Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is up to management and HR to maintain adequate staffing levels, not the employee.
I would never tell management that I was interviewing elsewhere. At many places, that would be grounds for immediate dismissal. At best, it causes management to lose confidence in you. If they know you're looking, why promote the employee when they're likely not going to be around anyway?
I have usually told my manager when looking for a job, and usually have received immediate support, offers of good recommendations, or positive letters of reference. A couple of times I have been offered promotions.
As a manager, I understand that many employees won't tell me, but I am appreciative when they do. If I can give them a good reference, I tell them that I will do so, if I cannot give them a good reference, I wish them success in their search. If I am aware of industry openings that might be appropriate I will point them out.
I do not fire employees who are looking and I don't retaliate. I may shift work duties a bit so that employee isn't entangled in a long term project, and I will consider the situation and update job descriptions in preparation.
I have usually told my manager when looking for a job, and usually have received immediate support, offers of good recommendations, or positive letters of reference. A couple of times I have been offered promotions.
As a manager, I understand that many employees won't tell me, but I am appreciative when they do. If I can give them a good reference, I tell them that I will do so, if I cannot give them a good reference, I wish them success in their search. If I am aware of industry openings that might be appropriate I will point them out.
I do not fire employees who are looking and I don't retaliate. I may shift work duties a bit so that employee isn't entangled in a long term project, and I will consider the situation and update job descriptions in preparation.
You are a class act, fishbrains. I really appreciate your candidness , empathy, and level-headedness, as a manager, on this forum. You are one of the few who aren't a die hard shill for either side. You're practical and you just seem to "get it" from both the employer's and employee's perspective.
P.s. I was able to return the favor and rep another one of your good posts the other day, or else I'd have repped this one here.
It's pretty naive to think that the people around you aren't doing the same thing.
Just as you sit at your keyboard and post throughout the day on this forum with a company computer, there are likely just as many of your peers shopping Amazon, updating their fantasy team line ups, or *gasp* checking out job boards and applying for other gigs.
Should a company be able to monitor your activity? Sure, absolutely. If it's their resource, they have every right. Do most do that? No, because most company's IT depts don't have the resources to scour every internet or phone activity log of their employees to look for the nominal levels of abuse that does occur in every organization. Usually, they'll have certain websites blocked on their networks, like Facebook or Twitter, because they don't want people posting on vulnerable social media sites all day. But that is about the extent of it. Even if they did do it, what kind of unprofessional, conniving setting must you work in where the manager/employer has such little trust in their employees that they choose to dedicate a cost-sucking, non revenue generating resource to it. IT is mostly viewed as a cost center, so their resources are limited as is.
I've worked at a number of very large corporations and "ExpertAnalysis'" post is off the wall bonkers. I've never seen a single person escorted from a company's premises for their internet activity. Granted, excessive cases might exist where someone was caught watching porn or something. But I haven't even encountered something like that in my career.
Think of it this way. If a company cared that much about abuse of internet privileges, they'd simply block any non-intranet or non-business resource site. They are fully capable of doing that, but in my experience, they do not.
Yes exactly. I could not rep you again but I would if I could. It just seems a little far fetch that a company would hire a team of people to monitor the employees internet use or to just monitor employees period.
Can you imagine how slow that job would get. I can't imagine that they find things everyday that need to be reported. I could understand if this was done weekly, but not everyday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExpertAnalysis
Data Protection is all about protecting a firm's IP, and nothing an employee does is private. There are specific areas to target - for example certain departments that are responsible for administering "high-risk access" (HRA) or phone employees that access customer financial information. We're not really concerned about what time you swipe you badge or when you power on your machine - that stuff is just noise. Credit card #'s or bank account info going out in emails, or unrecognized numbers dialing into an internal teleconference, or employees visiting job websites when they should be working...thats the kind of stuff that can impact a firm. Install the company email app on your phone or access it from your home computer?.
Enough to cause a company to hire a team of people to monitor that? I'm not doubting this, I don't know much about IT so I won't speak on it as if I do. I just find it drastic to go through this daily to possibly catch an employee doing something they are not suppose to be doing.
If companies are so invested in catching their badly employee behavior. Why aren't they more invested in stopping people from hacking their systems and their millions of customers personal data(Equifax)?
You are a class act, fishbrains. I really appreciate your candidness , empathy, and level-headedness, as a manager, on this forum. You are one of the few who aren't a die hard shill for either side. You're practical and you just seem to "get it" from both the employer's and employee's perspective.
P.s. I was able to return the favor and rep another one of your good posts the other day, or else I'd have repped this one here.
Thanks. I appreciate the kind words.
If I may go slightly off topic to elaborate, I acknowledge that I am both an employee and a manager. I supervise a few dozen people, and I report up to more senior administration as well. I fight to support my staff when necessary, and sometimes I win, other times I lose. I negotiate with other senior managers for access to company resources, once again winning and losing over time.
That being said, people change jobs. They have kids, they want to purchase a house far from the workplace, they get divorced, they master their position and want to take on new challenges. There are many reasons. If I treat job seekers harshly, all that I accomplish is a culture of secrecy that hurts me and my department. If I support my staff and develop their careers they become better employees. Better employees make me a better manager.
At this point in my career I have mentored people who reside all across the country. If I were to need a job tomorrow, I could probably reach out to many peop,e who are in a position to employ me. It would likely be a step or three back, but it would be good honest work.
The harsh attitudes displayed by some on this thread are, to my mind, insane and self destructive. If the only way you can manage is through power and dominance, that will work. To a point. I personally choose not to deal with that level of stress and disfunction.
It's pretty naive to think that the people around you aren't doing the same thing.
Just as you sit at your keyboard and post throughout the day on this forum with a company computer, there are likely just as many of your peers shopping Amazon, updating their fantasy team line ups, or *gasp* checking out job boards and applying for other gigs.
Should a company be able to monitor your activity? Sure, absolutely. If it's their resource, they have every right. Do most do that? No, because most company's IT depts don't have the resources to scour every internet or phone activity log of their employees to look for the nominal levels of abuse that does occur in every organization. Usually, they'll have certain websites blocked on their networks, like Facebook or Twitter, because they don't want people posting on vulnerable social media sites all day. But that is about the extent of it. Even if they did do it, what kind of unprofessional, conniving setting must you work in where the manager/employer has such little trust in their employees that they choose to dedicate a cost-sucking, non revenue generating resource to it. IT is mostly viewed as a cost center, so their resources are limited as is.
I've worked at a number of very large corporations and "ExpertAnalysis'" post is off the wall bonkers. I've never seen a single person escorted from a company's premises for their internet activity. Granted, excessive cases might exist where someone was caught watching porn or something. But I haven't even encountered something like that in my career.
Think of it this way. If a company cared that much about abuse of internet privileges, they'd simply block any non-intranet or non-business resource site. They are fully capable of doing that, but in my experience, they do not.
Yes but that wasn't the point I was originally discussing.
A poster seemed to imply that an employee in general was guaranteed privacy in terms of their conduct online at work, on company equipment and on company time.
That is totally untrue. I said nothing about web browsing at work in general, and if you read my post you would know that my previous companies never restricted online browsing entirely (and I don't use company computer to browse CD forum, there's a thing called a smart phone).
I am also a realist. While some may gush over managers and bosses that offer their employees encouragement in finding other jobs, that doesn't mean all bosses are like this. A small company is not representative of the whole, and to wish otherwise is fanciful thinking. I certainly don't think these rare bosses we're emailed such things either; the employee was professional enough to discuss it face to face.
And to those who think people can't be fired for web browsing or that companies wouldn't spend the time monitoring employee surfing, they are dead wrong.
As an aside, I tell people that the best thing they can do when using their employer’s computers, cell phones, etc., is use them only for business use and not make any personal use of them even if the employer has a policy that says some limited use of the computer is ok. Inappropriate use of computing equipment is one of the more common nonperformance related reasons I’ve seen for employees getting fired. There’s just all sorts of things that can go wrong as you surf the net using your employer’s computers. People get too comfortable doing it and do not realize their employer may be watching everything they do and the employer may not like some of it. Next thing you know, the employee is out the door unemployed.
In fact, 28 percent of employers report that they've fired people for using the Internet for non-work-related activity (such as shopping online or checking out Facebook, for example) during the workday and 18 percent have dismissed employees because of something they posted on social media, according to CareerBuilder.
Yes but that wasn't the point I was originally discussing.
A poster seemed to imply that an employee in general was guaranteed privacy in terms of their conduct online at work, on company equipment and on company time.
That is totally untrue. I said nothing about web browsing at work in general, and if you read my post you would know that my previous companies never restricted online browsing entirely (and I don't use company computer to browse CD forum, there's a thing called a smart phone).
I am also a realist. While some may gush over managers and bosses that offer their employees encouragement in finding other jobs, that doesn't mean all bosses are like this. A small company is not representative of the whole, and to wish otherwise is fanciful thinking. I certainly don't think these rare bosses we're emailed such things either; the employee was professional enough to discuss it face to face.
And to those who think people can't be fired for web browsing or that companies wouldn't spend the time monitoring employee surfing, they are dead wrong.
I think you can get fired. You can get fired for almost anything. You can get fired for no reason at all. I just don't think it happens as often as is being portrayed here.
Obviously, I am not encouraging anyone to abuse their internet privileges here. That's just silly and goes against common sense.
Yes but that wasn't the point I was originally discussing.
A poster seemed to imply that an employee in general was guaranteed privacy in terms of their conduct online at work, on company equipment and on company time.
.
And to those who think people can't be fired for web browsing or that companies wouldn't spend the time monitoring employee surfing, they are dead wrong.
Obviously you're referring to me. I never said they were guaranteed to privacy. I said that I don't think it's right or professional to allow other employees to know the circumstances to why an employee was fired.
Also never said I believe companies don't monitor their employees. Of course they do. But all day everyday, enough to hire a team....that seems excessive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left-handed
I think you can get fired. You can get fired for almost anything. You can get fired for no reason at all. I just don't think it happens as often as is being portrayed here.
Obviously, I am not encouraging anyone to abuse their internet privileges here. That's just silly and goes against common sense.
^ This. We know it happens, we know that they can be monitored but doubt it's to such excess that employees are being dragged out of the work place for an unauthorized internet search.
Agreed, I suspect the OP was only trying to use the implied 'threat' of leaving to put the boss on the spot to address what is causing the OP's discontent.
Goes both ways indeed, let's hope the OP's boss doesn't see through this too much and have it in for the OP.
Let's hope the OP knows that you never bluff without expecting your bluff to be called.
So my boss responded back to me and he would want to write a letter of recommendation!
I also forgot to mention is that the job i interviewed for does an EXTENSIVE background check and it's quite possible that they will contact my boss to confirm that I work there. i don't want to catch him offguard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
*gasp* checking out job boards and applying for other gigs.
