No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity
from the can-we-get-the-mighty-eagle-to-smash-this-ridiculousness? dept
Every so often we hear various stories about how this or that online "thing" is "costing $x billions in lost productivity." For years it was "personal surfing" at work was costing billions. Then things like March Madness. Or even just "keeping up with the data stream." The latest killer of productivity? You guessed it. It's Angry Birds. Prisoner 201 sent in the news that people are now calculating the lost productivity from Angry Birds. Of course, in the past, most of these stories tended to come from companies (conveniently) selling filtering software. This time it just seems like some reporters looking for a story.But, of course, this is ridiculous. While I have no doubt that there are some people who get sucked into playing Angry Birds and don't get their work done, that's an issue for that employer and that employee. It's not Angry Birds causing the lack of productivity. It's the employee. The bigger issue, of course, is the basic assumption here that hours equals productivity. If so, you could equally argue that commuting and sleeping are massive killers of productivity, because that's also time that is spent not working. While it does depend on the type of job, many jobs do not involve a constant level of productivity. In fact, many jobs have ebbs and flows of productivity, and that's a good thing. Letting someone play Angry Birds to clear their mind for a bit could, conceivably be good for productivity. What if they're struggling with a hard problem and working on it just isn't getting anything done... but taking a break and starting again clears things up?
Considering that other studies have shown that trusting your employees to do their jobs creates happier, more loyal and more productive workforces, perhaps we shouldn't be so worried about people playing Angry Birds, rather than going out for a smoke or hanging out at the water cooler. If they get their job done, they're productive.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: angry birds, productivity
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe the DSMIV technical term for that is the "Gregory House Effect"....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Guns don't kill people. I kill people."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the lost productivity in the world would add up to more than the productive time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: clock out for bathroom breaks
I have seen warehouse/shipping facilities that have time clock readers at the restroom doors. A certain home improvement chain based in Wisconsin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eating causes huge drop in productivity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pshh...
Shit, if that were true imagine how much angry girlfriends is costing us....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, he implements some kind of block. A web filter, maybe, or an implicit ban on personal browsing. So, two things happen. Some people obey, and they lose the refreshing element of the browsing, or maybe they now have more difficulty contacting family and so anything on their mind detracts from the job at hand. Alternatively, they object to the block and start searching either for ways around the block, or alternative sites they can use that don't get flagged up. Either way, productivity is lost by attempting to improve it!
Of course, there are idiots who can't be bothered to do their work or honestly get distracted by Facebook, et al. I would personally argue that these are in the minority, and the issues are between them and their employer. IMHO, someone who is unproductive due to a game or site being available is a totally unmotivated employee who will just goof off in other ways. There's no point punishing an entire workforce because a handful of guys are lazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's ignoring studies suggesting that people are more productive when they mix in a little personal nonsense during that 8 hours. It's actually a simple math equation.
8hrs. * xProductivity = Received Value
or
6hrs. * yProductivity = Received Value, where y = x*happiness multiplier
If y is large enough to make 6 hrs. more productive than 8 with x, then you don't want people focusing for 8 straight hours...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not unreasonable, I don't expect anyone to come in and sit for 8 hours. But do expect "personal" time to be personal, and if I'm paying you for 8 hours, I want a full 8 hours of work.
If you come in at 9 and accumulate 2 hours of "personal nonsense," you shouldn't be going home before 7.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
Hire yourself some robots and go work them (and yourself) to death--sparing the rest of us from the drivel you've accumulated thru your inability to comprehend how things really work.
I'll bet you bought a DVD-Rewinder and have been pissed at the world ever since.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
Assuming that, though, if you're only giving me 6 hours of work a day, I'm getting a 30 hour work week, not 40. That's a 25% difference which is HUGE -- if I was getting the full 40 hours I was paying for, I could afford to hire more employees and accomplish more as a business, and THAT is what gets the economy going.
Your desire to goof off and get paid for it is the kind of short-sighted, lazy, entitle-ist attitude Tech Dirt usually argues AGAINST. If a guy to repair you roof, and he took three hours to do the work and then charged you for four hours you'd be furious. But that's what's happening to businesses EVERY DAY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
which is it going to be?
Depends on who's net is more valuable. If the first guy is excessively more expensive than his counterpart he's more of a liability than an asset, despite his burst-rate productivity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
For instance, I am a graphic designer who does layout and ad work for a set of free community newspapers. From home. Due to the nature of the work, I am not paid hourly, but per page for the layout, as well as an additional flat rate for ad work and maintaining the company website.
I check in, get my work for the day, do it, and check out. Either I'm given more or that's all there is. Since these papers are monthly, there is more work to be done toward the end of the month than at the beginning. Rarely will I ever have to put in a full eight hour day, aside from the last few days of the month, my average tends to be more toward five or six hours.
Even less in the first week of the month. Simply due to the amount of work that is available at that time. It would not then make sense to measure productivity by an eight hour, forty hour week timescale. Yet you insist that that is the only way to do so. That logic, however, is flawed.
The nature of working and how it is done is changing, and the cubicle-filled office complex is becoming far less relevant in an age where computers and technology make it possible to do most such jobs from home or, with a laptop, from anywhere else. If managers do not change and adapt, as corporations must also do, then like those who employ them, they will become obsolete and forgotten. Progress cannot be stopped. It can only be accepted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
Moral of the story is, if the worker is getting the job done, why bitch? If you feel their time is wasted, give them more to do, they will either leave and get a job elsewhere or work harder to get it done. So going by your statements, if you are so worried about what your employees are doing, how do YOU get your things done?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
Somebody just outed themselves as a physicist or engineer. Productivity in business is output over payroll cost. The whole idea that you pay people for their hours is nonsense. (Outside of some cases where just being there is your job) You are paying people because you want them to make stuff for you. Let me put it this way:
You have a widget factory. Each widget is sold for $10 with 5$ of materials. Your employees are paid $10 per hour and they make 32 widgets per day. So you take in $320 of cash, pay $160 for material and $80 payroll for a total cost of goods sold of $240 per day per employee. You take home $80 per day per employee. (Forget capital costs, taxes et al for now) Everyone is happy. All is good, this is in fact within minor variation the way things work in the widget industry. But one day, a study comes out and you hear that OMG EMPLOYEES SPEND 2 HOURS PLAYING ANGRY BIRDS EVERY FREAKIN DAY! You of course know the answer. Those people work per hour and therefore, you say: clock out whenever you play angry-birds. They are honest people, so they do as you say. You still sell the same number of widgets, produce the same number of widgets but now, you pay out $20 less per worker per day. You take home $100 per worker per day now. Amazing! And then suddenly, you start finding your employees are leaving. I also produce widgets. In fact my business is identical to yours except I let my employees play Angry Birds 2 hours a day on company time. Boy am I stupid. You on the other hand know about the reserve army of the unemployed. But it turns out, when you interview people, you hear the same story. "I would have preferred to work for PrometheeFeu where they can play Angry Birds, but they wouldn't take me because I am too inexperienced/incompetent. But sure, I'll come and work for you." Of course, I didn't hire those people! They only make 24 widgets per day. So now, you are taking in $240 in cash, spending $125 in material and still $60 in labor for a profit of $55 per day per employee so now you are not "wasting" any money, but you are also making much less of it.
Of course, the numbers could change differently but the point is, the market has the equilibrium it has for a reason. The fact that employees can play Angry Birds, comment on TechDirt etc is part if their compensation package. It may not be written, it may not be official, but it is true. I work at a company that has a number of amenities. None of those are written in the contract, but if they removed said amenities, some of us might go work for competitors who still provide free lunches, pool tables and snacks. And this is the case at all levels. Your boss not being a jerk to you is compensation. Your bathroom breaks being on company time is compensation. If you think you can lower compensation without consequences, you are mistaken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
Also why are you on Techdirt in the middle of the work day? Your employer must hate paying you for this goofing off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
Also why are you on Techdirt in the middle of the work day?
I can only fill so many cracks in this facade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
Who are you going to fire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
Heh. I was kinda wondering about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
> about $20 an hour,
Thats the wrong way to look at it. Salaries are expressed yearly precisely because they are _not_ hourly. If you want an hourly employee, hire them hourly (with the applicable overtime costs, etc.) Then if you find them goofing off, you can not pay them for that hour. But a salaried employee is expected to put in the hours to get the job done. A better way to evaluate an employee is not to micromanage his hours but to see if he's getting his work done.
> If a guy to repair you roof,
Most work like this is fixed price, so if he goofs off for an hour, it is on his dime, because he could be doing other jobs. If you are hiring a roofing guy hourly, you're doing it wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Igor, throw the lever!
"Managers" are lucky to get 10-15 hours of productivity per week out of their employees, of course they are too busy playing angry birds to notice....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My fondest recollections were places where work came first, but ease of coworker interactions made work a shared goal, the more work done the better, we weren't interfered with, we weren't dragged away for lectures, we weren't punished for having a laugh while we busted our butts. This type of managment inspired loyalty.
You cannot take the human element out of a workspace. You have to take the good and foster it to overcome or excise the bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously, you're focusing on the wrong measurement here.
Let's put it in perspective.
1)Waiter at a restaurant. No customers all day, except for the 11-1 period. He was there 8 hours, he 'worked' for 2. How much is it fair to pay him?
2)We have two office workers, Wally and Dilbert. Wally does his work slowly, almost at an invisible pace, but not quite. Dilbert does his work quickly. Unknown to them, you've given them identical assignments because you want to be able to pick from different solutions. They come up with the exact same answer in the end, but Wally works 16 hours, over two days, and Dilbert works 6. As it happens, they ARE paid on salary, on an 8 hour/day assumption. Is Dilbert or Wally the better worker?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) It depernds on how his employment agreement is laid out. Presumably, he's paid to be available to serve, and so he "worked" for the full 8 hours. Presumably, this is why they get tips. presumably this is also why they get lower pay rates.
2) There's not nearly enough information to answer that question, and it's certainly not going to show anything meaningful. Are you trying to say Wally and Dilbert are paid the same rate? If so, and if one CAN be said to be "better", either their employer is a fool or the "better" employee is, for not negotiating a compensation commensurate with his value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Alright, forget pay rates, and just talk about which employee is better, and deserves to be paid more.
But hey, at least you didn't fall into the trap of question 1 too deeply. You identified correctly what he's paid for, being available to serve. And then you slipped backwards from there . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paul can work a 7 hour day, with breaks, or he can work a 10 hour day, without breaks, and get the same work done.
He can't work a 6 hour day, and do all the work, without breaks.
The question is: Would you rather pay him for 10 hours, or 7 hours to do the same work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
either you accept that my 7 hours productivity with breaks for leisure, or I do the 6 hours productivity over the [10 hours]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was hoping to elicit a few more strawmen against you, TBH, and I'm not having that effect.
Nice use of apparent measurements, though. Someone who didn't realize they were using '6 hours of work' as a measurement against an equivalent '10 hours of work' would've tripped up by now ;p
You're effectively saying that you'll pay someone for the work they've done, regardless of the hours they work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is, if I can do the same work in 6 hours as my colleague can do in 10, then my 7 hours of work is worth more than his 10. Yet, you insist that his 10 is worth more. If you can't tell the difference, you're a poor manager.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the job is salaried, then the issue becomes one of productivity. In my example, at 6 hours, I'm equally as productive as the 10 hour guy. If I work 7, I'm more productive. Yet, if I dare to spend some of that 3 hours I've saved for leisure time, you tell me I'm losing you productivity, or that my efficiency should result in a pay cut?
You have a skewed viewpoint, and you're probably demotivating or losing your best staff if you're in a management position with that attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Employees "goofing off" for short amounts of time is much like the chef's prep work. They're preparing themselves to be able to do their work. They are not machines, but even if they were, machines still need maintenance to be able to maintain optimal levels of productivity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. It was a very good point, one of the best responses I got on this troll; I applaud MrWilson
3. I don't log in when I troll because that gives the game away.
4. Really, don't believe much of what I said in this thread at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will quite happily do your job, for the same pay, and get more work done in the same actual time while appearing to do less. I will be a more productive employee while appearing to do less. I will work identical hours for identical pay, and get more done in less time spent on tasks, while spending the same apparent amount of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"There are actually levels of productivity"
Agreed, no human being can be "on" for extended periods of time.
"the goal should be to get a full 40+ hours a week of pure, productive work out of them"
But, what kind of productivity? I know I've had jobs where I've slacked off and gotten the same productivity as colleagues working full tilt. There's also such a thing as burnout, which usually happens when people work full on for the entirety of their shift.
In my experience, the best productivity comes when people who are able to balance low & high periods of productivity are allowed to do so. Those who cannot do so might well need to be blocked, disciplined or something else, but doing to everybody is counterproductive in the extreme. In fact, people who prefer to spend time on Facebook or wandering around with pieces of paper might be a sign of a problem with your management style or low morale rather than an employee needing punishment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you need 2 hours "off" out of every 8 hours "on" then you should be at work for 10 hours to satisfy your end of the employment agreement, that's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...but what are you paying for? Productivity or hours worked? They don't necessarily equate to one another. Your need to equate the two suggests a poor management technique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So no, you're not "losing productivity" if the employee goofs off. You're paying him to be at work, not to do work.
Whether you think it's a good investment or not has nothing to do with whether he missed work or didn't (since the only measure of that is that he clocked in and out, therefore he didn't miss work).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) "I'm talking about being due the service I've paid for." Well, well, "Anonymous Coward" (i think that name is quite fitting btw) it doesn't sound like you've ever been in a position of authority or a boss, supervisor, etc. What are you paying someone DIRECTLY as you watch them shovel a ditch? That's the way you make it sound.
2) "If you're more productive than your coworkers then you should reasonably expect (and negotiate) a better compensation package" HAHAHA this one just shows that you have no idea what industry is like. You can't just one day up and say "Well, I'm better than everyone here so I'm going down to HR and demanding more money!" LOLOLOLOLOL to your ignorance!
3) "why should I be expect to pay you when you're "off"? People talk about how commuting and sleeping "reduce productivity" -- that's fine, I'm not paying you when you sleep." NOBODY pays ANYONE when they sleep!! This again shows you have NO IDEA what industry is like - all the people on here are saying is that commuting makes you tired/fatigued and is a waste of time. Of course there is not much of a commute to the graveyard to dig a ditch while YOU watch over them and pay them out of your pocket (which is what you make it sound like). L.O.L.
4) "If you need 2 hours "off" out of every 8 hours "on" then you should be at work for 10 hours to satisfy your end of the employment agreement, that's all." LOL! LOL! "your end of the employment agreement" - No employment agreement says ANYTHING like that. No employment agreement says you HAVE to be productive. Being productive is an option. If you don't meet your numbers (or dig the ditch fast enough in your case) you'll get some figurehead supervisor asking you "is everything ok?" And you say yeah and on and on it goes. Depends on the company's procedures, but usually it is VERY HARD to get fired from a place - you kinda have to be a total tool to get fired from anywhere, seriously. And they don't want to fire you because then they have to pay a portion of your unemployment insurance. Don't know if one could apply for unemployment insurance after digging a ditch for you under the table (since YOU are paying them directly from your pocket and all).
Are you even employed by the way? B/c it doesnt sound like you've ever worked a day in your life.
Good day to all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But they could be more productive! We need to wring every last drop of productivity out of them, or we're leaving money on the table!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know what industry you are in, but I work in software. And in software, the companies that get the best engineers are the companies that pay well, but also and perhaps more importantly give their employees a pleasant work environment where people don't constantly stand over their shoulder making sure they are not day-dreaming, reading TechDirt or playing Angry Birds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good day to all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back in the day...
That was before the cell phone... after the telegraph; not real sure on the time aside from that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Commuting wastes far more time...
Yet how many companies that would not even exist were it not for the Internet have 100% telecommuting policies? How many have done everything they possibly can to avoid wasting money and time on offices, and have instead leveraged the very technology that facilitates their existence to operate themselves? How many have been able to recognize that if they really want to hire the best and the brightest, then they have to fully embrace the live-anywhere work-anywhere paradigm?
The answers to all those questions are, sadly, "not many". And the people responsible for that sorry state of affairs are the managers and corporate officers whose lack of vision is FAR more of a drag on the economy than the small minority of workers who will goof off no matter what the enviroment, no matter what the available set of distractions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Commuting wastes far more time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Commuting wastes far more time...
However: doesn't this argue that we should be hard at work developing technologies solve the problem that "nothing replaces working with a co-worker face-to-face"? Shouldn't we be trying to figure out why this gap exists, how it might best be addressed, and then running some experiments to find out if our approaches are viable?
My guess, by the way, is that this is more of an engineering problem than scientific one -- that is, I think the underlying technical issues have already been solved. We just need to figure out how to integrate the technolgy with our workflow so that it helps us rather than getting in the way. That's partially a task for technologists, but it's also a task for psychologists and others, who need to help us figure out how to work seamlessly with colleagues on three continents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Commuting wastes far more time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what costs productivity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You know what costs productivity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Polling the wrong audience here: the NON-productive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Polling the wrong audience here: the NON-productive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[sarcasm]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge me on *WHAT* I do not how much of it.
Furthermore I get really angry when I complete my assigned tasks on time or ahead of schedule and my reward is MORE WORK. If I complete my assignment as asked I deserve a break or more compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge me on *WHAT* I do not how much of it.
No. If you've done the job you were hired for you don't deserve more compensation.
The agreement was you do X and I pay you Y, but now you're saying, "I did X like I said I would, so you should give me Y+Z." That's absolutely nonsensicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Judge me on *WHAT* I do not how much of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Judge me on *WHAT* I do not how much of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Judge me on *WHAT* I do not how much of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Judge me on *WHAT* I do not how much of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
404 Page not found
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But they're birds!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've worked myself out of a job.
So now I do my work, and play as hard as I can otherwise. Corporate America doesn't care if I live or die, or whether I put passion into my work.
I'll do what I can get away with, and as long as I can live with myself, so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My "fucking off" time at work is wonderfully productive. At one job, I spent a day "not doing the job I was paid to do". This "being unproductive" let me learn the basics of a new scripting language and I managed to leverage that (also "unproductively") into being able to double my total productivity with what I learned within a year.
So yes, please restrict MSN chat and web site browsing because they're not "productive" uses of time. You're just cutting away the tools you may need me to develop - and if you've done this and I find cool toys to make your company work more efficiently, you won't get them.
IT is a knowledge-based industry. Let the people you've hired use the knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lost productivity...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robots...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup It is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry Birder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Water Coolers Brisbane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]