Dept. Of Public Works Finds Watching 20 Hours A Week Of Full-Screen Porn On Work Computers To Be A Bit Too Much
from the 'I-find-working-in-public-service-to-be-[self]-gratifying' dept
I'll never understand the mentality of an employee -- government or otherwise -- who watches porn while on the clock and on company computers. I get that the mind wanders when not otherwise occupied, but rather than surf the web for innocuous time-killers, certain people decide to just head off the deep end and view something that's forbidden in every work environment not actively engaged in the production or distribution of porn.
While I may have skirted policies meant to keep time-wasting to a minimum (some days were filled with only wasted time), I have never opted to go the porn route. I have nothing against porn or those who watch it. I would just rather not give my employers (a) the equivalent of the middle finger re: computer use policies and (b) any insight into my personal sexual preferences. (LET YOUR IMAGINATIONS RUN WILD.) Both of these seem like BAD THINGS to do.
(Also, there's that whole thing about it that insinuates some sort of self-pleasure is involved, and in a work environment, that's just… amazingly gross. Even the employees at the porn shop don't relish cleaning up the spank rooms. Imagine being told after a few weeks at work that your predecessor [and previous cubicle occupant] was fired for watching tons of porn during work hours. You'd want to shower in decontaminant and return in a hazmat suit.)
And yet, we have written multiple stories about employees (most of them in the public sector) who not only watch porn at work, but do so with unimaginable gusto for hours at a time. Here's yet another, involving a Baltimore Department of Public Works employee:
Inspector General Rob Pearre Jr. released a report last week revealing the employee, a maintenance supervisor at the facilities division of the Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant, was suspended in September 2014 and fired Jan. 20 at the conclusion of an investigation.Nothing handles the ridiculousness of a porn-related firing more aptly than an official report so dry it could apply for disaster relief funds.
The report said officials received an anonymous complaint about the worker in August of last year and monitoring software installed on the man's work computer found he spent 39 of the 82 hours he spent working in a two-week period watching a pornographic DVD on the computer.
"HOW MUCH PORN DID HE WATCH?" the studio audience in my mind demands. Here's a per-shift breakdown, listed in this report as "Table 1."
It appears the employee's workload tended to diminish over the course of week, with Mondays and Tuesdays (with one exception -- a seven-of-eight work hours marathon) being relatively light and the ration of porn-to-work increasing as the week wore on. Fridays were half-days and, accordingly, roughly half of that time was given over to porn-watching.
Now, the employee obviously felt accessing porn via the internet might result in a swift dismissal. His workaround -- bringing a DVD from home -- allowed him to bypass web filters. However, the length of time it was watched, combined with how it was watched, gives the impression that no one really checked on this employee's productivity, much less ever stopped by his desk.
The City-owned computer operated by the MSI was connected to a single monitor. OIG personnel noted that when pornographic material was visible, the video was maximized to cover the entire screen.Full-screen porn during work hours is a strong indicator that the employee was neither valued nor popular. Viewing porn in full screen can only be done by those confident their porn sessions will not be interrupted.
The Inspector's report then goes on to state the (inadvertently hilarious) obvious.
OIG personnel noted that minimal computer activity was performed while pornographic material was visible. Based on these findings, the OIG believes that little to no work was being performed during the time that pornographic material was visible on the screen of the MSI’s City-owned computer.Doh! If only this employee would have reduced it to the upper-corner of the monitor and run a few work-related applications in the background. He might have been able to hold onto this job until retirement -- at which point his porn-watching could have resumed uninterrupted, barring the occasional trip to the bank to deposit his pension check. (Or not, what with direct deposit…) But he didn't. Instead, he did this.
OIG personnel noted that the MSI would occasionally maximize his email inbox in the Microsoft Outlook program and then minimize it moments later leaving only the pornographic material visible on the screen.Fortunately for Baltimore taxpayers, there's no pension in the future nor the continued annual funding of Dept. of Public Works porn-watching. $30,000/year for twiddling your
At an hourly rate of $29.90, the MSI was paid $1,166 for 39 hours for which no work was performed. By annualizing the data gathered during the two-week monitoring based on a 2000 hour work-year, pornographic material would be visible on the screen of the MSI’s City-owned computer for 951 hours which would cost the City approximately $28,400.Also noted in the report: the employee appealed his pending termination briefly before being persuaded to take a 10-day payout in exchange for dropping the appeal he had very little chance of winning.
The report wraps up with the DPW and OIG giving each other big, warm hugs for being so competent/cooperative (respectively). And for the moment, all is slightly more right in Baltimore's Dept. of Public Works.
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: department of public works, government, government employees, porn
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Any puns that may arise from any statement here and in the following comments will probably be totally intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chances are
How many decent loafers does the department entertain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly
So, why are most People (the oig as well as Tim) focusing on the porn-aspect?
Because sex sells...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exactly
"we want more jobs"
"we want economic responsibility"
"we want to fight crime"
Who the *beep* doesn't? The problem needs to be defined more narrowly to make sense and thus in a way that stimulates solutions. In this case the porn on its own is a selling point, but "wasting taxpayer money" is as bad or worse since it is too common.
The 20 hours each week and how it was discovered are the relevant information if you want the issue solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So much porn.....
But no this guy keeps going, hour after hour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So much porn.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So much porn.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So much porn.....
I'm wondering when this guy is going to file his medical claim for his "porn addiction". It has clearly had an impact on his work. He should be on disability now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So much porn.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He has the pron watching chops to rise to supervisor in no time.
Huh... perhaps all of this porn watching is to help them get into the mindset of screwing the public over...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He is more cut out for a rank-and-file job at the NSA where watching secret camera porn is part of the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, I'm almost tempted to say that the real problem here was extreme boredom, since he apparently had nothing more to do than intermittently check his Outlook screen all day. Perhaps he could have been given actual work to do for his $30/hour that would have left less time for slacking?
"It would have been the same if he were watching sports on his computer for four out of eight hours a day,""
Erm, define "sports"... maybe he was?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But someone likely walked by and noticed BOOBIES which burnt out their eyes and caused them to take the day off to run, not walk, to the confessional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I'm a trooper, and I pull through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WYOD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The department finds 20 hours to be a bit too much?
Is it 5 hours too much? 10 hours too much?
It will be a long bureaucratic process to determine the appropriate amount.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look on the bright side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look on the bright side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things...
Second - they gave him a payout package?!?
[ 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 ]
Someone has to say it.
That's what she said!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What did he not do all day?
Years ago, I had a job that was basically a "head count" position: a few of us were only there to keep the department's head count up so the manager would retain enough of a budget for the department.
Our job was to look at the system code to make sure it was running, which it did 99.98% of the time, and then do whatever we wanted. We all make sure to do constructive stuff so we could keep this kind of job.
But how long has this guy been in a job where he couldn't do anything constructive? Okay, it's bad that he's watching porn all day, but shouldn't some of the blame go to the employer for not giving him enough to do? And if there's not enough work to support his position, why not let him go?
Oh, right, like I just said- letting him go would cost the department in "head count".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many Baltimore art galleries, museums, casinos and banks have been robbed during his supposed porn viewing (read "alibi") hours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
guilty until proven innocent?
full-screen and running for long periods of time, were just a poor
choice of screen saver content?
Not all work is done on a computer. Just because a screen saver is
running, doesn't mean no work is being done. I imagine that this
remains true even when the screen saver's content is unwisely chosen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: guilty until proven innocent?
full-screen and running for long periods of time, were just a poor
choice of screen saver content?
Not unless it was a screen saver that just plays a DVD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is feasible.
Having been tasked with the hand-sorting of paper files, I would have enjoyed some kind of media distraction (though yeah, not necessarily porn). That's the sort of shit-work that a manager assigns someone to let them know they're under-appreciated -- though in the era of paper files, it had to be done.
Also, as a clerk buried deep in the bowels of a multi-national general contracting corporation, I was one of the the first computer-savvy clerics they had, for whom they had no tasks and would say Here's a computer. Do computer stuff.
I gave them a list of computer stuff that might be useful and waited. And waited. And waited. After about the third day of zero tasks, I installed a flight sim.
So to be fair, I suspect that this guy chose poorly his distracting media, but wasn't tasked with doing actual work. I personally don't think watching porn while on stand-by should be more odious than watching Gilligan's Island (or whatever these guys are watching) while on standby. But our society has some serious hang-ups about sex so Porn = NSFW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is feasible.
A little cheeky to ask, but how long ago was this? I appreciate your experiences, but they sound like they may be a little dated.
As I said above, it does sound like the guy was very bored but he undoubtedly did the wrong thing to alleviate that boredom. It's only by the virtue of him being a public employee that he got 2 weeks of monitoring before he got canned.
"After about the third day of zero tasks, I installed a flight sim."
I've worked for several companies where that would be grounds for heavy disciplinary action if not instant dismissal, and I've always worked in countries with greater employee protection than most US states. Watching porn? Out the door, no question, especially if a female is employed in the same building.
"But our society has some serious hang-ups about sex so Porn = NSFW."
Not really. In a working environment, it's important to have some consideration to the people around you. Objecting to porn might not simply be about prudishness, it's just not something that belongs in a business environment. Similarly, as a horror fan I might want to watch an old video nasty at work, but I wouldn't because I'm aware that those around me might not like it, just as I wouldn't necessarily want to sit next to someone watching Broadway musicals all day. NSFW means "the person behind you might not like this" or "this might be against your employer's rules so view at your own risk", not necessarily "watch out for prudes".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is feasible.
Also, I had my own closet / office, in which no-one walked in or out except me. I wasn't disturbing anyone, and with the exception of someone in HR printing my paycheck, few knew I even existed. (And yes, it was pretty cushy, if I was wiser enough to just keep my head down, but at the time I was young and desperate to be actually useful. Really.)
I eventually did get disciplined for installing a game -- sorta. I installed Windows 3.0 and (for which there weren't any games yet, except the included applets like Klondike and Minesweeper) and a mouse. I got access to included graphics software which would allow me to do some work digitally that I had doing analog (with limited precision). My boss' boss mistook the GUI and the mouse as game paraphernalia and I got in trouble for it. (Six months later, Windows 3.0 would be installed on every computer in the building.) To be fair, I was far from the most exemplary employee at the time. But the reasons I was dressed down were a long shot away from the reasons I should have been dressed down.
I agree with you that I think consideration of colleagues is important in the workplace. But that extends not just to videos you may watch but any media that might invade the space of others. Your coworkers may not like your choice of Gospel radio, let alone Wes Craven classics or Broadway show tunes. On the other hand, if you use headphones and your screen is unlikely to be viewed by wayward eyes, having something on the screen might be useful in keeping one's wits while they stuff envelopes. And then, yes, it's only prudishness, if not of employers themselves, then of a society that would scorn companies that allow employees to watch porn if they really wanted.
Once upon a time, Elvis was NSFW. The Beatles were NSFW. And in one of the offices in which I worked, popular Gangsta Rap was the radio station of choice for everyone else in earshot. So my objections were voted down.
In the meantime, Techdirt has reported on terrible policies that have become common (if not normal) in workplaces, such as that period when new employees would have to turn in their Facebook passwords or friend their bosses in case they said something objectionable on a social network. (I think in some states they're still allowed to do that.) In a prior industry of mine, worker abuse (e.g. 90-hour work weeks without overtime compensation) is not merely accepted, but anticipated and regarded by upper management as the price developers mployees pay for being in a creative field. It doesn't matter that it wreaks havoc on both the end product and the employees themselves, they just think it's good business.
This is an age of seriously crap policies and seriously crap management of seriously crap companies. It's a product of there being a labor surplus and an average of eighteen months of job-hunting to find an underpaying job. So just because there's a policy in place somewhere (or everywhere!) doesn't make it a policy that is either ethical or sensical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is feasible.
So, a completely different era, well before modern AUPs and other things were built into standard employment contracts, and well before standardised network security policies (or the concept of a modern network). Most of the policies in place today are there to prevent the compromise of networks and other technical issues, not to control what you can do when you're bored. I somehow doubt the average office job is as paper-based as you seem to remember it, either.
"Once upon a time, Elvis was NSFW. The Beatles were NSFW."
...whereas, most offices at that time still allowed people to chain smoke at their desks and the way women would be routinely treated would be considered sexual harassment if not much worse by today's standards. Yes, times change and what's acceptable changes with it. So?
"And in one of the offices in which I worked, popular Gangsta Rap was the radio station of choice for everyone else in earshot. So my objections were voted down"
...and if you had made an official complaint rather than sat back and sulked, some action to stop or change it would have been made at most companies, just as the complaint about porn was acted upon here. Just because you sat back and took it, that doesn't mean that your colleagues weren't in the wrong.
"This is an age of seriously crap policies and seriously crap management of seriously crap companies."
I agree, but that doesn't mean that employees should have the ability to do literally anything on the clock, especially with company provided equipment. I oppose any policy that blurs the divide between a person's private life and their life as an employee - but, it goes both ways. They should not treat your Facebook page as their property, but you shouldn't treat your desk like your living room sofa. I don't think your employer should be able to treat you in any way they wish - but the reverse applies, especially if you're literally spending half your day doing things other than the work you're paid to do.
All in all, this is not an example of a bad employer action. They have an employee who was either not doing anything for half his working day, or who chose one of the worst possible things to have in a professional environment to pass the time doing something else. Without details of exactly what he was doing, it's hard to say how extreme his actions were (if he wasn't shuffling bits of paper, but his work was on the PC, it's inexcusable), and it's clear that his position was either unnecessary or in need of severe restructuring to make it more bearable. But, this isn't anywhere near the levels complained about here in the other stories you're referring to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: That is feasible.
Why would he remember the average office job at all? He was only describing his own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is feasible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is feasible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this doesn't change my points, namely:
~ Porn is more sensitive an issue in the workplace than it need be. Even if we come to the conclusion that it's inappropriate to the workplace for other reasons, our society's sexual hang-ups make it more so.
~ Employees who are not being utilized (e.g. are waiting in the pool for actual work) should not be expected to sit there and twiddle their thumbs. And sometimes they are.
~ Given the provision that they do not disturb anyone else (without them going out of their way to be disturbed, e.g. checking concealed computer screens for offensive material) whatever media they consume should have minimal restrictions.
Given this porn-watching Baltimore Public Works employee, it's not made clear how his porn habits were discovered, only that we have a measure of how much porn he watched, and he was in his own office. And I agree in the current clime that it was a bad move on his part.
I'm not clear if he was watching porn on standby or supposed to be engaging in some other work instead of recreating, or if he was doing menial work like collating or stuffing envelopes.
Incidently, yes, the big blue-chip corporation I worked for in '88 had an a mostly paper-based filing system and my employment there was part of their efforts to modernize into the digital age. That specific project failed because my manager didn't know how to go about it, but I would be a part of that modernization process elsewhere in the company in the following years. But they employed bunches of people to literally shuffle paper around.
I even spent an entire week as the guy who operated the industrial shredder. Because the company just moved through that many sensitive pages. Paper, paper, everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only reason we know about this is because it is public sector in the private sector there is no disclosure to the public.
Really they should not even make this public, but they should monitor the situation to make sure they do not do this.
This is just BS used to smear an important part of the government for political points, something we have enough of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is it? Where's your documentation if it is, as you claim, not available to the public?
The main reason why this isn't as rampant is because anyone caught doing this in the private sector tends to get sacked instantly, not given several weeks of monitoring with available appeals processes.
"Really they should not even make this public"
So, you're all for the government covering up what they do with your tax money, especially in cases of obvious waste?
"This is just BS used to smear an important part of the government for political points"
What political points? Which stance do you think this site has politically? Cite your examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]