-=-=-=-=-=-
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 3/19/24 2:46 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 3/19/24 9:39AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On 18/03/2024 18:12, Sawfish wrote:>> >https://www.walmart.com/ip/Q2-Mouse-Mover-Undetectable-Mouse-Jiggler-with-Timer-ON-Off-Switch-RGB-Lights-Mouse-Giggler-Mover-Device/5196910550?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=101087559 >>>>>> What could these possibly be used
for?>> it says "It keeps you active online and prevents your computer from > falling asleep while you're away
from your computer." maybe it for > those Pelle computer game online playing types who have to stay online > 24
hours a day to get points or however it works?>It is for work-from-home slackers. If their boss gets suspicious
and tries to monitor cursor activity, this lets them fake it.This BS about your computer falling asleep is a
blatant crock of shit. You can modify sleep settings or even disable sleep >altogether.--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Wha's yo
name, fool?"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> This means keeping the
computer unlocked which puts the employee> in much higher risk.Ostensibly these devices are used at home,
which is not foolproof, but it limits the access.I wonder if any of these are ever seen in an office
environment. It don't see any legitimate purpose for them--their primary function is to try to fool employers
when working from home. What do you think?-- >--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"The big print gives it to
you; the small print takes it away."Andy, from Amos 'n' Andy, on legal >contracts...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If employers decide the fate of employees by their active screen time, then I am all for these great shaky devices :)
But as long as the employees are completing their tasks, active screen time should be irrelevant.
On 3/20/24 10:46 AM, bmoore wrote:
In article <utddo8$14lsr$1@dont-email.me>,
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-For sure. Reminds me of a boss who cited a study that said that how often programmers compile their code should be
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 3/19/24 2:46 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 3/19/24 9:39AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On 18/03/2024 18:12, Sawfish wrote:>>
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Q2-Mouse-Mover-Undetectable-Mouse-Jiggler-with-Timer-ON-Off-Switch-RGB-Lights-Mouse-Giggler-Mover-Device/5196910550?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=101087559 >>>>>> What could these possibly be usedfor?>> it says "It keeps you active online and prevents your computer from > falling asleep while you're away
from your computer." maybe it for > those Pelle computer game online playing types who have to stay online > 24
hours a day to get points or however it works?>It is for work-from-home slackers. If their boss gets suspicious
and tries to monitor cursor activity, this lets them fake it.This BS about your computer falling asleep is a
blatant crock of shit. You can modify sleep settings or even disable sleep >>> altogether.--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Wha's yo
name, fool?"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> This means keeping the
computer unlocked which puts the employee> in much higher risk.Ostensibly these devices are used at home,
which is not foolproof, but it limits the access.I wonder if any of these are ever seen in an office
environment. It don't see any legitimate purpose for them--their primary function is to try to fool employers
when working from home. What do you think?--
--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"The big print gives it to
you; the small print takes it away."Andy, from Amos 'n' Andy, on legal
contracts...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If employers decide the fate of employees by their active screen time, then I am all for these great shaky devices :)
But as long as the employees are completing their tasks, active screen time should be irrelevant.
tracked as a measure of efficiency. Wrong on so many levels.
I can see both of your points, but the fact remains that given human
nature there are employees who will fuck off at home. In point of fact,
I found out about this when my brother told me his son, an employee of >Washington state, had ordered one of these. Both he (my nephew) and his
wife are state employees and work from home 90+% of the time. He readily >admitted that he was buying it to look good.
I know myself well enough to realize that if paid salary I *might* screw
off some, like posting here. But if contracting I could simply not
charge, which would give me a clear conscience.
To those who say that all you need to do is hit your dates, if you can
do this in 30 hours on average, if you're in the office your boss will >eventually know this and assign more work--enough to fill a nominal 40
hours. But if you're doing this at home he may *never* know. You are >therefore screwing them out of 20% of your effort.
Especially in the public sector.
Can you see this as a real possibility? There is no argument but that
from my POV as a grunt, working remotely was a big benefit, and it makes
a lot of sense in a lot of ways. But in point of fact it's the guy who's >paying you who's taking the risk: maybe you'll stay on task as much as
you did in the office, but maybe you won't. He's going to pay, either way.
On 21/03/2024 01:36, Sawfish wrote:
On 3/20/24 4:57 PM, bmoore wrote:"Wha's yo
In article <zEFKN.75129$bml7.14136@fx10.ams1>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/20/24 10:46 AM, bmoore wrote:
In article <utddo8$14lsr$1@dont-email.me>,
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-https://www.walmart.com/ip/Q2-Mouse-Mover-Undetectable-Mouse-Jiggler-with-Timer-ON-Off-Switch-RGB-Lights-Mouse-Giggler-Mover-Device/5196910550?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=101087559 >>>>>> What could these possibly be used
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 3/19/24 2:46 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> SawfishAM, The Iceberg wrote:> On 18/03/2024 18:12, Sawfish wrote:>>
<sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 3/19/24 9:39
for?>> it says "It keeps you active online and prevents youronline playing types who have to stay online > 24
computer from > falling asleep while you're away
from your computer." maybe it for > those Pelle computer game
hours a day to get points or however it works?>It is for
work-from-home slackers. If their boss gets suspicious
and tries to monitor cursor activity, this lets them fake it.This
BS about your computer falling asleep is a
blatant crock of shit. You can modify sleep settings or even
disable sleep
altogether.--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hear that, but we're not talking about assembly line work here. YouI can see both of your points, but the fact remains that given humanname,For sure. Reminds me of a boss who cited a study that said that how
fool?"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> This means keeping the
computer unlocked which puts the employee> in much higher
risk.Ostensibly these devices are used at home,
which is not foolproof, but it limits the access.I wonder if any of >>>>>> these are ever seen in an office
environment. It don't see any legitimate purpose for them--their
primary function is to try to fool employers
when working from home. What do you think?--
--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"The big print gives it to
you; the small print takes it away."Andy, from Amos 'n' Andy, on legal >>>>>> contracts...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If employers decide the fate of employees by their active screen
time, then I am all for these great shaky devices :)
But as long as the employees are completing their tasks, active
screen time should be irrelevant.
often programmers compile their code should be
tracked as a measure of efficiency. Wrong on so many levels.
nature there are employees who will fuck off at home. In point of fact, >>>> I found out about this when my brother told me his son, an employee of >>>> Washington state, had ordered one of these. Both he (my nephew) and his >>>> wife are state employees and work from home 90+% of the time. He readily >>>> admitted that he was buying it to look good.
I know myself well enough to realize that if paid salary I *might* screw >>>> off some, like posting here. But if contracting I could simply not
charge, which would give me a clear conscience.
To those who say that all you need to do is hit your dates, if you can >>>> do this in 30 hours on average, if you're in the office your boss will >>>> eventually know this and assign more work--enough to fill a nominal 40 >>>> hours. But if you're doing this at home he may *never* know. You are
therefore screwing them out of 20% of your effort.
Especially in the public sector.
Can you see this as a real possibility? There is no argument but that
from my POV as a grunt, working remotely was a big benefit, and it makes >>>> a lot of sense in a lot of ways. But in point of fact it's the guy who's >>>> paying you who's taking the risk: maybe you'll stay on task as much as >>>> you did in the office, but maybe you won't. He's going to pay, either
way.
can goof off at
the office or goof off at home. Or you can be an inept worker who is
not delivering at the office
or a competent worker delivering at home. Or vice-versa.
It's hard to form a metric for this stuff. Point is that rating
quality by things like screen time is
silly. It's a sign of inept management, often by a boss who doesn't
know how to judge performance and/or
doesn't know what the hell is going on. Seen it many times.
I agree that the potential for ridiculous evaluation (% of hours of
verifiable screen activity) exists, but the potential for fucking off at
home on the employer's dime also exists. The answer is somewhere between.
FWIW, at its least granular use, the screen activity monitor shows at
least that they are likely there, and possibly working.
Or it did, until mouse jigglers and other such activity simulators.
This is a big part of the reason why there was a push to get people back
into the office.The actual possibility of a company person coming into
your cube, or passing by an open office work table, acted as a motivator
to stay close to being on task.
I was in management only once, in the 80s. Other than that, I was a
grunt the entire time. I'm not saying this from the POV of management;
I'm saying it from the POV of labor.
sorry but agree with bmoore(for once) why should someone who can do his
work in 30hours not be allowed 10 free hours if he hits his targest? if >another person takes 40 hours it not his fault, when I worked at the
burger place I was best/fastest burger cooker by long way, but the
bosses always favoured the woke student girl even though she was much
slower, as bmoore said that inept managment, even worse he'd check on
what I'd done and let her off being slow!
On 3/21/24 2:12 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
On 20/03/2024 01:22, PeteWasLucky wrote:
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 3/19/24 2:46 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> Sawfish
<sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 3/19/24 9:39 AM, The
Iceberg wrote:> On 18/03/2024 18:12, Sawfish wrote:>>
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Q2-Mouse-Mover-Undetectable-Mouse-Jiggler-with-Timer-ON-Off-Switch-RGB-Lights-Mouse-Giggler-Mover-Device/5196910550?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=101087559you active online and prevents your computer from > falling asleep
What could these possibly be used for?>> it says "It keeps
while you're away from your computer." maybe it for > those Pelle
computer game online playing types who have to stay online > 24
hours a day to get points or however it works?>It is for
work-from-home slackers. If their boss gets suspicious and tries to
monitor cursor activity, this lets them fake it.This BS about your
computer falling asleep is a blatant crock of shit. You can modify
sleep settings or even disable sleep
altogether.--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wha's yo name,
fool?"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
This means keeping the computer unlocked which puts the employee>
in much higher risk.Ostensibly these devices are used at home, which
is not foolproof, but it limits the access.I wonder if any of these
are ever seen in an office environment. It don't see any legitimate
purpose for them--their primary function is to try to fool employers
when working from home. What do you think?--
--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"The
big print gives it to you; the small print takes it away."Andy, from
Amos 'n' Andy, on legal
contracts...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If employers decide the fate of employees by their active screen
time, then I am all for these great shaky devices :)
But as long as the employees are completing their tasks, active
screen time should be irrelevant.
yes but lots of bosses are power mad and obsessed/paranoid about
people under them, they don't care one bit about how much work they
do, it's all about checking-up, just like the Marxists.
There is definitely an element at the mid-management level where these >managers love the small amount of power they have, but can't really get
off on it unless they can *see* their underlings daily.
So calling them back to the office has two rewards for them: they
exercise POWER by making them come back; and they can SEE their workers, >which emotionally fulfills them.
But I was not talking about that aspect. I was talking about worker >short-comings rather than management short-comings.
There's a middle ground, probably.
When with another DoD contractor I actually attended a customer meeting
(USN) where my manager forgot I was there, and before my very eyes she >claimed to have designed and written the thing I had made, which the
customer said they liked.
On 3/21/24 3:31 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
On 21/03/2024 01:36, Sawfish wrote:
On 3/20/24 4:57 PM, bmoore wrote:
In article <zEFKN.75129$bml7.14136@fx10.ams1>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/20/24 10:46 AM, bmoore wrote:makes
In article <utddo8$14lsr$1@dont-email.me>,I can see both of your points, but the fact remains that given human >>>>> nature there are employees who will fuck off at home. In point of
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-https://www.walmart.com/ip/Q2-Mouse-Mover-Undetectable-Mouse-Jiggler-with-Timer-ON-Off-Switch-RGB-Lights-Mouse-Giggler-Mover-Device/5196910550?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=101087559
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 3/19/24 2:46 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> SawfishAM, The Iceberg wrote:> On 18/03/2024 18:12, Sawfish wrote:>>
<sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 3/19/24 9:39
online playing types who have to stay online > 24for?>> it says "It keeps you active online and prevents yourWhat could these possibly be used
computer from > falling asleep while you're away
from your computer." maybe it for > those Pelle computer game
hours a day to get points or however it works?>It is forFor sure. Reminds me of a boss who cited a study that said that
work-from-home slackers. If their boss gets suspicious
and tries to monitor cursor activity, this lets them fake it.This >>>>>>> BS about your computer falling asleep is a
blatant crock of shit. You can modify sleep settings or even
disable sleep
altogether.--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wha's yo
name,
fool?"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
This means keeping the
computer unlocked which puts the employee> in much higher
risk.Ostensibly these devices are used at home,
which is not foolproof, but it limits the access.I wonder if any >>>>>>> of these are ever seen in an office
environment. It don't see any legitimate purpose for them--their >>>>>>> primary function is to try to fool employers
when working from home. What do you think?--
--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"The
big print gives it to
you; the small print takes it away."Andy, from Amos 'n' Andy, on >>>>>>> legal
contracts...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If employers decide the fate of employees by their active screen >>>>>>> time, then I am all for these great shaky devices :)
But as long as the employees are completing their tasks, active
screen time should be irrelevant.
how often programmers compile their code should be
tracked as a measure of efficiency. Wrong on so many levels.
fact,
I found out about this when my brother told me his son, an employee of >>>>> Washington state, had ordered one of these. Both he (my nephew) and
his
wife are state employees and work from home 90+% of the time. He
readily
admitted that he was buying it to look good.
I know myself well enough to realize that if paid salary I *might*
screw
off some, like posting here. But if contracting I could simply not
charge, which would give me a clear conscience.
To those who say that all you need to do is hit your dates, if you can >>>>> do this in 30 hours on average, if you're in the office your boss will >>>>> eventually know this and assign more work--enough to fill a nominal 40 >>>>> hours. But if you're doing this at home he may *never* know. You are >>>>> therefore screwing them out of 20% of your effort.
Especially in the public sector.
Can you see this as a real possibility? There is no argument but that >>>> >from my POV as a grunt, working remotely was a big benefit, and it
a lot of sense in a lot of ways. But in point of fact it's the guyI hear that, but we're not talking about assembly line work here.
who's
paying you who's taking the risk: maybe you'll stay on task as much as >>>>> you did in the office, but maybe you won't. He's going to pay,
either way.
You can goof off at
the office or goof off at home. Or you can be an inept worker who is
not delivering at the office
or a competent worker delivering at home. Or vice-versa.
It's hard to form a metric for this stuff. Point is that rating
quality by things like screen time is
silly. It's a sign of inept management, often by a boss who doesn't
know how to judge performance and/or
doesn't know what the hell is going on. Seen it many times.
I agree that the potential for ridiculous evaluation (% of hours of
verifiable screen activity) exists, but the potential for fucking off
at home on the employer's dime also exists. The answer is somewhere
between.
FWIW, at its least granular use, the screen activity monitor shows at
least that they are likely there, and possibly working.
Or it did, until mouse jigglers and other such activity simulators.
This is a big part of the reason why there was a push to get people
back into the office.The actual possibility of a company person
coming into your cube, or passing by an open office work table, acted
as a motivator to stay close to being on task.
I was in management only once, in the 80s. Other than that, I was a
grunt the entire time. I'm not saying this from the POV of
management; I'm saying it from the POV of labor.
sorry but agree with bmoore(for once) why should someone who can do
his work in 30hours not be allowed 10 free hours if he hits his targest?
If he was hired with the understanding that he was to work 40 hours,
he's not being given enough work *under the terms of the agreement*.
If the agreement is to simply do X amount of work as assigned by a
certain date, sure, it would be OK to quit whenever you're done.
But understand that the latter is basically contract work.
if another person takes 40 hours it not his fault, when I worked atMore personal charm is needed... :^)
the burger place I was best/fastest burger cooker by long way, but the
bosses always favoured the woke student girl even though she was much
slower, as bmoore said that inept managment, even worse he'd check on
what I'd done and let her off being slow!
On 3/21/24 3:31 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
On 21/03/2024 01:36, Sawfish wrote:
On 3/20/24 4:57 PM, bmoore wrote:
In article <zEFKN.75129$bml7.14136@fx10.ams1>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/20/24 10:46 AM, bmoore wrote:makes
In article <utddo8$14lsr$1@dont-email.me>,I can see both of your points, but the fact remains that given human >>>>> nature there are employees who will fuck off at home. In point of
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-https://www.walmart.com/ip/Q2-Mouse-Mover-Undetectable-Mouse-Jiggler-with-Timer-ON-Off-Switch-RGB-Lights-Mouse-Giggler-Mover-Device/5196910550?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=101087559
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 3/19/24 2:46 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> SawfishAM, The Iceberg wrote:> On 18/03/2024 18:12, Sawfish wrote:>>
<sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 3/19/24 9:39
online playing types who have to stay online > 24for?>> it says "It keeps you active online and prevents yourWhat could these possibly be used
computer from > falling asleep while you're away
from your computer." maybe it for > those Pelle computer game
hours a day to get points or however it works?>It is forFor sure. Reminds me of a boss who cited a study that said that
work-from-home slackers. If their boss gets suspicious
and tries to monitor cursor activity, this lets them fake it.This >>>>>>> BS about your computer falling asleep is a
blatant crock of shit. You can modify sleep settings or even
disable sleep
altogether.--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wha's yo
name,
fool?"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
This means keeping the
computer unlocked which puts the employee> in much higher
risk.Ostensibly these devices are used at home,
which is not foolproof, but it limits the access.I wonder if any >>>>>>> of these are ever seen in an office
environment. It don't see any legitimate purpose for them--their >>>>>>> primary function is to try to fool employers
when working from home. What do you think?--
--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"The
big print gives it to
you; the small print takes it away."Andy, from Amos 'n' Andy, on >>>>>>> legal
contracts...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If employers decide the fate of employees by their active screen >>>>>>> time, then I am all for these great shaky devices :)
But as long as the employees are completing their tasks, active
screen time should be irrelevant.
how often programmers compile their code should be
tracked as a measure of efficiency. Wrong on so many levels.
fact,
I found out about this when my brother told me his son, an employee of >>>>> Washington state, had ordered one of these. Both he (my nephew) and
his
wife are state employees and work from home 90+% of the time. He
readily
admitted that he was buying it to look good.
I know myself well enough to realize that if paid salary I *might*
screw
off some, like posting here. But if contracting I could simply not
charge, which would give me a clear conscience.
To those who say that all you need to do is hit your dates, if you can >>>>> do this in 30 hours on average, if you're in the office your boss will >>>>> eventually know this and assign more work--enough to fill a nominal 40 >>>>> hours. But if you're doing this at home he may *never* know. You are >>>>> therefore screwing them out of 20% of your effort.
Especially in the public sector.
Can you see this as a real possibility? There is no argument but that >>>> >from my POV as a grunt, working remotely was a big benefit, and it
a lot of sense in a lot of ways. But in point of fact it's the guyI hear that, but we're not talking about assembly line work here.
who's
paying you who's taking the risk: maybe you'll stay on task as much as >>>>> you did in the office, but maybe you won't. He's going to pay,
either way.
You can goof off at
the office or goof off at home. Or you can be an inept worker who is
not delivering at the office
or a competent worker delivering at home. Or vice-versa.
It's hard to form a metric for this stuff. Point is that rating
quality by things like screen time is
silly. It's a sign of inept management, often by a boss who doesn't
know how to judge performance and/or
doesn't know what the hell is going on. Seen it many times.
I agree that the potential for ridiculous evaluation (% of hours of
verifiable screen activity) exists, but the potential for fucking off
at home on the employer's dime also exists. The answer is somewhere
between.
FWIW, at its least granular use, the screen activity monitor shows at
least that they are likely there, and possibly working.
Or it did, until mouse jigglers and other such activity simulators.
This is a big part of the reason why there was a push to get people
back into the office.The actual possibility of a company person
coming into your cube, or passing by an open office work table, acted
as a motivator to stay close to being on task.
I was in management only once, in the 80s. Other than that, I was a
grunt the entire time. I'm not saying this from the POV of
management; I'm saying it from the POV of labor.
sorry but agree with bmoore(for once) why should someone who can do
his work in 30hours not be allowed 10 free hours if he hits his targest?
If he was hired with the understanding that he was to work 40 hours,
he's not being given enough work *under the terms of the agreement*.
If the agreement is to simply do X amount of work as assigned by a
certain date, sure, it would be OK to quit whenever you're done.
But understand that the latter is basically contract work.
if another person takes 40 hours it not his fault, when I worked atMore personal charm is needed... :^)
the burger place I was best/fastest burger cooker by long way, but the
bosses always favoured the woke student girl even though she was much
slower, as bmoore said that inept managment, even worse he'd check on
what I'd done and let her off being slow!
--
--Sawfish >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 3/22/24 11:31 AM, bmoore wrote:
In article <Pm_KN.283104$ps1.143269@fx12.ams1>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/21/24 3:31 AM, The Iceberg wrote:It's all contract work :-)
On 21/03/2024 01:36, Sawfish wrote:https://www.walmart.com/ip/Q2-Mouse-Mover-Undetectable-Mouse-Jiggler-with-Timer-ON-Off-Switch-RGB-Lights-Mouse-Giggler-Mover-Device/5196910550?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=101087559
On 3/20/24 4:57 PM, bmoore wrote:
In article <zEFKN.75129$bml7.14136@fx10.ams1>,
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/20/24 10:46 AM, bmoore wrote:
In article <utddo8$14lsr$1@dont-email.me>,
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 3/19/24 2:46 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> Sawfish
<sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 3/19/24 9:39 >>>>>>>>> AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On 18/03/2024 18:12, Sawfish wrote:>> >>>>>>>>>
he's not being given enough work *under the terms of the agreement*.sorry but agree with bmoore(for once) why should someone who can doI agree that the potential for ridiculous evaluation (% of hours ofI hear that, but we're not talking about assembly line work here.I can see both of your points, but the fact remains that given human >>>>>>> nature there are employees who will fuck off at home. In point of >>>>>>> fact,For sure. Reminds me of a boss who cited a study that said that >>>>>>>> how often programmers compile their code should befor?>> it says "It keeps you active online and prevents your >>>>>>>>> computer from > falling asleep while you're awayWhat could these possibly be used
from your computer." maybe it for > those Pelle computer game >>>>>>>> online playing types who have to stay online > 24
hours a day to get points or however it works?>It is for
work-from-home slackers. If their boss gets suspicious
and tries to monitor cursor activity, this lets them fake it.This >>>>>>>>> BS about your computer falling asleep is a
blatant crock of shit. You can modify sleep settings or even >>>>>>>>> disable sleep
altogether.--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wha's yo
name,
fool?"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
This means keeping the
computer unlocked which puts the employee> in much higher >>>>>>>>> risk.Ostensibly these devices are used at home,
which is not foolproof, but it limits the access.I wonder if any >>>>>>>>> of these are ever seen in an office
environment. It don't see any legitimate purpose for them--their >>>>>>>>> primary function is to try to fool employers
when working from home. What do you think?--
--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"The
big print gives it to
you; the small print takes it away."Andy, from Amos 'n' Andy, on >>>>>>>>> legal
contracts...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If employers decide the fate of employees by their active screen >>>>>>>>> time, then I am all for these great shaky devices :)
But as long as the employees are completing their tasks, active >>>>>>>>> screen time should be irrelevant.
tracked as a measure of efficiency. Wrong on so many levels.
I found out about this when my brother told me his son, an employee of >>>>>>> Washington state, had ordered one of these. Both he (my nephew) and >>>>>>> his
wife are state employees and work from home 90+% of the time. He >>>>>>> readily
admitted that he was buying it to look good.
I know myself well enough to realize that if paid salary I *might* >>>>>>> screw
off some, like posting here. But if contracting I could simply not >>>>>>> charge, which would give me a clear conscience.
To those who say that all you need to do is hit your dates, if you can >>>>>>> do this in 30 hours on average, if you're in the office your boss will >>>>>>> eventually know this and assign more work--enough to fill a nominal 40 >>>>>>> hours. But if you're doing this at home he may *never* know. You are >>>>>>> therefore screwing them out of 20% of your effort.
Especially in the public sector.
Can you see this as a real possibility? There is no argument but that >>>>>> >from my POV as a grunt, working remotely was a big benefit, and it >>>>>> makes
a lot of sense in a lot of ways. But in point of fact it's the guy >>>>>>> who's
paying you who's taking the risk: maybe you'll stay on task as much as >>>>>>> you did in the office, but maybe you won't. He's going to pay,
either way.
You can goof off at
the office or goof off at home. Or you can be an inept worker who is >>>>>> not delivering at the office
or a competent worker delivering at home. Or vice-versa.
It's hard to form a metric for this stuff. Point is that rating
quality by things like screen time is
silly. It's a sign of inept management, often by a boss who doesn't >>>>>> know how to judge performance and/or
doesn't know what the hell is going on. Seen it many times.
verifiable screen activity) exists, but the potential for fucking off >>>>> at home on the employer's dime also exists. The answer is somewhere
between.
FWIW, at its least granular use, the screen activity monitor shows at >>>>> least that they are likely there, and possibly working.
Or it did, until mouse jigglers and other such activity simulators.
This is a big part of the reason why there was a push to get people
back into the office.The actual possibility of a company person
coming into your cube, or passing by an open office work table, acted >>>>> as a motivator to stay close to being on task.
I was in management only once, in the 80s. Other than that, I was a
grunt the entire time. I'm not saying this from the POV of
management; I'm saying it from the POV of labor.
his work in 30hours not be allowed 10 free hours if he hits his targest? >>> If he was hired with the understanding that he was to work 40 hours,
If the agreement is to simply do X amount of work as assigned by a
certain date, sure, it would be OK to quit whenever you're done.
But understand that the latter is basically contract work.
I see the smiley, b., but I was being serious. I've done both, much
preferred direct contracting. But in a salaried position you're
basically making your self available for whatever your supervisor shoves
you way for a nominal weekly hour accumulation of 40 hours.
We both know that this is only a guideline, but I've never worked a
salaried position where, if I was consistently completing all
assignments in, say 30 hours, I'd not be given more assignments, or have
my scope broadened out.
Yes, and it's averaging 40 hours per week.
But if you want to be a good company man, yet also live your own life, there is a middle ground.
if another person takes 40 hours it not his fault, when I worked atMore personal charm is needed... :^)
the burger place I was best/fastest burger cooker by long way, but the >>>> bosses always favoured the woke student girl even though she was much
slower, as bmoore said that inept managment, even worse he'd check on
what I'd done and let her off being slow!
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> "Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>
-- >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"The food at the new restaurant was awful--but at least the portions
were large!" --Sawfish
On 3/20/24 10:46 AM, bmoore wrote:> In article <utddo8$14lsr$1@dont-email.me>,> PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:>> -=-=-=-=-=->>>> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>> On 3/19/24 2:46 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 3/19/24 9:39>> AM, The Iceberg wrote:> On 18/03/2024 18:12, Sawfish wrote:>>>> https://www.walmart.com/ip/Q2-Mouse-Mover-Undetectable-Mouse-Jiggler-with-Timer-ON-Off-Switch-RGB-Lights-Mouse-Giggler-Mover-
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 115:33:40 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,132 |