G
Guest
Guest
I think SBC's so mesmerised by the sight of a pair of huge wobbly mammaries that he's gone completely ga-ga! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Pornographic photo???
- Thread starter EBunting
- Start date
jenku
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I'm an Employer ... a Boss ... and I would be not happy if my employees spent time oggling t**s instead of working ... I have no objection to general surfing - I do it myself ..
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really see the difference at all! It does not make any difference to your company's profits if your folks surf on boats, cars, ebay or boobs or does it? As long as they do what they are paid for, what's the difference really? Unless you are running a nursary school or something?
I'm an Employer ... a Boss ... and I would be not happy if my employees spent time oggling t**s instead of working ... I have no objection to general surfing - I do it myself ..
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really see the difference at all! It does not make any difference to your company's profits if your folks surf on boats, cars, ebay or boobs or does it? As long as they do what they are paid for, what's the difference really? Unless you are running a nursary school or something?
stevebirch2002
Well-Known Member
I know.... he he he he
Was waiting to get jumped on!
Was waiting to get jumped on!
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
Where do you draw the line is this OK then?
http://www.yachtingworld.com/yw/blog/200703201709451blog_elaine_bunting.html
http://www.yachtingworld.com/yw/blog/200703201709451blog_elaine_bunting.html
webcraft
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
may not be work friendly
[/ QUOTE ] Well, you shouldn't be surfing the bloody internet anyway Jimi - it's the downfall of Western (industrial) civilisation whether it's tits or Wikipedia . . .
[ QUOTE ]
Personal Internet Surfing at Work Costs Companies Over $300 Billion a Year
According to a new survey by America Online and Salary.com, summarized by Dan Malachowski, the average worker admits to wasting 2.09 hours per 8-hour workday, not including lunch and scheduled break-time. The survey indicates that employees are wasting about twice as much time as their employers expect. Salary.com calculated that employers spend $759 billion per year on salaries for which real work was expected, but not actually performed.
The biggest distraction is personal Internet use by 44.7% of the more than 10,000 people polled. Socializing with co-workers came in second at 23.4%. Conducting personal business, “spacing out,” running errands, and making personal phone calls were the other popular time-wasting activities in the workplace.
Top Time-Wasting Activities % of Respondents
1 Surfing Internet (personal use) 44.7%
2 Socializing with co-workers 23.4%
3 Conducting personal business 6.8%
4 Spacing out 3.9%
5 Running errands off-premises 3.1%
6 Making personal phone calls 2.3%
7 Applying for other jobs 1.3%
8 Planning personal events 1.0%
9 Arriving late / Leaving early 1.0%
10 Other 12.5%
Source: AOL/Salary.com, June 2005
[/ QUOTE ]
may not be work friendly
[/ QUOTE ] Well, you shouldn't be surfing the bloody internet anyway Jimi - it's the downfall of Western (industrial) civilisation whether it's tits or Wikipedia . . .
[ QUOTE ]
Personal Internet Surfing at Work Costs Companies Over $300 Billion a Year
According to a new survey by America Online and Salary.com, summarized by Dan Malachowski, the average worker admits to wasting 2.09 hours per 8-hour workday, not including lunch and scheduled break-time. The survey indicates that employees are wasting about twice as much time as their employers expect. Salary.com calculated that employers spend $759 billion per year on salaries for which real work was expected, but not actually performed.
The biggest distraction is personal Internet use by 44.7% of the more than 10,000 people polled. Socializing with co-workers came in second at 23.4%. Conducting personal business, “spacing out,” running errands, and making personal phone calls were the other popular time-wasting activities in the workplace.
Top Time-Wasting Activities % of Respondents
1 Surfing Internet (personal use) 44.7%
2 Socializing with co-workers 23.4%
3 Conducting personal business 6.8%
4 Spacing out 3.9%
5 Running errands off-premises 3.1%
6 Making personal phone calls 2.3%
7 Applying for other jobs 1.3%
8 Planning personal events 1.0%
9 Arriving late / Leaving early 1.0%
10 Other 12.5%
Source: AOL/Salary.com, June 2005
[/ QUOTE ]
G
Guest
Guest
Hmmm comforting to know that I was in the exclusive 1%/3.9% of the population who spent my time either spacing out or arriving late/leaving early /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Internet surfers are just following the crowd.
Internet surfers are just following the crowd.
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Bloody hell, it seems I'm a 100% waste of time.
Now, who told me that before?
Now, who told me that before?
Billjratt
Well-Known Member
the lady is certainly getting publicity, isn't she? Not the first to use titz'nass nor the last, I'm sure. The dissenters seem to be worried about how THEIR image will suffer if caught peeping. If they are happy to use the greatest porn-propogation tool ever, they should be aware that embarrasing or even offensive stuff occasionally sneaks in to view- that's propagation! I don't think it's porn. I do think it could be construed to be innapropriate and demeaning, and she's made a happy man very old
G
Guest
Guest
Considering where I live and average lass over here makes most N.European / others look like tripe ... mmmmmmm
And of course I am married to a rather strikingly beautiful young lady.
I just think the adding that photo to a story about two guys trying it on with the Race Cmtee is daft.
And I would like to think that if anyone walked into my offices - they would not be presented with a pair of knockers staring out of a PC screen.
Anyway - I clearly agreed with a post on here and the US gents comment about warning people that it was there ..
And yes - another is well correct I think - EB has gained a lot of publicity for the blog out of this daft thread !!
And of course I am married to a rather strikingly beautiful young lady.
I just think the adding that photo to a story about two guys trying it on with the Race Cmtee is daft.
And I would like to think that if anyone walked into my offices - they would not be presented with a pair of knockers staring out of a PC screen.
Anyway - I clearly agreed with a post on here and the US gents comment about warning people that it was there ..
And yes - another is well correct I think - EB has gained a lot of publicity for the blog out of this daft thread !!
boatmike
Well-Known Member
Well with 2083 views and 68 replies it's the most popular post for ages so if it's porno, we are all perverts! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
aztec
Well-Known Member
Hellllllllllo!
Almost worth coming over to scuttlebutt for!
Almost worth coming over to scuttlebutt for!
longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily so, 83 of those are me. For some reason my mouse seems attracted to big tits..................
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Someone will come on now and tell you it's got so many views because it comes up as a Google result for Porn enquiries.
Ooops. I just did! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Ooops. I just did! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Neddie_Seagoon
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
It does not make any difference to your company's profits if your folks surf on boats, cars, ebay or boobs or does it?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it does make a difference. The house rule I have imposed at work is that I don't mind personal use of the internet as long as it:
* does not interfere with the performance of the employees job
* does not bring the company into disrepute
* does not offend other employees
The latter is accepted as a catch-all that covers viewing porn, engaging in racism, and anything else that a co-worker might find offensive and thus disrupt the harmony of the workplace.
We have a very mixed environment (age and sex), so the display of titillating pictures of young ladies is not appreciated by some of the more prudish young ladies we employ, likewise the desktop background of one of our gay employees snogging his boyfriend did not receive universal admiration. My IT support staff do not all enjoy viewing the porno movie clips we find on some field workers laptops when removing whatever virus they have caught in their latest bout of Internet sex, and so on.
I guess I'm particularly sensitive as our offices are almost entirely open plan, so anyone can see what is displayed on another's screen, including visitors walking through our buildings.
(My screen is carefully positioned so that it can only be viewed through the upstairs window behind my desk /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif )
It does not make any difference to your company's profits if your folks surf on boats, cars, ebay or boobs or does it?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it does make a difference. The house rule I have imposed at work is that I don't mind personal use of the internet as long as it:
* does not interfere with the performance of the employees job
* does not bring the company into disrepute
* does not offend other employees
The latter is accepted as a catch-all that covers viewing porn, engaging in racism, and anything else that a co-worker might find offensive and thus disrupt the harmony of the workplace.
We have a very mixed environment (age and sex), so the display of titillating pictures of young ladies is not appreciated by some of the more prudish young ladies we employ, likewise the desktop background of one of our gay employees snogging his boyfriend did not receive universal admiration. My IT support staff do not all enjoy viewing the porno movie clips we find on some field workers laptops when removing whatever virus they have caught in their latest bout of Internet sex, and so on.
I guess I'm particularly sensitive as our offices are almost entirely open plan, so anyone can see what is displayed on another's screen, including visitors walking through our buildings.
(My screen is carefully positioned so that it can only be viewed through the upstairs window behind my desk /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif )
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
some of the more prudish young ladies we employ
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously an HR issue here /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
some of the more prudish young ladies we employ
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously an HR issue here /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Neddie_Seagoon
Well-Known Member
For some reason unknown to me the delightful young lady who runs our HR administration (and thus has a widely circulated e-mail address) does not appreciate the various e-mails she gets offering penile growth, sex aids, chat and video - I cannot imagine why !
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
So stop sending them!
jenku
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I think it does make a difference. The house rule I have imposed at work is that I don't mind personal use of the internet as long as it:
* does not interfere with the performance of the employees job
* does not bring the company into disrepute
[/ QUOTE ]
Thus far I am totally with you. I would, though, point out that having whatever material on ones computer as an employee does not discredit the company as far as it does not leave the machine.
[/ QUOTE ]
* does not offend other employees
[/ QUOTE ]
This may or may not be reasonable. I do accept that there could be a problem if your office is open plan, as you said, but still, as far as the PCs are not used by several people in turn, the other employees have no right to be offended by what's on their collegues' computers. Nobody forces them to look at it. After all the same is for pictures of spouses/children/pets peple set up in their workspace.
[ QUOTE ]
... likewise the desktop background of one of our gay employees snogging his boyfriend did not receive universal admiration.
[/ QUOTE ]
This could very well be discrimination. What If I was gay and would be affected by seeing pictures of hetero couple kissing or families cuddling their babies?
I think we also could have a slight difference between different legal point of views. In Sweden it is accepted that while the PC hardware and software are owned by the company the content (documents, non-software or even free-software files) put there by the employee is not. If you put it in a folder and name it "jenkus private porn files" it is illegal for the employer to look at it even. Same is for private emails of type forename.surname@company.se . Only emails to addresses of type sales@company.se can be viewed by employer without explicit permission.
Oh, and the reason why the IT guys don't like others to have porn on their PCs is, besides they may get more viruses to remove, that the downloading of the porn takes the bandwith away from their own online gaming!!
I think it does make a difference. The house rule I have imposed at work is that I don't mind personal use of the internet as long as it:
* does not interfere with the performance of the employees job
* does not bring the company into disrepute
[/ QUOTE ]
Thus far I am totally with you. I would, though, point out that having whatever material on ones computer as an employee does not discredit the company as far as it does not leave the machine.
[/ QUOTE ]
* does not offend other employees
[/ QUOTE ]
This may or may not be reasonable. I do accept that there could be a problem if your office is open plan, as you said, but still, as far as the PCs are not used by several people in turn, the other employees have no right to be offended by what's on their collegues' computers. Nobody forces them to look at it. After all the same is for pictures of spouses/children/pets peple set up in their workspace.
[ QUOTE ]
... likewise the desktop background of one of our gay employees snogging his boyfriend did not receive universal admiration.
[/ QUOTE ]
This could very well be discrimination. What If I was gay and would be affected by seeing pictures of hetero couple kissing or families cuddling their babies?
I think we also could have a slight difference between different legal point of views. In Sweden it is accepted that while the PC hardware and software are owned by the company the content (documents, non-software or even free-software files) put there by the employee is not. If you put it in a folder and name it "jenkus private porn files" it is illegal for the employer to look at it even. Same is for private emails of type forename.surname@company.se . Only emails to addresses of type sales@company.se can be viewed by employer without explicit permission.
Oh, and the reason why the IT guys don't like others to have porn on their PCs is, besides they may get more viruses to remove, that the downloading of the porn takes the bandwith away from their own online gaming!!
Neddie_Seagoon
Well-Known Member
Our PCs may be used by anyone. Very few people have their "own" PCs. The can log in on any PC.
In UK I am legally responsible for the content of our computer systems storage (which is all networked - desktop PC hard drives only hold OS and applications - no data, laptops are automatically mirrored to network storage). I am the registered person accountable for all our data, irrespective of who stored it on our systems, so the data belongs to the company embodied by me. Anyone choosing to store personal data on a work machine has de facto consented to share it.
You cannot avoid seeing screens as you walk around the building - you would have to get close to read text, but you could recognise a pair of boobs from 10 metres, so inadvertent offence is very possible. Agree that someone might be offended by a hetero couple or baby, but such images are so commonly encountered in public that it would be difficult to make a strong protest, whereas the poor gays - look at the outcry on here over some TV programme recently - homosexual imagery is not common in public places.
The offence bit is interesting and difficult, I am not offended by full frontal, but many folks are. We have a duty to protect people in the workplace, and we could be sued if we failed to do so, either directly or for constructive dismissal, so it is a difficult line to walk, especially as I am of the view that offence is never given, it is always taken.
UK privacy laws basically allow us to read staff emails with good reason, which is not surprising as we are legally responsible for what they may say. We tell staff up front that their emails, web browsing and telephone calls are all logged, recorded, and should not be assumed to be private, but we will only access them if there is a problem which requires the content to be recalled.
The whole business of these privacy laws caused difficulty when they came out in the UK, and they were quickly ameliorated from "absolutely no looking" to "no looking without good reason". As good reason is easy to invent they are effectively worthless, any employer can invent good reason to spy on staff. Fundamentally there is no concept of absolute privacy in a UK workplace except perhaps in toilets & changing rooms, and even there CCTV could probably be justified on a temporary basis if there were a serious theft problem.
In UK I am legally responsible for the content of our computer systems storage (which is all networked - desktop PC hard drives only hold OS and applications - no data, laptops are automatically mirrored to network storage). I am the registered person accountable for all our data, irrespective of who stored it on our systems, so the data belongs to the company embodied by me. Anyone choosing to store personal data on a work machine has de facto consented to share it.
You cannot avoid seeing screens as you walk around the building - you would have to get close to read text, but you could recognise a pair of boobs from 10 metres, so inadvertent offence is very possible. Agree that someone might be offended by a hetero couple or baby, but such images are so commonly encountered in public that it would be difficult to make a strong protest, whereas the poor gays - look at the outcry on here over some TV programme recently - homosexual imagery is not common in public places.
The offence bit is interesting and difficult, I am not offended by full frontal, but many folks are. We have a duty to protect people in the workplace, and we could be sued if we failed to do so, either directly or for constructive dismissal, so it is a difficult line to walk, especially as I am of the view that offence is never given, it is always taken.
UK privacy laws basically allow us to read staff emails with good reason, which is not surprising as we are legally responsible for what they may say. We tell staff up front that their emails, web browsing and telephone calls are all logged, recorded, and should not be assumed to be private, but we will only access them if there is a problem which requires the content to be recalled.
The whole business of these privacy laws caused difficulty when they came out in the UK, and they were quickly ameliorated from "absolutely no looking" to "no looking without good reason". As good reason is easy to invent they are effectively worthless, any employer can invent good reason to spy on staff. Fundamentally there is no concept of absolute privacy in a UK workplace except perhaps in toilets & changing rooms, and even there CCTV could probably be justified on a temporary basis if there were a serious theft problem.
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
* does not offend other employees
The latter is accepted as a catch-all that covers viewing porn, engaging in racism, and anything else that a co-worker might find offensive and thus disrupt the harmony of the workplace.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately this is where the Festival of Light can step in as it only takes one Mary Whitehouse/Lord Longford acolyte in each workplace to bring the UK to the verge of a Victorian backlash.
It's the same as people, quite legally, driving at 30mph on a twisty A road and holding up everyone who wishes to travel (quite legally) at 60 mph. One party exercises their wish on everyone else by default.
* does not offend other employees
The latter is accepted as a catch-all that covers viewing porn, engaging in racism, and anything else that a co-worker might find offensive and thus disrupt the harmony of the workplace.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately this is where the Festival of Light can step in as it only takes one Mary Whitehouse/Lord Longford acolyte in each workplace to bring the UK to the verge of a Victorian backlash.
It's the same as people, quite legally, driving at 30mph on a twisty A road and holding up everyone who wishes to travel (quite legally) at 60 mph. One party exercises their wish on everyone else by default.