Posted by gillispie1 on 8/25/2015 11:23:00 PM (view original):
wait... did this guy really say a personal phone call during work time was ok? seriously? if true, that makes me think he must just be trolling. no reasonable person could suggest 2m of a personal phone call is some how ok while 2m of a personal computer usage is stealing. did he really say that? i was taking this guy at face value - like, i thought he believed what he said, that he was just misguided and was clinging to his earlier position even though hes since recognized its not as simple. you can't totally fault a guy for being an idiot if he really thinks he is right... but if hes really suggesting personal calls are ok, then he just trolled us all for 14 pages... 

As with the equipment/connection usage, it is entirely dependent upon what permission you have to take said action.

Or have you once again misinterpreted something and rather than asking about it simply assumed and continued?

Posted by metsmax on 8/26/2015 5:31:00 AM (view original):
lots of amusement value in this thread

I agree with this.

Some amusing observations from this thread:

Some people, when unsure of the meaning of a statement, add meaning of their own instead of asking what was meant.

Some people insist they are correct but provide no argument.

Some people like to argue extremes which are moot or entirely irrelevant.

There are other amusing things in this thread. Those are just a few.

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/26/2015 6:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 8/25/2015 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/25/2015 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by backboy13 on 8/25/2015 12:50:00 PM (view original):
WIS, please close this thread.

lulz, nobody is making you click on it this thread and read it.

Agreed.  I'm curious to see if this takes another twist or turn.  It's actually been one of the more interesting "debates" on the boards in quite some time.

Agreed, though I don't see much of a debate here.

I totally agree, its one person repeatedly spouting off ideological viewpoints and personal opinions with almost no consideration for or reflection on the criticisms continually levelled against him.

Did I miss it somewhere?  What kind of work does S do?   Or is he not willing to share because it's national security stuff?

He works in world of absolutes.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/26/2015 8:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/26/2015 6:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 8/25/2015 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/25/2015 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by backboy13 on 8/25/2015 12:50:00 PM (view original):
WIS, please close this thread.

lulz, nobody is making you click on it this thread and read it.

Agreed.  I'm curious to see if this takes another twist or turn.  It's actually been one of the more interesting "debates" on the boards in quite some time.

Agreed, though I don't see much of a debate here.

I totally agree, its one person repeatedly spouting off ideological viewpoints and personal opinions with almost no consideration for or reflection on the criticisms continually levelled against him.

It is one person stating their opinion and using facts to back it up while others disagree but have nothing to back up their claims.

Your notion that my viewpoints are somehow "ideological" is one such claim with nothing to back it up.

The supposed "criticisms" you speak of largely have the same problem.

I care not if people disagree with me - they are free to do so, and I won't think less of them for it (which appears to be more than can be said for some here).

If, however, it is merely disagreement with nothing else to back it up, then that's all it remains. It can't rightfully be called a criticism without some factual basis from which to criticize.

Posted by fd343ny on 8/26/2015 5:35:00 PM (view original):
He works in world of absolutes.

You are now making a statement which has already been proven wrong within this thread.

Clearly I have stated several times there are situations which aren't absolute.

You have stated that, but your positions reflect absolutes and, where there have been reasons for your positions and not merely conclusions, they have been based on analytic absolutes or on your assertions of moral conclusions.  

in my opinion, you work in a world of absolutes.  I am just stating a fact - that is my opinion.

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/26/2015 6:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by milwood on 8/25/2015 7:59:00 PM (view original):
Communication 101: the sender puts out a message and the receiver is the one that gets to interpret and put meaning to that message. It is up to the sender to clarify the position when it goes widely misunderstood. As the sender you did a very poor job communicating your point.

I'm not going to spend the time to go back through this thread but at one point you said it was okay to take a quick personal phone call. Not just the emergency one but the quick, yet seldom call. By your own definition you have not given 100% 100% of the time.

It is not up to the sender to anticipate every possible misinterpretation of all possible receivers. It is up to the receiver to clarify any position they aren't sure of before making a response based upon that position.

Taking personal phone calls when necessary often helps one work more productively. This renders your attempt to argue in this direction moot at best.

Taking a personal phone call is in FACT sealing as your getting paid for the time. We can argue this all day no different than you saying using the internet is stealing. You say your allowed well others have said they are allowed to use the internet.
You say taking a personal phone call helps one work more productive (except for while on the call because your not working with 100% of your attention on work) well others feel the same amount of time on the computer not work related does the same.

Another fact is you started this in one of your first post with "i don't see why people play games at work" first assuming they was in fact playing during working hrs. Then when someone said something about break time you started this "that's stealing if you don't have permission"
Well I don't see why you would have to take a personal phone call at work unless it an emergency to me that's stealing

And is A FACT my opinion.

This whole thread is foolish, Shawn...foolish.

BTW, what was your favorite brand of vodka again?....

A different take - I dont think employees need permission to make personal calls.  I think one does not give up one's basic rights when one becomes an employee.  Serfdom went out some centuries ago.

Unless something is prohibited - and unless that prohibition is reasonable - workers have the right to do it.  They dont need permission to talk to other workers, they dont need permission to make reasonable personal phone calls, etc.  A worker who seeks to organize his fellow workers to object to rules imposed by the boss has a right to do so, subject to some legal limitations.

The workplace is not - despite the assumptions that others appear to make - an environment in which all power belongs to the boss and workers have the right to do only what they have permission to do.  Once upon a time, but no more.

The right to use workplace internet connections is interesting.  What if an employee is required to remain at his or her station on a computer for long periods.  Does the invention of the internet as a means of communication make sending a personal message different from making a phone call on a phone that belongs to the employer?  What if the office maintains a wifi connection - can an employee use his own smartphone through that wifi?  What rights does a worker have without permission as technology changes the work environment?

There was a time when the permission of the boss was the essence of workplace relations.  That time was long ago.

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/26/2015 6:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 8/25/2015 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Really, the thought that someone can give 100% effort for every second of every work day is beyond ludicrous.  Nobody, nobody is that robotic.

Your first statement has already been proven wrong, not only by myself but by another poster as well.

Also, working to capacity isn't robotic, and your attempt to classify it as such is an attempt to strawman the discussion.

Just because you "say" something does not make it "proof" Shawn.  You have yet to offer verifiable "proof" that it is possible for any person to work at 100% effort (or capacity, if you want to change your terms) other than your own anecdotal evidence and the statement of another anonymous internet user.  You are the one that made the statement that you work to 100% capacity every second of every work day and that it is indeed, very realistic and possible.  Please show us all some verifiable peer reviewed research that shows that ANY human being is possible of achieving this in a 40 hour minimum work week.  You know, REAL proof.  Don't worry, we won't wait.....since you can't.

Posted by fd343ny on 8/26/2015 5:35:00 PM (view original):
He works in world of absolutes.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" --- for all you star wars fans out there

but seriously though, that is the heart of the issue.

those are not the recruits you are looking for

Posted by fd343ny on 8/26/2015 8:45:00 PM (view original):
You have stated that, but your positions reflect absolutes and, where there have been reasons for your positions and not merely conclusions, they have been based on analytic absolutes or on your assertions of moral conclusions.  

in my opinion, you work in a world of absolutes.  I am just stating a fact - that is my opinion.

My positions reflect the facts.

I'm glad you have an opinion. You're entitled to it. Your opinion is not supported by the facts at hand, but you are certainly free to have it.

I will disagree with the idea that I work in a world of absolutes, precisely because I know its not the case.