Slashdot Mirror
Unlock Internet or Risk Losing Staff?
Dan Warne writes "People don't want to work for employers who heavily restrict internet access, a senior Microsoft executive said in a keynote speech at the opening of Tech.Ed 2006 Sydney today. From the article: 'These kids are saying: forget it! I don't want to work with you. I don't want to work at a place where I can't be freely online during the day," said Microsoft Senior Design Anthropologist Ann Kiera. She dubbed internet-wary employers "digital immigrants" and said the new wave of younger workers were "digital natives".'"
Now this statement isn't true at all. Anyone who has ever worked in network security realizes what a complete nightmare this is and that "technology" is having a hell of a tough time keeping up. This article is completely dismissing security as the reason for blocked websites. Leaky browsers and constantly exploited new technologies have made security a serious priority. (I'm not even gonna go into the irony that these comments were made by Microsoft execs...)
A company I had worked for recently had systematically blocked most popular online services over the past couple years. Myspace, hotmail, AIM, gmail... And I see the reason behind it considering we were in a sensative compartmented information facility that restricted external communication (not even allowed to have a cell phone). The company couldn't afford to have a large-scale information leak caused by viruses and/or non-secure communication.
However, there were always ways around. I could still check my old college email through their website, which was not on the restricted list. There were endless forums that were also left unrestricted (they left slashdot alone, thank god). And there was recently an incident within the company recently where someone was fired for pornography. So the general frustration stemmed from the fact that people could still spend all day on forums and looking up porn, but I wasn't even allowed to check my gmail, update my myspace, or send an IM. However, I'm sure the company would've like to block every forum, porn site, and web-based email site if they could. It's just not something that is in any way possible.
At any rate, I don't think most companies are blocking these sites because they are seen as unproductive, but rather for the risks that they pose.
--
"A man is asked if he is wise or not. He answers that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
In the US, the labor market is a buyer's market - there are more people who need work than employers willing to hire them. Because of this employers are able to impose annoying rules on their employees because they know their employees don't have anywhere else to go, since the employee's only recourse is to quit. If people would start wielding this power to their advantage it would benefit everyone.
On the other hand, unfettered internet access is frequently not a good idea, especially for security reasons - people downloading malware, etc.
rooooar
I'm an ICT teacher, and recently went to a conference where there was a presentation about so-called Digital Natives (today's kids) and Digital Immigrants (adults).
/. crowd) a 'Digital Native', despite my age. Plus, for every kid with 'techno-joy', there will be another with 'techno-fear' (to paraphrase Mr. Izzard).
Apparently, the fundamental difference between us old-fart teachers (I'm 25, by the way) and today's kids is that they have grown up surrounded by technology to such an extent that their methods of working and interacting with others are totally different to ours.
For example, today's children are likely to be much better multi-taskers. They are used to an environment where the television is on, they are typing to friends using IM, chatting to other friends on the phone whilst simultaneously using Wikipedia to research that night's homework. That feeds back into today's classrom environments, because some kids can't cope without a busy, multi-tasking environment. Their idea of hell is to be sat in silence for an hour trying to revise, or working solidly on a piece of coursework without taking time-out to do something else every other minute.
All in all it was an interesting presentation, but I felt the speaker's idea that the dividing line is purely age based was nonsense. I'd consider myself (and I' d imagine a lot of the
we restrict Internet access, but in a smart way. All parts of the Internet are available before work, after work, during breaks, and during lunch. The firewall restricts access to many sites at other times. However, the firewall shuts off 15 minutes before any break starts and kicks in 15 minutes after the break is over. So employees know it's not allowed to waste time online during work hours, but they still have a sense of responsibility about it. If you're 15 minutes into work time and the connection craps out on certain sites, you know you've broken the rules. It isn't usually a problem.
I used to work for a company that had pretty serious Internet filters, and they monitored the Internet access at the company in real-time. It was not unknown to get a call from the people monitoring security at the company if they noticed something funky going on your computer. They had good reason though...the former management team had been found in some serious ethics violations costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars and almost landed the execs in jail.
I really had no problem with the "normal" filters they had on most of the time, but once in a while, they put the Uber-Super-Anal filters on that would restrict your access to basically read-only Internet. During these "outages" you couldn't go to any online shops, incl. tech bookstores like Bookpool.com (Amazon.com was blocked as well). Some tech resources were also restricted for some reason. The "super siikrit probations" were never announced in advance, nor were we told when they ended. You just noticed, all of a sudden, that half the Internet is gone. And then hours or days later, it was back.
It was definitely one of the reasons why I quit that job.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Heres how it is. While you are employed by the company towards a specific end, during those hours the company is putting money into your pocket, you work to meet those ends. If you need to make a personal phone call, use your own phone, on your own time, unless its an emergency and you have no alternative.
You do not get to use company equipment, company internet access, company phone calls, or company time for your own personal needs.
That kind of attitude from an employer only works if you're paying by the hour for unskilled labor.
Personally, I take home the same pay if I work 30 hours or 70 hours a week. I get projects assigned and I have deadlines, and those things come due no matter where I am. If I have to leave in the middle of the day to take care of something personal, I might work from home that night or over the weekend to make sure my projects get done. The end result? I probably work more hours a week (and am more productive) than someone who works straight from 9 to 5 but never a second over. Plus, I'm happy doing it.
From a business point of view, company equipment, company internet access and company phone lines are dirt cheap compared to an employee. For a medium sized company, those other expenses wouldn't even comprise 1/10th of a single employee's salary. (I know; I pay all of those bills for a medium sized company) As long as that employee is getting their work done on time it doesn't matter if they're sitting on IM all day talking to their wife, occasionally unwinding on slashdot, or calling their doctor.