OT: ethics

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Someone was gloating over getting miles for a long work related trip. I
> said that since the employer bought the tickets, the employer should get
> the miles. The silence was deafening :-).

Well, they used to. When I worked for Lockheed, we turned over the miles to
the company.

Tom

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote
>
> Who is the better worker? Based on a true story.
>
> At the Widget Factory, workers wee expected to make 100 widgets each every
> day. Anything less than 85 would get you a warning, three warnings you
> are out.
>
> Stan goes to hs bench at the start of the shift. He takes a quick break
> and is back in the allotted time. Takes lunch and promptly return. At
> the end of the day, he is able to make 90 widgets, the best of his
> ability.
>
> Richard punches in on time but is usually a few minutes late getting to
> his bench.
> Every half hour he is out taking a smoke break. At lunch, he is the first
> to wash up, last to return. More smoke breaks in the afternoon. He alow
> wanders down tot he supply room sometime chatting with othersa long htee
> way. At the end of the shift he is washed up and standing at the time
> clock, first to punch out. At t he end of the day, he's made 120 widgets,
> yet some call him a slacker because he is always away from his bench so
> much. .
>
> Big Boss says Richard is no longer alllowed to wander away. He goes from
> 120 Widgets to 99 per day but Big Boss is happy because Richard is now a
> steady worker.
>
> New model Widget II is starting production. No one knows how to make it.
> Richard ignores those trying. Engineer that designed part comes and tries
> and fails after a day. Bring in tooling man at big bucks. He too fails
> after a half day. Everyone but Richard goes to lunch.
>
> Ten minutes later, Richard puts perfect Widget II on my desk and asks, "is
> it OK if I go down to the storeroom?" Yes, you can and you can have a
> smoke too.
>
> Richard is his real names and he made parts on a Pines tubing bender
> better and faster than anyone. He worked in spurts so no, your argument
> that he could produce more if he stayed at the machine were proven wrong
> time and again. Many people are best productive if just left alone to do
> their jobs.
>
> Posted from work.
>
>
OK, I see your true story and raise you two true stories.

I had a good friend who was a radio engineer. He was responsible for all
things technical for a number of radio stations. Everything from the
transmission towers, the transmitters themselves and anything electronic in
the place. And he was very good at his job. He was some kinda electronic
genius from an early age. He had it in his genes.

A moron, managerial type was hired at a radio station he was working at. He
noted that Marty was spending a lot of time drinking coffee and playing
cards in the conference room. Which he immediately interpered as some form
of laziness. So he set out to find all kinds of stupid grunt tasks for
Marty to perform so "he could earn his money". Marty tried to explain to
him that he followed a strict routine to keep the station on the air and
insure uninterupted service. But drone manager was not impressed with facts
or logic.

Soon, the predicted disaster struck. Marty was out running errands for the
drone manager when the radio station went down. It took almost an hour to
contact Marty because the drone manager wanted to save money by taking away
his car phone. This was pre cellular phone days. And it took another hour
or two for Marty to drive to the transmission tower and replace a huge tube
in the transmitter.

And this is precisely the kind of thing he did on a regular basis before
drone manager showed up and tried to "save money" and make Marty "earn his
money". He got called on the carpet and elequently explained his procedures
that were gutted by said drone manager. Drone manager was not fired, but he
was stripped of all powers over Marty. Marty returned to his usual routine
and the station never went down again as long as he worked there.

Story number two.

Had a friend named Mike. He was a radio operator in the navy aboard an
aircraft carrier. He worked the evening shift. He brought a pillow to work.
He slept most of the night. Every so often he would get a call on the radio.
It was a routine thing to insure that all communications were working well
in case operations needed to be started up. So Mike would just sleep untill
that call came in. He would wake up, take care of biz and promptly go back
to sleep.

Well, it had to happen. He got a young, fresh out of school officer in, who
objected to his "unmilitary" approach to his job. Mike was very good at his
job and tried to explain to young, brash officer why he did what he did. But
young brash officer just had to assert himself and gave Mike the oldest
grunt job in the Navy, scrubbing floors.

Sooooo....., Mke scrubbed the floors and ignored the call coming in. Which
was easy to do, since Mike scrubbed the floor in the radio room and was sent
out into the hall way to scrub those floors. He probably would have ended up
scrubbing the whole ship down if this idiot officer would have been allowed
to continue this lunacy.

Mike got called into the CO's office the next day to explain why he did not
answer his radio calls. He explained what happened. The CO was shocked that
this idiot thought scrubbing floors was more important and "more military"
than insuring the readiness of the carrier battle group to conduct
operations.

Idiot officer got reprimanded and Mike went back to his regular routine the
next night. He brought his pillow to work each night after that. And nobody
gave him any trouble after that.

Also posted from work.

And I have to make a personal call now to see about a present for my honey.

Ain't nobody here but us "unethical" folks...

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mention was made on the news tonight that "Cyber Monday" was coming up
> when everyone would be going back to work and ordering online.
>
> I was already aware that most newsgroups (not so much this one) traffic
> dropped off considerably on the weekends and holidays.
>
> So the only conclusion I can reach is that using your employers computer
> during work hours for personal matters has become widely accepted.
>
> I grew up in a different era - work was for working. If I'd done similar
> stuff (no computers then) I'd have gotten fired - and I would have
> deserved it.
>
> On a related subject, I was doing some contract programming for a large
> company when the frequent flier programs were just getting started.
> Someone was gloating over getting miles for a long work related trip. I
> said that since the employer bought the tickets, the employer should get
> the miles. The silence was deafening :-).
>
> Work ethics sure have changed.
>
> --

I have multiple computers. One is just for work. The others are all
comingled in their function. My work day is often erratic, sometimes very
busy and sometimes very slow. I mix and match all the time. My work does
not suffer because I can educate/amuse myself during normal business hours.

I should also point out that I spend hours everyday doing research that
directly supports the company. And I do this all hours of the day and night.
If I didn't, I wouldn't have a job.

In article <[email protected]>, Larry
Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:37:12 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > I'd not be quite so strict about music--if listening to music while you
> > work makes you more productive, and it does for some people (I'm not one
> > of them), then it's in the company's interest for them to listen to it.
>
> As long as other people don't have to listen :-).
>
> I almost feel I should apologize for what's turning into a never ending
> thread :-).
>
> But as long as I'm curmudgeon for the day, the above brings up another
> puzzler. Seems like everyone under 50, and a goodly number over that,
> are either listening to music or using a cell phone almost every waking
> minute. What gives?
>
> Do they need constant mental stimulation? Is perpetual social contact
> required to keep them sane? Are they afraid that in quiet and solitude
> they'll find their brain has no worthwhile thoughts?
>
> BTW, I love music. Mostly classical. But I don't use it as silence
> filler. I won't run the radio in the car unless I'm on a deserted
> highway because I find my attention gets too engrossed in the music.
> When I want music, I lean back in my recliner, close my eyes, and
> *listen*.

Speaking for myself, having music playing helps me deal with my mild
tinnitus. Silence isn't silent for me. It's having mosquitos live in my
head. And when I have a cold it's bees, not mosquitos.

On Nov 30, 9:33=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > Who is the better worker? =A0Based on a true story.
>
> > At the Widget Factory, workers wee expected to make 100 widgets each
> > every day. =A0Anything less than 85 would get you a warning, three
> > warnings =A0you are out.
>
> > Stan goes to hs bench at the start of the shift. =A0He takes a quick
> > break and is back in the allotted time. =A0 Takes lunch and promptly
> > return. =A0At the end of the day, he is able to make 90 widgets, the
> > best of his ability.
>
> > Richard punches in on time but is usually a few minutes late getting
> > to his bench.
> > Every half hour he is out taking a smoke break. =A0At lunch, he is the
> > first to wash up, last to return. =A0More smoke breaks in the
> > afternoon. =A0He alow wanders down tot he supply room sometime chatting
> > with othersa long htee way. =A0 At the end of the shift he is washed
> > up and standing at the time clock, first to punch out. =A0At t he end
> > of the day, he's made 120 widgets, yet some call him a slacker
> > because he is always away from his bench so much. .
>
> > Big Boss says Richard is no longer alllowed to wander away. =A0He goes
> > from 120 Widgets to 99 per day but Big Boss is happy because Richard
> > is now a steady worker.
>
> > New model Widget II is starting production. =A0No one knows how to make
> > it. Richard ignores those trying. =A0Engineer that designed part comes
> > and tries and fails after a day. =A0Bring in tooling man at big bucks.
> > He too fails after a half day. =A0Everyone but Richard goes to lunch.
>
> > Ten minutes later, Richard puts perfect Widget II on my desk and
> > asks, "is it OK if I go down to the storeroom?" =A0Yes, you can and you
> > can have =A0a smoke too.
>
> > Richard is his real names and he made parts on a Pines tubing bender
> > better and faster than anyone. =A0He worked in spurts so no, your
> > argument that he could produce more if he stayed at the machine were
> > proven wrong time and again. =A0Many people are best productive if just
> > left alone to do their jobs.
>
> > Posted from work.
>
> Sounds like Big Boss is the kind of guy who stands by his window with wat=
ch
> in hand noting who comes in 30 seconds late but he's not there when the g=
uy
> goes home at 2 AM.

We had an executive manager one time who, about 8:00 noted the cars in
the parking lot and commented that these same cars would be there at
6:00 (and past). ...and that it was amazing that the parking lots
filled from front to back and emptied the opposite direction.

TJ Watson Jr., when asked how many people worked at IBM, is famously
quoted as answering "about half".

"Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Dacon" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Someone was gloating over getting miles for a long work related trip. I
>>> said that since the employer bought the tickets, the employer should get
>>> the miles. The silence was deafening :-).
>>
>> Well, they used to. When I worked for Lockheed, we turned over the
>> miles to the company.
>
> A friend who works for the US Geological Survey told me he is not
> allowed to join a frequent flyer program.
>
>

Think about that for just a second. Does that even sound close to
believable? (Hint: No.)

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:24:25 -0600, the infamous dpb <[email protected]>
scrawled the following:

>[email protected] wrote:
>...
>> ... Salary, at least in theory, has nothing to do with the actual
>> time worked.
>
>I've no clue where on earth or which employer(s) you've worked that
>would have that notion...

Every employer wants a salary based on 40 hours but many also -expect-
the salaried employee to work 60 hours a week for it. Many get it.

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> But as long as I'm curmudgeon for the day, the above brings up another
> puzzler. Seems like everyone under 50, and a goodly number over that,
> are either listening to music or using a cell phone almost every waking
> minute. What gives?

People like music.

>
> Do they need constant mental stimulation? Is perpetual social contact
> required to keep them sane? Are they afraid that in quiet and solitude
> they'll find their brain has no worthwhile thoughts?
>

No.


> BTW, I love music. Mostly classical. But I don't use it as silence
> filler. I won't run the radio in the car unless I'm on a deserted
> highway because I find my attention gets too engrossed in the music.
> When I want music, I lean back in my recliner, close my eyes, and
> *listen*.
>

Good for you. Why does that peculiarity of yours cause you to believe there
might be something wrong with the people who function differently than you?

I think the better question is why do some people feel the need to vilify
the differences they see in other people, from their own righteous ways?
Perhaps a certain insecurity in their own ways? Perhaps simple jealousy?
Perhaps they just need to get laid?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>
>>> But as long as I'm curmudgeon for the day, the above brings up
>>> another puzzler. Seems like everyone under 50, and a goodly number
>>> over that, are either listening to music or using a cell phone
>>> almost every waking minute. What gives?
>>>
>>> Do they need constant mental stimulation? Is perpetual social
>>> contact required to keep them sane? Are they afraid that in quiet
>>> and solitude they'll find their brain has no worthwhile thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> No, it's not mental stimulation that keeps them on the go - it's
>> pathological insecurity. To validate their own self-worth it's
>> important that their existence be recognized by as many as possible.
>
> Uh, how does listening to music "validate their own self-worth" or result
> in
> their existence being recognized?

Precisely. I believe the more accurate statement is that those who spend so
much time contriving pseduo-psychological BS about other people who hold
different interests, or position their own ways against those of others as
if their ways are somehow more noble, are the ones guilty of validating
their own self-worth.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:21:43 -0500, Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> But as long as I'm curmudgeon for the day, the above brings up another
>> puzzler. Seems like everyone under 50, and a goodly number over that,
>> are either listening to music or using a cell phone almost every waking
>> minute. What gives?
>
> People like music.
>

Most of us do. But not every waking minute - that's not a like, that's
an addiction.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Tom Dacon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
: "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: > Someone was gloating over getting miles for a long work related
trip. I
: > said that since the employer bought the tickets, the employer should
get
: > the miles. The silence was deafening :-).
:
: Well, they used to. When I worked for Lockheed, we turned over the
miles to
: the company.

And what did Lockheed do with them, executive compensation perk?

Dave in Houston

On Nov 30, 12:24=A0pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > ... Salary, at least in theory, has nothing to do with the actual
> > time worked.
>
> I've no clue where on earth or which employer(s) you've worked that
> would have that notion...

The *theory* is that you're paid to do a job and measured on that,
rather than the number of hours sitting at a desk. In theory, theory
and reality are the same. In reality, they're different.

When I worked for IBM no one ever looked at my hours. I could come
and go as I pleased. The only rule was that if I wasn't going to show
up management should know about it, preferably ahead of time. THe
last decade or so I was there, working from home was perfectly
acceptable though again, management had to know how to get ahold of
you.

"willshak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> on 11/30/2009 1:57 PM (ET) Mike Marlow wrote the following:
>> "willshak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>> Well it does in union shops. In non union shops, it's the quality of the
>>> work performed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I thought the term "salary" had no definition in a union environment.
>
> I had an annual salary in a civil service union shop.
>

But you weren't union - right?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

I went the other way, buying my own computer to do things for work
quicker, easier and in many cases that couldn't be done with the
computer and software provided by my employer. Management got wind of
this and I was accused of makingn unauthorized purchases and was using
unauthorized software. When I told them I'd bought the computer and
software, out of my own pocket, so that I could do things for my job I
couldn't do with their "office computers" - actually terminals to a main
frame - they were shocked - and confused. Spent a good deal of my time
and money getting around their constraints and spent the last 15 years
of my working career telecommuting three or four days a week.

Got a new boss who insisted that computers were tools, not toys, and you
worked on computers and must not see it as play, even if the results
were the same. He insisted that I work IN the office Monday through
Friday. I said "Fine - but I'm only working 8 am to 5 pm, Monday
through Friday. Anything over that had to go on the books as overtime -
at time and a half, double time on holidays. And he needed to call all
the consultants I worked with an notify them that they were no longer to
call me after normal working hours or on weekends."

By the end of the first week he'd gotten a lot of calls from consultants
complaining about their projects being delayed because they couldn't
call me at home at 10 pm on a week night or up to midnight on weekends
to get things they needed or send me draft reports to review and comment
on by the next day.

When he finally figured out he was getting 40 hours of work out of me a
week - IN the office - and 50 or 60 hours a week - from home (the extra
20 hours being free since they didn't get put on my time card - he let
me return to my telecommuting. He never could figure out why I'd put in
extra hours - "'cause it's interesting and fun!" was incomprehensible
to him.

So - at least for me - it was the opposite of what seems to be the norm
in the new work environment.

"willshak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Well it does in union shops. In non union shops, it's the quality of the
> work performed.
>

I thought the term "salary" had no definition in a union environment.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:713802f7-e61c-4363-956f-3138110f90ee@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 2, 9:37 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Precisely. I believe the more accurate statement is that those who spend
> so
> much time contriving pseduo-psychological BS about other people who hold
> different interests, or position their own ways against those of others as
> if their ways are somehow more noble, are the ones guilty of validating
> their own self-worth.
>

Does anyone else see the irony in the above statement?

**************************************************************************

I do...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Dacon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> : Dave, did you happen to notice the thread topic?
> :
> : I shouldn't have to explain this, but the point was that the miles
> didn't
> : belong to me. So it would have been unethical for me to keep them. Are
> you
> : with me so far? Now, for extra points, contemplate this: the people at
> : Lockheed who found them in their possession then had an ethics problem
> of
> : their own to solve. I hope - I really do - that they solved that
> problem in
> : an ethically sound way.
> :
> : Ethics. You could look it up.
>
>
> Preachy aren't we, Tom? I'll stand my ethics next to yours anytime,
> Tom..
> I flew enough in my later years with Southern Pacific that I made
> Silver Elite with Continental. SP was happy for us to keep the frequent
> flyer miles. And while nobody ever stated the company's philosophy [to
> me] I always felt like that since we were the "road warriors"
> [so-to-speak] who left our families and homelife behind for the benefit
> of the company, often for a month at a time, they were happy for us to
> have the extra perk.
> So, Tom, it begs the question, "Why would Lockheed NOT want their
> employees to have them as an extra perk? And, you've still not answered
> the original question, what did Lockheed [corporate] do with them?
> Throw them away?
>

Just spoke with a friend who is almost ready to retire from Lockheed. He
tells me Lockheed does not and never had a policy that you had to turn the
mileage over to the company. I really don't know if that's true or not
myself, and I won't argue it one way or another, but it's an equally valid
voice from a Lockheed employee.

As to the original claim that the employee had to turn the points over to
Lockheed management - that's pure bull. Points cannot be transferred like
that and they never could. You could purchase tickets for other people with
your points, but they were not transferable by any airlines that I am aware
of. If the company purchased the tickets on the corporate account, it is
possible that they might have collected the points on the corporate account
which could be used to obtain free tickets, but that's not what the original
claim or statement was.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Tom Dacon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I shouldn't have to explain this, but the point was that the miles didn't
> belong to me. So it would have been unethical for me to keep them.

That would depend on company policy. Airlines started the free miles thing
as a way of garnering repeat business from frequent fliers, They did not
cost the ticket buyer (company) anything extra. It was a little reword for
flying a specific airline. Some companies let the employees keep and use
them as they see fit. A little perk that cost them nothing out of pocket.

If it was Lockheed's policy to take the miles, so be it, but not every
company does or cares. Thus, no ethics problem.

On Dec 2, 9:37=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Precisely. =A0I believe the more accurate statement is that those who spe=
nd so
> much time contriving pseduo-psychological BS about other people who hold
> different interests, or position their own ways against those of others a=
s
> if their ways are somehow more noble, are the ones guilty of validating
> their own self-worth.
>

Does anyone else see the irony in the above statement?

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> [1] Part of that was owing to the fact that while this was a quite large
>>> overall organization it was (at that time still) 100% employee-owned;
>>> hence, there was an inherent self-rewarding financial incentive to do
>>> well financially for the company as it was essentially working for
>>> oneself.
>>
>> While that makes a lot of sense, properly run private companies offer
>> good incentives also. Profit sharing and bonuses work well. ...
>
> Never said it didn't; simply was describing one particular organization.
>
> OTOH, ime many companies that have profit sharing and/or bonus plans tend
> to "top-load" the rewards from those more based on position than actual
> performance.

That statement does not make any sense. I assume you mean that they top
load based on position, regardless of performance. That would make perfect
sense, based on the inherent expectation of those positions. Performance is
a measurement that deals with the individual and not the position.


> The company of which I was speaking (being a bunch of engineers/scientists
> from the git-go) had a set of formulae the founders had derived to
> arbitrate based on specific criteria.
>

That makes even less sense than the first part of your response. And they
say politicians speak in double-talk. "They" have never spoken with an
engineer...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> [1] Part of that was owing to the fact that while this was a quite
>>>>> large overall organization it was (at that time still) 100%
>>>>> employee-owned; hence, there was an inherent self-rewarding financial
>>>>> incentive to do well financially for the company as it was essentially
>>>>> working for oneself.
>>>> While that makes a lot of sense, properly run private companies offer
>>>> good incentives also. Profit sharing and bonuses work well. ...
>>> Never said it didn't; simply was describing one particular organization.
>>>
>>> OTOH, ime many companies that have profit sharing and/or bonus plans
>>> tend to "top-load" the rewards from those more based on position than
>>> actual performance.
>>
>> That statement does not make any sense. I assume you mean that they top
>> load based on position, regardless of performance. That would make
>> perfect sense, based on the inherent expectation of those positions.
>> Performance is a measurement that deals with the individual and not the
>> position.
>
> I have no idea what you mean "does not make any sense" since you then
> restate the identical statement...

Maybe a bad way to have stated it. I meant that your comment seemed to
imply a problem with that model, when in fact it's a perfectly workable
model.

>
>
>>> The company of which I was speaking (being a bunch of
>>> engineers/scientists from the git-go) had a set of formulae the founders
>>> had derived to arbitrate based on specific criteria.
>>>
>>
>> That makes even less sense than the first part of your response. And
>> they say politicians speak in double-talk. "They" have never spoken with
>> an engineer...
>
> It makes perfect sense -- there were precise, known performance criteria
> and a model for how those criteria fit into the overall performance of the
> company that justified the value of each item in the formula. It made for
> a very transparent manner in which if one was motivated to earn bonus or
> stock options there was a clear-cut way to achieve that by performing well
> in those metrics...
>

Well - it probably makes perfect sense to you but what you replied with
above is a damned sight more explanatory than the cryptic stuff you wrote
the first time. "To arbitrate" does not convey much.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> "willshak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>>>
>>>>> Well it does in union shops. In non union shops, it's the quality of
>>>>> the work performed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I thought the term "salary" had no definition in a union environment.
>>> I had an annual salary in a civil service union shop.
>>>
>>
>> But you weren't union - right?
>
> Teachers?
>
> Don't really know, just asking ...
>

Don't know either... are they salaried or hourly? You might have a point
there.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> But as long as I'm curmudgeon for the day, the above brings up another
>>> puzzler. Seems like everyone under 50, and a goodly number over that,
>>> are either listening to music or using a cell phone almost every waking
>>> minute. What gives?
>>
>> People like music.
>
> And some like to inflict it upon the rest of us (altho it for the most
> part is a far stretch to name it "music") :(

Especially that classical stuff...


>
> OTOH, some people like attention and crave it and go out of their way to
> attain it. And, there are a fair number of studies which indeed do show
> that younger generation that have been raised w/ such stimulation are,
> indeed, addicted to it.
>

I can believe there is an addiction potential.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Nov 30, 11:27=A0am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:49:24 -0600, Swingman wrote:
> > Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> >> Work ethics sure have changed.
>
> > I wouldn't bet on it.
>
> > However, what has changed, or has been lost along the way, is the
> > _stigma_ attached to unethical behavior and cheating.
>
> I think you've got it. =A0But it is interesting that I got a lot more
> response to the afterthought on frequent flier miles than to the main
> thread of shopping during working time.
>
> As for those who thought I worked in a sweatshop, I was a computer
> programmer for about 45 years. =A0The last 15 or so as self-employed. =A0=
I
> went in when I felt like it, worked at home when I wanted, etc.. =A0The
> rare times when I conducted personal business at work, I got it approved
> first. =A0And as a freelance, I deducted any such time, and any long lunc=
h
> hours, from the hours billed.

There is a *big* difference between a salaried person and a
contractor. Charging a contract for personal time spent is (almost
always, but I'm sure someone will find an exception somewhere ;)
fraud. Salary, at least in theory, has nothing to do with the actual
time worked.

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:02:24 -0800, the infamous "DGDevin"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>> So the only conclusion I can reach is that using your employers
>> computer during work hours for personal matters has become widely
>> accepted.
>>
>> I grew up in a different era - work was for working. If I'd done
>> similar stuff (no computers then) I'd have gotten fired - and I would
>> have deserved it.
>>
>> On a related subject, I was doing some contract programming for a
>> large company when the frequent flier programs were just getting
>> started. Someone was gloating over getting miles for a long work
>> related trip. I said that since the employer bought the tickets, the
>> employer should get the miles. The silence was deafening :-).
>>
>> Work ethics sure have changed.
>
>Oh puhlease, every job I've had going back forty years had its share of
>slackers, and scads of people took advantage of perks like company cars,
>business meals and so on. Imagining that people only goofed-off on the job
>starting with the last generation or so and prior to that it was universal
>selfless nobility is nonsense.

There is also a thing called "down time", say, when an employee hands
in a report and is waiting for the boss to read it and let them edit
it, etc. They jump on the Internet and look for xmas presents while
waiting, since they have nothing else to do for the company at the
moment. This keeps the employee busy and their morale high. It's good
for the company. When said employee has other business they could
attend to but they spend company time online, that's an ethical
breach.

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

on 11/30/2009 1:57 PM (ET) Mike Marlow wrote the following:
> "willshak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Well it does in union shops. In non union shops, it's the quality of the
>> work performed.
>>
>>
>
> I thought the term "salary" had no definition in a union environment.

I had an annual salary in a civil service union shop.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"Tom Dacon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

: Dave, did you happen to notice the thread topic?
:
: I shouldn't have to explain this, but the point was that the miles
didn't
: belong to me. So it would have been unethical for me to keep them. Are
you
: with me so far? Now, for extra points, contemplate this: the people at
: Lockheed who found them in their possession then had an ethics problem
of
: their own to solve. I hope - I really do - that they solved that
problem in
: an ethically sound way.
:
: Ethics. You could look it up.


Preachy aren't we, Tom? I'll stand my ethics next to yours anytime,
Tom..
I flew enough in my later years with Southern Pacific that I made
Silver Elite with Continental. SP was happy for us to keep the frequent
flyer miles. And while nobody ever stated the company's philosophy [to
me] I always felt like that since we were the "road warriors"
[so-to-speak] who left our families and homelife behind for the benefit
of the company, often for a month at a time, they were happy for us to
have the extra perk.
So, Tom, it begs the question, "Why would Lockheed NOT want their
employees to have them as an extra perk? And, you've still not answered
the original question, what did Lockheed [corporate] do with them?
Throw them away?

Dave in Houston

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mention was made on the news tonight that "Cyber Monday" was coming up
> when everyone would be going back to work and ordering online.
>
> I was already aware that most newsgroups (not so much this one) traffic
> dropped off considerably on the weekends and holidays.
>
> So the only conclusion I can reach is that using your employers computer
> during work hours for personal matters has become widely accepted.
>
> I grew up in a different era - work was for working. If I'd done similar
> stuff (no computers then) I'd have gotten fired - and I would have
> deserved it.
>
> On a related subject, I was doing some contract programming for a large
> company when the frequent flier programs were just getting started.
> Someone was gloating over getting miles for a long work related trip. I
> said that since the employer bought the tickets, the employer should get
> the miles. The silence was deafening :-).
>
> Work ethics sure have changed.


I found that employees that watched the clock had the most to fear if caught
doing a little personal business on company time. I also found the the
employee that stayed until that days job was done regardless of what time
the got off had the least to worry about.

Tom Dacon wrote:

>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Someone was gloating over getting miles for a long work related trip. I
>> said that since the employer bought the tickets, the employer should get
>> the miles. The silence was deafening :-).
>
> Well, they used to. When I worked for Lockheed, we turned over the miles
> to the company.
>
> Tom

If I understand correctly, the frequent flier programs do not allow
companies to benefit from those miles (I could be wrong, but seem to recall
having read that policy several years ago). I certainly know that my
employer does not expect those miles to be turned over to the company, but
also does not condone people selecting airlines based upon frequent flier
programs.

As far as using computer for personal business at work -- my employer has
a written policy that such use is acceptable as long as it is on a
non-interference basis with work.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> It turned out he already knew the whole story (presumably that's one of
> the reasons one is promoted to that level at that factory) and he managed
> sufficient gentle persuasion to convince the geek to dig the cards out of
> the trash and put the (unsequenced) decks back in order before reporting
> back to him.
good storry snipped here>
> This particular widget company's top management didn't like the idea of
> major applications being run on little 32K minicomputers, so they spent to
> have three (other) departments spend two years re-implementing that same
> software to run on "real" computers. When they were done, the only
> noticeable difference was that the runtime had increased from four hours
> to eighteen hours.
>
> Gotta just love that big iron. :)

Pogo was right. "We have met the enemy and he is us"

On 11/29/2009 09:28 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
> Mention was made on the news tonight that "Cyber Monday" was coming up
> when everyone would be going back to work and ordering online.
>
> I was already aware that most newsgroups (not so much this one) traffic
> dropped off considerably on the weekends and holidays.
>
> So the only conclusion I can reach is that using your employers computer
> during work hours for personal matters has become widely accepted.

I work "flex time", and I work from home. It's not unusual be asked to
be available for a 7am meeting, or do some testing during a midnight lab
shift or on a weekend because it's the only time the lab is available.
Sometimes lunch is a sandwich while sitting at the computer.

If I spend some time during the day ordering something online, I see no
problems.

If it gets excessive, then it's worth worrying about.

Chris

"Dave in Houston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Dacon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> And what did Lockheed do with them, executive compensation perk?
>
> Dave in Houston

Dave, did you happen to notice the thread topic?

I shouldn't have to explain this, but the point was that the miles didn't
belong to me. So it would have been unethical for me to keep them. Are you
with me so far? Now, for extra points, contemplate this: the people at
Lockheed who found them in their possession then had an ethics problem of
their own to solve. I hope - I really do - that they solved that problem in
an ethically sound way.

Ethics. You could look it up.

Tom

J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> I believe that if a country had a hundred people who didn't give a
>> shit about whether they were worshipped, that country would rule the
>> planet.
>
> This may be true, but I wasn't aware that "iworship" was a feature of
> the ipod.

You think Apple Acolytes DON'T comprise a religious movement?

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:37:31 -0600, dpb wrote:

> When self-employed and billing by the hour, obviously meticulous
> attention to billing only hours actually working for the particular
> client is mandatory.

Observing the performance of several "consultants" who billed by the day
or week is what made me billby the hour :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:37:33 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

>
> At a big blue widget factory, there was a software type who'd been
> criticized steadily by his boss for his un-engineering approach to
> writing software, for working on an erratic schedule, for showing a
> strong preference for /little/ computers, and for his unstructured
> approach to problem-solving...
>

Great story Morris. I think I knew one or two big blue employees like
that :-).

Many years ago at a small blue plotter maker, my boss used to go out to
the roach coach, buy my lunch, and quietly place it on my desk. He spent
a great deal of time ensuring that no one disturbed me :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> So the only conclusion I can reach is that using your employers
> computer during work hours for personal matters has become widely
> accepted.
>
> I grew up in a different era - work was for working. If I'd done
> similar stuff (no computers then) I'd have gotten fired - and I would
> have deserved it.
>
> On a related subject, I was doing some contract programming for a
> large company when the frequent flier programs were just getting
> started. Someone was gloating over getting miles for a long work
> related trip. I said that since the employer bought the tickets, the
> employer should get the miles. The silence was deafening :-).
>
> Work ethics sure have changed.

Oh puhlease, every job I've had going back forty years had its share of
slackers, and scads of people took advantage of perks like company cars,
business meals and so on. Imagining that people only goofed-off on the job
starting with the last generation or so and prior to that it was universal
selfless nobility is nonsense.

I remember working from Friday 7:30 normal walk in until
noon Monday. I found out Friday afternoon... It wasn't so
bad - I was working with one of my best friends who flew in.
We wrote code and repaired loaded hardware so the software
worked - demoed to the customer Monday a.m. 9:00 (we got showers
at 7:30 am, ate breakfast together and presented to the customer.
All that time without sleep or a mention or meal by the bosses.
The guard was flabbergasted - and kept passing on the word to the
next guard through the weekend. For years those guards knew us
at the door and we acknowledged their respect. The software
was later released as is on official releases and I suppose could
be in use today. We did good work together - watching out and
sticking it to the other guy all night to keep alert.

Yea - I got Monday afternoon 'off'! - The customer bought off
the software and hardware and thanked both of us (was my former
day to day customer) and was on their way.

Martin

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> ...
>>> ... Salary, at least in theory, has nothing to do with the actual
>>> time worked.
>> I've no clue where on earth or which employer(s) you've worked that would
>> have that notion...
>>
>
> I think what he's saying is that salaried employees typically work
> considerably more hours than what the expectations of their salary call for.
> That's certainly been my experience.
>

Phisherman wrote:
>
>
> Computers at work should never be used for personal effects, not
> email, not shopping, U-tube, music, dating or anything else that is
> not work related. Those who do are subject to termination. Frequent
> flyer miles can be used to upgrade a future business flight, but never
> for personal off-job use. These are strict morals and I know there
> are many companies that are very relaxed--but that can hurt more than
> help. Always best to keep business and personal as separate as
> possible.

Hmm. How do you feel about personal telephone calls? Wearing clothes to work
bought with your own money? Using the snack bar to eat your own personal
lunch?

Just askin'.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Sounds like Big Boss is the kind of guy who stands by his window with
> watch
> in hand noting who comes in 30 seconds late but he's not there when the
> guy
> goes home at 2 AM.
>

So, you've met him.

"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tom Dacon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> I shouldn't have to explain this, but the point was that the miles didn't
>> belong to me. So it would have been unethical for me to keep them.
>
> That would depend on company policy. Airlines started the free miles
> thing as a way of garnering repeat business from frequent fliers, They
> did not cost the ticket buyer (company) anything extra. It was a little
> reword for flying a specific airline. Some companies let the employees
> keep and use them as they see fit. A little perk that cost them nothing
> out of pocket.
>
> If it was Lockheed's policy to take the miles, so be it, but not every
> company does or cares. Thus, no ethics problem.
>

When I was the GM for an AC Delco wholesale distrubutor I paid with my
credit card all up front expenses to remodel the offices. I was reimbursed
by my employeer and I also received 5% credit for all of those purchases by
my CCard company.

Should I hve given the 5% back to my employeer, Hell no.
Nothing unethical there.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:49:24 -0600, Swingman wrote:

> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>> Work ethics sure have changed.
>
> I wouldn't bet on it.
>
> However, what has changed, or has been lost along the way, is the
> _stigma_ attached to unethical behavior and cheating.

I think you've got it. But it is interesting that I got a lot more
response to the afterthought on frequent flier miles than to the main
thread of shopping during working time.

As for those who thought I worked in a sweatshop, I was a computer
programmer for about 45 years. The last 15 or so as self-employed. I
went in when I felt like it, worked at home when I wanted, etc.. The
rare times when I conducted personal business at work, I got it approved
first. And as a freelance, I deducted any such time, and any long lunch
hours, from the hours billed.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Computers at work should never be used for personal effects, not
> email, not shopping, U-tube, music, dating or anything else that is
> not work related. Those who do are subject to termination. Frequent
> flyer miles can be used to upgrade a future business flight, but never
> for personal off-job use. These are strict morals and I know there
> are many companies that are very relaxed--but that can hurt more than
> help. Always best to keep business and personal as separate as
> possible.

Your world is too black and white. The real world has changed over the
years. These days, I use my own computer for work. My own home for an
office. All to the benefit of my employer. Lines have crossed and the
convenience of old rules such as those you prescribe above just are not
valid today. There are new definitions of what is acceptable, and as has
always been the case, they are defined by the employer. Sometimes that
definition is subject to negotiation with the employee - as has always been
the case, and sometimes it is not - as has always been the case.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:28:29 -0600, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Mention was made on the news tonight that "Cyber Monday" was coming up
>when everyone would be going back to work and ordering online.
>
>I was already aware that most newsgroups (not so much this one) traffic
>dropped off considerably on the weekends and holidays.
>
>So the only conclusion I can reach is that using your employers computer
>during work hours for personal matters has become widely accepted.
>
>I grew up in a different era - work was for working. If I'd done similar
>stuff (no computers then) I'd have gotten fired - and I would have
>deserved it.
>
>On a related subject, I was doing some contract programming for a large
>company when the frequent flier programs were just getting started.
>Someone was gloating over getting miles for a long work related trip. I
>said that since the employer bought the tickets, the employer should get
>the miles. The silence was deafening :-).
>
>Work ethics sure have changed.


Computers at work should never be used for personal effects, not
email, not shopping, U-tube, music, dating or anything else that is
not work related. Those who do are subject to termination. Frequent
flyer miles can be used to upgrade a future business flight, but never
for personal off-job use. These are strict morals and I know there
are many companies that are very relaxed--but that can hurt more than
help. Always best to keep business and personal as separate as
possible.

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> ...
>> ... Salary, at least in theory, has nothing to do with the actual
>> time worked.
>
> I've no clue where on earth or which employer(s) you've worked that would
> have that notion...
>

I think what he's saying is that salaried employees typically work
considerably more hours than what the expectations of their salary call for.
That's certainly been my experience.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Dec 1, 10:00=A0pm, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Computers at work should never be used for personal effects, not
> > email, not shopping, U-tube, music, dating or anything else that is
> > not work related. =A0Those who do are subject to termination. =A0 Frequ=
ent
> > flyer miles can be used to upgrade a future business flight, but never
> > for personal off-job use. =A0 =A0These are strict morals and I know the=
re
> > are many companies that are very relaxed--but that can hurt more than
> > help. =A0Always best to keep business and personal as separate as
> > possible.
>
> I don't agree with that last statement and I'd never work for a company a=
s
> strict as you mention.

Absolutely.

> Where I work, we have real humans for employees, we treat them with respe=
ct,
> and we know that no one can work all day without a break, mentally and
> physically. =A0Employees are rewarded for their good deeds and hard work =
too.

Treat people like adults and you'll have adults working for you
instead of children working for themselves.

> What you describe sounds like a concentration camp.

His attitude suggests that he enjoys the atmosphere, too.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> Work ethics sure have changed.

I wouldn't bet on it.

However, what has changed, or has been lost along the way, is the
_stigma_ attached to unethical behavior and cheating.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>
> But as long as I'm curmudgeon for the day, the above brings up another
> puzzler. Seems like everyone under 50, and a goodly number over that,
> are either listening to music or using a cell phone almost every
> waking minute. What gives?
>
> Do they need constant mental stimulation? Is perpetual social contact
> required to keep them sane? Are they afraid that in quiet and
> solitude they'll find their brain has no worthwhile thoughts?
>

No, it's not mental stimulation that keeps them on the go - it's
pathological insecurity. To validate their own self-worth it's important
that their existence be recognized by as many as possible.

They see rock stars and celebrities idolized and conclude that the more
people who love you, the more your 'worth' is validated. Only one in a
hundred thousand doesn't feel this way. In fact, a whole story was written
to illustrate the concept: "The Emperor Has No Clothes."

Here's an example from real life:

[ring-ring]
"Hello..."
"Is this Dr Feynman?"
"(wearily) Yes."
"Dr Richard P. Feynman?"
"Yes."
"Dr Feynman, my name is Joe Blow. I'm the United States charge d'affairs to
the Court of King Gustav V of Sweden. It is my distinct pleasure to inform
you that you have been awarded the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics!"
"Do you know what-the-hell time it is in California?"
"(?) Er, no...."
"It is three o'clock in the goddamn morning. Call back after nine!"
[click]
"???"

I believe that if a country had a hundred people who didn't give a shit
about whether they were worshipped, that country would rule the planet.

On Nov 30, 1:02=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > first. =A0And as a freelance, I deducted any such time, and any long lu=
nch
> > hours, from the hours billed.
>
> As a freelancer/self employed, chances are you probably work more than
> you could ever bill.

While not technically self employed, I worked as a contractor for
Lockheed Martin for a year. I regularly billed them for the 65-70hrs/
week worked. I wasn't paid an overtime multiplier but at my regular
hourly rate that would just have been a further embarrassment. ;-)

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> first. And as a freelance, I deducted any such time, and any long lunch
> hours, from the hours billed.

As a freelancer/self employed, chances are you probably work more than
you could ever bill.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:23:00 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:28:29 -0600, Larry Blanchard
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Mention was made on the news tonight that "Cyber Monday" was coming up
>>when everyone would be going back to work and ordering online.
>>
>>I was already aware that most newsgroups (not so much this one) traffic
>>dropped off considerably on the weekends and holidays.
>
>I work on a salary basis. The day they ding me for doing personal
>business "on company time" is when I turn into a 9-to-5er and start
>looking for another job. The employer-employee relationship certainly
>is a two-way street.

I forgot to mention that my normal hours are about 6:30AM to 5:30PM
and average a weekend a month and have been known to do all-nighters.
Yes, catching *any* flack for a little personal browsing would royally
piss me off.

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [1] Part of that was owing to the fact that while this was a quite large
> overall organization it was (at that time still) 100% employee-owned;
> hence, there was an inherent self-rewarding financial incentive to do well
> financially for the company as it was essentially working for oneself.

While that makes a lot of sense, properly run private companies offer good
incentives also. Profit sharing and bonuses work well. It also makes it
easy to find the slackers and get rid of them since they are taking "our"
money.

Pride in doing a good job helps too.

On Dec 1, 1:12=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > Do they need constant mental stimulation? =A0Is perpetual social contac=
t
> > required to keep them sane? =A0Are they afraid that in quiet and solitu=
de =A0
> > they'll find their brain has no worthwhile thoughts?
>
> I can't go to baseball games, anymore.
> The subtle sounds used to be part of the experience. Hearing the
> infielders punch the pockets of their gloves. Hearing them chatter to
> one another. Hearing *nothing* until there was something to hear, like
> the crack of the bat or a fastball smacking into the catcher's mit,
> followed by the grunt from the ump.
>
> Now, there isn't a single, solitary second that is allowed to pass at a
> ballgame. They are constantly playing music... even *in between*
> pitches. Drives me nuts. Started with the organ thing years ago, which
> was ok, because it seemed to be dictated by the tempo and status of the
> game, itself.
>
> But now, I don't know what they're thinking. What, if I'm not under a
> constant barrage of stimulation, I might forget why I'm there and walk
> out without buying another $5 beer or $15 program?
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Then there are the back-ground rythm track fillers during news casts.
They drive me nuts. If anyone is wondering why CNN is now dead-
last...maybe that is why.

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:44:58 -0600, Douglas Johnson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>IBM tried to take our frequent flier miles once. The airlines told
>>them to stuff it. The were issued to the traveler as an incentive to
>>choose their airline, not to the company as some sort of rebate. IBM
>>backed down (and hopefully fired the idiot bean-counter).
>
>In any other context (say a furniture vendor sending a TV to someone who bought
>furniture for a company), this would be called a "kick back". -- Doug

I don't have an counter argument, particularly now that fares vary so
widely.

krw <[email protected]> wrote:

>IBM tried to take our frequent flier miles once. The airlines told
>them to stuff it. The were issued to the traveler as an incentive to
>choose their airline, not to the company as some sort of rebate. IBM
>backed down (and hopefully fired the idiot bean-counter).

In any other context (say a furniture vendor sending a TV to someone who bought
furniture for a company), this would be called a "kick back". -- Doug

"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Mention was made on the news tonight that "Cyber Monday" was coming up
>> when everyone would be going back to work and ordering online.
>>
>> I was already aware that most newsgroups (not so much this one) traffic
>> dropped off considerably on the weekends and holidays.
>>
>> So the only conclusion I can reach is that using your employers computer
>> during work hours for personal matters has become widely accepted.
>>
>> I grew up in a different era - work was for working. If I'd done similar
>> stuff (no computers then) I'd have gotten fired - and I would have
>> deserved it.
>>

Ed,

When I heard of "Cyber Monday", I thought of exactly the same thing you
did--
how industry could be contributing to the degradation of the
employer-employee relationship.

Personally, I do 2/3 of my work for my employer at home--and from home I do
it using my
own computer. Using the employers computer now is not much different than
using
the employers phone was in years past... There will always be some who
take advantage of whatever system there is. I think that the real trick is
finding
a job that you want to do--and then the job will get done (the way it is
supposed to
be done, the way it ought to be done, and on time!). My job duties have
little room for
mediocrity. My employer doesn't mind if I look at a magazine after lunch...
Lots
of people are working harder than ever, but lots seem intent on doing as
little as possible....
I feel that there is cause for concern (about our nation's work ethic).

Bill





>> On a related subject, I was doing some contract programming for a large
>> company when the frequent flier programs were just getting started.
>> Someone was gloating over getting miles for a long work related trip. I
>> said that since the employer bought the tickets, the employer should get
>> the miles. The silence was deafening :-).
>>
>> Work ethics sure have changed.
>
> Not a question of ethics in some cases. Yes, I do use the computer at
> work for personal business, but I also use my computer at home for work.
> Rare, but I also get a phone call some evenings about a problem or I stop
> by the plant on a weekend. I can check some information about the
> building (temperature, humidity, etc) using GoToMyPC from home. The line
> between work and home get a little fuzzy at times.
>
> When I got a free ticket on an airline for any destination in the US, my
> boss (the owner) said, "oh good, you can take your wife on the next trip.
> I'm paying for the room anyway so she should enjoy it too. Be sure to
> have a nice dinner."
>
> Sorry that you've worked for a bunch of pricks in the past, but not every
> case of personal use is an ethics violation. I also call home every day
> from the company phone and take the company pickup if I need a truck. My
> work computer is loaded with many hours of personal music that I play
> during the day also on the speakers I bought with company money..
>

Swingman wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>> Work ethics sure have changed.
>
> I wouldn't bet on it.
>
> However, what has changed, or has been lost along the way, is the
> _stigma_ attached to unethical behavior and cheating.
>
One look at our Govt. will tell you that. No shame at all for cheating
on taxes or sleeping around.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Who is the better worker? Based on a true story.
>
> At the Widget Factory, workers wee expected to make 100 widgets each
> every day. Anything less than 85 would get you a warning, three
> warnings you are out.
>
> Stan goes to hs bench at the start of the shift. He takes a quick
> break and is back in the allotted time. Takes lunch and promptly
> return. At the end of the day, he is able to make 90 widgets, the
> best of his ability.
>
> Richard punches in on time but is usually a few minutes late getting
> to his bench.
> Every half hour he is out taking a smoke break. At lunch, he is the
> first to wash up, last to return. More smoke breaks in the
> afternoon. He alow wanders down tot he supply room sometime chatting
> with othersa long htee way. At the end of the shift he is washed
> up and standing at the time clock, first to punch out. At t he end
> of the day, he's made 120 widgets, yet some call him a slacker
> because he is always away from his bench so much. .
>
> Big Boss says Richard is no longer alllowed to wander away. He goes
> from 120 Widgets to 99 per day but Big Boss is happy because Richard
> is now a steady worker.
>
> New model Widget II is starting production. No one knows how to make
> it. Richard ignores those trying. Engineer that designed part comes
> and tries and fails after a day. Bring in tooling man at big bucks.
> He too fails after a half day. Everyone but Richard goes to lunch.
>
> Ten minutes later, Richard puts perfect Widget II on my desk and
> asks, "is it OK if I go down to the storeroom?" Yes, you can and you
> can have a smoke too.
>
> Richard is his real names and he made parts on a Pines tubing bender
> better and faster than anyone. He worked in spurts so no, your
> argument that he could produce more if he stayed at the machine were
> proven wrong time and again. Many people are best productive if just
> left alone to do their jobs.
>
> Posted from work.

Sounds like Big Boss is the kind of guy who stands by his window with watch
in hand noting who comes in 30 seconds late but he's not there when the guy
goes home at 2 AM.

I was thinking that it seems doubtful that many real slackers
take up woodworking as a hobby. It looks like a lot of work!
Not only that, one soon finds that it's more difficult than it
looks! :)

Bill

[email protected] wrote:
...
> ... Salary, at least in theory, has nothing to do with the actual
> time worked.

I've no clue where on earth or which employer(s) you've worked that
would have that notion...

--

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> Who is the better worker? Based on a true story.
>
> At the Widget Factory, workers wee expected to make 100 widgets each every

An actual true story

At a big blue widget factory, there was a software type who'd been
criticized steadily by his boss for his un-engineering approach to
writing software, for working on an erratic schedule, for showing a
strong preference for /little/ computers, and for his unstructured
approach to problem-solving...

On the way out of the widget factory one Friday evening, the guy was
stopped by his boss' boss' BOSS and asked how the current project
(scheduled for completion six months down the road) was going because it
was crucial that he be able to use at least a draft version of the
package under development to produce a division budget early the next
week. After about two minutes of increasingly stressed conversation, the
two parted - the 4th level manager to his car, and the software type
back into the factory.

The rest of his department had already left, and the computer room was
locked up tight, but there was a lab with a minicomputer open. The geek
called his wife, told her the situation, and sat down at the keypunch.

By six o'clock Monday morning the code was complete, test data had been
generated to exercise every part of the package, the package had been
verified bug-free, and was ready to crunch real numbers to produce a
real budget. Each program's card deck was rubber-banded and laid out on
a work table. The cards would have made a stack between five and six
feet high. It was time for a coffee break.

On the way to his desk from the coffee machine, he left a note on the
4th level manager's desk that, as far as he could tell, the software was
ready for a live data test. Back in his own office he got a yellow pad,
put his feet up on his desk, and sipped coffee while he made notes about
some possible ways to improve the existing package - until his boss
stopped by to confirm information that he'd completed the package over
the weekend. He was visibly upset and asked the software type to come to
his office...

...where he chewed the guy out for screwing up the development schedule
and "trashing" the department's mission. Even with the door closed,
everyone within fifty feet could hear him shout: "You SOB - if I thought
I could make it stick, I'd fire your ass! Now get outa my office!"

Very tired and very pissed, he went back to the minicomputer lab where
he returned the rubber bands to the box they'd come from and tossed the
decks of loose cards into the waste basket. That done, he returned to
his desk and consigned his wadded notes to the trash basket and was
wondering how he was going to make it through the day when the 4th level
manager appeared and offered coffee and an invitation for an immediate
one-on-one in /his/ office.

It turned out he already knew the whole story (presumably that's one of
the reasons one is promoted to that level at that factory) and he
managed sufficient gentle persuasion to convince the geek to dig the
cards out of the trash and put the (unsequenced) decks back in order
before reporting back to him.

When the geek reported back, he was told that the loud-mouthed manager
had already been replaced, and that he would never manage another
project at that widget company. His last words on the matter were:
"Thanks for all your work. Now go home and get some rest - you look like
hell."

Later that day (while the programmer slept) the package turned out what
was submitted to widget headquarters as the division's annual budget.

This particular widget company's top management didn't like the idea of
major applications being run on little 32K minicomputers, so they spent
to have three (other) departments spend two years re-implementing that
same software to run on "real" computers. When they were done, the only
noticeable difference was that the runtime had increased from four hours
to eighteen hours.

Gotta just love that big iron. :)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
...
> response to the afterthought on frequent flier miles than to the main
> thread of shopping during working time.
>
> As for those who thought I worked in a sweatshop, I was a computer
> programmer for about 45 years. The last 15 or so as self-employed. I
> went in when I felt like it, worked at home when I wanted, etc.. The
> rare times when I conducted personal business at work, I got it approved
> first. And as a freelance, I deducted any such time, and any long lunch
> hours, from the hours billed.

Has much to do w/ circumstances and workplace culture and how hours are
scheduled.

I've been in professional offices where rigorous hours were expected for
everybody including both departure as well as arrival. In that
environment, there's no room for personal time other than the mandatory,
short time to deal with stuff like answering the reminder phone from
dentists' office or home on the sick kids or whatever...

OTOH, I spent quite a long time (>20 yrs) in another organization that
was laisse-faire about individual hours as long as there was sufficient
overlap w/ colleagues that all necessary interactions occurred on a
timely basis. There, folks worked their own schedule and routinely
worked far over the "base 40" on own volition even accounting for
personal time taken while at the desk[1]. Abuse would be fairly easily
observed as it wouldn't take long before an excess of nonproductive
hours would show up in that individual's output. Individual timesheets
and logs were required to be kept as backup documentation although never
routinely scrutinized; only the reported hours on the bimonthly
timecards were routinely used.

When self-employed and billing by the hour, obviously meticulous
attention to billing only hours actually working for the particular
client is mandatory.

[1] Part of that was owing to the fact that while this was a quite large
overall organization it was (at that time still) 100% employee-owned;
hence, there was an inherent self-rewarding financial incentive to do
well financially for the company as it was essentially working for oneself.

--

[email protected] wrote:
...

> The *theory* is that you're paid to do a job and measured on that,
> rather than the number of hours sitting at a desk. In theory, theory
> and reality are the same. In reality, they're different.
...
Nowhere I ever worked (engineering) didn't have a listed set of office
hours as part of the employment arrangement whether there was a formal
contract agreement or simply as part of the package of information
personnel provided during hiring and/or orientation. "Theory" was there
was sufficient complexity in the work to keep one occupied those
hours...or more... :)

As noted in another thread, I've been in organizations that were at both
extremes (as well as in the middle) on actually keeping track or paying
attention to _when_ the hours were worked altho I've never been in one
that didn't keep track of which projects one was working on simply for
cost management and control; even in internal R&D organizations. It
would seem only if one was in a group that had only a single mission and
top-level budget could that not be required to have any handle
whatsoever on costs. And, of course, if one is working on projects that
have end-customers such as power nuclear reactors for specific
utilities, its clearly required to know which project gets billed
appropriately. And, of course, if one were working defense or other
gov't-funded contracts the paper reqm'ts to satisfy DCAA were
significant irrespective of the employer's bent w/o that "motivation".

--

I'm self-employed and right now my boss is riding my ass about posting
to usenet during work time.

Back to work!!


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> [1] Part of that was owing to the fact that while this was a quite large
>> overall organization it was (at that time still) 100% employee-owned;
>> hence, there was an inherent self-rewarding financial incentive to do well
>> financially for the company as it was essentially working for oneself.
>
> While that makes a lot of sense, properly run private companies offer good
> incentives also. Profit sharing and bonuses work well. ...

Never said it didn't; simply was describing one particular organization.

OTOH, ime many companies that have profit sharing and/or bonus plans
tend to "top-load" the rewards from those more based on position than
actual performance. The company of which I was speaking (being a bunch
of engineers/scientists from the git-go) had a set of formulae the
founders had derived to arbitrate based on specific criteria.

--

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> "willshak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> Well it does in union shops. In non union shops, it's the quality of
>>>>>> the work performed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I thought the term "salary" had no definition in a union environment.
>>>> I had an annual salary in a civil service union shop.
>>>>
>>> But you weren't union - right?
>> Teachers?
>>
>> Don't really know, just asking ...
>>
>
> Don't know either... are they salaried or hourly? You might have a point
> there.

Never been anywhere where they weren't salaried anyway...

Some aides, janitorial staff, etc., may have been hourly but all
professional staff salaried.

--

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> [1] Part of that was owing to the fact that while this was a quite large
>>>> overall organization it was (at that time still) 100% employee-owned;
>>>> hence, there was an inherent self-rewarding financial incentive to do
>>>> well financially for the company as it was essentially working for
>>>> oneself.
>>> While that makes a lot of sense, properly run private companies offer
>>> good incentives also. Profit sharing and bonuses work well. ...
>> Never said it didn't; simply was describing one particular organization.
>>
>> OTOH, ime many companies that have profit sharing and/or bonus plans tend
>> to "top-load" the rewards from those more based on position than actual
>> performance.
>
> That statement does not make any sense. I assume you mean that they top
> load based on position, regardless of performance. That would make perfect
> sense, based on the inherent expectation of those positions. Performance is
> a measurement that deals with the individual and not the position.

I have no idea what you mean "does not make any sense" since you then
restate the identical statement...


>> The company of which I was speaking (being a bunch of engineers/scientists
>> from the git-go) had a set of formulae the founders had derived to
>> arbitrate based on specific criteria.
>>
>
> That makes even less sense than the first part of your response. And they
> say politicians speak in double-talk. "They" have never spoken with an
> engineer...

It makes perfect sense -- there were precise, known performance criteria
and a model for how those criteria fit into the overall performance of
the company that justified the value of each item in the formula. It
made for a very transparent manner in which if one was motivated to earn
bonus or stock options there was a clear-cut way to achieve that by
performing well in those metrics...

--

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:37:31 -0600, dpb wrote:
>
>> When self-employed and billing by the hour, obviously meticulous
>> attention to billing only hours actually working for the particular
>> client is mandatory.
>
> Observing the performance of several "consultants" who billed by the
> day or week is what made me billby the hour :-).

What used to bug me was the guy who was making $30 an hour yakking on the
phone with his wife while the $300/hr consultant cooled his heels wating for
an answer he needed in order to get on with his job.

Mike Marlow wrote:
...

> Well - it probably makes perfect sense to you but what you replied with
> above is a damned sight more explanatory than the cryptic stuff you wrote
> the first time. "To arbitrate" does not convey much.

I wasn't intending to write a book, didn't think details particularly
pertinent; simply to indicate a fixed formulation was the arbitrator of
who got what and that there was a way in a previous company that the
relative magnitudes were determined quantitatively--hence "to arbitrate".

--

Phisherman wrote:
...
> Computers at work should never be used for personal effects, not
> email, not shopping, U-tube, music, dating or anything else that is
> not work related. Those who do are subject to termination. Frequent
> flyer miles can be used to upgrade a future business flight, but never
> for personal off-job use. These are strict morals and I know there
> are many companies that are very relaxed--but that can hurt more than
> help. Always best to keep business and personal as separate as
> possible.

As someone else posted, computers at work should be used within the
policies established by the employer--some allow the casual use as they
recognize draconian policies can be counterproductive to morale. Most
recent employers I've been at have even allowed browsing on the internet
during lunch and or other break time as acceptable usage within obvious
restrictions.

I'd say the "as separate as possible" is that it's almost impossible in
a practical sense to not answer the phone and talk to the wife about the
sick kid, schedule appointments, etc., etc., etc., entirely away from
the office.

On the ff miles, what do propose when these miles have accumulated in an
individual's name on trips for a specific employer and now they are
working somewhere else? Are they to never be used? (As someone else
also noted, "just askin' :) )

--

Phisherman wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:28:29 -0600, Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Mention was made on the news tonight that "Cyber Monday" was coming
>> up when everyone would be going back to work and ordering online.
>>
>> I was already aware that most newsgroups (not so much this one)
>> traffic dropped off considerably on the weekends and holidays.
>>
>> So the only conclusion I can reach is that using your employers
>> computer during work hours for personal matters has become widely
>> accepted.
>>
>> I grew up in a different era - work was for working. If I'd done
>> similar stuff (no computers then) I'd have gotten fired - and I
>> would have deserved it.
>>
>> On a related subject, I was doing some contract programming for a
>> large company when the frequent flier programs were just getting
>> started. Someone was gloating over getting miles for a long work
>> related trip. I said that since the employer bought the tickets,
>> the employer should get the miles. The silence was deafening :-).
>>
>> Work ethics sure have changed.
>
>
> Computers at work should never be used for personal effects, not
> email, not shopping, U-tube, music, dating or anything else that is
> not work related. Those who do are subject to termination. Frequent
> flyer miles can be used to upgrade a future business flight, but never
> for personal off-job use. These are strict morals and I know there
> are many companies that are very relaxed--but that can hurt more than
> help. Always best to keep business and personal as separate as
> possible.

I'd not be quite so strict about music--if listening to music while you work
makes you more productive, and it does for some people (I'm not one of
them), then it's in the company's interest for them to listen to it.

dpb wrote:
> Phisherman wrote:
> ...
>> Computers at work should never be used for personal effects, not
>> email, not shopping, U-tube, music, dating or anything else that is
>> not work related. Those who do are subject to termination.
>> Frequent flyer miles can be used to upgrade a future business
>> flight, but never for personal off-job use. These are strict
>> morals and I know there are many companies that are very
>> relaxed--but that can hurt more than help. Always best to keep
>> business and personal as separate as possible.
>
> As someone else posted, computers at work should be used within the
> policies established by the employer--some allow the casual use as
> they recognize draconian policies can be counterproductive to morale.
> Most recent employers I've been at have even allowed browsing on the
> internet during lunch and or other break time as acceptable usage
> within obvious restrictions.

When I was working as a mechanical engineer, if there had been an Internet
then, I'd have likely sometimes spent days on it doing work-related
stuff--mostly looking for off-the-shelf components to do a job and not have
to reinvent the wheel.

> I'd say the "as separate as possible" is that it's almost impossible
> in a practical sense to not answer the phone and talk to the wife
> about the sick kid, schedule appointments, etc., etc., etc., entirely
> away from the office.
>
> On the ff miles, what do propose when these miles have accumulated in
> an individual's name on trips for a specific employer and now they are
> working somewhere else? Are they to never be used? (As someone else
> also noted, "just askin' :) )

If the employer treats them as a perk then there's no reason not to use them
any more than there's a reason not to use the employer-paid medical
insurance when you're sick.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> Do they need constant mental stimulation? Is perpetual social contact
> required to keep them sane? Are they afraid that in quiet and solitude
> they'll find their brain has no worthwhile thoughts?
>

I can't go to baseball games, anymore.
The subtle sounds used to be part of the experience. Hearing the
infielders punch the pockets of their gloves. Hearing them chatter to
one another. Hearing *nothing* until there was something to hear, like
the crack of the bat or a fastball smacking into the catcher's mit,
followed by the grunt from the ump.

Now, there isn't a single, solitary second that is allowed to pass at a
ballgame. They are constantly playing music... even *in between*
pitches. Drives me nuts. Started with the organ thing years ago, which
was ok, because it seemed to be dictated by the tempo and status of the
game, itself.

But now, I don't know what they're thinking. What, if I'm not under a
constant barrage of stimulation, I might forget why I'm there and walk
out without buying another $5 beer or $15 program?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> But as long as I'm curmudgeon for the day, the above brings up another
>> puzzler. Seems like everyone under 50, and a goodly number over that,
>> are either listening to music or using a cell phone almost every waking
>> minute. What gives?
>
> People like music.

And some like to inflict it upon the rest of us (altho it for the most
part is a far stretch to name it "music") :(

>> Do they need constant mental stimulation? Is perpetual social contact
>> required to keep them sane? Are they afraid that in quiet and solitude
>> they'll find their brain has no worthwhile thoughts?
>>
>
> No.

OTOH, some people like attention and crave it and go out of their way to
attain it. And, there are a fair number of studies which indeed do show
that younger generation that have been raised w/ such stimulation are,
indeed, addicted to it.

...

--