Pew Survey: Tech Increases Productivity, But Also Time Spent Working

An anonymous reader writes: A survey of American workers conducted by the Pew Research Center found that email was their most indispensable tool, topping even broad access to the internet. 46% of workers say their productivity has increased thanks to email, the internet, and cell phones, while only 7% say those technologies have caused it to decrease. While many workers say technology has created a more flexible work schedule, they also say it has increased the total amount of hours they spend working. Almost half of the surveyed employees say their employer either forbids or explicitly blocks access to certain websites at the office. How have these technologies affected your work environment?

Comments

"increased productivity"

[Anonymous Coward]

More hours worked, also more work done. Do we see a pattern here?

Re:"increased productivity"

[The Grim Reefer]

It kind of reminds me of this PSA

Re:"increased productivity"

[__aaclcg7560]

My employment contract specifically states that I can only work 40 hours per week, Monday through Friday, during normal business hours. My productivity is dependent on what tools I get from upper management to do my job and what the IT department do to stay out of my way.

Duh

[Virtucon]

Talk about overstating the obvious. You can't leave work anymore. Every boss or company problem invades you digitally. Whether it's an e-mail or a text message you're always on the clock and expected in most cases to be available. This used to be true for tech workers but it's now anybody.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never worked a job like this. Then again, I've never been salaried.
I work 40 hours a week--no more, no less. I never ever check work email from home, and my boss doesn't even know whether or not I have a cell phone.

Re:Duh

[nine-times]

I think it's really a problem of culture, and not technology. Even back when we just had landlines, your boss could have been calling you constantly, and required that you stuck close to the phone and made yourself available for phone calls. The problem isn't cell phones and email per se, but the expectation on instant availability that they've helped to foster.

Therefore, we need to break those expectations. I've actually told my boss that if he emails me outside of work hours, I might check my mail and see it, or I might not. I won't respond unless it's actually some kind of emergency. If it's actually an emergency, he should text or call, but I've implied that he shouldn't text or call unless it's an emergency. I've even trained most of my coworkers to expect that, if they email me, I'll probably respond within an hour or two. If it can't wait, they should call/text/IM me, or get up, walk over to me, and get my attention. I am not at the beck and call of every random email. I process email on my own schedule, when I'm ready to do so.

Of course, some of this depends on the nature of your job. If you're in a reactive role where your job is explicitly to respond to email in a timely fashion, you can't do this. If you have a job which requires participating in an on-call rotation, then you'll have to respond to after-hours calls when on-call. I'm stating the obvious here, but I'm saying it to point out that most of us are not explicitly on-call most of the time, and we should foster a culture that allows us to say, "I'm not on-call right now and the current time does not fall within working hours. Therefore I have no responsibility to check my email or to respond."

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore, we need to break those expectations. I've actually told my boss that if he emails me outside of work hours, I might check my mail and see it, or I might not. I won't respond unless it's actually some kind of emergency. If it's actually an emergency, he should text or call, but I've implied that he shouldn't text or call unless it's an emergency.

This is the key thing. You just train your co-workers to understand that you simply won't respond when you're on vacation or outside of business hours unless they contact your directly stating it's an emergency. This might result in you getting overlooked for promotions, but so be it.

Re:Duh

[pla]

This might result in you getting overlooked for promotions, but so be it.

1) Not if everyone figures out "hey, pla actually has a life! I want in on that!" and does the same thing; and,
2) You won't find me putting up with any company that has a "work yourself to death" culture for long enough to get promoted anyway.

If nothing else, I thank the Millennials for changing the BS work-before-life attitude that evolved in the '80s. Perhaps in another 20 years we'll actually have halfway decent working conditions in the US, with vacations and guaranteed sick time and everything. Of course, more likely they'll just sell out like the former-hippy 'Boomers who created the '80s did. I'll enjoy it while it lasts, though. :)

Re:Duh

[tlhIngan]

Talk about overstating the obvious. You can't leave work anymore. Every boss or company problem invades you digitally. Whether it's an e-mail or a text message you're always on the clock and expected in most cases to be available. This used to be true for tech workers but it's now anybody.

A few questions - why are you checking work email outside of work? Why are you giving work your personal cellphone number?

It's an important question, because unless they give you a blackberry or a phone, you really have no obligation to give them freebies like data usage or texts or anything.

I mean, sure you CAN link your work email to your personal phone, but why? That's a personal choice of making work invade personal time and money, since you're paying for the phone service. Ditto texts and all that. (Sure you can argue about unlimited data plans or text plans, but let's say you don't because either it's not available or you don't wish to upgrade to that service, or even if you already have it, there's no reason you have to let work know).

It's your personal device, folks, don't let work co-opt it. If they want you reachable after hours, they can pay for their own phone and service, or work out an arrangement where they pay part or all of your service charges. (BYOD is cool, but a lot of companies realize that one advantage is instead of giving employees phones and paying $30/month per line for services, they can offload it to the employee).

Heck, even my parents realized what BYOD really was and they asked if their service fees would be reimbursed. No? Thanks, but the work-issued phone works great.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a salaried programmer (technically a manager) and have not worked a job like this.

Re:Duh

[ezelkow1]

+1

So many people I work with have their work email on their devices. They are always surprised when I dont have my email or calendar on my phone and every time I tell that that until the office wants to pay for my service they will not have their information on my personal device. Why they are willing to do it I have no idea

Re:Duh

[nine-times]

This might result in you getting overlooked for promotions, but so be it.

1) Not if everyone figures out "hey, pla actually has a life! I want in on that!" and does the same thing; and,
2) You won't find me putting up with any company that has a "work yourself to death" culture for long enough to get promoted anyway.

I agree with this. Part of the reason I'm ok with trying to set this kind of expectation is, I'm generally not willing to work in a position where I need to be on-call 24/7. If someone wants me to be in that position, I would be willing to do that for a short stint if I were rewarded with a large amount of money. I am even willing to say that in job interviews, because I want no misunderstanding. I don't want to be hired for a job that includes terms that I find unacceptable.

Of course, it helps that I'm in a place in my career where I can confidently say that. However, I also set those expectations for people who work below me-- I tell them that I don't expect them to respond to after-hours emails unless they are on call, and I won't call them or text them after hours unless it's urgent.

I would also a 3rd thing, and I say this both in my capacity as an employee and as a manager:

3) I don't think there's anything wrong with setting limits/expectations, as long as the limits/expectations are reasonable, understood in advance, and everyone sticks to them.

So as a general example, I don't have any problem with someone telling me that they won't check their work email after-hours unless they're on-call. If it's not specifically part of the job description, then that seems reasonable. I might ask for an alternate method to contact them that they will respond to, in case of emergency (e.g. cell phone number). However, if they tell people (me, coworkers, clients) that they will respond to email 24/7 and they set that expectation, then they should be prepared to follow through with that.

Re: Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I can answer the why.
Because I like the company, I find the work interesting and reading work emails is at least as interesting as reading slashdot.
Also I get to go to doctor's appointments or for a longer lunch whenever I want, nobody complains if I come in a bit late because I slept badly, and if I need a few extra hours (less than a day) free time this week I can work extra next week instead to compensate.
So if I get a bit of worktime flexibility why shouldn't I show a bit of flexibility, too, if I don't mind?
If you're the kind of person who just can't stand work/reading emails after 8 hours that's of course a completely different situation.

Re:Duh

[Sir_Eptishous]

Then WHAT THE FUCK are you doing on Slashdot?!?

Re:Duh

[antdude]

If they want to invade us during non-business hours, then they should still pay us too. If not, then stop it.

Re:Duh

[unixisc]

I took 2 separate lines, of which one is available for work usage, in case I don't get a phone from my employer, and another is ONLY for personal/family reasons. I don't use the first line for family at all, and I don't second line for work.

The disappointing thing is that too many people conflate work and personal stuff on to common devices, be it their work laptop, personal cell, tablet, et al. It's a good idea to keep things separate, so that in case one does get reimbursed for usage, it's straightforward - just check the monthly bill for the number in question. Oh, and for Pete's sake, stop using office laptops to do things like personal banking and so on.

Re: Duh

[unixisc]

Liking your employer has nothing to do w/ keeping your work and personal life separate. There is no reason to use your personal cell phone for office emails, and likewise, your office laptop for personal errands. It's best to have separate things cleanly demarcated. Either your office provides you a cellphone for official purposes, while you maintain your own laptop/tablet and cellphone for your personal banking, checking out movies and restaurants, FaceTime w/ relatives and so on

It's a bit like George Costanza in Seinfeld, when he complained of his 2 worlds clashing as a result of Susan getting to know Jerry, Elaine and Kramer.

Of course

[bigsexyjoe]

Productivity goes up. Less labor is needed. The value of your labor goes down. You have to work more. Also, unemployment is higher.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think productivity has gone up. Most people work over 40hours a week now - at least in the States.

We're working longer and technology allows employers to keep at work longer and at home.

And why hire more people when you can make your current employees work harder. If don't like it, tough shit. They can be replaced easily.

The job market sucks - much of it because employers are squeezing everything they can out of the workforce they have .

A tennis partner of mine no longer places job ads because she gets inundated with resumes. She just sends out an email to her employees and asks them to find someone. She gets plenty of qualified people that way. That's how bad it is - and yes, she is in technology.

Re:Of course

[khallow]

The job market sucks - much of it because employers are squeezing everything they can out of the workforce they have .

No, the job market sucks because a) there's a huge swath of the world willing to work for much less than you, and b) the developed world has succeeded at making the developed world a terrible place to employ people. Instead of just another thoughtless blaming of the current economic situation in the developed world on employers, you should ask what are the incentives that cause employers to try to squeeze more of existing labor than to employ more people?

There's always been greedy people, but history is not a universal period of economic decline. We wouldn't have gotten out of the caves, if it were. Something causes prosperity and progress even in the presence of greedy people - figure that out and duplicate the conditions.

Re:Of course

[ultranova]

Instead of just another thoughtless blaming of the current economic situation in the developed world on employers, you should ask what are the incentives that cause employers to try to squeeze more of existing labor than to employ more people?

Simple: they're trying to maximize profits. At current productivity levels availability of labor is not the main limiting factor for production, thus unemployment exists; since unemployment exists, the law of supply and demand makes it possible to pay less and demand more from employees, thus the employers do just that.

Something causes prosperity and progress even in the presence of greedy people - figure that out and duplicate the conditions.

Give social security generous enough that not working becomes an okay life strategy. Force employers to actually compete for employees, even for McJobs, and wages will rise and business models only profitable by exploiting desperate people will collapse due to lack of such people. Simultaneously, use toll barriers to protect against offshoring and tax all income generated within the country, no matter where the corporate headquarters are nominally located.

Re:Of course

[Sir_Eptishous]

you should ask what are the incentives that cause employers to try to squeeze more of existing labor than to employ more people?

We all already know this answer.
The American economy in the last 40 years has become increasingly tied to the the stock market and the quarterly expectations of shareholders.
That is why.

Re:Of course

[khallow]

Simple: they're trying to maximize profits. At current productivity levels availability of labor is not the main limiting factor for production, thus unemployment exists; since unemployment exists, the law of supply and demand makes it possible to pay less and demand more from employees, thus the employers do just that.

Then what is the main limiting factor? Resources, land, and capital aren't all that expensive either. Instead, I think it's a standard regulatory problem: disincentivize employment and as a result less people are employed.

Give social security generous enough that not working becomes an okay life strategy. Force employers to actually compete for employees, even for McJobs, and wages will rise and business models only profitable by exploiting desperate people will collapse due to lack of such people. Simultaneously, use toll barriers to protect against offshoring and tax all income generated within the country, no matter where the corporate headquarters are nominally located.

You still have to come with a funding source for this social security. Employers already compete for employees, there's no need to "force" them to do that. And protectionism won't succeed when you cut your economy off from the success and innovation of the places that aren't failing hard.

On that last remark, isolationism can succeed, but you have to be willing to sacrifice, such as greatly reducing the protections and benefits workers get. For example, the two most successful cases I can think of where isolationism worked to build up local industry, Meiji Japan and Paraguay in the mid-19th century are the best examples I can think of, but both of them granted little in the way of rights for employees.

Moving on, we in the developed world have already implemented many of these proposals. You should show they work somewhere first.

Re:Of course

[khallow]

The American economy in the last 40 years has become increasingly tied to the the stock market and the quarterly expectations of shareholders.

Bullshit. The stock market doesn't do anything more now than it did forty years ago. And why should shareholders have short term quarterly expectations instead of long term expectations? You completely miss the big picture.

Consider this scenario. I'm a pension manager for a large company or municipality and I have absolutely no long term stake in the welfare of the pension fund (an unfortunately common problem in the developed world over the past forty years) with a considerable sum in . I have no incentive to think long term while simultaneously I have voting control over a large amount of stock shares. I'm not a shareholder , but I have the power of a large shareholder.

Moving on, my wealth and hence, my decisions are decided by my end of year bonuses rather than by the long term consequences. Thus, I do things like go with the company that promises 15% ROI, but will fail in ten years over a company that provides 5% ROI indefinitely. I get many years of larger bonuses in the first case and it's not any skin off my teeth, when that company fails. I just need to make sure that no one can prove I knew it was going to fail.

Also in the mean time, I can use that high ROI to transfer money out of the pension fund to other uses. After all, with such high ROI, they don't really need so much money in that fund, right? And the money goes to other important purposes, like balancing a sickly town's budget. So that's another way I can loot my pension fund while appearing to diligently be protecting the assets of my customers.

In other words, we've created a society chock full of perverse and destructive incentives, which encourages short term, foolish decisions over wise, long term ones. So why do we have a zillion Slashdotters vigorously advocating for more of the same? I think it's a complete disconnect from reality.

Re:Of course

[unixisc]

Last 40 years? It wasn't until the 90s, with Netscape's IPO, that middle class people started getting heavily into stocks. Once that happened, the demand for high overnight returns, w/o a realization of how it actually works, caused a very volatile market, and the pressure percolated right down to the companies. At the time, employees were at a premium. Come 2000, and the stock market crash, and everything came down in a tailspin, and the employees were now holding the short end of the stick.

Re:Of course

[pnutjam]

Replace pension manager with CEO and you see the scope of the problem.

Re:Of course

[pnutjam]

Read some history. There was similar excitement about stocks, with middle class participation just prior to the great depression. Kudos to our government from preventing the same thing from happening this time.

Re:Of course

[khallow]

Replace pension manager with CEO and you see the scope of the problem.

There is a big difference. The pension and fund managers are the kingmakers. They have control over a vast amount of voting shares in companies. Their disinterest and short term greed translates into similarly endowed CEOs.

Another factor which I didn't mention is bailouts. A lot of these players, both fund managers and CEOs can rely on some degree of public funding to ease their bad decisions.

The underlying fault to this whole mess IMHO is Other Peoples' Money (OPM). When decisions are made by people who control OPM, this leads to a fundamental conflict of interest and a disengagement between the decision and the consequences of that decision.

Re:Of course

[pnutjam]

People say our economic system is capitalism, but it's not, it's managementism. The managers of others money have all the power.

Re:Of course

[khallow]

People say our economic system is capitalism, but it's not, it's managementism. The managers of others money have all the power.

Sounds on the mark to me.

Blocked, you say?

[Penguinisto]

I'm the BOFH, bitch - block this (*grabs crotch*)

Okay - in all seriousness, there are times when I wish I could get a policy adopted to block the hell out of facebook. OTOH, there are times when I think it's a good thing that employees can take a few minutes here and there to let their brains wander - and that article is why. Folks do spend more hours doing work stuff than their parents did, and thanks to smartphones/VPN, that work very often gets unrealistic deadlines, and thus the excess work often goes home with them.

I'm fortunate in that most of my work nowadays centers around R&D, which means few instances now where I'd be stuck on a conference call at midnight Sunday (deployments, yay!), or suchlike, but all too often it's getting to be the norm in most jobs to work during hours that are traditionally considered not to be working hours.

Re:Blocked, you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Folks do spend more hours doing work stuff than their parents did

Perhaps your parents did. My parents remembered WW II. My professional colleagues, on the other hand, are lazy asses, and couldn't *possibly* cook without a microwave, pre-delivered pre-cooked meals, and a cleaning person to do their housework.

Ditch the Facebook and *do some dishes*, for pete's sake!

Email is a productivity killer

[eyebits]

Email is an anathema. It sucks the life blood out of creativity, focus, and productivity. Unless you are in a job that is all about processing a series of tasks there is no way you could think email increases your productivity.

Re:Email is a productivity killer

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you do, as you mentioned. For me, email is crucial. I work off of the concept of inbox zero, so my inbox is slowly killed off daily. At the end of the day, I expect to have zero emails -- and usually succeed. For me, it's a measuring stick. Having said all this, I don't respond to a lot of emails and I never click on the stupid "receipt" BS that some people always use. I never reply all.

Re:Email is a productivity killer

[sandytaru]

Zero inbox also ensures that you don't miss anything (usually.) I don't file anything until I've also checked off its matching task, if there was one.

Re:Email is a productivity killer

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that Email does not increase productivity. EMail is a very poor tool for collaboration actually and thus does not increase productivity when collaboration is key. The feekback loop is just not tight enough. EMails can be ignored really easily, just as the good old pile of memos could. "Oh sorry I haven't seen that one on the bottom of the memo pile/list of unread emails yet". EMail does not however suck focus at all. Just shut off that notification thingie and keep the email client in the background. "Problem solved".

Instant messaging is the next best thing. Next is video conference, but that's hard for anything but a few individuals or a bigger group (at which point it's no longer good for long collaboration either and the "mega meeting with 30+ people" problem starts to creep in when people try). The best thing for productivity is still to be physically present and being able to talk face to face in front of the same computer or with your laptop on your lap next to someone else's desk or in front of a whiteboard. Of course you also need time for yourself, to dig into a problem. But for collaboration, none of the tech crap beats face to face communication. Even video is really poor at this, as you don't see all the body language and it's still a "separation".

Re:Email is a productivity killer

[Anonymous Coward]

Email is wonderful. It makes others being able to contact you even when you're not there. Treat incoming emails as tasks, and you'll be sure to respond to everybody within reasonable time and expand both your capabilities and reputation at the same time.

However, if you're one of the slobs who never answer emails, never sort your inbox and never really get work done that other people need you to do, it must suck.

Btw, emails I cannot do within reasonable time I file away for later usage. I've no trouble finding new work to do if I ever need to do it, or do some research into what problems people usually ask about.

If you never respond properly to other people's request though, they'll stop asking you and start taking for granted that you're part of the walls and air, not a real live person.

Productivity, what productivity and for whom? If I owned a company, I would expect it would be for the company and for top leaders within that company. If the top leaders suck, people should find better opportunities IMHO, as you'll never get properly rewarded for doing the work for them.

The only reason for not responding to email would be if another process or work of priority got ahead of it. However, if that happens all the time, the company is working the wrong way or is probably understaffed.

Re:Email is a productivity killer

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are in a job that is all about processing a series of tasks

I don't mean to be glib, but isn't this the vast majority of jobs?

Re:Email is a productivity killer

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are in a job that is all about processing a series of tasks

I don't mean to be glib, but isn't this the vast majority of jobs?

It would be - if everyone was able to organize their work properly (or had their boss doing it for them).

Re:Email is a productivity killer

[Anonymous Coward]

At my workplace, we're required to respond to e-mails within 24 hours, at least to acknowledge receipt. I've found that helpful rather than harmful: it takes only a second or two and has improved my colleagues' responsiveness to my queries. Plus, outsiders (clients) are impressed as hell with our response times, even if we haven't done anything: just getting that "Thanks for your e-mail; I'll be working on it" makes people really happy. That counts for a lot if you're client-facing, especially if you don't use a return-receipt system but write an actual one-line e-mail by hand (just takes a second).

I do inbox zero too, but I do it in the morning: responses go out, e-mails get put on the task list, they get filed, and then I begin on tasks. It's probably the "wrong way," since it's offloading the e-mails to the task list instead of using the inbox as a task list, but it works for me.

Re:Email is a productivity killer

[pnutjam]

Was it smart to have a project with 100+ developers that need support? Certainly not. 20 skilled developers could have done the same job with better quality, faster and cheaper, even if you would pay them triple.

Sure, kill the training pipeline, why not..

Re:I answer work e-mail from home.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a reasonable expectation, and to "remember" someone for not responding to an email that could wait until the next day is beyond draconian.

People have lives that start at the close of business. Yes, yes, I realise that for some people, there is no close of business, but I have told every boss I've ever worked for that when I walk out the door, I'm unemployed until I walk back in the following work day. I do not give out my personal mobile number to colleagues, only to the boss -- on the understand it's for emergency use only. I don't want to be "online" at all hours as I've got a family, and they come first. Work for me is a means to make money and do something I find relatively interesting -- it's not the be all and end all. I don't live to work -- I work to live. Try it. Get a girlfriend, have a beer, go see the sights with said girl. Getting off the grid is healthy and let's you enjoy life.

Technology doesn't make lives easier.

[jellomizer]

I never promace that the stuff I make will make their lives easier. Actually I state it will make their job harder... Because you will need to focus on the hard stuff (People relations, Understanding the business and exceptions...) and less time on the easy stuff (pushing papers, following a prescribed workflow, Double checking you math, Collecting data that already exists...)

I have been hired to make your job more difficult. But at the same thread it is more efficient. And because you are not doing a lot of the mind numbing job, chances are you are not eyeing the clock as carefully as if you were.

The problem is good software replaces the need for Jr. Employees. This is making it harder for new employees to get in at the ground floor. As the new starting job is already more demanding.
Back in them good old days, the stereotypical success stories is about the guy who started in the mail room and worked himself up to CEO. That doesn't happen anymore. Email has replaced that mailroom. Now the person who is starting needs a degree of professional skills even to get hired. So the story no longer works any more.

Re:Technology doesn't make lives easier.

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in them good old days, the stereotypical success stories is about the guy who started in the mail room and worked himself up to CEO. That doesn't happen anymore. Email has replaced that mailroom. Now the person who is starting needs a degree of professional skills even to get hired. So the story no longer works any more.

But still gets paid the same as if working in the mail room...

Obviously Productivity is Increasing

[retroworks]

The fact that technology improves our ability to bitch about working from home and complaining about technology does not negate the fact that the answer is yes, rapid communication increases wealth and productivity. Secretaries taking notes by shorthand and being trained on electric typewriters was less productive. It's as obvious as the phone call replacing telegrams, and radio replacing the Towne Crier. The hope is savings, if labor saves and invests its money (especially in the stocks of companies benfitting from the progress) labor can survive and even come out ahead. If ou dad and mom blew their savings however, we have far more competition than they did to achieve the same asset base. We compete not just with technology, but with billions of other people in wired emerging markets.

Re:Obviously Productivity is Increasing

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that technology improves our ability to bitch about working from home and complaining about technology does not negate the fact that the answer is yes, rapid communication increases wealth and productivity.

Well, we know it increases productivity (unless you end up wasting time "communicating" with people who have nothing useful to say).

But whose wealth? Stats over the last 2-3 decades don't seem to indicate that it's the more-productive workers who are getting all this increased wealth.

Re:Obviously Productivity is Increasing

[ultranova]

The hope is savings, if labor saves and invests its money (especially in the stocks of companies benfitting from the progress) labor can survive and even come out ahead. If ou dad and mom blew their savings however, we have far more competition than they did to achieve the same asset base.

If the labor saves and invests its money, that money is not going towards shoring up demand. Less demand means people get laid off, which causes less demand, which causes layoffs, and so on - in other words, a depression like we have now.

But never let logic get in the way of victim-blaming. Can't let any part of the fault land on the robber barons looting the economy. After all, that might mean bad things happen to undeserving persons - perhaps even to you.

Depends on the job

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Whether it's an e-mail or a text message you're always on the clock and expected in most cases to be available

That really depends on the job, my friend. I don't have any work email on my mobile devices. I do publish my cell phone number on all my email sigs, at my desk, etc. What happens in practice is this:

1) You send me email when I'm not in the office: I learn about the next time I sit down or RPC in - during business hours.
2) You send me a text: you get "twitter length and quality" answers from me. After every 3-5 messages I'm likely to ask you, "is this something I need to sign on and look at immediately?" If that answer is "no" I'll have you send me an email and I'll look at it during business hours.
3) You call me: OK, you've got my attention, but thanks to recent changes in culture a live phone call is considered invasive and for high-priority stuff only.

The result is that I'm really only pulled into business work about once a week, maybe twice if I'm on vacation.

Re: Depends on the job

[Anonymous Coward]

"Only"???
I maybe quickly respond once every week when on holiday because something is interesting, but nobody resorted to calling or texting me. Nobody should be that irreplacable that your colleagues can't handle it on their own for a few weeks or your business has some serious issues.
Heck, people here are going on paternity leave for 6 months and we manage without having to call them.

Re:I answer work e-mail from home.

[xaxa]

I am online all the time, I answer work e-mail from home at all hours. I can't technically discipline anyone for not replying to me off-hours, but it does get remembered.

British law states that, "workers have the right to 11 hours rest between working days (eg if you finish work at 8pm, they shouldn’t start work again until 7am the next day)." and "Workers have the right to: (a) an uninterrupted 24 hours without any work each week, or (b) 48 hours each fortnight". source

I set my phone to not check my work email outside working hours, and not at all while I'm on holiday. I don't think it would be a bad thing if the majority of people were normally prevented from accessing email (and other work systems) during these periods.

unionization!

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't been a fan of unions but im really coming around on that...My blue collar friends in the trades, electrician, pipe fitter etc. have the ability to do an honest days work for a fair wage but they aren't forced to engage and reply off hours and if they have to work extra time, they get compensated fairly for it, not just this "exempt salary" bullshit we get in I.T.

Jeavon's Paradox

[Radtastic]

Interestingly, this effect is like a twisted manifestation of Jeavon's Paradox. As we become more efficient with a resource, more of the resource is used up. (Conventional wisdom would suggest the opposite; that efficiency drives conservation.)

Re:Jeavon's Paradox

[khallow]

It's a straightforward application of Jevons Paradox. There's nothing twisted about it at all.

Re:Jeavon's Paradox

[RobinH]

Yeah, but it's backwards. We've been making individuals (even unskilled ones) much more productive, and total productivity is going up, but interestingly that's not driving higher demand for unskilled labor (since about the 70's). It does seem to be driving some demand for skilled labor. That plus deregulation is what's driving income inequality. I would have thought the Jevons paradox thing should be increasing demand for unskilled labor.

Re:Jeavon's Paradox

[component]

I keep hearing about all this deregulation that has happened. We can disagree about whether or not it's good but can you give an example of a specific industry or activity that is less regulated now (meaning less pages of regulations in law or less people working for regulatory agencies) than five or ten or fifteen years ago?

Re:Jeavon's Paradox

[RobinH]

Deregulation here is specifically about banking deregulation, and I think that's been documented well enough. Also called "predatory lending".

Re:I answer work e-mail from home.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, family yada yada yada. Have fun providing for your "family" when you lose your job.

i make my own rules

[jsepeta]

Since my employer is working me 10+ hours a day, I do not feel any regret over checking my personal email or craigslist during the workday. There's plenty of work to be done; there should be some slack time too.

Re:i make my own rules

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like slacking off at wok at all. I can't stand surfing or tweeting or whatever at work. My hobbies are not tweeting or surfing the web but other things that I can not do at the office. So unless you bring me my garden or my garage and my woodworking and leatherworking tools to the office so I can spend 2-3 hours on that while the office: F*ck off with the 10+ hours!

More productive with less people

[JoeCommodore]

Those surveyed were folks who still had thier jobs, and they are more productuive doing the work of multiple people thanks to computers. Let's get a little more balanced and see how email affected the folks who had jobs.

If you are in the tech sector, useful technology will usually make you more productive.

Email is a productivity killer

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I was once working as a support person for 100+ other workers. When ever they had a problem they couldn't solve or which they couldn't easily solve, they asked from me, usually via email. I'm fairly certain that it increased their productivity. Does it have to be email? Couldn't they just talk to me directly? No, we didn't speak the same language, so written text was best understood from both sides. Chat perhaps? Different timezones. So I think email was the best alternative.

Was it smart to have a project with 100+ developers that need support? Certainly not. 20 skilled developers could have done the same job with better quality, faster and cheaper, even if you would pay them triple. But you won't ever see something like that happening.

I use tech. Tech doesn't use me.

[pla]

I will typically check my email (work or otherwise) as it comes in on my phone. Key word there, "check" - not "act on", not "respond to", not even "give a second thought".

I have always made it entirely clear to my employers that I treat my free time as my free time. Any time outside of 9-to-5, my employer should fully expect to find me either three hours from the nearest computer, or three sheets to the wind, or asleep, or any of a number of other conditions that would preclude me actually "working". Note that I don't act like a dick about it - If something needs to happen off-hours, I usually count as the first one to volunteer to stay late... With the understanding that I will come in similarly late the next day.

That said, I do appreciate having an "early warning system" for serious problems... If a server goes down over the weekend, I'll make a point of preparing myself for the inevitable barrage of shit that will fly around Monday morning - Extra cup of coffee, maybe even go in a few minutes early so I can do my normal settling-in routine before everyone expects me in six places at once.


As for blocking websites - Do any companies seriously still not block at least some websites?

Re:I answer work e-mail from home.

[pla]

6/10. And you only scored that high because someone bit.

More than just technology

[dirk]

Technology is part of the reason we can't get away from work, the other is the change in overtime rules. It used to be that companies had to pay overtime for hours worked over 40. This meant that when people left their job, they also left their work at their job in general. Even if you could call someone at home and ask them a question, you didn't. Unfortunately, the overtime rules were eroded to the point that almost no one gets overtime. If you work in an office setting at all, you are expected to put in more than 40 hours a week every single week and not get paid for it. Since they don't have to pay overtime, there is no issue with calling and emailing people at all hours and expecting them to answer. Technology made it easier to get a hold of people outside of business hours, but the reduction of overtime meant that it was okay to do it, which is the bigger issue.

Jeavon's Paradox

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting premise, and Jeavon's Paradox definitely makes sense from a conventional resource/consumption model(if a producer produces something cheaper and more efficiently, consumers are going to lean toward utilizing that resource vs other more expensive resources in that class). Are you suggesting the people are the resource, and as technology increases they will be utilized more?

Wow, office jobs must suck

[rebelwarlock]

All the posts on slashdot bitching about just about every aspect of working, you'd think it was the worst thing ever. Why don't you just freelance if you hate it so much? It seems to have worked out well for me so far, but then again, I didn't think an open office was the devil, either.

Re:Wow, office jobs must suck

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is a serious question i dont freelance because the income in not guaranteed. I may make money i may not, who knows. with an office job that paycheck comes nice and steady

Doesn't work.

[nospam007]

"Almost half of the surveyed employees say their employer either forbids or explicitly blocks access to certain websites at the office."

That's why people bring their iPads and use their cellphone's connection to play games and buy stuff on company dime.

Of course ...

[PPH]

... productivity is up. You are effectively on call 24x7 thanks to e-mail and text messaging. And you are expected to work overtime without compensation.

Opinion!=Fact

[wisnoskij]

Asking someone their opinion one (i.e. "has email made you more productive") never returns the same answer as actually measuring that quantity.
This survey's results do not in anyway state that email increases productivity, instead they found that there is a general public perception that email increases productivity, but that perception is far from ubiquitous (only 46% of people apparently agree).

This is why

[kilodelta]

I call a cell phone an electronic leash. But I've refused to get email on the phone. Sorry - if it's burning down you can text me or in really extreme cases call me. And I make that clear wherever I've worked.

Re:This is why

[phorm]

I have (paid) on-call shifts. I don't constantly check my phone's email - that's not required - but I always answer the ringer. It's still very handy to be able to quickly check your email on the phone and see a screenshot or email update after being notified of an incident.... doesn't mean you need to be checking it all the time though.It's also very useful to be able to tap out emails quickly on the phone when dealing with multiple persons in an active incident.

Re:This is why

[radarskiy]

Phone calls are synchronous. They implicitly cause an interruption.
Email is asynchronous. It is written when the sender desires; it is read when the receiver desires.
Text messages are not inherently synchronous but can carry an expectation of synchronization.

I have never been able to figure out why people would shoot their mouths off about not wanting interruptions and then advocate the most interruptive solutions.

Time Spent Working Increases Productivity

[sudon't]

Let me fix that headline:

More Time Spent Working Increases Productivity

Re:I use tech. Tech doesn't use me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I will typically check my email (work or otherwise) as it comes in on my phone. Key word there, "check" - not "act on", not "respond to", not even "give a second thought".

But you're salaried, aren't you? Doesn't that mean your employer is free to interrupt all of your off-time and when you need to take time off from work you're allocated 80 hours for the year during which they still get to call you? That's how it works in America. I've tried explaining to my manager how "exempt work" works. None of them get it. Their reasoning is that if your job only took 40 hours, you'd be hourly. The problem is that many American workers believe the same thing!

Edison, damn you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your electric bulb has increased my productivity AND has helped me work longer hours!

Re:I answer work e-mail from home.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not give out my personal mobile number to colleagues, only to the boss -- on the understand it's for emergency use only.

And I explicitly tell my boss that I can be called at any time, provided I would consider it an emergency, and the number should not be used otherwise (and should not be given to others). It's not enough for it to appear to be an emergency to that boss, but it must be an emergency to me .

Re:I answer work e-mail from home.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly *why* we need more immigration of workers into this country. If it weren't so hard to replace you, I would axe you in a minute for your attitude.

Get back to work!

I don't pay you to have a personal life, peon!

technology limitations helps...

[Anonymous Coward]

We block Facebook and multiple other social networks from everyone else than groups that need to have access to those as part of their job description.

Most workers are blocked from every other site than whitelisted ones. At start years back it was pain in start as amount required to whitelist and work out who needs access to what, but then it has dropped to very small processing per week that single worker can handle it partially. This in corporation where we have over 2500 office workers and less than ten thousand other workers.

We have even separated work computers from internet or scheduled those access. Overtime isn't allowed than two hours a week. Data from intranet can't be accessed from internet but requires an phone call or physical visit to authority who physically transfers data from computer in intranet to computer in internet. For that we had few years back about hundred people working just that.

The data is highly security dependent and almost every process is run trough protocols and rest goes trough supervisors. A typical time to process data gathering is today 3 minutes before it is delivered or rejected.

The limited processing has benefitted workers efficiency, we use pine as internal email application and lots of our data management is done with open source tools or in-house scripts from bash.
This allows data collection easily be done on field or automated and processed.

The thing workers usually love is that they can't take work with them at home and they are not required to stress out, as we can assign people help others almost on the fly trough internal load systems and while tools are same, it is easy just to "flip a switch" and there are more workers processing data.

That has got many interesting results as people enjoy about work, but because it requires focusing, we have limited work time to 5 hours a day without lunch time and to four days a week. Especially people with family loves the extra time they get and while payment is over average (~3200$ a month) it keeps everyone happy. Process is fast, corruption is non-existing (people are rotated between tasks) and workers are rested and efficient. Last time we counted that there was under a 1% of sick leaves on 2013 and that is a damn impressive as company definetly saves money while keeping workers happy.

It's more a thing of how you define yourself...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are feeling your job is what defines you as a person, or at least your job has a high priority in how you feel about yourself, you WILL MAKE yourself available (and companies will gladly accept your offer, its more work done per buck spent. I know many people who practically just brag about their importance by whining how their boss called them here or made them do that on the WEs or something. Its a status thing... "everybody look how important I am!!", if I'm not available all the time the whole company will go down the drain."
Me, also a "work to live" person find this especially funny, because IMHO the real luxury is to be able to switch of the cellphone for the weekend / after work and just do things you actually enjoy, completly letting go all workrelated stuff. at least for a while. Basically saying "look, I'm so important people don't even dare to disturb me", people acutally WAIT for me to spend my precious time on their retarded shit... but thats just my way of seeing it :-)

Re:I answer work e-mail from home.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not give out my personal mobile number to colleagues, only to the boss -- on the understand it's for emergency use only.

And I explicitly tell my boss that I can be called at any time, provided I would consider it an emergency, and the number should not be used otherwise (and should not be given to others). It's not enough for it to appear to be an emergency to that boss, but it must be an emergency to me .

I am curious, how well is that working for you ?

I have given the same instructions to my last 4 bosses and had only 2 or 3 instances in 5 years of the calls not being abuse of the rule.

I assume you have given clear parameters that they can be instantly called on in an objective fashion that is documented and able to be seen by the bosses boss and the bosses bosses boss that make it clear that coffee fetching and shit rolling down hill are not acceptable and that you already have other job offers that are more attractive to you and that the only thing stopping you from leaving for a much better job is their good behavior?