How do i bann MSN messenger from a pc?

[Alias]

Your previous comments speak volumes, your point being that throwing
your weight around threatening to fire the employees is your preferred
method to fix the problem.

It works. It is not "throwing my weight around". It would be called
enforcing a policy. I suppose if one of your employees was IMing your
business secrets to a competitor, you would merely look the other way?
What action would you consider to be worth firing someone for? Making
love to your wife? LOL! How would you technically stop that?

My point is that if the network is properly
secured the bullying tactics that you propose will be unnecessary for
all but a few truly problematic employees.

John

Not all businesses have hot shot techs like you working for them. Most
small business do not.

Alias

 

[John John]

It works. It is not "throwing my weight around". It would be called
enforcing a policy. I suppose if one of your employees was IMing your
business secrets to a competitor, you would merely look the other way?
What action would you consider to be worth firing someone for? Making
love to your wife? LOL! How would you technically stop that?



Not all businesses have hot shot techs like you working for them. Most
small business do not.

You are completely twisting the facts around and are now attempting to
attribute my comments to this new twisted logic. What began as a
relatively minor problem of having a few employees chatting on IM has
now grown into a case of marital infidelity and industrial espionage.
Your assertion that I would deal with these problems in the same manner
as the case of the chatting employees is far fetched to say the least.

John

 

[Rock]

We'll because they have internet access the will be able to download it
again and install it.

Don't you have a company policy banning the installation of unapproved
software? Frankly this is an easy situation to deal with, why are you
looking for a complicated solution?

 

[Express]

Thanks all for the healthy discussions/urguments. highly apreciated.

Craig

 

[Alias]

You are completely twisting the facts around and are now attempting to
attribute my comments to this new twisted logic. What began as a
relatively minor problem of having a few employees chatting on IM has
now grown into a case of marital infidelity and industrial espionage.
Your assertion that I would deal with these problems in the same manner
as the case of the chatting employees is far fetched to say the least.

John

I asserted no such thing. I asked you some questions. Didn't you see the
question marks?

Alias

 

[Eric]

It works. It is not "throwing my weight around". It would be called
enforcing a policy. I suppose if one of your employees was IMing your
business secrets to a competitor, you would merely look the other way?
What action would you consider to be worth firing someone for? Making love
to your wife? LOL! How would you technically stop that?


Not all businesses have hot shot techs like you working for them. Most
small business do not.

Alias

1) Users should not have access to install programs. Giving them access is
a good way to get viruses and spyware through the company. Tech support
should install any programs they need by signing in an admin user or through
group policy.

2) I don't think a company should care if an employee does anything personal
on company time, unless it adversely affects the company, in which case the
user should be warned, and fired if the adverse action continues. Reason
for firing should not be "employee did something personal", but could be one
of these:
a) Employee was a disturbance to their coworkers
b) Employee's productivity level was insufficient
c) Employee lowered customer satisfaction level

Firing employees is always a last resort. You don't fire someone just to
make an example of them to prevent other employees from doing something.
Surely you have the right to fire anyone for any or no reason, except for
protected status (you can't fire them just because you find out they're
gay), but it is not good practice to fire anyone without good reasons. If
your reason is insufficient, other employees will inevitably find out about
it, and soon they're all looking for other jobs.

Are you a manager?
Have you fired or threatened to fire anyone?
What's your turnover rate?

 

[Alias]

1) Users should not have access to install programs. Giving them access is
a good way to get viruses and spyware through the company. Tech support
should install any programs they need by signing in an admin user or through
group policy.

2) I don't think a company should care if an employee does anything personal
on company time, unless it adversely affects the company, in which case the
user should be warned, and fired if the adverse action continues. Reason
for firing should not be "employee did something personal", but could be one
of these:
a) Employee was a disturbance to their coworkers
b) Employee's productivity level was insufficient
c) Employee lowered customer satisfaction level

Firing employees is always a last resort. You don't fire someone just to
make an example of them to prevent other employees from doing something.
Surely you have the right to fire anyone for any or no reason, except for
protected status (you can't fire them just because you find out they're
gay), but it is not good practice to fire anyone without good reasons. If
your reason is insufficient, other employees will inevitably find out about
it, and soon they're all looking for other jobs.

Are you a manager?

Not now but I used to be.

Have you fired or threatened to fire anyone?
Yes.

What's your turnover rate?

Practically nil.

Alias

 

[Eric]

Practically nil.

Alias

Of course that also directly relates to the type of business and the local
unemployment rate..

 

[Alias]

Of course that also directly relates to the type of business and the local
unemployment rate..

It was a language school with over 6000 students and over 100 teachers.
I fired one teacher for taking too many breaks and another for using
Spanish in an English class. Both were warned three or four times before
I fired them. We didn't have computers back then.

That said, if you had read my previous posts, you would realize that I
don't care if someone IMs and it's personal as long as they do their
job. In fact, I have a friend in the Canary Islands that owns a chain of
stores and he set up Yahoo Messenger so that the shop assistants could
chat during slow periods and taught them how to use it and even gave
each a web cam so the could do video chatting. He has a very low
turnover too, which is unusual for the retail clothing business.

Alias

 

[Bruce Chambers]

1) Users should not have access to install programs. Giving them access is
a good way to get viruses and spyware through the company. Tech support
should install any programs they need by signing in an admin user or through
group policy.

That's certainly the way a properly managed network would be run.

2) I don't think a company should care if an employee does anything personal
on company time,

That's a completely unrealistic attitude. Does your employer pay you
to shop on eBay, chat with friends, etc., or does he pay you to perform
certain specific tasks, as defined by your employment agreement?

... unless it adversely affects the company,

How does depriving the employer of the labor he's paid for NOT
adversely affect the company.

in which case the
user should be warned, and fired if the adverse action continues. Reason
for firing should not be "employee did something personal", but could be one
of these:
a) Employee was a disturbance to their coworkers
b) Employee's productivity level was insufficient
c) Employee lowered customer satisfaction level

Why not the truth: the employee repeatedly violated company policies
and was stealing (time, salary, network resources) from his employer?

Firing employees is always a last resort. You don't fire someone just to
make an example of them to prevent other employees from doing something.

No, you fire them for violating company policy and/or stealing, but you
almost make sure that the example isn't wasted. It's more economical,
that way.

Surely you have the right to fire anyone for any or no reason,

In most places, yes.

except for
protected status (you can't fire them just because you find out they're
gay), but it is not good practice to fire anyone without good reasons.

Stealing isn't a good enough reason?



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Eric]

That's certainly the way a properly managed network would be run.




That's a completely unrealistic attitude. Does your employer pay you to
shop on eBay, chat with friends, etc., or does he pay you to perform
certain specific tasks, as defined by your employment agreement?

That depends on the job.
If you hire a secretary to answer the phone, what do you expect them to do
while the phone is not ringing?
Some jobs are 9-5 and the employee needs to be there, and doesn't always
have work to do.
If you've never seen an employee socialize with another employee, or take a
personal phone call, you've never worked in an office.

How does depriving the employer of the labor he's paid for NOT adversely
affect the company.

Who said it's depriving the employer of anything?
Employers don't pay for labor. Customers pay for labor.
Employers pay for time or production.
If you're a plumber, the customers pay only for the time you spend with
them, the employer pays you to be in the office whether there is work or
not.
If the employee completes the required work, there is usually extra time
that the company pays for.
If you work in a restaurant, the company may use the extra time and have the
employee clean something.
Not every job has work to fill in that extra time.
You usually don't want to fire someone for spending 15 minutes chatting with
family, when it takes weeks or months to train a new employee.

Why not the truth: the employee repeatedly violated company policies and
was stealing (time, salary, network resources) from his employer?

Again, they may not be "stealing" anything. If they're not getting their
work done, that's option b. If they are getting their work done early, you
can find more work to give them or send them home early in some cases. If
you're simply firing someone for being too efficient at their job, you may
find other workers being intentionally inefficient, or you may just be left
with workers who are incapable of doing as much work as the one you fired.

No, you fire them for violating company policy and/or stealing, but you
almost make sure that the example isn't wasted. It's more economical,
that way.

If they're stealing office supplies, go ahead and fire them.
If they're "stealing your time", you apparently didn't give them enough to
do.
Fire them if their productivity does not meet expectations. Don't fire them
for "stealing time".
Studies often find that happy employees are more productive, while employees
who get burned out or are afraid of losing their jobs are less productive.

In most places, yes.




Stealing isn't a good enough reason?

I think we covered that.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

That depends on the job.
If you hire a secretary to answer the phone, what do you expect them to do
while the phone is not ringing?

All the myriad of other duties and tasks that justified the expense of
hiring someone. If all I needed was a phone answered, I'd do it myself
or let the call go to voice mail. Only an idiot would hire someone to
do a single, intermittantly required task; the business would fail
utterly within weeks under such management.

Some jobs are 9-5 and the employee needs to be there, and doesn't always
have work to do.

That's contradictory. If there's no work that needs to be done, then
the employee doesn't *need* to be there. Competent managers ensure that
they don't hire more people then needed to support the workload, and see
to it that those employees don't have idle time.

If you've never seen an employee socialize with another employee, or take a
personal phone call, you've never worked in an office.

What does that have to do with the subject? It's completely
irrelevant. Employees can socialize amongst themselves and still work.
And they certainly don't need to compromise network security to do so.

Who said it's depriving the employer of anything?

Hello??? Have you ever even held a job? What are you, a student?

Employers don't pay for labor.

I can't wait until you finally enter the job market and tell the
interviewer that he can't expect to get any labor out of you, just
because he's paying your salary.

Customers pay for labor.

Customers pay the *employer* for a product or service; they don't give
a rat's a** about "labor."

Employers pay for time or production.

Which they're clearly not getting, if the employees are wasting company
time on chat lines and instant messaging applications.

If you're a plumber, the customers pay only for the time you spend with
them, the employer pays you to be in the office whether there is work or
not.

Plumbers don't work in an office environment. Why are you using
examples that are completely irrelevant?

Again, they may not be "stealing" anything.

Yes, they are.

If they're not getting their
work done, that's option b. If they are getting their work done early, you
can find more work to give them or send them home early in some cases. If
you're simply firing someone for being too efficient at their job, you may
find other workers being intentionally inefficient, or you may just be left
with workers who are incapable of doing as much work as the one you fired.

How does terminating someone who is *NOT* doing is job, but is instead
deliberately "goofing off" equate with punishing efficiency? Have no
understanding of the work place, whatsoever?

I think we covered that.

Denying something isn't quite the same as "covering" it.

You really need to get out of school and spend a few years working,
especially carrying the load of your fellow employees who spend their
days not performing. You'll change your tune.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Allen]

Denying something isn't quite the same as "covering" it.

You really need to get out of school and spend a few years working,
especially carrying the load of your fellow employees who spend their
days not performing. You'll change your tune.

I'm beginning to believe that some of the people participating in this
thread have never had a real job in a real environment, where work flow
is not steady, nor can the unsteadiness be predicted with a great degree
of accuracy. In such an environment I had a great deal of success
treating employees like human beings. I encouraged them to visit among
themselves, read, or whatever they wanted to do when there was no work
to be done. When work did show up, they worked like crazy to get it
done, to the extent that my department was quite widely known as one of
the most efficient and productive in the country. Other department
heads in my company had the opposite attitude, AND WITH OPPOSITE RESULTS.

Allen

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I'm beginning to believe that some of the people participating in this
thread have never had a real job in a real environment, where work flow
is not steady,

That's exactly the kind of environments I've worked in my entire adult
life. "Eric," on the other hand, seems to have only a very
"theoretical" and idealized picture of the typical workplace. That's
likely why he kept bringing up completely irrelevant examples of
non-office work environments.

... nor can the unsteadiness be predicted with a great degree
of accuracy.

My observation has been that any such the unpredictably could be
greatly reduced by thoughtful, pro-active management, but that's
something of a rarity, these days; no one looks beyond the next quarter.
That's often the fault of upper management. There are, of course,
some areas of work that are close to truly unpredictable, such as
emergency services and disaster relief.

In such an environment I had a great deal of success
treating employees like human beings.

As do most people. How does expecting employees to meet their
obligations, by treating them (and expecting them to behave) as
responsible adults detract from that?

I encouraged them to visit among
themselves, read, .....

Job or industry-related material, I presume. Such material goes a lot
ways towards improving the workers' knowledge and skills. Anything else
could be a distraction, and should be limited to perusal during
authorized breaks and lunch.

....or whatever they wanted to do when there was no work
to be done. When work did show up, they worked like crazy to get it
done, to the extent that my department was quite widely known as one of
the most efficient and productive in the country. Other department
heads in my company had the opposite attitude, AND WITH OPPOSITE RESULTS.

None of which is at all relevant to this discussion. Remember, the OP
had employees who were slacking off and installing unauthorized
software. We're discussing "ideal" working conditions at other places
of employment; we're discussing what needs to be done in the context of
the OP's specific question.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Paul Knudsen]

Any ideas?

Yes. Explain to him that sending a message takes less time than a
phone call or walking to someone's desk, so it improves efficiency!

 

[Paul Knudsen]

You obviously have little to no managerial experience and even less in
Human Resources or "Human Behavior at Work".

You are sure right there.