| Should employers give their staff breaks during the day to use Facebook and other social networking sites? |
|
|
|
Asked 2 years ago
by AlistairLDP  United Kingdom |
8 Points
|
Breaks, yes.
But if they only get a break to do a specific thing, then they're really not on break, just getting an easy assignment for 15-20 minutes.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI think they should do it. I think there can be benefits to the employer from doing it, in the form on over all increased employee productivity. I don't think they should be made to do it.
This comment was deleted by Chipmonk .
[1 point] 2 years ago byOnly if their job involves marketing, in which case it shouldn't be a "break" it should be paid.
If employees want to check Twitter during their lunch break I don't see why that's a problem, but I also don't see the point of designated social media breaks.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyHere here. What is wrong with you people who think it should be allowed?! Society is becoming so dependent on anything that is bad.
Why shouldn't it be allowed, as long as the work is being done, there should be no issue. There have been many times I worked extra hours because of the work load, other times when it was quiet I was reading on-line news, humor, sites like ask500, educational sites and sometimes even porn sites (just to test that the skin tones were displayed accurately on my monitor of course)
If at all, only on their smart phones. I don't think company resources should be used.
The two companies that tried that in the past were surprised when I wouldn't pick up my private phone when they called. I explained that I followed company policy with the separation of work and private life, but that I was open to negotiation. (Both times I was allowed to use company resources for private use)
If you were running the company and you discovered the statistics are true. Most employees only *work* for about 20% of the work day, wouldn't you be wondering why you hired them in the first place? Then in the second place try to eliminate their biggest distractions .. which, in the 21st century, are probably web/internet related?
It doesn't matter what the employees waste their time on, if it is a problem replace them. Blocking access sounds like a great idea, until we learn how easy it is to circumvent.
At the public library it's not easy to circumvent. They let you log on for an hour and when your time is up your time is up. Maybe employers need to institute such a system?
Employers and employees should focus on the important issue and that is getting the work done that needs to be done, If an employee is not doing their assigned work it is a reason for dismissal. A smart employer wouldn't mind if the employee chatted on-line or with the co-worker across the desk, send personal (e)mail or made private phone calls, as long as the work got done and done well.
That's the biggest advantage for small business. They can be results oriented. The bigger the company, the more process oriented they have to become. Just ask anybody that has worked for McDonald's or the US Army.
It is relatively easy if you pick and train your managers properly. Managers that are dictatorial are not suited for this approach. Managers that are there to HELP the workers do the work better and more efficient is what you need to look for. And of course workers that can think for themselves and are allowed/encouraged to do so. And if you are a manager and give the people the rewards (financial and pat on the back), you'll find you have a lot more time on your hands and make it home in time for dinner with the family.
I agree (except the easy part) that when you are dealing with professionals, your outline is the best way to manage private business. I also think that is the best way to manage the public education system, if it was allowed by the teacher's unions.
I still wonder about low wage jobs and any job covered by a union contract. I can't think of any successful ones that are not process oriented.
That is because you guys screwed up who can or can not join a union. To make matters worse, unions and employers see each other as adversaries, while they both should realize that both benefit when the company does well!
You are preaching to the choir here.
Who screwed who can or can not join the union?
The way you (and Canada) set up your unions, if the majority wants a union every one has to become a member. By that time the people have a serious problem with the company and the whole thing becomes confrontational.
In the Netherlands I used to be a union member and I never went on strike (never needed to) Unions there even have a member on the board of directors. And to say it is ranked tenth place of the "The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010" -- http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global Competitiveness Report/index.htm
And all those countries aside from the U.S. in the top ten list have some form of public health care system ;) (sure even the U.S. has the limited but severely underfunded public option, Medicare and of course Medicaid for seniors)
I see what you are saying now.
I mostly agree about the unions. The differences in union actions that you noted are likely because of the difference in the origins of the unions in North America vs. Europe. European unions started with the guild systems in the middle ages. The guilds were used to keep the quality, education and wages comparably high in each profession. That was actually closer to the AMA than today's unions. It's still very important in many European unions that the unions produce the most qualified, skilled workers that get the top wages for their extra skills.
In America, unions were formed to stop the exploitation of workers by monopolies in the 19th century. They had to be confrontational to stop the abuse. Over the years, that confrontation has continued even though most of the abuse stopped before before WWII. (with exceptions of course) American unions became a cultural liability when they continued the crusades against the companies that provided the jobs. Though they paid lip service to producing a quality product at a fair price, in fact, American unions are only involved in squeezing more money and more hours out of the company. Meanwhile, European unions were more concerned with keeping their jobs. They recognized very early on that, in order to keep their jobs, the union members had to be superior producers compared to non-union workers. This led to a low emphasis on regressive work rules and a higher emphasis on more productivity. (which produced more and higher paying jobs.) I'm not saying that European unions are great and American unions are crap. They both produce many problems for the economies in their respective areas. But I would contend that European unions add value to the European economy and American unions, on balance, don't.
My grandfather alongside other workers faced beatings by the police on horseback just to get a union. My father was by law not allowed to resign in order to work for an employer that paid better. Both of them paved the way to what they have now. In the Netherlands I used to get 8 weeks in holidays, there is socialized health care, work place safety is taken very seriously by all and unemployment benefits are generous compared to the U.S. And still the Netherlands made it to the top ten list.
Unions in the Netherlands are mostly cooperative and as far as I am aware I can join any union I like regardless of my profession or my employer. Unions will be confrontational when they feel they need to, but this happens far less and no one (union member or not) will be required to strike.
Unions in the U.S. were set up to be confrontational and this will continue to be a problem until you change the laws regarding unions, to begin with union membership. It is ridiculous that one unionized company has to compete against another non unionized company company, it would be beneficial to level the playing field for both, then improvements can be made for all involved and every one benefits. Anyway if you are interested look up how they work now in various parts of the world. Being free to decide if you want to join a union or not appeals to the libertarian in me, being a member of a union appeals to the socialist in me and having a union representative on the board of directors appeals to the pragmatist in me. (The idealist in me wants to see a world where unions are not needed and every one does the "right thing")
If an employee is on break, then that employee is ON BREAK. That means they can do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't affect business. Since the internet is useable on phones now, they can go to any website they wanted to. They could even watch porn if it was that important to them, but they have to obey the public indescency law