Staff using social media at work. How do I block them?

[threenine]

“ or I would ask them what I could do to assist them or empower them to complete the work to satisfactory condition” was an afterthought.

Yes, don't go looking for conspiracies where their aren't any.

I merely added the additional sentence due to the fact I realised I was actually addressing 2 points one where the work was deliberately incomplete and one where it was not satisfactorily complete. Therefore these are two different cases and as such two different possible outcomes.

In review, as I am entitled to do, as there is an edit function available I can edit my post. I believe there an English grammatical rule that defines such a situation, but I can't remember what it is. Maybe it's even a Victorian rule, so really don't know if it applies today.

For reference, at some time post 1901 the law evolved to create protection against what the law describes as “unfair dismissals” – protection in law for employees against brutal employers. And ACAS was created, and that organisation provides a Code of Conduct on how to handle disciplinary matters. Said Code of Conduct includes an expectation that the employer will actually speak to the employee before deciding to release them to “pursue alternative opportunities” (or in layman’s terms, “sack them”).

Fantastic reference to the law, and I thank you for that.

However as I have stated previously in particular example I "manage" staff, but they are actually employed by legal entities within their country of origin, or close too. So as you may understand the legal systems are a little different.

Whilst I would love to discuss my arrangements, they are probably not suited for the OP's question, as they would be wildly different.

I do appreciate their are formalities in liberating people from their employment contracts, but ultimately the gist of what I saying applies.

I would also suggest, that I am not criticising I am merely offering an alternate viewpoint. There is a huge difference between the two.

I was attempting to offer these viewpoints utilising a humorous approach, but obviously either my attempt at humour failed, or it isn't regarded by some as humour.

It's not hypocritical at all! What I am clearly and positively alluding to too, that the element of controlling and micro managing all aspects of employee in a working environment i.e Blocking social media access 4 all, just because of the failure of 1, doesn't necessarily make sense in my point of view.

However. taking that a step further, clearly defining what is expected by employees and defining the barriers and the definition of what trust is. You can work around many issues without having to resort to big brother or dare I say it Victorian rules. So yes as you pointed out a Code of Conduct

So despite the nitpicking and failure of humour on both sides

I think we can both agree, that the right tactic here is Leadership on the whole.

Quoting myself

I would ask them what I could do to assist them or empower them to complete the work to satisfactory condition.

 

[threenine]

If your staff (including the inexperienced, youthful ones) are good at managing, why not motivate them to do more, open up the possibility of a managerial (or leadership) post?

I apologise I completely missed this question, and wanted to ensure I answered it, due to the fact I was previously admonished because I hadn't done so.

However, I must admit I don't ever recall stating that I would deny promotions or stop anybody attempting to achieve them. So to be honest I don't know if I am the right person to answer this question.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

I apologise I completely missed this question, and wanted to ensure I answered it, due to the fact I was previously admonished because I hadn't done so.

I didn’t think you were admonished, @threenine, just called-out for suggesting the earlier advice was so Victorian… and then going on to suggest that you’d do similar if staff didn’t follow your instructions or deliver their assignments.

So despite the nitpicking and failure of humour on both sides


I think we can both agree, that the right tactic here is Leadership on the whole.

I have to admit, I entirely missed the humour in the thread. LOL.


I can agree that the right tactic for an employer with staff at their workplace is some form of management, regardless of what description anyone applies to their management style. (But if the staff were in fact freelancers, working globally and not actually employed, the approach could be somewhat different.)



Karl Limpert

 

[threenine]

I didn’t think you were admonished, @threenine, just called-out for suggesting the earlier advice was so Victorian… and then going on to suggest that you’d do similar if staff didn’t follow your instructions or deliver their assignments.

I don't think I implied anything of the sort.

However, I was raising the point of making the work places a miserable and unfriendly place by enforcing all manner of restrictions on staff and removing some basic liberties such as making use of social media at work, just based on the fact perhaps somebody may have been abusing it.

I also highlighted that I have an entirely different point of view when it comes to controlling staff in the work place. I don't believe in a core 9-5 philosophy or restraining and restricting staff. I do believe in freedom.

I also highlighted that indeed my "workplace" is somewhat different. I also provided reasons why it was different.

I was then prodded, jibed and goaded to answer a question based on what I would do if staff were effectively not performing, and as you may recall or least you have to opportunity to reflect back on the notes, I did attempt to clarify the exact substance of the question I needed to answer.

 

[The Byre]

Instead of arguing for three pages on some social media site like this one, don't you people have work to do?

Stop arguing over the number of angels that you think may or may not be dancing on the head of an as yet unspecified pin and get some f****ing work done!

(Kids today - really!)

 

[threenine]

Would love to get some work done, but my boss hasn't blocked Social Media so I'm constantly distracted!

Can't wait for Brexit to finish so my boss can get on with re-instating compulsory lashing in the workplace. Those Egyptian slaves didn't know they were born. How great the workplace must have been when beating and lashing were part of everyday work life. No time for distractions like this pesky social media lark

 

[threenine]

I have just completed carving out another stone tablet memo to my boss pleading with him to re-instate mandatory and compulsory beatings!

Unfortunately he is one of those tree hugging, liberal types, Who believe that people who are happy with a harmonious and liberal working environment are productive and effective in the work place.

To be honest all these bean bags and ping pong tables in the work place make me sick! What on earth is he thinking paying me a salary in order for me to live a happy and fulfilling life!!

Give me a hammer and chisel, and get me building pointless triangular shapes in the middle of the desert any day of the week. I don't need pay, just beat me and feed me the slops of the boss table, after you've fed the dog!

 

[kulture]

Any chance we could get back to the topic and actually answer the OP's question?

 

[threenine]

No i think it was answered three pages ago!
I'm just using this space to fuel my social media distraction anxieties

 

[The Byre]

Here at Byre Towers, almost every senior workplace is a profit island. So if somebody is swinging the lead and looking at FaceTwit, or whatever, they are doing so at largely their own cost.

 

[fisicx]

....and removing some basic liberties such as making use of social media at work...

This is a joke isn't it?

Once upon a time if you want to find out what people were doing you dialled 9 for an outside line and talked to your mates. Until the boss came into the room and you pretended to be on a sales call.

 

[ffox]

Great thread. One thing that hasn't been mentioned though (unless I missed it). Anyone who even dreams about becoming an employer, or manager, needs to read up on basic employment law.
Employing people and managing them is not a game.

The first rule of management is - define the rules of the job. If social media is disallowed, then state why and have every new employee read and sign the agreement.

You can't expect people to behave in a certain way unless you tell them what it is you want.

The second rule of management is - define a disciplinary code, along with an appeals procedure. Have every new employee read and sign them.

The third rule is - when an employee is in breach of the rules, apply the disciplinary code and allow the employee leave to appeal.

Proceed until the issue is resolved or the employee dismissed.

There is no need for places of employment to be hateful and unhappy, but rules are needed and everyone needs to know the rules.

 

[paulears]

I work in theatres - steeped in old fashioned working practices, merged with state of the art equipment. There has been a rule for years that stage crews and the cast must not bring phones onto stage, or in the wings. However, we also have the old practices, where the cast and crew, depending on what they do, may not have to be on stage when not needed. So the cast retire to their dressing room, and if they aren't in a scene, they do not hang about in the wings, but watch TV, read a book or something, and as long as they come back ready for their next entrance, I'm happy. They often get courtesy calls on loudspeakers too. The stage crew won't be sitting there either of there is nothing to do, but they will appear a few moments before the scene change, do the change then vanish again. Now phones are so common, I'm actually quite happy to break protocol and allow them to use them in the wings, if they're on silent because keeping the people on hand works for me - if something goes wrong, the crew are there on the spot and don't need calling down. The cast actually see more of the show and become more aware. Of course it goes wrong - I get the occasional missed entrance (unforgivable) because an idiot is engrossed in his email and missed the cue. Riot act read, and most don't do it again (for shame reasons usually) but one or two try it on - and then the ban goes back on.

My point is that frankly, the world has moved on. Banning things rarely produces results that are positive. People are not in awe of their bosses, as so many topics here point out - we have outraged staff who believe their bosses have been racist, or treated them without respect. We have bosses outraged because they caught somebody on Facebook? All I would be interested in is what their performance is like. If your best performing member of staff was a bit testy with others, or spent too much time on their phone, does it actually matter? If the person on the phone is your worst performing member of staff, then phone or not - they're a weak link. I'd like to think I'm fair, and give chances - but I never cite the little pathetic things because if you use a phone or computer to justify getting rid of them, they will cite Fred, who you allow to get away with it. That doesn't work. Never deflect things from the real reasons. If you do not want them to do something, don't try to make it sound better by blaming somebody else. "Can you not do that - because the client doesn't like it". Years ago, that would have worked, but now they're likely to tell you they'll have a word with the client, cutting you out. Work has changed.

Instead of using the excuse, deal with the real problem - which hopefully is not that they were on Facebook, its that they are performing worse than they should. If their excuse is that they are overworked, and don't have time, that's when to use the "but you had plenty of space time to be on Facebook......" Don't make Facebook the crime, just a symptom. If you ban things, then if you do not blanket ban, they will rightly accuse you of favouritism.

When I visit schools, and nobody gives me access codes for the net on their computers, I always ask the kids, as they can get around most IT blocks. Banning sites just doesn't work. Even my dancers, always scatty, know about VPNs and they can always get onto the net, even when the theatres ban Facebook, youtube and other social media.

We even banned photos backstage of the shows for years until the production companies realised the marketing ops they were missing - so now we encourage spreading the word and as long as what they put out is positive, I turn a blind eye.

 

[paulears]

I work in theatres - steeped in old fashioned working practices, merged with state of the art equipment. There has been a rule for years that stage crews and the cast must not bring phones onto stage, or in the wings. However, we also have the old practices, where the cast and crew, depending on what they do, may not have to be on stage when not needed. So the cast retire to their dressing room, and if they aren't in a scene, they do not hang about in the wings, but watch TV, read a book or something, and as long as they come back ready for their next entrance, I'm happy. They often get courtesy calls on loudspeakers too. The stage crew won't be sitting there either of there is nothing to do, but they will appear a few moments before the scene change, do the change then vanish again. Now phones are so common, I'm actually quite happy to break protocol and allow them to use them in the wings, if they're on silent because keeping the people on hand works for me - if something goes wrong, the crew are there on the spot and don't need calling down. The cast actually see more of the show and become more aware. Of course it goes wrong - I get the occasional missed entrance (unforgivable) because an idiot is engrossed in his email and missed the cue. Riot act read, and most don't do it again (for shame reasons usually) but one or two try it on - and then the ban goes back on.

My point is that frankly, the world has moved on. Banning things rarely produces results that are positive. People are not in awe of their bosses, as so many topics here point out - we have outraged staff who believe their bosses have been racist, or treated them without respect. We have bosses outraged because they caught somebody on Facebook? All I would be interested in is what their performance is like. If your best performing member of staff was a bit testy with others, or spent too much time on their phone, does it actually matter? If the person on the phone is your worst performing member of staff, then phone or not - they're a weak link. I'd like to think I'm fair, and give chances - but I never cite the little pathetic things because if you use a phone or computer to justify getting rid of them, they will cite Fred, who you allow to get away with it. That doesn't work. Never deflect things from the real reasons. If you do not want them to do something, don't try to make it sound better by blaming somebody else. "Can you not do that - because the client doesn't like it". Years ago, that would have worked, but now they're likely to tell you they'll have a word with the client, cutting you out. Work has changed.

Instead of using the excuse, deal with the real problem - which hopefully is not that they were on Facebook, its that they are performing worse than they should. If their excuse is that they are overworked, and don't have time, that's when to use the "but you had plenty of space time to be on Facebook......" Don't make Facebook the crime, just a symptom. If you ban things, then if you do not blanket ban, they will rightly accuse you of favouritism.

When I visit schools, and nobody gives me access codes for the net on their computers, I always ask the kids, as they can get around most IT blocks. Banning sites just doesn't work. Even my dancers, always scatty, know about VPNs and they can always get onto the net, even when the theatres ban Facebook, youtube and other social media.

We even banned photos backstage of the shows for years until the production companies realised the marketing ops they were missing - so now we encourage spreading the word and as long as what they put out is positive, I turn a blind eye.

 

[Craig Bird]

Do you have an "acceptable use policy"? If you don't then they can do whatever they want with the access your provide, if you want visibility of web activity and/or want to control this content then an application aware firewall is something you should consider, we have clients we provide this for that have a ROI based on productivity from blocking all social media from groups (everyone but the marketing team) during the hours of 08:00-12:00 & 14:00-18:00,and others that perform no blocking but want visibility of this for disciplinary actions, when coupled with an acceptable use policy.