I don't have a problem with Shawn's position, if you can find employees who are happy just doing work at work and it works for you that's great.....I don't think that it's a problem with the American work force that some people feel different....what makes America, yow know America, is that you can run your business anyway you want as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights.....Just as my own personal example, I very often don't give 100% effort at wok and my bosses (and my coworkers) know it......This is allowed (or tolerated by some) because I produce ideas that are significantly different than my peers....if I was forced to "bare down"  I don't think I would be as creative...part of my ******* around is fuel for my creative process....I justify my WIS time at work by claiming it keeps my math skills sharp.....I suspect if I started to do a ****** job, my approach would be questioned a little harder....It's been my experience as a 38 year old that bosses only really care about results, if you are doing your job well who cares how you get there.

Posted by fd343ny on 8/28/2015 8:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/28/2015 7:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 8/27/2015 9:57:00 PM (view original):
shawn - you really mean to claim that you give 100% all the time?  you are perfect?  let he who is without sin.....oops, lets not go there

100% capacity utilization is very hard for a machine, let alone a person.  Now maybe when you say 100% you mean that you do the best that you can, subject to the downtime and inefficiency that you cannot avoid.  Is that 100%?  might someone say that he can be more productive with breaks?  Does one need to ask the boss for permission to work in that way?  in every workplace?

the claim of 100% undermines the credibility of any facts you offer.

Giving 100 percent of the effort you have at any given time does not equal perfection. Please do not try to claim I said something I did not say.

Obviously many factors affect what a human being can do at any given time. The point is that you give all of the effort you have while dealing with and in spite of the factors of life.

I have already discussed the idea of breaks.

Facts are facts regardless of any claims I make.

Beyond that, my claims of 100 percent stand as is and have no ability to undermine anything. 

Just because you apparently don't understand doesn't somehow mean there is a problem with what I've said.

all humans have flaws.  No one gives 100% effort. The claim is not credible.

I already said there are factors out of one's control which impact work.

I only said people should give 100 percent of the effort they can give, not 100 percent of what they might be able to give if it weren't for those factors.

The claim is very credible. You simply misunderstood and thought I claimed something I did not.

Posted by metsmax on 8/28/2015 9:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/27/2015 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 8/26/2015 10:55:00 PM (view original):
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.

Not being allowed to take personal phone calls while doing your job does not  make one a serf.

You do not have an inherent "right" to make phone calls whenever you wish on a job. Depending upon the job and what you are doing at any given moment, it may not be prudent or even safe to take a phone call (personal or not).

Beyond that, if you agree to work for an employer and one of their rules is a simple concept such as no personal phone calls, that hardly seems like a point of serious contention. It's simply not that big of a deal considering all the other things you might want to fight for in a workplace if you must - and if it is a big deal, you can always quit and take a different job.

If you don't have permission to do something, you don't have permission. It's not just automatically permitted because you want to do it. You're on the job or in the workplace, not at a social gathering or in your own home.

You absolutely DO need permission to talk to other workers at times when doing so takes away from the job. Same thing for personal phone calls. If you have permission, fine, if not, you shouldn't do it.

When a boss is easily approachable and treats workers with continuous respect, the boss usually gets respect in return.  When employees get big raises and more than the average vacation and a host of perks they enjoy, they are very grateful then too.  When all of  that happens and the boss asks for certain things, like 100 percent effort all the time, or that no one use computers for personal things, it's funny...they all do it without complaint.

Maybe at workplaces where bosses aren't respectful and/or the pay is low and/or the perks aren't good or don't exist, that kind of thing happens. When people love their jobs, they work hard and listen to respectful bosses.

The "right" to use workplace internet connections doesn't exist.

Your last statement once again demonstrates a part of what is wrong with America.

We'll add deliberate insubordination to the list of things we've discussed in this thread which show why America is in a state of decline. That list already includes lack of work ethic, stubborn insistence one is correct when the facts show otherwise, and intentional obstinance.

You miss the point.  As shawn would say, if you didnt understand it you should have asked.  "Serf" is an analogy.

Your expressed view of the workplace is that activity occurs only by permission of the employer.

My point is that in the modern workplace employees have rights and entitlements apart from what gets specific permission - consistent with the reasonable needs of the workplace.  It is not a one way street.

You assert that employees lack various rights - that is your opinion.  For example, workers have the right, as a matter of law, to try to organize the workplace and to discuss with other employees the idea of joining a union.  They have the right to post notices about union meetings - they dont need permission.  In the absence of safety or security concerns, I am confident that a court would hold that employees have the right to make a reasonable amount of personal phone calls during the workday - with or without permission.  Keep in mind that in many workplaces the phones work over internet connections - so a phone call IS a use of the workplace internet connection.  (thats a fact, sorry)  Someday, as internet based communications become more universal, I bet that a right to reasonable internet communications will be recognized. 

Your assertions that employees can only do what they have permission to do are not facts.  They are opinions.  They are antiquated, obsolete opinions that run counter to the rights of workers and seek to enshrine the power of employers - approachable bosses and bosses who are jerks.

Stating an opinion does not make it a fact.

 Both by statute and by court decisions the rights of workers to decent conditions, to unionize and otherwise to exercise their liberty except where it unreasonaly interferes in work performance have been recognized and should be recognized.

You can imagine that the workplace is governed by the permission of the boss - under the law and as a matter of wise conduct by employers you would be mistaken.

I got the point. The analogy isn't accurate.

I never said activity only occurs by permission of the employer. In fact I never addressed the concept of "activity" at all.

You have certain rights as a human being, whether or not you are in a workplace.

However, certain rights that exist outside of work do not exist in a workplace - such as the ability to do whatever you wish at any given time.

Joining a union is not a right. It is only extended to certain groups, lest nearly everyone would be in a union.

Taking personal calls during the work day is at the sole discretion of the employer.  If this were not the case, there would be no restrictions on the matter at all.

How a phone connection works is irrelevant.

My statements of fact remain statements of fact, not opinion.  They do not seek to enshrine power on anyone, but to make the workplace function.

Stating facts are merely opinions doesn't make it so.

Having decent conditions does not mean doing whatever you please, including taking personal phone calls or using office equipment/connections however you see fit without permission.

The law doesn't support any other conclusion. If it did, every workplace governed under such law would eventually be anarchy.

I believe we have reached a result.  If someone believes that workers do not have a right to join a union (most workers) and that taking personal calls is at the SOLE DISCRETION of the employer, he is simply wrong.  The workplace in modern times is not a unilateral domain of the employer.  That may some version of the workplace you imagine.  It isnt the world in which we live.

by the way - how a phone connection works is only relevant if workers have a right (in the absence of special circumstances like security or safety that make it reasonable to forbid it) to make some amount of personal calls.  Shawn has assrted that there is no right to use computer equipment of the employer.  if phones work via computer equipment and there is a right to use phonesm then that is a right to use computer rquipment where that is the means of phone connection.  In most workplaces, an employer would not as a matter of law be able to sustain a total ban on personal calls.

Posted by metsmax on 8/29/2015 1:23:00 AM (view original):
I believe we have reached a result.  If someone believes that workers do not have a right to join a union (most workers) and that taking personal calls is at the SOLE DISCRETION of the employer, he is simply wrong.  The workplace in modern times is not a unilateral domain of the employer.  That may some version of the workplace you imagine.  It isnt the world in which we live.

by the way - how a phone connection works is only relevant if workers have a right (in the absence of special circumstances like security or safety that make it reasonable to forbid it) to make some amount of personal calls.  Shawn has assrted that there is no right to use computer equipment of the employer.  if phones work via computer equipment and there is a right to use phonesm then that is a right to use computer rquipment where that is the means of phone connection.  In most workplaces, an employer would not as a matter of law be able to sustain a total ban on personal calls.

Most workers can't join a union. That's a fact.

Look around America for a moment and you know its true. Right now fast food workers are fighting for the right to unionize - why? Because they don't have that right, and neither do most employees at most companies.

If you are working, you are to be doing actual work. That's the nature of employment. Anything else you do while you are supposed to be working is always at the sole discretion of your employer, lest you risk being reprimanded and consequences, including the potential loss of employment.  That's how it works, plain and simple.

Let's an employee decides to take as much personal phone call time as they want during working hours despite being told several times this is not permitted. They will eventually lose their job. They can whine that it was "wrong" all they want - they have only themselves to blame.  They could have simply waited to take or make personal calls on break or before or after working hours.

Don't like the policy of not being able to take personal phone calls during work hours? Find a job where they are okay with it, if it's that big of a deal to you. Simple solution.

How a phone connection works is never relevant to this argument. If it's property of an employer, it is at their discretion, regardless.

I never said there is no right to use computer equipment. I said there is no right to do so without permission. The same extends to the phone. This is precisely what makes it irrelevant how the connection works - employer property is controlled by the employer, whether it is a phone or computer.

This is because the owner of a phone/line has the right to dictate who can use it and in what manner. If you'd care to argue against this, I hope some bum on the street rips your cell phone out of your hand and starts using it however they please. If that happens, remember, by your own argument you have no right to stop them, since you don't have the right to control others use of your own phone.

In any workplace an employer can ban personal phone calls if they so choose. It's the same as any other workplace rule. Without workplace rules, there would be workplace anarchy, and no law is going to support that.  If you don't like the rules at your workplace, find another job.  Again, simple solution.

That is an excellent description of the rights of workers in the 1880s.

Check out the National Labor Relations Act for the right to unionize.

Some workplaces do not have unions - many dont - and workers may be fighting to organize unions for their workplace, but workers, with some exceptions, have that right.

The assumption that all workplace conditions are based on permission of the employer in its sole discretion is not the law.  In my opinion it also isn't the moral result.  

Of course, I do not think that employees have the right to spend their worktime on facebook or WIS or chatting for hours with friends and family.  On the other hand, an employer where it would not interfere in work performance would be badly advised by issuing a 100% ban on personal calls and other similar nonwork moments during work.

Posted by fd343ny on 8/29/2015 10:36:00 AM (view original):
That is an excellent description of the rights of workers in the 1880s.

Check out the National Labor Relations Act for the right to unionize.

Some workplaces do not have unions - many dont - and workers may be fighting to organize unions for their workplace, but workers, with some exceptions, have that right.

The assumption that all workplace conditions are based on permission of the employer in its sole discretion is not the law.  In my opinion it also isn't the moral result.  

Of course, I do not think that employees have the right to spend their worktime on facebook or WIS or chatting for hours with friends and family.  On the other hand, an employer where it would not interfere in work performance would be badly advised by issuing a 100% ban on personal calls and other similar nonwork moments during work.

It is an excellent description of the reality of how work functions.

Most workers aren't part of any union. Many don't even have the ability to unionize.

There is no assumption being made.

The idea that an employer can limit or control certain actions taken by employees during work time is an inherent function of the workplace. Without it, a workplace could (and many would) result be in anarchy. There would be little or nothing accomplished because everyone would simply do what they want.

You are essentially agreeing with what I'm saying in the first sentence of your last paragraph.

I don't think it's "badly advised" to issue a 100 percent ban on personal phone calls if an employer believes such a ban is warranted. There are many reasons for such decisions, from safety to productivity and beyond.

My personal stance is that personal phone calls are fine as long as they do not negatively impact work. In other words, if you can take or make the call while still doing your job to the same level, you're fine. If you can't, then it needs to wait unless it's an emergency (and it has to be a legitimate emergency, not an excuse). Employees are fine with this because they know work needs done. I'm fine with it because I know sometimes life happens.

im really starting to doubt you are a boss shawn - unless you are a boss at an extremely small company with no or nearly no HR department. its not nearly as one sided as you make it out to be, employers have nowhere near absolute power over employees, and if you've ever had to fire an employee, where you had to run it through HR first (which is always the case at a real company), you'd know that. i am suspecting you are more of a team leader, not a true boss, meaning you can live in theory land without having to ever deal with the ****** realities that people who actually manage people have to deal with. 

or maybe im just assuming, as apparently i've done this whole time, that you said something you didn't say. are you a true manager? meaning, are you responsible for evaluating employee performance, hiring and firing, etc... are you that kind of manger?

the sad part of all this is that myself and probably most people here agree that people need to take work seriously, and many here are probably just as annoyed by the folks who come in with ****** work ethic (and not just the stereotypical younger generation) as you are. i think its just that some of us live in a reality that is more... real. less black and white, more shades of gray, where in theory we might agree with you but simply cannot agree that reality actually works that way. you remind me of when i talk to a young relative, where i often find myself saying, you know, i agree with everything you just said, but it doesn't matter, the conclusion is still wrong, because there is simply more to the story. maybe you just are lucky to have worked in a singular work environment that happens to have a really good culture, or something. 

I have deactivated shawnfucious lol...thanks for playing :)

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/30/2015 12:25:00 AM (view original):
im really starting to doubt you are a boss shawn - unless you are a boss at an extremely small company with no or nearly no HR department. its not nearly as one sided as you make it out to be, employers have nowhere near absolute power over employees, and if you've ever had to fire an employee, where you had to run it through HR first (which is always the case at a real company), you'd know that. i am suspecting you are more of a team leader, not a true boss, meaning you can live in theory land without having to ever deal with the ****** realities that people who actually manage people have to deal with. 

or maybe im just assuming, as apparently i've done this whole time, that you said something you didn't say. are you a true manager? meaning, are you responsible for evaluating employee performance, hiring and firing, etc... are you that kind of manger?

the sad part of all this is that myself and probably most people here agree that people need to take work seriously, and many here are probably just as annoyed by the folks who come in with ****** work ethic (and not just the stereotypical younger generation) as you are. i think its just that some of us live in a reality that is more... real. less black and white, more shades of gray, where in theory we might agree with you but simply cannot agree that reality actually works that way. you remind me of when i talk to a young relative, where i often find myself saying, you know, i agree with everything you just said, but it doesn't matter, the conclusion is still wrong, because there is simply more to the story. maybe you just are lucky to have worked in a singular work environment that happens to have a really good culture, or something. 

Is your default position to always jump to ridiculous conclusions with no factual basis? You've done that multiple times in your responses to me, which is why I ask.

I present the facts of the issue, and you claim otherwise but offer nothing to back it up.

For your information, firing an employee is never an easy thing to do, but if you've documented having to deal with a particular issue many times, it's not difficult to establish that as the cause for termination - particularly when the issue in question violates a company policy, not simply one of your own.

Your comments lead me to believe you have no idea what you're talking about here, but disagree with me on a personal level and feel the need to defend that disagreement somehow, so you're stabbing in the dark and hoping to hit some sort of real argument.

Yes, I have employees I oversee. I've mentioned this before.

It is truly sad if you actually agree with me on the points you say you agree with, because most of your statements do not reflect that. 

I work in an environment that has good culture, yes - because we have created that culture. It comes from the top down. Those above me treat me very well, but are clear in their expectations of me. I treat my employees very well, and am also very clear in my expectations.

It's funny that way. When you provide a great work environment and a place where people enjoy their jobs (at a minimum compared to other jobs they have worked in the past) they want to hold onto that job a great deal. They want to work with you to not only keep that open communication and wonderful environment, but also to keep working there, period.

They will do what you ask even if it's not what they personally feel is best in every instance because they value the job too much to take a stand on little issues that really don't matter (such as when they can take personal phone calls). In fact, if someone made a big deal out of a policy like that, everyone else would wonder what was wrong with them and would criticize the move. To use an analogy: Why upset the entire apple cart to chase the one apple that fell off? Just leave the one apple behind and enjoy the rest.

Shawnfucious is right, he has the biggest thread I have seen, and it's still going on. So, if he was wrong, he would not come back and show you guys the light.

There have have been 60+ page threads Zorzii, this is still at amateur level.

are you calling billyg an amateur...

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/27/2015 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 8/26/2015 10:55:00 PM (view original):
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.

Not being allowed to take personal phone calls while doing your job does not  make one a serf.

You do not have an inherent "right" to make phone calls whenever you wish on a job. Depending upon the job and what you are doing at any given moment, it may not be prudent or even safe to take a phone call (personal or not).

Beyond that, if you agree to work for an employer and one of their rules is a simple concept such as no personal phone calls, that hardly seems like a point of serious contention. It's simply not that big of a deal considering all the other things you might want to fight for in a workplace if you must - and if it is a big deal, you can always quit and take a different job.

If you don't have permission to do something, you don't have permission. It's not just automatically permitted because you want to do it. You're on the job or in the workplace, not at a social gathering or in your own home.

You absolutely DO need permission to talk to other workers at times when doing so takes away from the job. Same thing for personal phone calls. If you have permission, fine, if not, you shouldn't do it.

When a boss is easily approachable and treats workers with continuous respect, the boss usually gets respect in return.  When employees get big raises and more than the average vacation and a host of perks they enjoy, they are very grateful then too.  When all of  that happens and the boss asks for certain things, like 100 percent effort all the time, or that no one use computers for personal things, it's funny...they all do it without complaint.

Maybe at workplaces where bosses aren't respectful and/or the pay is low and/or the perks aren't good or don't exist, that kind of thing happens. When people love their jobs, they work hard and listen to respectful bosses.

The "right" to use workplace internet connections doesn't exist.

Your last statement once again demonstrates a part of what is wrong with America.

We'll add deliberate insubordination to the list of things we've discussed in this thread which show why America is in a state of decline. That list already includes lack of work ethic, stubborn insistence one is correct when the facts show otherwise, and intentional obstinance.

Ugh. Stop saying this is what is wrong with America. You're making yourself sound ignorant and foolish.

Respect My Authoritie!!!!

...though I must admit, I liked it much better when he thought "my outlook" was precisely what was exactly wrong with america