being paid to work ALL OF THE TIME, not just some fraction of it. And in this economy there are plenty of folks available to replace some lazy little prick who thinks he has a 'right' to screw around on the company dime.

Managers, chuck the employees who never grew up or who're dead weight for hours out of the day and you won't have to waste company resources monitoring your work force in the first place. Don't give the losers and slackers a free ride.

Max

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[vertinox]

Why would I want to answer work email at home.

Sometimes I forward my home email to my work address because I don't want to waste my time off at home reading things that I could read at work.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[mr_zorg]

Uh...zero. Why would I want to answer work email at home. I don't, nor do I answer phone calls from work on my mobile when I've left work. If they want to arrange paying me to do either, that's fine, but they haven't. I'm suprised this is even an issue.

And you wonder why you got laid off from your last three jobs during their downsizing? You probably also wonder why you're still a junior engineer... You need to make yourself invaluable!

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you work 2nd or 3rd shift? Outside of the US? If not, Mr. Posting-At-1:29PM-Boy, GET BACK TO WORK YOU HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!

Don't even try to come back with some "lunch hour" bullcrap, 'cause you said it yourself, that you're being paid to work "ALL OF THE TIME".

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[maxpublic]

Don't even try to come back with some "lunch hour" bullcrap, 'cause you said it yourself, that you're being paid to work "ALL OF THE TIME".

One of the perks of owning your own business is that since you're the boss you get to work WHENEVER THE HELL YOU FEEL LIKE IT. You're the boss - you make the rules.

Moron.

Max

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most good tech workers are hyper-productive some of the time and distracted the rest of the time. What they are distracted by is usually technology related but so then they have the knowledge to be hyper-productive again. It probably ends up being a net gain. For the rest of the staff, to quantify a loss in productivity, you would have to show that they could have been working on something else. Every manager likes to pretend (and has to present) that his staff is fully utilized, the realty is that the neural sluggishness of corporations makes that impossible.

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[Anonymous Coward]

$50 says his company dosent last a year, or he is the sole employee

Re:answer work e-mail at home?"

[|<amikaze]

However I don't think that's what the grandparent poster, or indeed anyone else, means when they say that.

Perhaps, deep inside, that that's what your boss is really saying! I mean, if my employees would work 10% extra unpaid overtime, I'd be overjoyed! :D

I'm on break

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm reading this during my lunch break, at which time reasonable personal use of the Internet is explicitly allowed by our local management.

I wonder if I count as "lost productivitiy"?

Re:I'm on break

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if I count as "lost productivitiy"?

No. You're posting on Slashdot, which means you're counted as "lost soul".

Re:I'm on break

[Anonymous Coward]

You eat lunch at 8:12am?

Re:I'm on break

[Anonymous Coward]

It says you posted at 8:12am. I wonder what time zone slash dot works on, because most people don't have their lunch break at 8:12am.

Re:I'm on break

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Blockquoth the second smart-ass AC this post:

It says you posted at 8:12am.

For me, it says I posted at 12:12pm, which is when I posted.

No, I'm not in the US.

Re:I'm on break

[Sol_Web_Dude]

Mee Tooo! I'm on my 2+ hour lunch break...

Re:John Slacker!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop working and blow me.

Cordially,
Your former employee

What? Hold on a sec...

[MindNumbingOblivion]

#closes firefox with fark.com, b3ta.com, and several webcomics tabbed#

What was your question again? I was doing.... ummm.... research, yeah that's it.

*sigh* and there goes the number crunching again

[Anonymous Coward]

This one of these things which really start to irritate me, just like S.M.A.R.T. targets for ones evaluation. This way it seems there is no trust anymore, only statistics.

Loyalty is expressed through many things, of which most don't have a corresponding cell-format in Microsoft Excel.

Let's not forget the increase in productivity...

[jmcmunn]

As a programmer, I have to say that my frequent visits to coding sites (ie codeproject) have often increased my productivity as I tend to find bits of code that can be used in whatever I am working on, or at least inspire me to do something similar.

Without the web, and the resources it provides for helping solve problems, I would waste much more time when I get stumped on the job.

They found the IT guys?

[coinreturn]

Particularly alarming is the fact that the study used the beliefs of 350 IT managers to determine how many hours a week the average employee wastes online.

Since the IT guys are the ones you can never find at work and never respond to pagers, how did they even ask them? How about, How much productivity is lost trying to find the IT guy?

Re:They found the IT guys?

[b0r0din]

Maybe because they're busy surfing the web and answering online surveys about workplace productivity?

Re:They found the IT guys?

[Eskarel]

Or a better question, how much IT productivity is lost trying to find the user who had the problem in the first place. I've had a job sitting in my queue for three weeks now because I can't get the user to take half an hour to actually work out if they got what they wanted. I'd close it out, but I have to give it to another user and they won't tell me which one.

Re:They found the IT guys?

[PsiPsiStar]

How about, How much productivity is lost trying to find the IT guy?

Or gained. If you could find us, you'd only be asking silly questions anyways. Now leave me alone. I have a ..um... server that needs cooling. It's very important.

Re:They found the IT guys?

[p5]

Hey now, adding the networked printer to your machine really isn't that hard.

We even heard MS made it easy to do, "point and click", as they say.

Re:They found the IT guys?

[dresgarcia]

How are you supposed to find him and how is he supposed to answer pages when he is 1) underpaid 2) overworked 3) rarely given all the proper tools for the job 4) constantly ignored when his input could greatly influence (and possibly save) a decision 5) probably fixing one of the other coworkers spyware/virus/adware infected computers from playing fantasy games and going to crappy sites using ie all day long?

Re:They found the IT guys?

[polaris20]

We're too busy reading FUD from Microsoft on /. to be concerned with something that can be cured with a reboot. When in doubt, reboot. =)

Of course....

[wpiman]

Ars Technica is going to attempt to debunk that fact that web surfing hurts productivity. A good portion of their readership, hence ad revenues, comes from people who are surfing at work.

Good business sense, don't talk your business model down.

Re:Of course....

[gilroy]

OK, but Websense has a business interest in promoting the idea that "unregulated" Net access hurts productivity. So really, Ars Technica is just giving the other view -- and the truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.

Re:Of course....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ars Technica is going to attempt to debunk that fact that web surfing hurts productivity. A good portion of their readership, hence ad revenues, comes from people who are surfing at work.

But don't forget that ArsTechnica also has a partial subscription business model as well. A model that apparently is resulting in fewer subscriptions over time. Hence they need even more ad hits, which explains why so many of their stories have been submitted to /. of late; the /. effect puts cash in their pocket.

They must be starting to get worried, judging from the Lounge and SoapBox (two of the ArsTech subforums that limit posting to subscribers only). The quality of both has fallen drastically since they went sub-only. The Lounge suffers from far fewer contributors and is sliding closer to the point where there are simply not enough people active there to make continuing to be active worth the time; in other words they're losing the critical mass needed to make a place interesting.

Of course the SoapBox has become a shadow of itself, as the liberal-leaning folks have shouted out almost everyone who disagrees even slightly with the viewpoints of the moderators. One of the moderators of another subforum has become the resident troll of the SoapBox, repeatedly making posts that would cause anyone else to be permanently banned, without any repercussion other than pleading from the SoapBox mods to please stop. This has led most readers to conclude that the troll-mod has evidence linking the site owner to embarassing activites, perhaps involving unnatural relations with goats (although that is of course pure speculation).

There are no cries for change on ArsTech, though, as such are quickly crushed. The vauge Roman Empire sub-theme of the site helps in that regard I suppose. In the absense of dissent, people are simply quietly leaving ArsTech, their subscriptions expiring. This exodus is even beginning to affect the tech-related sections, as long-time contributors find less constrained and more interesting forums in which to offer tech help to others.

So expect to see more ArsTech-sourced articles submitted to /., as their business comes to rely more and more on the spikes in ad view income that a nice slashdotting will provide.

Work email at home?

[nmg196]

> where's the calculation of how much time we all spend
> answer work e-mail at home?

Err probably zero.

How many companies...
1. Bother to set up their email systems so that the employees can use it from home.
2. Then train their employees on how to set it up on their home machine or use the webmail.
3. Have employees which actually DO check their mail from home AND reply even when someone's set it all up for them?

I'm guessing a single digit percentage at most.

On the other hand, how many employees surf the web for non work purposes while at work? Probably the vast majority.

Re:Work email at home?

[cduffy]

I'm guessing a single digit percentage at most.

Then I must be an outlier -- I've never once worked at a tech company without a VPN and an intranet accessible by SSL. My guess would, thus, be dramatically different from yours.

Perhaps it would be better if someone actually collected some data?

Re:Work email at home?

[lucabrasi999]

I'm guessing a single digit percentage at most.

That is a very interesting question. My company (a consulting firm) actually encourages us to work from home, in order to reduce the amount of money they spend on building rental, heating, maintenance, etc. Most of my clients do NOT encourage remote access. It usually requires an act of Congress to gain remote access to my various clients.

Re:Work email at home?

[Karl Cocknozzle]

I've never once worked at a tech company without a VPN and an intranet accessible by SSL.

Agreed... I work at a decidedly low-tech company, and we even have a VPN/web-enabled mail server setup. If I were a betting man, I'd say more people have access to this sort of "service" from their workplace than realize it--after all, if you don't seek it out you probably won't know about it.

Re:Work email at home?

[Xiaran]

Well this probably isnt all that representative, but Ive worked in a major (conservative) financial services company(world wide approx 50K employees) and they did. Every user had easy dial up and broadband access to the corporate network 24/7(VPNed of course). People did and were expected to be online after hours quite a lot. They didnt need no web access for the email... Notes talked directly to the servers and everything.

On the other hand, how many employees surf the web for non work purposes while at work? Probably the vast majority.

Lots probably. Whats generally really wrong with that tho? How many office employees drink far more than their fair share of free coffee? If it doesnt interfer with their work then why should anyone care? I grow a bit tired of this micro managment of employees time and how it affects the bottom line attitude. People arent machines. I admit that there are lazy bastards out there... but if there wasnt the interenet then theyd be procratinating some other way. What exactly is the problem with someone taking a five min break at work these days? I do it when my brains getting tired on a coding problem. It actually helps productivity. Has there been any studies on weather this so called "time wasted" related to any kind of real world monetary lost, other than this inanely simplistic calculations done in these "studies"?

Re:Work email at home?

[Rahga]

Reminds me of stories of wagon builders long ago... Teams of 3 getting the job done, 2 of them actually hammering away while the third sat down, often reading the newspaper aloud. Keeps the other guys informed, distracted from the drudgery, and generally happy among their peers. The sit-down guy would be switched during breaks.

There's at least one sketch or photo of this in US history textbooks out there, though I don't know what it's called.

Re:Work email at home?

[glsunder]

3. Have employees which actually DO check their mail from home AND reply even when someone's set it all up for them?

I'm guessing a single digit percentage at most.


I'd agree with the single digit percentage of users, but not companies. While most users wont need to check their email at home or on the road, some will, particularly sales people that travel a lot.

Re:Work email at home?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never once worked at a tech company without a VPN and an intranet accessible by SSL.

No, you just happened to be at tech companies who either had insurance that had coverage for or never thought of the liability for injuries of workers at home in an unsafe home-working environment (i.e. at home worker's comp claims), or in states where the issue is settled in their favor.

Re:Work email at home?

[Drakonblayde]

You'd honestly be surprised at the number of folks who do work remotely. I've worked IT staff for a couple law firms and a couple accounting firms, and without fail, there was always a vpn, there was usually a citrix server, and email was always accessible from outside the office. There were many many nights when I was awoken because some lawyer or some accountant was working late and was having connectivity problems at home.

Re:Work email at home?

[cduffy]

Given that OSHA has stated that it isn't an employer's responsibility to inspect employees' home offices, I don't see much need for this to be an issue of concern.

Re:Work email at home?

[nmg196]

> Then I must be an outlier

You probably are. Maybe you're a software developer or you work for a tech related company of some type? I was talking about an AVERAGE employee. Or maybe you've mainly worked for large companies which are big enough to employ someone to setup and maintain that kind of set up.

Re:Work email at home?

[cduffy]

Or maybe you've mainly worked for large companies which are big enough to employ someone to setup and maintain that kind of set up.

I am the guy who sets up and maintains remote access. I'm IT, desktop support, an app developer, a revision control specialist, a system-level programmer, an Asterisk consultant, a DBA (in a severe enough pinch)... and so forth. So even when I'm working for somewhere nontechnical -- say a local car dealership [actual past job] and I'm the sole IT guy on staff, I can rig up a VPN when I'm not porting or extending the custom software they run their business off of or fixing the database it backends into or setting up a phone queue or a backup system or helping the secretary do a mail merge or whatever else they happen to need.

Getting a VPN up is not something that takes a dedicated employee -- one sufficiently skilled part-time IT generalist is enough, and that person can typically fill enough gaps to make their employment worthwhile.

BS

[CrazyTalk]

Old timer chiming in here - I was working in the days before the internet (or more correctly the world wide web and the common availability of email). You know what? We found time to goof off then too. I think there is a certain amount of time a person is likely to do actual work during the day and a certain amount of time they need to/will goof off - it's just the method of goofing off has changed. Now we surf the web and exchange emails. In the 1980s and earlier people would take coffee breaks, cigarette breaks, read magazines or newspapers, talk to their families and friends on the phone, talk to their cube neighbors, etc. People need that time during the day to decompress, and maybe even have their subconscious work on a problem for awhile after they have been intensly focused on it. Time spent not working hasnt changed - its just spent differently.

Re:BS

[Wansu]

it's just the method of goofing off has changed

Some people still goof off the old fashioned way. One of my coworkers seems to be on the phone constantly. I see people reading magazines. There's a guy with a guitar in his office. People zone out and listen to iPods. I knocked on one guy's door, got no answer and found him asleep on the floor.

There was one guy who camped out in the handicapped stall in the restroom and read the EE Times and the newspaper. Our boss used to take notice of what kind of shoes this guy wore because he might have to go looking at feet in the stalls to find him. Another old redneck technician said, "He's gon' git th' hem-a-roids frum settin' in'are sa'long."

Re:BS

[Peyna]

The guy in the cube next to me takes at least 1 smokebreak every hour; so I take one "non-smokebreak" every hour and screw off at my desk. If they're going to pay him to increase the companies health costs, they might as well pay me to go on Slashdot and complain about it.

Re:BS

[dema]

. People need that time during the day to decompress, and maybe even have their subconscious work on a problem for awhile after they have been intensly focused on it.

Amen to that. I can't count the number of times I've been so deeply involved in a problem that the most obvious answer was miles away, and the second I step away from the problem and clear my head the answer comes to me. Without some time to unwind and relax a little I would never get a damn thing worth mention done. I think this type of thing should be expected and appreciated as long as we are working 40-50+ hour work weeks.

Re:BS

[Cro Magnon]

I actually do less goofing off than I did in the "good old days". When I vanished into the break room, that was 15-30 minutes that I wasn't doing anything. When I'm surfing sites, I can be ready to work in seconds if neccesary.

Re:BS

[wideBlueSkies]

I totally agree with you. People are going to take breaks no matter what.

What is scary though is that web usage can be monitored. In contrast, coffee breaks and quickies in an empty conference room can't.

In my shop, the firewall reports are in real time.

Pretty scary when one's boss sends an Email with better links related to something one searched for earlier in the day.

One afternoon after shopping at think geek, a couple of years ago, my manager came by to chat and finished up by saying 'got root?'. Which was the specific t-shirt that I bought.

wbs.

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

I knocked on one guy's door, got no answer and found him asleep on the floor.

That would be hilarious of someone walked in on him doing that and mistakenly thought he was dead

Re:BS

[dusik]

>> "One of my coworkers seems to be on the phone constantly."

The guy with the red stapler, right?

Re:BS

[dusik]

>> "What is scary though is that web usage can be monitored. In contrast, coffee breaks and quickies in an empty conference room can't."

Why? Just put a sheet for people to sign in, sign out... ;)

Re:BS

[nine-times]

People need that time during the day to decompress, and maybe even have their subconscious work on a problem for awhile after they have been intensely focused on it.

Yeah, this idea that people used to show up at the office, get straight to work, and work for 8 hours straight-- it's a myth. That never happens. It's not even clear that it would be "good for business" if it did happen, because people would probably go crazy.

It'd be one thing if we all worked 5 hours a day. People might be able to show up, work 5 hours straight, and go home. But 8-12? (I've never worked a job where I got away with working only 8 hours)

By the time you've spent 8 hours at work, that's pretty much your day. You really wake up at work, that's where you do your socializing, that's where you learn what you're going to learn for the day. At 10 hours a day, your work day is your day. Your work is your life. At that point, it's inhumane to expect people to not-have-fun and not-goof-off. Think about it: when we capture gorillas and put them in a zoo, we insist that they're provided with the company of other gorillas. We give them toys. We try to make their habitat as "natural" as possible. In the zoo exhibit that is your cubical, why shouldn't you be given the same courtesy?

Re:BS

[bigpat]

Why? Just put a sheet for people to sign in, sign out... ;)

You must be from upper management.

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Gorillas don't get paid. We do.

Re:BS

[ockegheim]

Yeah, this idea that people used to show up at the office, get straight to work, and work for 8 hours straight-- it's a myth. That never happens.

On the rare occasions that I have to work a full day with clients looking over my shoulder the whole time, I'm beyond exhausted, and make my way home in a zombatonic state that my girlfriend never fails to notice.

Re:BS

[aggles]

The nature of work has changed. Its much more task oriented. Maintain service levels, reduce the time of provisioning, meet your quota, etc. The internet has increased productivity a whole lot - let's say 50% improvement. So what if we waste 20% of the day doing personal surfing. That still gives you 30% productivity improvement in a world where management are often still idiots and as productive as they were 20 years ago. Also - the point of multi-tasking is not taken into account. I'm now listening to a staff meeting, taking notes, and writing a reply. -aggles

Re:BS

[maxpublic]

Some people still goof off the old fashioned way. One of my coworkers seems to be on the phone constantly. I see people reading magazines. There's a guy with a guitar in his office. People zone out and listen to iPods. I knocked on one guy's door, got no answer and found him asleep on the floor.

You must work for HP.

Max

Re:BS

[maxpublic]

Think about it: when we capture gorillas and put them in a zoo, we insist that they're provided with the company of other gorillas. We give them toys. We try to make their habitat as "natural" as possible. In the zoo exhibit that is your cubical, why shouldn't you be given the same courtesy?

Because the gorillas don't have a choice in the matter; you do. If you think the company is demanding too much of your time, you can always quit and go look for a less-demanding job.

Max

Re:BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Your boss sounds like a nosy asshole who is abusing the web usage information he's receiving.

Re:BS

[nine-times]

I don't think that is really a response to "why shouldn't you be given the same courtesy?" It's as if I had said, "Why shouldn't you expect to be treated with a base minimum of respect?" and you replied that I could be a hermit. Sure, I guess it gets around the problem of people being disrespectful, but it doesn't address the real issue in the least.

So why shouldn't we, as people, expect to be treated humanely? Saying that I can quit doesn't answer the question.

Re:BS

[maxpublic]

It's as if I had said, "Why shouldn't you expect to be treated with a base minimum of respect?" and you replied that I could be a hermit.

No, I pointed out that your situation is in no way, shape or form like that of the gorillas. You have a choice about where you want to be; they don't.

So why shouldn't we, as people, expect to be treated humanely? Saying that I can quit doesn't answer the question.

You seem to think it's a given that screwing around while you're supposed to be working is the same as being "treated humanely". Me, I call that "cheating the company" and "violating your contract". You're there to WORK, and not just whatever portion of the day you feel is appropriate; it isn't up to YOU to make that decision. If you want that sort of power then start your own business instead of ripping your current employer off and trying to justify your actions on Slashdot.

Max

Re:BS

[nine-times]

No, I pointed out that your situation is in no way, shape or form like that of the gorillas. You have a choice about where you want to be; they don't.

And as I pointed out, you're completely missing the point. But all this pointing is getting tiresome. Ever have the experience of trying to point something out to a dog and they just keep looking at your fingertip?

You seem to think it's a given that screwing around while you're supposed to be working is the same as being "treated humanely". Me, I call that "cheating the company" and "violating your contract". You're there to WORK, and not just whatever portion of the day you feel is appropriate; it isn't up to YOU to make that decision. If you want that sort of power then start your own business instead of ripping your current employer off and trying to justify your actions on Slashdot.

Well, according to your prior logic, it would be a complete response to merely say, "they could fire me," as though that should be an excuse to "rip off my employer" as much as I want up until the point where they do fire me.

Contrary to what you may believe, an employer does not have a priviledged role in the employer/employee exchange. The employer is not more special or important. The employer is not doing the employee a favor by letting him work, nor is the employer being nice when they pay the employee. If anything, it's the opposite: though I take my employer's money, he takes large portions of my life. Which do you think is more valuable? Who should be more grateful?

Just as the employer should expect that his money is going to get results (as opposed to just "time" or "work") from the employee, the employee should have the right to expect that his work will earn him decent treatment (as opposed to just "money") from the employer.

Given that so many employers aren't willing to keep up their end of the bargin (decent treatment), it's no wonder that employees won't keep up their end (productivity/results). The end result is general inefficiency (in all facits of the workplace, including interpersonal relationships).

So of course it's up to me to make the decision of how much work is appropriate for me to do that day. Just as I don't have the right to demand whatever pay I wish for the day, they can't demand whatever time they want. It's a bit of a stand-off which either side may threaten to quit the relationship. Employers should recognize, however, that they are employing PEOPLE and not machines, and people, very much like gorillas, need healthy social interaction and pleasant environments in order to be their best.

Re:BS

[maxpublic]

If anything, it's the opposite: though I take my employer's money, he takes large portions of my life. Which do you think is more valuable? Who should be more grateful?

No one. It's a business relationship. It's called "capitalism". You contract your time and energy to the employer in return for wages. Neither party has any reason to be "grateful" for anything; that's just socialist nonsense.

Given that so many employers aren't willing to keep up their end of the bargin (decent treatment), it's no wonder that employees won't keep up their end (productivity/results).

You don't get to define what is or is not decent treatment, unless it's stipulated by law or a clause in your contract. If that bothers you then quit the job you think is treating you poorly and remember to include those clauses in your next contract.

So of course it's up to me to make the decision of how much work is appropriate for me to do that day.

No, it isn't. You've entered into a contract to specifically work a number of hours for employer X. Fail to work those hours - violate your contract - but take pay for them anyway and you're committing the crime of 'fraud'.

Employers should recognize, however, that they are employing PEOPLE and not machines, and people, very much like gorillas, need healthy social interaction and pleasant environments in order to be their best.

Yet another whining liberal who can't stand the thought that he actually has to honor his obligations - and that those obligations aren't his to determine once he takes the job. Run all the smoke you want, in the end you're just a scamming little loser trying to justify screwing your employer.

Not that this makes you unusual. People like you are a dime a dozen.

Max

Re:BS

[nine-times]

Wow, you must be a really big deal, huh? If people LIKE me are "a dime a dozen"? That's... priceless. I mean, since you know so much about me and all. Does saying things like "people like you are a dime a dozen" really make you feel important?

People who say people like me are a dime a dozen are a dime a dozen.... nope, doesn't do anything for me. Then again, my ego isn't so fragile that it needs to be defined in terms of the worthlessness of strangers.

And 'fraud'? Ooooo, am I supposed to be scared? Oh no, I'm committing 'fraud'. Just wait until the jury hears that I've been working 10 hour days when I've been hired to work 8 hour days, but only 7 of those hours are REALLY productive. Do you think I'll get the chair?

All your talk about contracts is simple-minded and absurd. And irrelevant. For one thing, many of us never signed any contract. Second, you seemed to have missed my not-so-subtle point that employers aren't looking for "work". If I work 24 hour days but get nothing done, my employer isn't going to be happy. I'll still get fired, even though I've fulfilled my side of your "contract" where I give my time and energy.

My employer wants results, and if the results I provide are well worth the money paid, he won't be looking to enter into a contract dispute even if I only work 5 hour days. Contracts usually won't come into play as long as the business relationship is good. Contracts are broken all the time.

And my obligations aren't mine to determine? What, take a job and I'm a slave for as long as my master determines? Sorry, it works both ways. Just the way you're saying, if I don't like my job, I can quit-- well, if an employer doesn't like my work, he can fire me. The employer role holds no special privilege here. He might WISH that I would work harder, and I might WISH that I got better pay and benefits. Either way, a productive relationship relies not just on our continuing to uphold "our obligations", but also that we treat each other decently.

But I'd really rather not go on explaining the obvious to someone who's either unwilling or incapable of understanding it.

Statistical data

[atomico]

where's the calculation of how much time we all spend answer work e-mail at home?

In my case, thirty minutes per year (average).

I NEED to surf

[theantipop]

As a distracted youth entering the workplace, I venture to say that I need to surf a bit during the day. I'm not the most focused person, but if I were to develop for 8 hours straight a day, I would certainly lose my mind at a very rapid rate.

Pathetic marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Websense a company that develops web filtering and blocking software for schools and offices"

I'm sorry but these guys are trying to create a market for their product. As such, their study has zero credibility.

Mandatory overtime

[EWIPlayer]

I've said this before... when companies mandate unpaid overtime (and i know there are a lot of you out there that are affected by this in one way or another), what do companies expect?

Companies show time and time again that what they care about is "who's at the office?". Not "How smart do they work?" or "How much do they get done?" but simply whether the parking lot is full after 5pm.

Goofing off during those mandatory "overtime" hours is not only a healthy "fuck you" to the establishment but also the only way to slow the burnout rate.

Ah, but what's the burnout of one more "resource" (a wonderful term that is about as slimy as "It's not personal, it's just business") when compared with a better bottom line?

Re:Mandatory overtime

[Bimo_Dude]

Companies show time and time again that what they care about is "who's at the office?"

Isn't this the truth?

At my previous employer, I had VPN access, and could work from home. One day, during hurricane Ivan, my manager insisted that I be physically in the office. I responded with several emails providing links to the hurricane information, the NWS site, and even our state governor's message to employers telling them to let their employees stay home. He continued to be adamant. Finally, I told him that neither he nor the company was worth risking my life for, and he finally gave up. The next day, I asked him why he was so persistent about it, and the best he could do was to tell me that he wanted his boss to see me at the office.

That was when I knew that I was time to start looking for another job.

No.

[Despised]

"American business lose $178 billion a year to web surfing in the workplace"

The fact is, the time spent surfing is not purely 'lost time' it helps with morale and keeps employees awake all day.

Sure, there may be a point where by surfing time is much more than work time that employers should be worried, but humans are not machines, they can't stay focused on one project for 8 hours a day straight.

Doesnt matter...

[AlltheCoolNamesGone]

It's not like you wouldn't find something else to do other than work even if there wasnt an internet to surf in the first place.....

Website Owners

[GuitarNeophyte]

Exept for people that run websites for a business. Those people are gaining quite a bit from it. But sadly, when you're ADD like me, and you try to run a website, you tend to wander around the net, when you're supposed to be staying focused on working on your website.

But I don't mind, since I don't make any significant amount of money from my site.

Luke
----
If you also have a website that's geared for computer newbies, get a hold of me. Maybe we can partner up or something.

Figures just a little high, perhaps?

[pegasustonans]

$178 billion a year to web surfing in the workplace

So, basically what they're saying is that if everyone stopped web-surfing at work, then we'd have enough money to build a space elevator and kick-start a Mars colony. Somehow, those numbers seem a little high to me. But, even if it were true, all the extra cash would most likely go into a bunch of a-holes pockets who would then use it buy another Mercedes or two. So, what was the point of this research again?

Re:Figures just a little high, perhaps?

[Anonymous Coward]

the point was so that a bunch of researchers could waste a little time during their working day.. (i wonder how much that was worth?)

Re:Figures just a little high, perhaps?

[zx75]

Hey, if someone was willing to use the 'gained' money to actually BUILD a space elevator, I'd be the first person to volunteer to work enough extra hours to ensure that I spend the alloted amount of time each day being 100% productive...

Since no one seems to be volunteering to build it, I guess I'll just have to work in a way that retains my sanity.

Re:Figures just a little high, perhaps?

[Shajenko42]

But, even if it were true, all the extra cash would most likely go into a bunch of a-holes pockets who would then use it buy another Mercedes or two. So, what was the point of this research again?

To buy a bunch of a-holes Mercedes. What did YOU think it was for?

Re:Figures just a little high, perhaps?

[legirons]

"$178 billion a year to web surfing in the workplace"

OK, I'm a technical guy. Let's pretend I'm one of those people who read websites for 3.4 hours per week, thus ruining the economy.

Your CEO gets paid 100 times your salary, plus the golden handshake, plus the share options. And produces no code, and sells to no customers, and designs no products. And spends most of his time "working from home" (i.e. slacking), and is accountable to noone.

So surely, the presence of CEOs must cost 17 trillion to the economy, even assuming that they do the job they were hired to do? If we're going to talk about wasting money, we should start by looking at who's wasting the most money...

Who's guilty here?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Quote from TFA:

"IT decision-makers polled believe that employees are spending an average of 5.9 hours per week surfing the internet for non work-related reasons."

IT decision-makers believe this number because:

- they watch the http traffic on their networks (hint: "decision-makers" usually don't know much about technical issues)

- it's based on their personal experience (hint: decision-makers are usually suits with personal offices)

Which one is it in your opinion?

What's more of course, since the quote comes from Websense, it's kind of logical that their employees spend their time surfing the web - to test the Websense web filter - so the "study" might not be very relevant :-)

Slashdot's Stats

[GuitarNeophyte]

Just looking at my website statistics from people coming to my website via slashdot.org, I actually have a large number at the beginning of the workday, and towards the end, but during the day, it looks like most people stay pretty productive...

Or just that they do their slashdotting in the morning and other non-productive surfing later :-)

Luke
----
If you also have a website that's geared for computer newbies, get a hold of me. Maybe we can partner up or something.

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

ust looking at my website statistics from people coming to my website [christiannerds.com] via slashdot.org, I actually have a large number at the beginning of the workday, and towards the end,

They come once in the morning and once the evening for a quick prayer because they feel guilty for browsing Slashdot on the job perhaps?

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[mrselfdestrukt]

christiannerds hey?
To me that's almost as revolting as goatse...

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[Markus_UW]

You know, there are 2 kinds of people I hate in this world, people who are intolerant of others' religions, and those goddamn Muslims.

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[Anonymous Coward]

hehehe. good one.

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[RobotRunAmok]

christiannerds hey?
To me that's almost as revolting as goatse...

How do you figure?

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that Slashdot is read in more timezones than just America. Even America by itself has enough timezones to make calls about when it is the start/middle/end of the work day inaccurate.

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[Linus Torvaalds]

Just looking at my website statistics from people coming to my website via slashdot.org, I actually have a large number at the beginning of the workday, and towards the end, but during the day, it looks like most people stay pretty productive...

Or maybe it takes most of a day for your pages to expire from ISP's caches. You really shouldn't pay any attention to your logs, you can't count visitors with them, despite what many snake-oil sellers tell you.

What "beginning of the workday" are you talking about, anyway? You do realise that there is more than one timezone in the world, right?

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[mrselfdestrukt]

ok. fine. I don't know.
Just that I don't expect true nerds to be religious and I always see christian or reborn -something everywhere and wonder why they do it for someone (jesus)that had nothing to do with what they're doing...

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[Markus_UW]

it was a joke, sheesh

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[RobotRunAmok]

Just that I don't expect true nerds to be religious and I always see christian or reborn -something everywhere and wonder why they do it for someone (jesus)that had nothing to do with what they're doing...

Maybe they believe Jesus had EVERYTHING to do with what they're doing. Something to think about.

Also think about the notion that if the guy's website was called "jewnerd" or "wiccannerd" or "muslimnerd" and you had made the same crack you would have been modded so low so fast it would make your head spin.

Fortunately for your slashdot karma, you selected a politically correct religious group to demonstrate your bigotry. 'grats on dodging a bullet, m'man!

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[legirons]

"Just looking at my website statistics from people coming to my website via slashdot.org, I actually have a large number at the beginning of the workday, and towards the end, but during the day, it looks like most people stay pretty productive..."

Looking at my website, I see a large number of hits during the american evening, then a tail-off during the pacific evening, not much during the asian evening, then another peak when the europeans leave work...

It's interesting to see the two different ways of viewing time-domain statistics...

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[Mr. Mikey]

"Also think about the notion that if the guy's website was called "jewnerd" or "wiccannerd" or "muslimnerd" and you had made the same crack you would have been modded so low so fast it would make your head spin."

If the dominant (in terms of percentage of the population) religion were Judaism, Wicca, or Islam, and they had a vocal, politically active minority looking to establish the equivalent of a theocracy (note the "and" in this sentence), people would play the "Free Pass from Karma Loss" card on those, too. It's an American tradition to root for the underdog, and Christianity certainly isn't that, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Remember: persecution is not another word for "not getting everything we want right now."

All that said, prejudice isn't cool regardless of whom it's directed against.

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[yolospat]

I tend to do most of my slash dotting in the morning when I first arrive to work. Then again, in the middle, then when I get home. So, it's balanced.

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[RobotRunAmok]

Huh?

Dude, this guy wasn't "rooting for the underdog" (Yay, Hindus!! Sis Boom Bah!!), he's taking a shot at a *very* large and *very* diverse group of people and comparing them to the Goatse guy! Then, when he gets called out on it, he basically sez, "So sorry, I didn't mean just Christians, I mean *all* religious people (My many 'techno-pagan' friends will be tres amused to learn they can't be nerds cuz they're spiritual, BTW...).

He's as much a bigot as any white supremacist or anti-Semite.

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[Mr. Mikey]

"Dude, this guy wasn't "rooting for the underdog" (Yay, Hindus!! Sis Boom Bah!!),..."

I meant that, in this country, Jews, Wiccans and Muslims are "underdogs" with respect to Christians, in that they are in the numerical minority and in the minority wrt the "mindshare" they have in our culture.

"... he's taking a shot at a *very* large and *very* diverse group of people and comparing them to the Goatse guy!"

Actually, what he seems to have been trying to do (clumsily) is say that he wouldn't expect the intersection of the set of "Born-Again Christians" and "Nerds" to be much bigger than the empty set. He also said "I don't expect true nerds to be religious..."

"Then, when he gets called out on it, he basically sez, "So sorry, I didn't mean just Christians, I mean *all* religious people"

I didn't interpret his posts as saying that.

"(My many 'techno-pagan' friends will be tres amused to learn they can't be nerds cuz they're spiritual, BTW...)."

Your many techno-pagan friends? Where do you live? I've met Wiccans and Pagans, but never, to my knowledge, a techno-pagan.

It has been my experience that "nerds" do tend towards being secular in nature.

Re:Slashdot's Stats

[RobotRunAmok]

Actually, what he seems to have been trying to do (clumsily) is say that he wouldn't expect the intersection of the set of "Born-Again Christians" and "Nerds" to be much bigger than the empty set. He also said "I don't expect true nerds to be religious..."

Here's the crux: He never said "Born-Again Christians." The OP never said "Born-Again Christians." The Born-Agains/Evangelicals are, to use your topology metaphor, a small sub-set of Christianity. Kind of like sniffing "Modern Music Sucks" when what you mean to say is "Boy Bands Suck."

I live, since you asked, in the Hudson Valley, midway between Manhattan and Upper Bucolia. I've never met a Wiccan who did not fancy herself at least "technically inclined." It's a phenomenon more learned peeps than me have commented upon: Starhawk discussed it at length in her seminal study of modern wtichcraft, "Drawing Down the Moon," and Joss Whedon featured two-such self-proclaimed characters in his "Buffy" series (Willow and Jenny Calendar). Go figure.

It has been my experience that "nerds" do tend towards being secular in nature.

Well, like I say (politely, respectfully) to the people "whose experience it is" that all gays are lisping limp-wristed Judy-worshippers, "Maybe you should get out more...?" Is it that there is no "interestion of sets" between the nerdy and the religious in your circle of acquaintances, or just that there are no religious?

Well just block port 80, 8080

[gatkinso]

Maybe have a few machines in a public area with web access so that you can download needed stuff (drivers, documentation, that sort of thing).

I have wondered why this practice is not more widespread.

Re:Well just block port 80, 8080

[Artega VH]

Because its stupid? We used to do this in a restricted area and it was a PITA. As a developer I NEED to be able to instantly access online resources. Either that or my company can choose to send me on courses and buy me books for every bit of tech I want to assess... You do the math.

Re:Well just block port 80, 8080

[REggert]

Giving your employees web access is rather pointless if you're going to block the entire web.

Re:Well just block port 80, 8080

[springbox]

Might as well block every other port as well. They are the most commonly used but that's not going to stop me from SSHing to my computer at home and using Firefox on it.. Or using a proxy that's on a different port.

Re:Well just block port 80, 8080

[DorkRawk]

There is no possible way I could do my job (internship as a developer) without access to forums and various online help sites. I have to work in .NET all the time... (ehhh.....) and if I couldn't get to MSDN or devShed I would have no way of learning how to do what I'm supposed to be doing. P.S. Like most people responding to this article.. I'm posting from work.

Re:Well just block port 80, 8080

[dusik]

"Well just block port 80, 8080"

That would be a pain, but I'd just connect to my home machine, port 22, and then 'links2'. I'd miss out on all the porn images though :(

Re:Well just block port 80, 8080

[Staniel]

All you guys are forgetting that you're not normal. Solutions like "I'd ssh to my home computer and..." are definitely not possible solutions for the average bear.

I think this would be a pretty effective idea in many offices, if completely morale-crushing. It wouldn't work, certainly for programmers and other people whose jobs require internet access all the time.

Re:Well just block port 80, 8080

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, that's what X is for. ;) Something very generic would be:

ssh -X home_pc; export DISPLAY=work_pc:0.0; firefox &

The extra work to actually make that go is left as an exercise to the reader, but it's really not much. I'm sure I've left out some key command but you get the idea.

Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[Ancient_Hacker]

Love the word fungible. It means something like "exchangeable for similar things". Web surfing is NON-FUNGIBLE. That means if we were not web-surfing, as a respite from the stress of working with computers, we'd NOT be working, we'd be walking to the vending machines, looking out the window at the girls, or otherwise unwinding from the daily headaches.

Re:Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[Quiet_Desperation]

looking out the window at the girls,

Damn, where do *you* work?

I have a window, but all I see is a concrete courtyard with the occcasional squirrel.

Not sure if the squirrels are female or not.

My repeated attempts to get a branch office opened right next to a local beachside walking/biking path have been met with laughter and derision from my bosses.

Re:Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Oh, my! Human resources wouldn't like that!

Re:Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

looking out the window at the girls,

Damn, where do *you* work?

There. Still jealous?

Re:Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[Shaper_pmp]

Wow - you should really fire your webmaster.

Every time I hit that link I get seamlessly redirected to http://www.weightwatchers.com/siteRequirements.asp x?PDA=false&javascript=False&cookies=False&browser Version=5&browserType=Firefox, with no chance to bail out, and nowhere to go from there.

And yes, cookies are turned on.

What shitty site-design.

Re:Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[Skye16]

Are there multiple squirrels? Are they perhaps married?

Re:Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[Quiet_Desperation]

I think there a threesome up in the elm tree, but it's unconfirmed.

Re:Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[Anonymous Coward]

add index.aspx to the end of the domain name. I actually clicked on privacy policy, then Home.

Re:Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fungible is a cool word, but I think you should refrain from using it until you get a better handle on it.

Re:Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, where do *you* work?

There [weightwatchers.com]. Still jealous?

Sadly, yes I am.

Re:Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[ReidMaynard]

I use to have an office (2nd floor) right across the driveway of a Hooters Resteraunt. From May-Sep, every wednesday was car wash day.

It was better than free donuts.

Re:Surfing time is NON-FUNGIBLE!

[vertinox]

we'd be walking to the vending machines, looking out the window at the girls, or otherwise unwinding from the daily headaches.

They could always tie you to your cubicle and you have to phone your manager to be unchained to use the restroom and if you take too long they leave a bucket by your desk for the next time. Wait... I shouldn't be giving them ideas.

*Sigh*

[Bigthecat]

A response based on technicalities to an article based on technicalites. We all know that web browsing does slow down productivity in some way most places where it is available, and yet when something comes out pointing at the obvious somebody has to attack those points on technicalities so that we all pretend that it doesn't exist. Sorry - just like coffee breaks, 9 times out of ten it will decrease productivity. Sure, you'll find someone who is going over the top on their estimates and be able to counter them, but that doesn't nullify what is blindingly obvious.

Look - I know this is supposed to be Slashdot and we're all supposed to say "Hey, the Internet is being talked down in some way - We'd better defend it now!", but the Internet, along with almost any other device, from a scratch pad to the telephone, can and is misused so that there is 'less productivity' at work. Do any of us give a stuff that our employers aren't getting 100% of the miniscule amount that they pay us? Hell no. But does that mean that we have to pretend that it doesn't happen?

Re:*Sigh*

[KingSkippus]

But does that mean that we have to pretend that it doesn't happen?

The article doesn't pretend that it doesn't happen, it simply points out that the number is based on wild-ass guesses collected by a company that has a vested interest in making the numbers appear as bad as possible.

In this case, I believe that the "We'd better defend it now!" people are fully justified.

Re:*Sigh*

[sellin'papes]

The study isn't so much talking down the internet as it is talking down the average person's work ethic. Of course people are going to get defensive. The only person who wouldn't is someone who actually spends a couple hours a day wasting time, is a manager, or isn't working. And the point being made by many people isn't that the internet is good (which it is), but rather that sometimes its more productive not to be working 100% of your day. This is why some companies put pool tables and basketball nets in the workplace. Its not to lose money, but to "increase productivity".

Re:*Sigh*

[RobertLTux]

I think it all boils down to the good old "The bosses pretend to pay us so we pretend to work" Theory (hi Gary). As long as the targets get met and somebody doesn't go Sempter PSyco and shoot up the Office who cares?? (but don't let it go to the point where the biggest amount of traffic on the office net is Doom 3 8-))

Re:*Sigh*

[macshit]

Bean counters like to deal in simple concepts like adding up all the hours in the day and saying that's the amount of work they expect, and that any deviation from that is "lost productivity".

The real truth is that productivity is very hard to measure, and expected productivity even harder. As the bean counters are usually fairly stupid, I'd suggest they simply stop trying and go count something that's really countable, like beans.

Let the rest of us get back to work (and reading slashdot).

Death penalty to all!

[wickosuave]

Remember cost of hacking and death penalty for hackers? See original /. story: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/12/134 259&tid=172&tid=17 Costs of hacking: 50 billion Costs of lost productivity: 178 billion. Equation is simple. Shoot everyone! OOps, my boss is loading his gun, better go! EricT

can I get in on that scam?

[Lumpy]

Sheesh, can I claim that I lose several billion a year due to websurfing?

come on. This is a made up bit of information that only reason to exist is for an article to drum up readership.

good grief, what other bull are they going to create next?

I know "bathroom breaks waste trillions each year for businesses!"

these businesses have full control over their internet connection, if they do not have competent IT staff to filter websites or limit connections then it is their own fault.

increases my productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

By having a quick 2 minute break I open up my work windows ready to go at it again for another hour. It's a bit like smoking/programming. Whenever I'm trying to figure out the best way to do something, I go have a smoke and it just comes to me. I rush back into the office (well, a brisk pace at best really) knowing exactly what to do. Compare this to staring blankly at the screen for 20 minutes and then programming a load of rubbish which I'll be redoing the following morning anyway, a couple minutes "wasted" can lead to multiple work hours *saved*.

Re:increases my productivity

[CmdrGravy]

I'm the same, I can easily spend an hour or so running around in circles failing to see the obvious solution and yet go out for a cigarette and it will just pop into my head within 2 mins.

Re:Let's not forget the increase in productivity..

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

This was one of my immediate reactions, too. If you look at the web sites I visit during work hours -- during long breaks or otherwise -- the vast majority are technical. I've picked up plenty of useful information about the software tools we use (or have since started using), coding techniques, and any number of other things that have increased the ability of myself and/or my colleagues to do the job we're paid for.

I do check my personal web mail maybe every hour or so, which takes all of about five seconds if I'm not stopping to read something, and I do check the BBC News site occasionally, but just about everything else is potentially advantageous to my employer as well as interesting to me.

Productivity rises as workers are more relaxed. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not a joke, I've been puzzled to see that the French have the highest hourly productivity in Europe, while the standard working week is 35 hours. After thinking a bit about it, it's pretty normal: You cannot do high-quality, high-responsibility work in an all-stress 12hours/day environment.

Re:Let's not forget the increase in productivity..

[jarich]

So very true. These studies ignore the fact that the web is out information source for solving problems.

Surfing the web is ~not~ always wasted time.

yes but...

[slowhand]

"IT workers polled believe that decision-makers are spending an average of 45.9 hours per week making poor decisions."

Re:grammer nazi

[grim42]

spelling nazi: "grammar" not "grammer"

The billable Hour

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Like the article asks: where's the calculation of how much time we all spend answer work e-mail at home?"
Anyone who works by the billable hour has a pretty good idea of the answer to that one- If you make $5 an hour and the company bills clients $10 an hour for your time, your company wants you to keep track of the time spend checking things at home.
What I wonder is this- is the amt of time used to calculate the lost revenue assuming that we would be working during the time we are surfing? For me, a lot of my surfing time at work comes out of time other people are wasting time doing other things- I check the news, the guy in the next office talk to his girlfriend on the phone for 5 minutes, or goes outside and smokes a cigarette or daydreams. Lets be honest, no matter how much we work, if we didn't waste any time at all (water cooler, getting coffee etc.) how many fewer hours a week could we work and still get the same amount of work done. (this is not even counting 3 hour meetings that could be done in 15 minutes...)
Seems like there is a rush to blame the web, when people have always found time to shirk.

Re:The billable Hour

[BlueFashoo]

Well, for me, and keep in mind that I do work in the private sector and not for the government, I could have done all my work for this week in about 5 hours. On the other hand A couple of weeks ago I was productive for about 80% of the time I was at work.

Re:The billable Hour

[Alex P Keaton in da]

My job is the same way- sometimes I am used productively, other times... welll....
Perhaps a great example are mechanics- there are two types, flat rate and hourly. When I did IT for a big car dealer, I got the know the techs- The flat rate guys would do a job in half the time it took an hourly guy....

what about

[3CRanch]

Ok, agreed, I spend a bit of time out there on seperfolous stuff, but do they consider how much time the Internet saves? I mean, does anybody remember back in the early 90's when, if you needed a driver or something, you had to find if a company had a BBS, find that number, dial in, re-dial if busy, connect, search, and download. That process could literally take hours. The same deal now could take only a few minutes at worst.

it's lunchtime!

[Cederic]

I'm posting this during my lunch break.

Then again, I'm salaried. I got here at 7.35am, I'll leave some time this evening. In the meantime I'll be spending several hours constantly flicking to the live internet commentary of the cricket.

Cricket is more important that work.

What I'll also do is meet my commitments. I have meetings to attend, documents to write, deadlines to meet. I'll do all these things. I'm paid to do these things.

If the cricket makes me take longer to write a document, I'll stay a little later to get it finished. Sure, that's impacting on my non-work time - but since I'm letting my personal desire to watch cricket outweigh the need to do work it's a fair exchange.

Is there productivity loss? On an 'output per hour' basis, definitely. But on an 'output per month' basis, there's a productivity gain. By taking a relaxed approach to my job I can sustain my working patterns without getting stressed, killing people, taking time off ill, etc.

More to the point, I get my work done. My employer loves me. Life is good. And I get to watch the cricket.

Re:it's lunchtime!

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Hello Cederic,

This is Robert, your boss down the hall...

Then again, I'm salaried. I got here at 7.35am

The starting time for your shift is 7:30.

I'll leave some time this evening.

As a friendly reminder, your shift ends at 5:30.

In the meantime I'll be spending several hours constantly flicking to the live internet commentary of the cricket. Cricket is more important that work.

Cederic, would you mind stepping into my office when you have a moment? Oh and bring one of those pink A5 sheets by the secretary's desk on your way if you please.

-- Robert

Re:it's lunchtime!

[fbartho]

So, what timezone are you in? Eastern US time has your post at 9:30am, Central Time (where the server is at has 8:30... You in the UK or are you making stuff up about the lunch break?

Re:it's lunchtime!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that was fairly obvious from the text...

Re:it's lunchtime!

[Cederic]

This would be why I ask people about working hours and practices at job interviews. I've turned down potential employers before purely because they insist on a strict 9 till 5.

I will get my job done. Don't mandate how I have to do it.

Re:it's lunchtime!

[SketcheeBoy]

Salaried workers don't need to do 9-5 shifts. My mother has been a salaried worker at various companies for over 20 years. One thing she always notes is the time people arrive and try to leave ontime (though usually they do unpaid overtime). She's not a morning person, so she comes in at 10 and leaves sometimes past 8.

Re:it's lunchtime!

[limabone]

It's not always that easy. If your job requires communication with other employees, then disparate shifts can cause unnecessary delays.

Re:it's lunchtime!

[Cederic]

A significant part of my job is communication.

I schedule meetings between 10 and 4, and do informal meetings when people are around. I'm happy to do an early or late meetings when necessary and it's not a problem ensuring I'm in the office for these.

That's very different to having to be sat at my desk at 9am every morning.

I'm working with a team outsourced to India. They start work while I'm tucked up in bed (even if I get in for 7.35am) and finish while I'm at lunch. So there's no point trying to match their hours.

Our American people are similarly disjointed. The London office keeps different hours.

My local team varies in its hours, but usually people are around between 10 and 4, and you get used to which people are in early, which are in late, and which have no life.

So wildly disparate shifts can be an issue but realistically my daily collaborators are already working diverse schedules, so it's just not a major problem.

Re:it's lunchtime!

[penguin121]

Stop and think for a minute, which is the only one of those places where people actually watch Cricket, or even know what it is for that matter...

Re:it's lunchtime!

[martian67]

Hmm then wouldnt you have to have been wasting time surfing slashdot to FIND his post, and therefore guilty of the same crime...

*HEAD EXPLODES*

Who says that you are?

[GuitarNeophyte]

From the Article, ""IT decision-makers polled believe that employees are spending an average of 5.9 hours per week surfing the internet for non work-related reasons." There's who's the ones claiming it. Just decision-makers. Like, pointy-headed bosses. They don't know; they just guess, and then websense extrapolates it under the assumption that they are right. Wow. What a way to make a scientific study.

Luke
----
Send your pointy-headed boss to ChristianNerds.com. Teach him (or her) computer stuff.

It balances out... sometimes.

[BandwidthHog]

I spend too much time in front of Firefox at work, but I do most of the organization's site maintenance at home, so I don't feel *too* bad about it.

I also restrict myself to primarily news and tech: news.google.com, topix.net, slashdot.org, arstechnica.com, theregister.co.uk, dealmac.com, and a bit of boingboing.net. I don't read long in-depth essays on the natue of morality, and my slashdot comments from work tend to be of the short, pithy variety, not the long winded three-hours-to-compose-and-seven-hours-writing-rep lies type.

Okay, time to burn some time getting coffee and a pastry...

The other side...

[Evro]

Lately I find myself realizing just how much time I spend at work checking out websites. And while some of that time is probably outright "wasted" in terms of productivity, I also find myself thinking about problems as I read some of the news sites. A sort of background process, working at the problem while my foreground process reads Slashdot. It doesn't happen all the time, but when there's some kind of mental blockage, that's when I tend to putz around on the web, and when the blockage is cleared via the background mental processing, I tend to get back to work pretty quickly.

Of course, trying to explain this to someone who has a paper in hand saying you read Slashdot 2 hours a day is a different matter, so I still try to keep my jaunts as short as possible.

Positive side of web surfing

[spaztech]

How much money have companies saved because an employee was 'surfing' the net and came across a very important (yet obscure) security patch or a great deal on much needed hardware, or a solution to a work related problem? We need to look at this from all angles. (User Friendly excluded)

What productivity?

[gelfling]

Most American jobs require, at most, 3 to 4 hrs of concerted effort per day. Beyond that, you're just making work for yourself to appear busy and aquire asskissing points.

Re:What productivity?

[Uukrul]

Most American jobs require, at most, 3 to 4 hrs of concerted effort per day. Beyond that, you're just making work for yourself to appear busy and aquire asskissing points.

I belived that we Europeans were differents from Americans. Now I can see that differences are only a matter of geograpy.

Re:What productivity?

[justforaday]

Damn! Where can I get one of those jobs? My current job requires only about 30-60 mins of actual effort per day. Of course, the flipside is that I'm constantly being told how great a job I'm doing and I've received about a 15% salary increase over the past year. Although, having a job that actually requires some brainpower and results in a sense of satisfaction would be nice, too...

Re:What productivity?

[Panaphonix]

I am lucky enough to work 3 days a week (albeit Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, but who cares?). Those three days are concentrated, productive, and rewarding. Then it's a 4-day weekend every week! My "output" is probably the same as everyone else's.

With all the economic gains the USA has experienced (doubling of GDP since 1980), why haven't we moved to a 3- or 4-day week? People would work better and be happier.

Re:What productivity?

[OneTwoThreeFourFive]

How many hours each day do you work on that 3 day work week?

Lost productivity of asshole bosses

[SnappingTurtle]

Someone needs to do a study of how much productivity is lost due to bosses whose egos are more important than their jobs.

And I guess, to be fair, they should also study how much is gained by those same assholes. Sometimes they do get things moving.

Half and half

[Nytewynd]

I only really browse the internets when I'm between huge queries. I do that part of the work that requires my attention, and then I spend a couple of minutes reading stuff.

Do they also state how much productivity I gain from the Internet? Do they have any idea how many things I have programmed in half the time because of Google and various tech sites? Or how much faster I have resolved a tech issue with a FAQ, Knowlege Base or Forum?

For IT jobs, I'd wager that the end result is that companies break even. Aside from some people that spend all day on the web, most people only use it to check email, a sport score, or a news article. Those same people used to read the newspaper at their desk for the same info.

Sorry, "leverage" is passe jargon

[ianscot]

...my frequent visits to coding sites (ie codeproject) have often increased my productivity... Without the web, and the resources it provides... I would waste much more time when I get stumped...

No doubt. Alas, the term "leverage" has past its expiration date among the likely business types who could have recognized that this is a good example of what they supposedly meant by it. (They're off thinking inside the outside-the-box jargon box now.)

Web access is good for the company and the employee, both -- but pinning it to the bottom line in specific ways is hard, and in an employer's economy like this one it's easy for companies to feel tempted to "crack down." When they can tighten screws, there's an impulse to do it, even at their own long-term expense.

People would sometimes almost rather you waste the time, in ways they can quantify and label as clearly job-related. Especially true in larger corporate worlds where the amount of time you spend(/waste) can be a territorial edge for the managerial sorts in defending their fiefdoms. From three levels up, the time on a spreadsheet that says "Web access" doesn't look good, even when it was.

Re:Sorry, "leverage" is passe jargon

[Panaphonix]

(They're off thinking inside the outside-the-box jargon box now.)
*Head explodes*

Re:Sorry, "leverage" is passe jargon

[Bimo_Dude]

That was the best part of the post.

I think it means that the box is now inside-out, and that anybody who talks about thinking outside the box is actually talking inside the box, because "outside the box" has becoms PHBSpeak. Therfore, if you are inside the box, then you are thinking outside the box, which puts you back inside the box, and the box must just be inside out at that point because my head just exploded too.

Can't we all just sit on top of the box, or is that still thinking inside the box?

Re:Sorry, "leverage" is passe jargon

[Anonymous Coward]

the term "leverage" has past its expiration date

I thought it had expired when L. Ron Hubbard had his Psychlos obsessing over it in Battlefield Earth.

Are results accomplished?

[Himring]

I am of the firm belief -- having a boss myself and then people under me that I delegate to -- that if someone produces the work I've requested in a timely manner, and that if I in turn produce for my boss, then I really don't care what else that person might be doing during the day. The best work environment is one where there is trust -- as in any human relationship. Whenever a marriage or a work place turns into one of distrust, where one is held accountable for all minutes and hours of the day -- where you were, what you were doing -- then the relationship simply isn't worth keeping. Give people tasks, give them a deadline, and then leave them alone. Take away the web and they'll do crossword puzzles, or do their nails or talk on their cell phones. If nothing else, they'll sit and stare. Someone who will not complete tasks will not complete tasks with or without the Internet. As a matter of fact, that same Internet just might help them do their job....

Re:Are results accomplished?

[mkw87]

Actually yes results are accomplished. As I read the title to this article I am sitting in my chair at work, and just reading the title made me feel guilty and want to be productive. /sarcasm

Re:Are results accomplished?

[agent4256]

I work for the U.S. Government, and I find while I wait for the computer to process the information (using a dual g5) I usually have to wait about 45 minutes per video file i'm working on. In a given day I complete 8 - 20 dvd Videos depending on how quickly Final Cut Pro HD can process information. Infact, in the midst of writing this I had to set another file up to render.

I will admit though, during the time that I'm waiting I read all the important news sites (http://www.cnn.com/, http://www.wired.com/, http://www.slashdot.org/, http://news.google.com/) and then I find myself editing websites (http://www.ethereallan.org/,http://www.ledmonthly .com/, and 3 other webprojects I'm working on). Then I'm off to check my e-mail at the numerous different sites that I've managed to get email for myself.

But what it comes down to in the end of the day, I get my work done. I've been told that I do more work over a summer(I'm a summer student) then most employee's do in a year. I'm constantly being told to "lower my standards" and to not "work as hard". Studies like these can only really work if you're in a business where you don't see your employees getting done everything they're assigned to do in a certain period of time. Then it is lost work productivity and yes it would make sense.

The good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the time spent goofing off has not changed, at least they can measure it now. If you can measure it, perhaps people will find a way to minimize it. (hey company X with management style Y has less of this going on) Some tasks are difficult to measure ones productivity, but you could measure their goofing off. I would hope for a way to make work more interesting so the temptation to goof is reduced. Others will probably worry that the minimization will be done via methods that are less appealing.

websurfing is a new addiction

[John Seminal]

what is a good way to break it?

does anyone spend most of their free time at home surfing the web? has anyone missed family get togethers, stayed in because he/she was surfing the web?

i know i keep going back to websites like cnn.com over and over, even though i don't expect a new headline every 20 minutes. since nothing new is at cnn, time to check the other 6 or 7 news websites i visit. nothing new there, better check back at cnn. i am sure some people think of porn the same way as i think of news.

i'll have to admit it, the first thing i do when i get home is turn on the computer.

what is a good way to break the addiction?

Re:websurfing is a new addiction

[Woy]

i'll have to admit it, the first thing i do when i get home is turn on the computer.

what is a good way to break the addiction?

Just leave the computer on.

Re:websurfing is a new addiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Get an MMORPG!

Then you'll be too busy grinding levels and professions to worry about silly news sites.

Re:websurfing is a new addiction

[Dragon218]

start up an opium addiction, you won't be able to leave your couch, let alone surf the web.

Re:websurfing is a new addiction

[J3M]

what is a good way to break the addiction?

Get married. Seriously, your "Honey Do" list will keep you off the computer.

If it doesn't, the nagging will.

Re:websurfing is a new addiction

[Magada]

Try getting an actual job. Such "addictions" are usually the refuge of the under-worked and the overly-bored. I should know. I work in a seasonal business, and in off-peak season I tend to acquire all sorts of habits - all easily broken when the pedal hits the metal again.

Re:websurfing is a new addiction

[The Cydonian]

Pick up a hobby.

Unfortunately, the best resource to learn more about a potential hobby is indeed the net, so.

Wasting time reading blogs

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how many blogs are out there? Tons and tons of blogs that need to be read. I can't let them posts just go away, maybe something important is said in them, I need to know... that's why I'm addicted to reading blogs. I'm subscribed to over 700 blogs. Help me!

MOD PARENT UP

[bach37]

We are not robots. We would go insane if we worked straight all day with no break, all week long.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[A beautiful mind]

Speak for yourself.

I can stare at arcane newspapers searching for secret encrypted messages and look at me! I'm perfectly sane.

Now i just need to find my roommate, he doesn't seem to be around just right now...

What the managers didn't say...

[ThatDamnMurphyGuy]

was that most of the employees surfing are doing so while spending the other 95% of their jobs waiting on people to actually make project decisions and redoing their work for the 4th time because the decisions makers can't make up their minds.

But I digress... :-)

economics

[Anonymous Coward]

American business lose $178 billion a year

As opposed to $985 billion to stupid meetings, which is dwarfed by the $4.3 trillion lost to jobs performing no meaningful purpose whatsoever to humanity.

Don't forget that these numbers measure dollar exchanges, which, because of partial overlap, is usually confused with value. So if you shoot me and I need $200K worth of medical care, that was good for the economy, especially if I was unemployed at the time. But if I help a neighbor and naturally get no money for my kindness, it's a big zero as far as the numbers are concerned. This is how our economy can keep growing while our world gets worse and worse.

The an indicator of the blind/misguided economic viewpoint is the idea of "wealth creation". If I screw up the environment, ruin lives, commit various illegal acts for which I'm not caught, cook the legal/legislative system, and get filthy rich along the way, the confused say I "created wealth" and have a number to back it up. Egotistical waste -- the big house, cars, burning *way* more than my share of resourses -- is considered success. We gotta step a long way from spiritual values to think this way but guess what, we have.

Re:economics

[Coop]

Please mod parent up -- good points by AC.

Am I reading at work, yes, Do I care, no

[Skraut]

I have one of those weird jobs where the boss doesn't care if we browse a little bit at work, and we don't complain when we spend 100+ hours a week here.

Besides I control the proxy filter. How else would I find out where all the good porn sites are.

The beliefs of IT

[Quiet_Desperation]

Our IT people- oh, wait, the current buzztitle is Information... I-something Serivces... or other whatsis- believe they are running our network in a competent manner, so my opinions on IT beliefs are rather low. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go download a 100Kbyte data sheet for the next hour or so, figure out what IP address they arbitrarily changed the Exceed server to and hope that I don't have to rewrite all mu Unix scripts due to another wacky unannounced configuration whim of the sysadmins.

Reverse calculation

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have been more convincing if they took the increased productivity in companies where their software is already installed and then extrapolated it up. Which, of course, would likely have proven their product a complete waste of time and money since productivity did not increase at all.

Colon and comma Nazi

[Mahou]

oogely boogely!!!

offtopic? No way, I'm being productive!

Time != Productivity

[blueZhift]

When are people going to realize that more time spent "working" does not mean more productivity. The real measure of productivity is whether or not assigned goals are met on schedule. So which is better, the guy who comes early, stays late and looks like a hard worker but never delivers on his projects, or the gal who seems to be on the web all the time, leaves early, but has the uncanny ability to deliver good work consistently? Which one of these will make the company more profit?

Everyone on /. knows how easy it is to look like you're working hard, but truly delivering the goods is another matter.

Re:Time != Productivity

[Proney]

What if the latter is convincing the former to do her share of the workload as well, and that's why he doesn't get his own work done on time?

Re:Time != Productivity

[Cowardly Anonym]

The she's obviously management material, and should be promoted ASAP.

Re:Time != Productivity

[jimcooncat]

"...gal who seems to be on the web all the time, leaves early, but has the uncanny ability to deliver good work consistently? " But she's outsourcing her workload over the wire!

Re:Time != Productivity

[CDarklock]

This is a frequent sticking point for one of my clients. There's someone in his office who simply doesn't understand how I can be posting on Slashdot from the office, yet still be working. As a result, he frequently interrupts me when he thinks I'm not working and have been "playing around" for more than fifteen minutes or so.

Now, I visit sites like /. when I'm working on a hard problem and need to concentrate on it. These interruptions break my flow of concentration. Breaking the flow of concentration costs me twenty to thirty minutes of refocusing time. This impacts productivity.

It is next to impossible to convince anyone that the lost productivity is because I was interrupted, and not because I was on Slashdot. You can't measure that I spent half an hour refocusing my mind on the task at hand after an interruption, but you *can* measure that I spent half an hour on /., so when you're trying to figure out why productivity is lower than you expect... it's easier to point the finger at something you can measure.

Amusingly, the three to five interruptions I get each day add up to just short of two hours in wasted time. I wonder if that correlates for anyone else in this study?

Re:Time != Productivity

[symbolic]

Now, I visit sites like /. when I'm working on a hard problem and need to concentrate on it. These interruptions break my flow of concentration. Breaking the flow of concentration costs me twenty to thirty minutes of refocusing time. This impacts productivity.

I've found that breaking the flow of concentration to be very productive on occasion...sometimes difficult problems elude a reasonably responsive solution, so stepping aside to something less mind-numbing for a few minutes can provide a surprisingly refreshing look at the problem.

Rant on web filtering...

[harappa]

I think most companies need to start treating their employees as adults and with respect. I have cases where filtering software is turned off selectively for a priviledged few - which seems hypocritical.

More to the point...

[Bravo_Two_Zero]

Economic data shows increasing gains in productivity, which means we're all doing more or the same work with fewer people. So, with their logic, web surfing at best is reducing the increase in productivity, not driving it backwards.

Colon Nazi? I think I met you on the Love Parade!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, I should get back to work :-)

My Theory...

[Ionizer7]

As long as the work gets done, you can do whatever the hell you want.

CHRIST

[Danzigism]

business is constantly revolving around "management".. How to fucking manage your employees.. Christ.. this is the reason people are just generally scared to work nowadays.. its all bullshit.. back in the day, when worker unions still had something to offer the average joe, people were excited to get jobs.. Unions fucked off and ended up demanding too much, then management became the thing companies were seeking.. A way to deal with those pesky employees.. Companies need to start figuring out better ways to treat their employees union or not.. I think they just need to obtain a "heart".. give them healthcare, and make them not despire coming back to work the next morning...

I need to surf in order to do my job

[MECC]

If I couldn't 'surf the web', I couldn't find the information I need in order to do my job. Its probably that way for anyone working in any IT field who needs to find current information on any kind of technology. Its not that print isn't usefull - its just too far behind, and in order to have enough information on hand you'd need a small to medium sized library in your cube.

Any of these PHB-centric web-surfing-is-bad studies hit that one?

In Other News...

[Linurati]

Employers cost employees billions annually in clothing and shoe sales to conform with arbitrary company dress-code policies. Film at eleven.

Seriously, though. How much car maintenance, clothing shopping, gasoline and other work-related expenses do you pay out of your paycheck with zero-reimbursement for your employer?

Re:In Other News...

[dusik]

Yeah, it pisses me off that I spend $4/day in gas just to go to work! Never mind the miles I'm putting on my car. It only makes sense to recoup the time=money on /. :)

*flips to next excuse...*

Re:In Other News...

[Xiaran]

I think a more important question is "How many hours world wide to permie employees work over time for no pay". Some companies(actually losta companies) are like that, screw as much as they can for free out of employees and still treat them like crap.

Re:In Other News...

[Cederic]

$4 a day? I just put $110 of diesel into my car and it'll last me 4 days commute.

Too right they can pay for my web-mail access.

Re:In Other News...

[turgid]

If you're not getting reimbursed by your employer, you shouldn't be going to work, unless you're working for charity.

You should (if you're lucky) get enough to cover your work costs (transport, clothes etc.), pay your rent/morgage and buy enough food to eat. If you're luckier, you might have some disposable income.

I vowed never to work for an unreasonable employer ever again after I quite my part-time potato-arranging job at Safeway when I was 17. I've been lucky so far.

The world doesn't owe you a living.

Re:In Other News...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are lazy and immoral for even thinking about such a thing! You should be greatful that your master gives you enough chits to eat anything above the standard gruel and rust contaminated water that cattle^Rchattel^Remployees like you deserve and require to work in the shining light of your Master. You're fired! That guy in Calcutta will work for shit and be greatful to work for his Master. /big sarcasm

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually very insightful. As I sometimes browse during the day and feel somewhat guilty, I only have to look around and notice everyone else talking. Not about the job, about something else. I can't count how many times I've been dragged into a meaningless conversation - even by my boss - all the time marveling that I'm getting paid for this.

Wasting time isn't new, but when it's via something the company paid for - a computer - it somehow becomes bad.

method of estimation

[Barbarian]

I don't work in IT, but I know people who do. The only real way to estimate this is by HTTP request logs

Here's how an IT manager would estimate this:

(proxy log, simplified for /.)

08:22:05 luser onto onto online banking page
08:22:25 luser logs off online banking page (has to click and send an http request)
08:27:05 luser loads cnn
08:27:25 luser clicks on a story on CNN
08:55:03 luser clicks on another story on CNN

Now you could claim that luser was on CNN for 32 minutes. Is it true? Probably not, they probably read a story on CNN, left the browser open, did a whole bunch of work, then went back to the window and clicked another story. There total time "Surfing" is probably 5 minutes, but IT manager will count it as half an hour.

There are also webpages that auto-refresh when you leave the browser open. CNN does it every 15 mintues.

Where does that money go?

[qbert980]

Don't you know that by using the internets at work, you are funding terrorism and destroying freedom?

If surfing is outlawed, then only. . .Oh nevermind.

Employee goodwill and morale

[KiDDaX]

Why can't employers accept surfing as a means to keep workers working and morale high. We are not robots...Okay, so block on the inappropriate things...Okay, so monitor our workflow incase if it's excessive...but don't take it away from us...I think it definitely helps me do *MORE* work when I am able to surf...I can concentrate better in spurts... If they took away the internet the site poopshoot.com would dissapear! okay, ive never been there. but what about the people who do!! Strike it down as another employee perk such as hawaiian shirt fridays (lol)...or just employee flex days and move on!

Kind of

[Apreche]

Web surfing doesn't really destroy my productivity. I write software for a living. I work from 9-5 every day. I can't really write code straight from 9-5 with a lunch break. It can't be done. I get most of my work done early in the day, then my rate of work slows down. Every once in awhile while I'm thinking I'll hit the news and other sites. I don't do a lot of e-mail, but I do a lot of IM.

Basically, I do as much work as I can in a day. If there wasn't the web and such to occupy time I would be twiddling thumbs or reading a book in that other time.

If I had a job that was just 9-1 every day I would get the same amount of work done since that time would be solid full productivity work. I would also be much happier with that kind of schedule. But nobody is willing to pay me the same amount to work 9-1 even though the result of my work would be nearly identical to me working 9-5. Four hours every day wasted. Hurts me more than it hurts the company.

Re:Kind of

[Yaotzin]

Hurts me more than it hurts the company.

If it would hurt they company they'd switch pretty fast.

Re:Kind of

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post!

I agree whole-heartedly; while there are sometimes periods of deep-hack or "flow" in which I can get many contiguous hours of effective coding done, this is the exception rather than the rule. It was easier when I was 22 and could much more easily do all-nighters, didn't have do deal with eyes or wrists aching from a whole day of solid typing and joints stiff from immobility.

I had an opportunity to prove this a couple of years ago when I went from a full-time employee to a half-time, hourly employee. When working half-time, I generally came in, got right in to the task at hand, and was extremely effective in my four hours of debugging or coding. In short, I was not any less productive than I had been a full-time employee. The only thing lost was the dithering, meetings, or woolgathering.

It helped that the rest of my day was my own, and that I thus while at work I wasn't thinking so much about other things I wanted to get done outside of work.

Something managers should think hard about, when they start demanding overtime, or scheduling engineers on projects!

salaried workers

[be-fan]

I'd like to see a calculation of the amount of money lost by salaried employees who work more than the mythical 40 hour work week without anything resembling overtime. Let's do some math.

Let's consider just engineers. There are 2 million engineers in the US, nearly all of whom are salaried employees, nearly all of whom work over 40 hours a week. The average engineer makes 70-90K/yr. Let's take the average at 80k/yr. Now, assuming a 40-hour work-week and the standard 3-weeks vacation, that works out to about $41 an hour. Now, I'd say your average engineer would believe they work, on average, 50 hours per week. That's $40bn in lost wages for engineers alone, using conservative estimates. Now, consider the number of other overworked, salaried employees. The lost wages could easily run to 10x that!

Re:salaried workers

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, you completely misunderstand what salaried means. It doesn't mean you get paid X dollars per hour for working a 40 hour week, it means you get paid $xx,xxx for the year and are expected to work when you're needed.

Re:salaried workers

[be-fan]

Salaries are normalized with respect to the official workweek. You don't get paid X per hour for working 40 hours per week, but you get paid $xx,xxx per year, with the expectation that you'll put in a standard work week. Yes, its not a legal constraint, but it is convention. That's why offices that have salaried employees still have standard business hours, usually 7:30 to 4:30 or 8:00 to 5:00. These hours are calculated figuring the standard 40 hour workweek, plus the standard lunch hour.

Re:Let's not forget the increase in productivity..

[hoai2k]

Employees are most productive when they are happy and preventing them from using the internet doesn't seem like it would help. However, if my work provided free games, women, and drinks for relaxing during the time while my computer compiles, I would be more than happy to forgo surfing the Net entirely.

Websense is pretty evil.

[Gannoc]

They sold their filtering software to the Chinese government for use in censorship of pro-democracy sites. They actually had the news release on their website a few years ago.

When asked "Gosh, do you think that this is a moral thing for an American company do to?" they replied "Hey, we just sell the software, we can't be responsible for how people use it."

Anyone who has worked with sales before knows that is a load of shit. Before you start talking to a customer, you learn about their needs so you can better sell your product. There's no way they just passively got a contact with the chinese government. I promise you, they were over there for weeks, showing powerpoint presentations claiming that their product could filter and report on dissidents MUCH better than the competition.

They've been putting up this bullshit about web usage for years. A few years ago, it was porn at work, and how companies are at risk for lawsuits if they don't immediately buy a filter. Of course, this fails the "What if it wasn't on a computer?" test, since if I brought an old-fashioned porn mag to work and was caught reading it, i'd be fired, and the company wouldn't be negligent. They don't need a $100,000 porn scanner at each door... but since it is on a COMPTUER, well, it is magic.

I mean, check out the management. Their CEO looks like he is about to rip off his false face to reveal the reptilian features underneath.

Re:Websense is pretty evil.

[Yaotzin]

It's like "V", all over again.

Re:Websense is pretty evil.

[squidbeast]

Do you have any links to actually back up statements such as "They actually had the news release on their website a few years ago"?

I've been looking, and I'll I've found via google so far is news articles talking about a report by Amnesty International that cited Websense as a vendor who sold filtering software to the Chinese government. Many of the articles have quotes from Websense saying specifically that China is NOT a Websense customer, and that they were investigating the (reported false) accusations.

I have not been able to find any information on the Websense site in their news releases about them landing China as a customer. If you have any further evidence to back up your claims I would love to see it, though.

See, among others:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,107520,0 0.asp
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2002/1202china.ht ml

Re:Websense is pretty evil.

[Watcher]

You may want to apply a little lateral thinking to your research efforts next time. Go to the internet archive, or just follow this link. Read up. This was on their wbesite for quite some time, although it no longer is. China may not be a customer right now, but they certainly were in 2001-either that or Websense was so desperate for press coverage that they not only linked to an LA Times article claiming their software was purchased by the Chinese government and used by them, but linked to said article as well. Somehow, I really doubt that-I don't care how desperate you are for coverage, linking to an article making false claims that you sold your product to the chinese government to block anything, news or otherwise, shows a considerable lack of judgement.

Re:Websense is pretty evil.

[Watcher]

This is what I get for posting after a very long and hectic day. Fifth sentence should read:

China may not be a customer right now, but they certainly were in 2001-either that or Websense was so desperate for press coverage that they not only linked to an LA Times article claiming their software was purchased by the Chinese government and used by them, but contributed to said article as well.

Re:Websense is pretty evil.

[Gannoc]

If you have any further evidence to back up your claims I would love to see it, though.

Someone else already linked it from archive.org. I found the two articles you linked extremely amusing. "China isn't a customer of ours." Right.
The fact that they're lying even now should say something about the company. If you must do filtering, great, but if you're in a position to make decisions about what software to use, remember what kind of company Websense is.

Re:Websense is pretty evil.

[squidbeast]

Thanks for the link, that's exactly the sort of evidence I was looking for.

It seems funny to me, too, that they ever had that on their website. The article itself seems to cast the whole thing in a bad light; While I can understand that the amount of money made on a deal like that would probably be huge, I'm not sure why they would want to be associated with it, especially in an article that makes the whole thing seem unpleasant.

The one other thing that seems curious to me is the fact that their pricing, from what I can tell, is based on the number of seats that you are attempting to cover. Wouldn't nationwide filtering for the entire country of China be such a ridiculously high number of seats that the income from it would have made them really, really rich? Granted, that link is through one of their resellers and it's also possible that exceptions in their pricing scheme were made, but it still seems like it would have been an enormous some of money.

The evidence does seem to show that they were being false in either the article claiming they had sold to the Chinese goverment or the one that says that said they hadn't, it does seem more likely that the sale was on a smaller scale for filtering in government offices. After all, their press releases also show a number of sales to the US Govermnent, and we don't have nationwide Websense filtering here.

Re:Websense is pretty evil.

[Watcher]

I'll probably get dinged for this by some well meaning type, but: a comment I've heard on doing computer business in China is that you'd better go big with your first sale, because odds are good its the only one you'll ever get. After that, they'll tear whatever you sold them apart, and either make their own or just steal it outright. I doubt that writing a package like Websense is beyond the software development skills of a few willing Chinese engineers.

Its possible their sale to China was fairly small, possibly even a pilot of a few thousand seats, and didn't produce a much larger follow up because there was a home grown substitute developed.

Either that or someone at Websense who still has a soul pointed out that doing business with China and having the blood of innocent lives on their hands might be bad for business here.

Re:Websense is pretty evil.

[squidbeast]

I agree, this does seem plausible, but it looks like you can download a fully functional version of Websense with a 30 day subscription key for free. Why would they even need to buy a small license, if that was what they were doing? Maybe they needed it to work for more than 30 days, or something, but I suppose they could also just download another evaluation in that case.

Re:Websense is pretty evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked (note: past tense) at Websense, and they're not nearly as evil as you make them out to be. While I would never use their mainstream software myself, as I don't believe there is a real need to block out much from workers, many companies do see the need for it and the software does its job well.

The company has begun to expand into the security market as opposed to the filtering market, and now offers desktop security software to prevent spyware, malware, and whatnot from being run. Of course, if the overzealous execs get their hands on this they can prevent you from play Solitaire as well. It's all a tradeoff.

My suggestion to you if you have a problem with the web filtering at your office is to get another job. It's not Websense that does the evil, it's the tight-wad management who wants their employees to see nothing of the web.

In other news....

[sillybilly]

Another study says businesses lose 3 trillion dollars of productivity over people wasting time by talking to each other at work, about their kids, family, baseball, and other such things unrelated to their job. They often do this while they hang around the water fountain or the coffee machine. Solution? We should ban all coffee machines and water fountains to boost the economy.

Another bit

[be-fan]

If we're going to count the amount of time I spend thinking about Slashdot at work, how about we count the amount of time I sit thinking about work on my personal time? When I'm working on a project, code is going through my head all the time. I'll be in the shower thinking about an algorithm, or eating dinner trying to figure out where a bug came from. When it gets bad, I'll be trying to get to sleep, but I'll be distracted by code. When I finally do get to sleep, I'll dream about code. I'd like to see a study done about this...

Re:Another bit

[Anonymous Coward]

When I finally do get to sleep, I'll dream about code. I'd like to see a study done about this...

Indeed, what an interesting medical condition.

Re:Another bit

[hattig]

My walk to work takes 25 minutes. For most of that time when I'm not looking at pretty girls on bikes, I'm thinking about the days work, what needs to be done. There, and on the way back. I usually work 9am to 7pm in addition, and rarely take a lunch break. So say 10.5 hours a day 5.5 days a week is 58 hours a week of work, even if it isn't all 'producing' work. If I can't spend an hour or two a day to surf, I'd go mad. Even then, I am thinking whilst surfing, or letting problems and designs mull over.

I don't mind being at work so much, I can play music loud, I have a dual 2.3GHz PowerMac with nice monitor, I program and sysadmin and design ... it's all good.

Re:Let's not forget the increase in productivity..

[Anonymous Coward]

TRUE

But its usually the 10 sites that I stop by on the way to and fro those productive coding websites.

Reminds me of the graph showing the times it takes a man and woman to buy a pair of jeans at GAP.

I blame it Firefox with its tabbed browsing

In todays world

[Z00L00K]

surfing the web is one way to be up to day with the world. It is important to recognize that the brain actually needs to have a few relaxing moments every day, and the reading of news is one way to actually let the brain relax some pathways so that you can come back to your actual task a little sharper.

It all comes down to the type of work you do, and the human brain and body isn't made for monotonous work, it needs variation or you will go nuts or get problems with overstressed elbows or whatever.

So go get the cup of coffee , tea with a piece of good chocolate now! (I prefer the Ecuador 70%, which has a faint touch of orange to it's taste.)

Executives surfing = everyone?

[Hao Wu]

So if management wastes hours a day doing it, they assume that their workers do too. A-holes.

Sure 110% is possible.

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

110% of what? Negotiated max? Perceived max? The what-I-wanted-to-give max? Expected performance?

Etc.

Different corporate climates have different ways of saying an honest-day's-work. Different employees have different ways of saying the same thing.

But it really bugs me that so many people have gotten to the point of slavery to "information" that they have to have their information gods serviced at all hours of the morning.

(Medical staff are partially exempted from the above accusation.)

Re:Sure 110% is possible.

[CmdrGravy]

100% of anything is all there is of it. By definition it is stating that there is not another extra 10% hiding somewhere.

100% of your effort is the total amount of effort you can possibly give to anything. If you can increase the amount of effort you are exerting by 110% then you weren't exerting your maximum effort in the first place.

Re:Sure 110% is possible.

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

It's called letting the context slip.

I am putting out 110% of your maximum effort.

Or was it 110% of my minimum effort?

Probably the latter.

Re:Sure 110% is possible.

[CmdrGravy]

1) So when people say "put in 110%" they all mean put in 10% more effort than CmdrGravy could in this scenario ? That doesn't make much sense.

2) Or taking your minimum effort as zero, 110% of zero is still zero so that doesn't make any sense.

"Putting in 110%" on it's own makes no sense and is impossible ( as I have just said ) and if you have to add unlikely qualifiers to make it make some kind of sense then using the phrase starts to become a bit of a pointless excercise.

Two-sided...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the one hand, yeah, Internet surfing does waste time at work. Even while doing focused searching for work-related stuff, it is all too easy to become distracted by extraneous stuff that comes up in the search results.

On the other hand, I can't tell you how many times I came up with a unique solution to customer problems because of things that had no company use at the time I found them.

Should I be docked for the fact that I was looking at things that had no company use at the time I was looking at them? Should I then be rewarded (maybe a bonus, HA!) for having knowledge of something that helped solve a problem later on?

As for personal use of company resources, bah! Frequently during the early days of my career and much less frequently now I get involved in deadlines that require overtime. If I cannot use company resources (phone, Internet, on-line banking to pay bills, etc.) to help take care of my business at home while I spend extra hours at the office, then I cannot spend those extra hours at the office!

Companies cannot look at the "cost" of lost employee time due to Internet access without considering the "benefit" of such access in terms of serendipital discoveries, increased efficiencies in doing tasks and flexibility that allows workers to spend more time at work when required.

Good Point

[Snowbeam]

I happen to work from home as well outside of the so-called work hours. It more than makes up for the minimal amount of time I spend websurfing.

Now, they chose to ask IT managers? Hahaha, who do you think sends me the links to go checkout? Who do I shoulder surf over every day? On a comparison scale, for every time I surf the web, my manager(S) surf the web 4 times.

People of peace, surf!

[varjag]

..lose $178 billion a year to web surfing in the workplace..

That's what keeping Bush from yet another invasion!

Re:Let's not forget the increase in productivity..

[springbox]

Yeah, google.com is probably the most frequently used research tool here

Ssshhh

[Ranger]

You aren't supposed to tell anyone.

Obligatory quote from "Office Space":

Bob Slydell: You see, what we're trying to do is get a feeling for how people spend their time at work so if you would, would you walk us through a typical day, for you?

Peter Gibbons: Yeah.

Bob Slydell: Great.

Peter Gibbons: Well, I generally come in at least fifteen minutes late, ah, I use the side door - that way Lumbergh can't see me, heh - after that I sorta space out for an hour.

Bob Porter: Da-uh? Space out?

Peter Gibbons: Yeah, I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch too, I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.

mental illness

[Anonymous Coward]

I surf to find other ways to invest my mental abilities, few though they be. Work is as borking as ditch digging even if I am in front of a tube. Been there done that over and over. No challenges at work.

Nobody caught this?

[kilodelta]

"Websense, a company that develops web filtering and blocking software for schools and offices, is behind a study that's trumping up the costs of online surfing. First, their claims:"

Most of what we take as news today is actually a press release being used to stimulate business. Of course Websense would see that illicit browsing is up, they want to sell product.

The same has been proven true of the "Year of the Suit" campaign. Turns out that Gentleman's Wearhouse had been cranking out PR's stating that suits were back in, etc.

It's all advertising pretending to be news. The minute you see a specific company name in a supposed news article you know it's a press release.

So it's hype. Don't worry about it.

Re:Let's not forget the increase in productivity..

[dusik]

>> "...I tend to find bits of code that can be used in whatever I am working on..."

Just don't forget to remove the GPL headers ;)

Incentives

[thayner]

A better solution then counting hours wasted is for companies to establish incentives that make people want to work. For instance, create relatively small entreprenurial organizations within the company. This allows for both performers and non-performers to be visible. The performers then get CEO type incentives -- stock options, stock grants . CEOs, while not popular on slashdot, tend to work long hours and also focus on the company rather then the keeping under the radar mentality that seems to pervade a lot of workers. Result, both workers and company do well.

Short Answer?

[fuzzybunny]

"Face time". Look it up.

Companies need _some_ way to track how many hours employees are actually around the office. However, many anagers have taken the additional mental leap of directly associating this with how much their employees actually work.

Hence, the concept of "face time". If you're not in your seat x hours per day, that must mean you're not working and not productive. Take it from there and you'll find a quick explanation for why "studies" such as this one are so widely accepted.

Well DUH!

[doublem]

How many of the people posting in this very thread are AT WORK right now, and wasting time that should be dedicated to actual work?

And no, I won;t call anyone on it. Pot, Kettle anyone?

Debunking the study. Sheesh. What are they going to do next? After arguing that web surfing isn't wasting vast amounts of US productivity, are they going to argue that the sky isn't blue?

"No, really, it's pink, all the time. Those clouds aren't really there!"

To quote a children's movie, "Who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

Re:Well DUH!

[It'sYerMam]

If you were to RTFA (Yeah, I know, must be new here) then you'd see that it's pretty damn credible. Some time is wasted on the internet, but a lot of the time employees spend surfing around is in lunch breaks and at points where they have nothing to do.

Added to that, the article states that the statistics came from the mouths of the immediate decision makers, not the workers themselves, and the specific word used was "believe." That's not a statistic, that's a postulation.

Two key important points of the article

[jeffc128ca]

The first point of the article is obvious. The study is full of crap because its a PR driven move.

But the second point is more interesting to think about. When I was young and eager to please my boss I really beleived that every hour I slacked off was costing the firm money. The billable rate my firm charges for my work is $175 an hour. In theory I better be doing $175 of work for every hour I work.

But reality is they are paying me for what I know and can do, not how much of it I do per hour. This was mentioned in the article regarding support levels. My firm may not need me working right now while I surf the net for non business purposes, but in a couple of hours an important payroll system may go down and they need me to fix it.

It's like being a firemen. Firemen get paid a salary to be available to put out fires. They don't need to put out fires 8 hours a day to be considered cost effective.

There are too many bean counters in business that insist I need to be doing some kind of productive work for every hour I am at work. It's those types of people that drive these kind of silly reports.

Weak assumptions of the surfing at work study...

[aphor]

Even if you assume their empirical data is accurate and reliable: people really do spend that much time surfing non-work (task) related items at work, there is not enough evidence to correctly infer that there is any given dollar amount of loss to count.

The first flawed assumption is that non work (task) related web surfing delivers zero value to the business. Any single valid example of value that a business can derive from employees surfing outside of their work tasks that applies to the population shoots this assumption like a fish in a barrel. Example: serendipity (finding something that helps your work on accident). Example: honing basic research/critical thinking skills. Example: Webmail (any kind of writing) improves communication skills.

The second flawed assumption is that for any given minute that a person might be surfing non-work stuff, there is something productive that the employee could be doing.

The third flawed assumption is that the base estimate of employee productivity (how productive is the average employee) can even apply to individual employee activities from minute to minute. This is actually the basic fallacy of generalization. Never try to apply generalized data to specific situations.

Even if the study avoids the third flawed assumption, it must contain the fourth: The statistics on employee productivity do not already account for any of the productivity in the first or second assumptions. Maybe the third and fourth are just corrolaries of each other.

The fifth flawed assumption is that employees doing work related tasks besides will never take part in management-sponsored waste. It is brazenly stupid to assume that employees who do what the boss wants them to be doing always improve the bottom line: the boss can make mistakes too. The consequences of those mistakes are directly proportional to the number of people reporting to the boss. Therefore the mistakes of the boss are more likely to cause significant losses than the mistakes of an employee. If not, we should flatten the payscales!

The sixth assumption may or may not apply. The free market (individual businesses) will seek out this waste as a profit potential, and a competitor will find a way to make more money than the business with the lollygagging employees. Dullards with wastefull staff will go out of business naturally. No societal-level alarm is necessary. Do you believe in the free market or not?

Denial

[Xarius]

So many people saying it's not a problem... I wonder how many other addicts, who can't go 8-10 hours without a drink/smoke/webpage/spanking deny that they have a problem?

It's a trade

[Anonymous Coward]

I figure that reading Slashdot during the day helps keep me awake, and "awake but not accomplishing anything" is probably better than "asleep at my desk."

Well, it at least doesn't arouse the suspicions of the people walking by my cubicle. And if I'm not distracting them, that's even more productivity loss avoided!

Better way

[freeweed]

There are vendors now selling far more accurate monitoring software than that. These apps will sit on your workstation and track when (for example) IE is open and has focus, and if you're actively using the keyboard and/or mouse.

Proxy logs, as you pointed out, are next to worthless, especially is these days of auto-refreshing content (Google News, anyone?). However, there are far more insidious ways to track every last minute of web surfing.

Gotta love it when companies trust employees.

Re:Better way

[Hoi Polloi]

If someone used that to monitor professionals I guarantee that any office space problems they might have would be solved very quickly.

I suspect they would only use this to make life miserable for hourly "low skilled" workers like data entry folks.

Adminst all the 'time is not....'

[vhold]

I pretty much feel that web surfing does decrease productivity overall.

What makes it so nefarious in my mind isn't the _amount_ of time spent web surfing, but how easy it is for a tiny little brain fart to turn into a web surfing session, and how that time is not the same as a normal break.

Next time you need to think over something before you do it, need a little break, are waiting for something to finish, etc, try talking a little walk and just get away from the computer.

I've found that web surfing tends to so completely lock up my mind that my subconcious problem solving ability is significantly reduced, but if I'm away from the computer, just kinda going 'duuuh', looking at some trees or chillin in a chair looking at the cieling, solutions to problems will often just dawn on me.

Also web surfing doesn't tend to be a very refreshing break, going from working to surfing to working again doesn't stretch you out, doesn't rest your eyes, barely rests your hands, etc.

I see all these unused rec rooms with couches, pool, foosball, etc, everybody is just sitting at their computer surfing or IMing instead of meeting up in those rooms to chill for a second. Heck, even without those, I barely see people hanging out near water coolers or coffee bars.

I think people never do so because they won't look busy, even though surfing/IMing is just as unproductive generally.

Education

[tarsi210]

I have successfully managed to argue my websurfing at work based on one simple principle: Education.

I am a computer programmer -- applications developer. I am paid to be knowledgeable in my field, to maintain that knowledge, and to use it to the benefit of the company. Part of my maintenance of that knowledge is to keep up on all the nuances and happenings of the IT industry, which I do through IT magazines, IT websites, and the occasional IT book or reference.

Thus, I have convinced my employer that my time spent surfing is part of my job description. You want a knowledgeable programmer? Then let me keep up my knowledge.

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Websurfing damages YOU!

Re:Let's not forget the increase in productivity..

[nine-times]

I would even say some of my time spent wasting time (what even I would call "wasting time") on the internet has paid off. The thing is, when I'm slacking off a bit at work, I'm still looking at technical pages. I'm an IT guy, and I read slashdot, cnet news, etc. That's my hobby surfing.

Also, while at work, during some down-time, I made a linux server my company didn't need. I experimented with php/mysql/CMS, I scanned the internet for info on new technologies coming out. That's hobby time, spent at work, "wasting time".

Still, that Linux server came in handy when we were in a pinch and we needed a new FTP server. My php/mysql knowledge came in handy when some manager asked the IT group if we had the ability to set up an online forum. Knowing about new technology developments comes in handy enough when making purchasing decisions. "Oh, let's not buy that right now. Rumor is they're about to release a new version."

I'd even dare to say scanning slashdot discussions has given me some insight into technical issues-- issues relevant to my job.

The darndest things can come up handy, and bosses can't always predict what a little aimless stroll around the internet will turn up. "Productivity" isn't everything.

Not so Guilty maybe

[hisnibs]

Considering that Americans are on the job more than employees in any comparable country this study is looking at the wrong culprit affecting productivity. Take a look at Austrailians working 40 hour weeks and less yet averaging 13% more productivity than Americans. This study is just another six sigma mentality attempt to exploit workers.

if not websurfing...

[AxemRed]

If we weren't surfing the web, we would be wasting time doing something else.

Re:Let's not forget the increase in productivity..

[bladesjester]

I agree. The one that amused me was when I was accused by a new project manager (whom I didn't report to and just wanted to throw their weight around) of ignoring my duties and slacking off by doing nothing but surf the web.

I was keeping up with the security advisories, seeing that I was the network admin/analyst. =]

It was really funny when the person went to one of the directors that I report to and was told to mind their own buisness.

You might want to check on him

[Hoi Polloi]

Are you sure he isn't actually having a daily petit mal seizure? I feel like I'm having them during long, boring meetings.

Playing it the right way

[Mr. Underbridge]

Agreed all the way. Most people seem to have the thought in their heads 'If I make myself a slave to my job, I'll get promoted faster and get more payraises.'. I'd kindly like to throw the BS flag on that one; all it does is encourage your employer to walk all over you and wring you for everything you're worth.

First off, I definitely agree with your sentiment and subscribe to it! I do think the utility of working some extra hours is selective, though. If you show that you're a team player and willing to help out when the proverbial caca hits the fan - possibly by working some extra hours - that's good. Working more hours than you're expected to, all the time, probably makes you look like a stooge.

Put it this way - if you work extra hours just to show you're working extra hours, you'll always be a grunt. Things like "availability" from an email/phone standpoint, except for special situations, definitely fall in that category. However, if you put in extra hours - noticed or not - to make sure you do a great job, you'll probably get promoted.

Working from home

[Hoi Polloi]

I liked being able to do some work from home at a previous job. When I had to choose between sitting around work late or coming in very early to see if a job run without errors before the rest of the developers came in vs being able to check for 5 minutes before going to bed I was glad I could do it from home.

Plus, if I was just sick enough to not want to go to work but not sick enough to stop me from actually working I could sit comfortably at home in slippers and work from there.

Productivity takes a back seat to doing it quickly

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I work, we use technology to speed up productivity. So much so, that we fulfill orders in real time. In order to fulfill orders in real time, we have to have people waiting for those orders to be placed. Obviously, they have to do SOMETHING. Posting on slashdot and playing games is fine, as long as they can start working immediately if the orders come.

Things ebb and flow, just like cash registers in the supermarket and fast food joints. Sometimes people are paid to stand around waiting for customers to make up their mind. Other times, you wish you hired more people to wait around so that your customers wouldn't have to wait during the 'rushes.'

Solitaire?

[scseth]

Talk about scape-goating. If its not web-surfing its playing minesweeper or solitaire. If its not those things, its doodling on a paper. The problem with reports like these is then PHB want to ban the interweb from the company, as if that will raise productivity, when the real problem is either inferior project management or unchallenging tasks.

Further source of lost productivity

[angusmci]

Another recent study has shown that American workers typically spend upwards of seven or eight hours per day sleeping, at immense cost to the American economy. "Workers spend as much time 'sleeping' as they do at the office." report the study's authors. "If we could just cut out this unproductive time and harness those extra hours, the effect on the economy would be enormous. It's not unrealistic to suggest that Gross National Product could be doubled." Other activities cited by the study include 'eating and drinking', 'commuting', 'family and friends', 'hobbies' and 'relaxation', all of which take time that might otherwise be used to generate revenue. The study called for businesses to take measures to eliminate all these extraneous activities by 2010.

The real story

[blair1q]

Productive workers "lose" over $10 Trillion to non-Productive administrative, managerial and ownership personnel, annually.

Why good people don't recognize that the value they create with their hands is worth 2-5 times what they're paid is testament to the success of the massive propaganda campaign waged by the boss class.

Not working != Not Productive

[prozac79]

We all know that most people who work 8-10 hours/day don't spend all that time actually working. This is especially true for those jobs that require a lot of creative thinking or intense periods of concentration. You need time to recharge a little. And by not working straight through, you'll probably work more effeciently and come up with better solutions to problems.

To use this study's logic, I'm being productive and justify my salary for coding 8-hours straight even if my solutions sucks. But if I work 6-hours with small breaks in between, I'll probably get just as much done and the work that I do will be of a higher quality. So tell me, which worker is being more productive? Who, in the end, will better meet the business needs of the company?

I thought I'd cost my employer some money..

[3seas]

... so I told the whole office about this article.

Re:Let's not forget the increase in productivity..

[Daniel832US]

It's also used as a distraction in order to solve problems. I don't know how many others work like this, but when I've got a complicated project to do (they keep coming my way for some reason), I can come up with a better solution by not directly thinking about it, but rather letting it mull around in the back of my mind for a while. I'll actually go and check a some sites for a distraction while putting together a solution. Pretty much I build the solutions by not thinking about them. Once built, I can do the actual work with little effort or thought.

Proxy Administrator

[kenp2002]

I am a proxy administrator at my current gig, if I take the whole of my daily squid log, calculate the active surfing time (time between page transitions greater then 5 seconds and excluding image files [This filters most banners and automatic content]) and divide it between ALL the staff in the building the average user spends 1 hour surfing the web. An average employee works an 8 hour day. Now when I filter this again (we dump it into postgresql and run crystal reports against it) filtering out work related sites the number drops from the 62 minutes to 51 minutes. Still 1/8th is a considerable waste.

To be safe even if I chop that number in half to account for sites that self load, etc.. 1/16th of a work day lost is substantial. As an employer would you be happy is every one of you staff took a personal call for 30 minutes every day? Every day if there is only 30 minutes of surfing, and you have, say, 200 employees thats 100 hours lost daily! at $10 an hour that $1000 lost productivity every DAY. I'm suprised the numbers we're so low actually.

The fact remains, TOO MUCH WEB SURFING. Slashdot is 21% of the traffic btw here with Deviant Art being 12%. This article has prompted my to add catagories to the report so I can group domains and run reports based on what people are reading by catagory. When I started the proxy server here at this gig the web surfing traffic on the DSL line dropped 80%, as the employees knew we were watching. If it was business realted and productive web searching, the taffic wouldn't have dropped as much.

There are some numbers for you to play with. Proxy reports a far from an exacting science but can give you a pretty good idea of what is going on.

Re:Proxy Administrator

[BlueFashoo]

And what happened to freecell time? Did that go up? Or chit chat and cell phone usage? How did that time change?

Not every employee can be "productive" 8 hours a day. There are gaps where no work is available to do. What do you want people to do in this time? Stare at the wall, mouths gaping open with a long, sticky, string of drool hanging out?

People gots to do somthing in their spare time. Websurfing is as good as any other time filler.

Re:Proxy Administrator

[Anonymous Coward]

When I started the proxy server here at this gig the web surfing traffic on the DSL line dropped 80%

Did you find your favourite magazine always out at the local newsstand shortly after? And perhaps your favourite brand of smokes became a bit more scarce too, right? Maybe found whatever batteries MP3 players take hard to find?

Yep, that pretty much is what happened. The employees went to other forms of entertainment. You could take all those away too. But it's cheaper to just invest in chains and handcuffs.

Re:Proxy Administrator

[kenp2002]

Yes every employeed can be productive 8 hours a day. If not you need new managers. A: Cellphones are not allowed in the building and no workstation has video games installed. People better realize they no longer compete with the local guys for the jobs anymore, it's a world wide game now and there are billion of people that are hungry and hurting for your job. If your not working your hardest, your not working hard enough.

--There are gaps where no work is available to do. What do you want people to do in this time? Stare at the wall, mouths gaping open with a long, sticky, string of drool hanging out?--
Well I'd want them to...ummm... work? That's what I pay em for. If someone in the 4 wall I deal with has free time I can find them work to do. I don't pay people to sit around and stare. If you're not working, I'm not paying. Period. If your not working your hardest, I'll find someone else that will. Competition is fierce and it's only going to get worse the smaller the world gets.

Re:Proxy Administrator

[Valafar]

A lot of this has to do outdated culture ideas in the US. If we are an information based economy, rather than a manufacturing based economy then "productive time" is irrelavent.

People need to come to grips with the fact that employees are being paid for their brains and the thinking that they do, rather than the amount of time spent doing it.

As a developer, if I were to actually keep track of all of the time spent "working --> thinking about" something related to my day job, I would be billing an enormous amount of hours. I'm "on the clock" 24 hours a day as I don't know when an idea might come to me. I think about problems in the shower, when I'm taking a crap, eating dinner, driving to work, walking in the park, lifting weights at the gym, etc.

The bottom line is that corporate america needs to stop speaking out of both sides of its mouth. We're an information economy but we use industrial economy metrics. Bollocks.

Guilty... BUT

[Ulf Joronen]

Yes, we all do it. Some even procrastinate a bit to find out what comes next.

My issue is this: Combine the amount quoted as stolen by crackers, the amount quoted to fix security issues, the amount reported lost by thieves pirating files of any kind, and all the rest of the numbers in the 9+ digit range quoted by the reactionary media. Now that you have this bigass number, subtract it from the GNP of all the countries of the world combined (use the CIA world factbook or some such), and you still have got some left.

I am tires of lies, damn lies, and statistics used to point the finger anywhere but the old news of embezzlement and golden parachutes when someone mismananges a business.

Nothing new

[Dun Malg]

Wasting work time is nothing new. Any time I now waste on browsing web sites is nothing compared to the time I wasted before I had internet access, doing things like building a spring-powered "crossbow" out of old door closer parts.

On the other hand, online retailers thrive on it.

[borkus]

I work for a retailer 's website. Our busiest time in terms of both traffic and sales from Monday to Friday is 11am - 4pm Eastern time. In short, we do more business during consumers' lunch breaks than we do when consumers get home.

So while it may be detrimental to productivity, web access may also be awesome for the overall economy.

And yes, I am posting on my lunch break.

Websense Wh0ring // Please Mod Up

[Anonymous Coward]

WBSN does this to hype up their products and stocks. Go to finance.yahoo.com and look up the news section associated with their ticker.

Everytime they release something, everyone carries their story. Great marketing on their part.

I remember that..

[EvilStein]

"When asked "Gosh, do you think that this is a moral thing for an American company do to?" they replied "Hey, we just sell the software, we can't be responsible for how people use it.""

So, sell software to cut an entire nation off from democracy: Good business, CEO rewarded, stockholders happy.

Sell software that can possibly be used to download a stupid mp3: You're evil and irresponsible and must be punished.

What screwed up priorities. Money talks, as usual.

That's because...

[EvilStein]

"I see all these unused rec rooms with couches, pool, foosball, etc, everybody is just sitting at their computer surfing or IMing instead of meeting up in those rooms to chill for a second. Heck, even without those, I barely see people hanging out near water coolers or coffee bars." ... if people USE those, management will know that people are screwing off too much. ;)
Those are toys to use when you're off the clock.. on lunch, or in on a weekend. Sad but true. Place I worked at had a foosball table and within 6 weeks we all got a memo saying that people were spending too much time playing foosball. *sigh*

Re:You have a point, but...

[symbolic]

WhenI read stuff like this, I keep thinking "procrastination." I also remember several college acquaintances who would get things done on time, but since they always waited until the last possible minute, it was either crap, or work that was er, borrowed heavily, from other sources. This, in turn, has occasionally made me me wonder how many people with college degrees have actually earned them. Putting in the time may get you the paper, but it says nothing of the degree of integrity/quality exercised along the way.

numbers

[KinkifyTheNation]

Ars Technica does a good job of debunking a study that claims that American business lose $178 billion a year to web surfing in the workplace.

I hate it when people use numbers like this. They may lose $178 billion, but how much are they actually making in the first place? $178 billion may just be pennies, or it may be half their revenue. </rant>

television wasting time? :)

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, people in subsaharan africa wonder if american waste too much time watching TV.

"They could be out hunting and gathering", Nee-Nee Click-Click of the Okaba tribe mentioned.

"Who wants to watch a tiger on TV when you can catch one in real life?", Moo-Goo-Ojewole of the Goomba tribe screamed.

Also Guilty with a solution

[tfcdesign]

If I had employees, I would shut down HTTP from 9-11:30AM and 1- 5PM. I waste about 10-14 hours a week of 9-5, m-f business hours.

Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

I spend most of my work time waiting for databases to load and traceroutes to complete. I'd go absolutely stark raving mad if I couldn't occasionally look at non-work pages -- while waiting for work to be available.

It's not that I have a typical support downtime at all -- it's that I have small microslices of time.

(wait for work)
Click on link.
(do work)
(wait for work)
Read a paragraph.
(do work) ...etc.

This post brought to you in six such intervals.

Completely contrary to reality

[anglozaxxon]

Despite the fact that I'm annually paying approximately ten grand for a university education, I would attribute about 75% of my knowledge of computing and maybe 50% of my general knowledge to the internet. Unfortunately, I don't think formal education can keep up with technology. Computing just moves too fast for an essentially immutable medium like print too teach me anything useful besides algorithms that have been around since the seventies and are certainly described, illustrated, and implemented a thousand times better from hundreds of sources on the internet.

For example, I used to work at a helpdesk for an engineering firm. It was fairly poorly managed, e.g., the IT department was 4 people for approximately 300 users. Anyway, during one of my afternoons where I just didn't much feel like running Spybot for the six thousandth time, I discovered a lovely little internet gem I, and others, presumably, like to call Wikipedia, most likely via our good friend Slashdot. I am in love with Wikipedia. At the present time, our helpdesk software consisted primarily of pens and paper, so I decided I'd make a wiki out of it, then everyone can add to it, &c. Not to toot my own horn (well, yeah, why else would I be posting on Slashdot?), but it was pretty much the best development in the department ever, in my opinion. My bosses were thoroughly impressed and on more than one occasion offered me oral sexual favours, assorted Ferraris, and the like.

There's no way I would have thought up the idea of a wiki on my own, let alone written one from scratch (thanks, PmWiki!). So in effect, the company probably owes the internet money, if anything. Besides the wiki, I couldn't count the number of times I drew on random internet knowledge to solve a problem.

Taking away my ability to surf the internet at work would not only have resulted in a multiple murder-suicide, but lost much of the efficacy of our department.

Re:Completely contrary to reality

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have mod points but that was +1 funny!

Breaks??

[PixelSlut]

Whoa, you guys get breaks at your job??

When are they going to study Meetings?

[Anonymous Coward]

These managers that think websurfing is a waste of time are the same guys/gals that spend their whole days in meetings trying to get "consensus" and developing "filght plans" and making/reviewing Gantt charts.....

While websurfing may not be very productive, these meetings are at least just as unproductive - but these meeting attendees cost the company a whole lot more money and accomplish very little....

Perhaps they should do a study with the people that actually produce revenue and find out what they perceive as unproductive - rather than interviewing the "overhead"....

Lost Productivity?

[TheJOsh!(tm)]

i work at a BigBox computer retailer which uses WebSense on their networks to "Prevent" employees from wasting company time checking email and such. One problem I encountered while working on the sales floor was that "shopping" sites were blocked, which meant that when a customer wanted to compare pricing/selection with a competitor (or verify our claims that our price/performance was better) they had to go home and do it themselves. I can't tell you how many sales walked out the door do to "having to look around" after finding out they couldn't verify claims on the spot. A lot of people thought it was intentional, "Trust us, you don't need those other guys."

the problem is doubly bad now that I'm doing service repairs in store. it's really aggrevating to find that you can't get to the top five google-links for a specific hardware/software problem because they're all blocked by WebSense.

compound this with the fact that on the sales floor all of the keosks with web access are right out in the open where any manager could easily see what you're doing while walking by, and that the only secluded terminals in the store are behind the techbench (where unfettered access is really needed) and the problem becomes even more rediculous...

OB Office Space Quote

[quadcity]

>I have a window, but all I see is a concrete courtyard with the occcasional squirrel.
But was it merry?

Let me guess: you aren't a manager

[Mr. Mikey]

"It's incumbent upon the manager to make sure that the employee's day is filled with work, and to fire employees who just can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that they're being paid to work ALL OF THE TIME, not just some fraction of it."

First, are you seriously suggesting that people work through every lunch hour or break? Second, do you really think people are productive at creative tasks if they don't have any mental "down time" during the day? Third, your way of "thinking" will lead to workers doing the absolute minimum needed, giving you absolutely zero respect, no loyalty to the company, and will absolutely not work a single extra moment, or do anything to improve the company. That is the sort of workplace your attitude would create.

I'll bet you measure productivity by lines coded per hour, too.

No, a manager's job is to tell the employee what is expected of them, give them the materials and tools they need to get the job done, and to stay the hell out of their way unless the employee needs help. A good manager acts as a buffer between their department and the rest of the company, balancing tasks and abilities, and helping their employees to grow and develop.

That's what a good manager does...

Need a Study about TIme Wasted By MANAGERS

[Anonymous Coward]

What we really need is a study about work productivity wasted by MANAGERS. All their stupid meetings, committees, studies, reports, and brainless back-and-forth about idiotic, useless details. How many people have a manager like that? I know I do, I have a hundred of them. I work for the government! Sheesh. That has GOT TO BE the single, number one, biggest time-wasting entity I have ever encoutered, anywhere, ever.

$178 Billion? Chicken feed... try $43 TRILLION

[bratwiz]

$43 TRILLION -- That's how much the ROTTON, SCUMBAG, THIEVING CEO'S cost american investors, in ONE DAY. Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia and all the rest. $178 Million? HAH! Who cares, call me back when you've got some REAL news.

The corollary

[C10H14N2]

If you can't get your job done in a normal work day, you're not giving 110%, you're just working 110% as long to achieve 100% production. All that does is delay production and reduce your hourly rate if you are on salary or increase the cost if you are paid overtime. Imagine if you were CEO and ran the company that way.

That kind of behavior encourages bad management more than it demonstrates a solid work ethic. Nothing I hate more than someone who diddled their day away with personal errands calling ME at 10:30PM because NOW they need their damned financial report. Screw that, I'll get to it during normal hours, just as they should have. People will learn very quickly not to pull that shit if you don't let them.

I used to positively live at work. I actually enjoyed my job and hated traffic, so a ten or twelve hour day was normal even though I was exempt from overtime and was only required to work 7.5 hours. The day I worked 21 hours straight to fix a problem someone else caused and was then reprimanded for leaving for eight hours to, oh I don't know, SLEEP was the day I stopped "giving 110%." Don't fool yourself. People recognize talented workers whether they work 37.5 hours or 70 hours per week. 99.999% of the time, the latter just gets you used and abused. Sure, you may get a promotion, but it'll be because they can get 3000 hours out of you for $65k ($21/hour) instead of 1875 out of someone else ($34/hour). Bravo, babe.

Question they didn't ask

[serutan]

I was surprised there was no mention of the fact that employees were widely known to goof off BEFORE the Internet existed. Any meaningful measurement would have to include a comparison between the two.

Productivity before the web

[ml0fl1n]

I remember life before the web. Instead of doing a study of how much might be "lost" because people are surfing at work, the study should compare what would be "lost" due to productivity increases the web has engendered less any losses due to people surfing at work now, and then you find there is no "loss" only an enormous net gain. Before the wide availability of financial management software and the ability to pay bills on the web, I generally spent about 20 hours per month writing checks, balancing the checkbook, typing or hand-writing letters, etc. Now, I spend, at most, 2 hours per month on the same tasks -- and I have many, many more bills and more general financial activity to keep track of. In my work life, most HR tasks used to involve multiple phone calls and interoffice mail with forms going back and forth. Now, it's a web site. Point, click, fill in the form online, digitally sign it and you're done. The increase in productivity at work is at least as great as in my personal financial productivity, and probably more so because all those forms and interoffice mail used to need people to shepherd them about. The total net productivity, at least for me, even factoring in the time I may spend surfing the news at work, is still much, much greater than any time I lose looking at slashdot, yahoo, or the New York Times.

Many Assumptions

[Stopher2475]

Of course this is based on the assumption that people would be doing something productive instead of websurfing. Add to that the fact that people are working more hours than they should and you can re-title this "Companies Are Stealing Less From Their Employees"

It's the websurfing....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it just couldn't be treating employers employees like chattel (root word: cattle), the loss of morale due to the threat of losing ones job to someone in India at anytime, or just the fact that some of the work downright sux and people aren't robots that can mechanicaly shuffle papers from morning to night....

Doesn't make much sense

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

is probably more accurate than impossible.

Ergo:

When people start talking about 110%,
talking just doesn't seem to make much
sense anymore.