Pfsense instead SonicWall ?
-
@scottalanmiller Also, I am one of the people who does tons of work at all hours of the day and night but sometimes I do have things going on during office hours that aren't necessarily work-related but I get my work done and am constantly coming up with ways to improve and learn (i.e. posting on IT forums). Fortunately, my boss (who does not have any technical background) is very easy to work for in most cases because he lets me do things the way I want.
-
@Dashrender said:
@marcinozga said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
We've had on average one person a year fired because of their browsing habits. One person was even watching Netflix 8 hours a day, surprisingly that person still works here.
That's horrible, why would you fire perfectly good employees that are being productive because of perceived browsing habits? Those managers should be fired, that's as clueless as you can get. If those people are doing a good job and earning their keep, firing them because of a metric that has nothing to do with their ability to do their job or their productivity would be tantamount to intentional sabotage - and should trigger an investigation over discrimination.
Because they weren't productive. Management was spot on every time, employees in question were spending too much time browsing stuff unrelated to their work. 8 hours a day on Facebook instead of finishing your engineering project usually leads to termination.
But you're firing them because of lack of work, not because they were surfing the web.
I guess the hard part is - how do you set real workable metrics on work to ensure people are working but not having unrealistic expectations.
These are of course management is paid to do.
They weren't productive because they browsed the web. We cut the internet from one person once, that person was able to finish all work on time when internet access was removed.
-
@Dashrender said:
I guess the hard part is - how do you set real workable metrics on work to ensure people are working but not having unrealistic expectations.
Well, you have two core means that most places use...
- Other people as a baseline. If people are below average, they need to stay close to the baseline. If they are above the baseline, who cares why or if they do it in one hour instead of in ten. Be happy that you have a good performer because it means that they could demand WAY more money from you if they wanted to.
- Negotiate for a rate of work. This is how most places work. You want X output, they want Y money. You meet at a rate of each that makes each other happy.
When I worked for the big bank, they could not afford my seven figure rate, so in exchange I was on call all the time and only worked fifteen hours a week. I was paid at their cap. I could drink (and did) and go home and watch movies and whatever. They got an employee that they couldn't afford otherwise and I got a schedule that worked for me. Firing me would have made no sense, at fifteen hours a week I pulled the weight of several full time people.
-
@marcinozga said:
They weren't productive because they browsed the web.
That's opinion and is neither here nor there. If they can't do their jobs, get rid of them.
I've had management tell me things like this and force me to change and have my productivity drop even when I struggled harder. People all work differently, stuff like this is in no one's interest. People need to be given the flexibility to figure out how they work and management needs to reward good performers and not reward bad ones and fire really bad ones. It's that simple. Anything else and you are missing the goals of each party.
-
@marcinozga said:
We cut the internet from one person once, that person was able to finish all work on time when internet access was removed.
ANd they wanted to keep someone that they had to babysit to that level to maintain usefulness?
-
@marcinozga said:
@Dashrender said:
@marcinozga said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
We've had on average one person a year fired because of their browsing habits. One person was even watching Netflix 8 hours a day, surprisingly that person still works here.
That's horrible, why would you fire perfectly good employees that are being productive because of perceived browsing habits? Those managers should be fired, that's as clueless as you can get. If those people are doing a good job and earning their keep, firing them because of a metric that has nothing to do with their ability to do their job or their productivity would be tantamount to intentional sabotage - and should trigger an investigation over discrimination.
Because they weren't productive. Management was spot on every time, employees in question were spending too much time browsing stuff unrelated to their work. 8 hours a day on Facebook instead of finishing your engineering project usually leads to termination.
But you're firing them because of lack of work, not because they were surfing the web.
I guess the hard part is - how do you set real workable metrics on work to ensure people are working but not having unrealistic expectations.
These are of course management is paid to do.
They weren't productive because they browsed the web. We cut the internet from one person once, that person was able to finish all work on time when internet access was removed.
I think you're missing his point though. He's saying you have only a few possibilities with users browsing the web:
- They are browsing the web and they are productive. In which case their browsing doesn't matter.
- They are browsing the web and they are not productive. They will be fired for not being productive not for browsing habits, even if the browsing habits are what caused them to miss deadlines etc.
-
@wrx7m said:
@scottalanmiller Also, I am one of the people who does tons of work at all hours of the day and night but sometimes I do have things going on during office hours that aren't necessarily work-related but I get my work done and am constantly coming up with ways to improve and learn (i.e. posting on IT forums). Fortunately, my boss (who does not have any technical background) is very easy to work for in most cases because he lets me do things the way I want.
Right, so you can appreciate how having those metrics out there could be very, very damaging as someone might claim that you don't do any work based on them.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I guess the hard part is - how do you set real workable metrics on work to ensure people are working but not having unrealistic expectations.
Well, you have two core means that most places use...
- Other people as a baseline. If people are below average, they need to stay close to the baseline. If they are above the baseline, who cares why or if they do it in one hour instead of in ten. Be happy that you have a good performer because it means that they could demand WAY more money from you if they wanted to.
- Negotiate for a rate of work. This is how most places work. You want X output, they want Y money. You meet at a rate of each that makes each other happy.
When I worked for the big bank, they could not afford my seven figure rate, so in exchange I was on call all the time and only worked fifteen hours a week. I was paid at their cap. I could drink (and did) and go home and watch movies and whatever. They got an employee that they couldn't afford otherwise and I got a schedule that worked for me. Firing me would have made no sense, at fifteen hours a week I pulled the weight of several full time people.
You, sir, have arrived.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
They weren't productive because they browsed the web.
That's opinion and is neither here nor there. If they can't do their jobs, get rid of them.
I've had management tell me things like this and force me to change and have my productivity drop even when I struggled harder. People all work differently, stuff like this is in no one's interest. People need to be given the flexibility to figure out how they work and management needs to reward good performers and not reward bad ones and fire really bad ones. It's that simple. Anything else and you are missing the goals of each party.
This sounds great on paper - but employees that see other employees goofing off because they got their work done in 1 hour versus their 2+ hours, the slow employees feel like they are getting cheated. They aren't, but they feel that way - I guess the goal there is to get rid of those who feel that way and hire better employees... the sad fact is that hiring better employees is harder than it sounds.
-
@wrx7m said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I guess the hard part is - how do you set real workable metrics on work to ensure people are working but not having unrealistic expectations.
Well, you have two core means that most places use...
- Other people as a baseline. If people are below average, they need to stay close to the baseline. If they are above the baseline, who cares why or if they do it in one hour instead of in ten. Be happy that you have a good performer because it means that they could demand WAY more money from you if they wanted to.
- Negotiate for a rate of work. This is how most places work. You want X output, they want Y money. You meet at a rate of each that makes each other happy.
When I worked for the big bank, they could not afford my seven figure rate, so in exchange I was on call all the time and only worked fifteen hours a week. I was paid at their cap. I could drink (and did) and go home and watch movies and whatever. They got an employee that they couldn't afford otherwise and I got a schedule that worked for me. Firing me would have made no sense, at fifteen hours a week I pulled the weight of several full time people.
You, sir, have arrived.
I was like that at big blue in 2000. They brought on two of us and just used us two hours a day. It was great. I've had the "low hours, full pay" since my first startup couldn't afford me in early 2000
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
They weren't productive because they browsed the web.
That's opinion and is neither here nor there. If they can't do their jobs, get rid of them.
I've had management tell me things like this and force me to change and have my productivity drop even when I struggled harder. People all work differently, stuff like this is in no one's interest. People need to be given the flexibility to figure out how they work and management needs to reward good performers and not reward bad ones and fire really bad ones. It's that simple. Anything else and you are missing the goals of each party.
This sounds great on paper - but employees that see other employees goofing off because they got their work done in 1 hour versus their 2+ hours, the slow employees feel like they are getting cheated. They aren't, but they feel that way - I guess the goal there is to get rid of those who feel that way and hire better employees... the sad fact is that hiring better employees is harder than it sounds.
That sounds like a social problem. Really depends on the person. If that happened to me it would motivate me to work smarter instead of harder. Not everyone would react that way though.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@wrx7m said:
@scottalanmiller Also, I am one of the people who does tons of work at all hours of the day and night but sometimes I do have things going on during office hours that aren't necessarily work-related but I get my work done and am constantly coming up with ways to improve and learn (i.e. posting on IT forums). Fortunately, my boss (who does not have any technical background) is very easy to work for in most cases because he lets me do things the way I want.
Right, so you can appreciate how having those metrics out there could be very, very damaging as someone might claim that you don't do any work based on them.
I totally do and that is why I am very specific about letting them know when they request this information that it is very misleading. I would rather not have to deal with any of that stuff. If employees aren't getting stuff done and it isn't a training issue, let them go.
-
The only level of control I want is for people not to be able to browse notoriously potentially infected sites and those that can potentially create legal issues.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
They weren't productive because they browsed the web.
That's opinion and is neither here nor there. If they can't do their jobs, get rid of them.
I've had management tell me things like this and force me to change and have my productivity drop even when I struggled harder. People all work differently, stuff like this is in no one's interest. People need to be given the flexibility to figure out how they work and management needs to reward good performers and not reward bad ones and fire really bad ones. It's that simple. Anything else and you are missing the goals of each party.
This sounds great on paper - but employees that see other employees goofing off because they got their work done in 1 hour versus their 2+ hours, the slow employees feel like they are getting cheated. They aren't, but they feel that way - I guess the goal there is to get rid of those who feel that way and hire better employees... the sad fact is that hiring better employees is harder than it sounds.
I would also say, generally, promote the ones that are really good at their job.
-
@Dashrender said:
This sounds great on paper - but employees that see other employees goofing off because they got their work done in 1 hour versus their 2+ hours, the slow employees feel like they are getting cheated.
Then THEY are a problem and fire them if they are upset that people are being paid the same for the same work, you don't need pissy jerks like that undermining your culture. That's not a healthy employee to have around.
-
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
They weren't productive because they browsed the web.
That's opinion and is neither here nor there. If they can't do their jobs, get rid of them.
I've had management tell me things like this and force me to change and have my productivity drop even when I struggled harder. People all work differently, stuff like this is in no one's interest. People need to be given the flexibility to figure out how they work and management needs to reward good performers and not reward bad ones and fire really bad ones. It's that simple. Anything else and you are missing the goals of each party.
This sounds great on paper - but employees that see other employees goofing off because they got their work done in 1 hour versus their 2+ hours, the slow employees feel like they are getting cheated. They aren't, but they feel that way - I guess the goal there is to get rid of those who feel that way and hire better employees... the sad fact is that hiring better employees is harder than it sounds.
I would also say, generally, promote the ones that are really good at their job.
I'm not sure I would agree... but I have never been in that position. People who excel at one task like we are talking about may not, and from what I have seen, often don't excel at management or other tasks that come with a promotion.
-
@wirestyle22 said:
@marcinozga said:
@Dashrender said:
@marcinozga said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
We've had on average one person a year fired because of their browsing habits. One person was even watching Netflix 8 hours a day, surprisingly that person still works here.
That's horrible, why would you fire perfectly good employees that are being productive because of perceived browsing habits? Those managers should be fired, that's as clueless as you can get. If those people are doing a good job and earning their keep, firing them because of a metric that has nothing to do with their ability to do their job or their productivity would be tantamount to intentional sabotage - and should trigger an investigation over discrimination.
Because they weren't productive. Management was spot on every time, employees in question were spending too much time browsing stuff unrelated to their work. 8 hours a day on Facebook instead of finishing your engineering project usually leads to termination.
But you're firing them because of lack of work, not because they were surfing the web.
I guess the hard part is - how do you set real workable metrics on work to ensure people are working but not having unrealistic expectations.
These are of course management is paid to do.
They weren't productive because they browsed the web. We cut the internet from one person once, that person was able to finish all work on time when internet access was removed.
I think you're missing his point though. He's saying you have only a few possibilities with users browsing the web:
- They are browsing the web and they are productive. In which case their browsing doesn't matter.
- They are browsing the web and they are not productive. They will be fired for not being productive not for browsing habits, even if the browsing habits are what caused them to miss deadlines etc.
Exactly. Always fire for productivity drops, not for "why" it might drop.
-
@coliver said:
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
They weren't productive because they browsed the web.
That's opinion and is neither here nor there. If they can't do their jobs, get rid of them.
I've had management tell me things like this and force me to change and have my productivity drop even when I struggled harder. People all work differently, stuff like this is in no one's interest. People need to be given the flexibility to figure out how they work and management needs to reward good performers and not reward bad ones and fire really bad ones. It's that simple. Anything else and you are missing the goals of each party.
This sounds great on paper - but employees that see other employees goofing off because they got their work done in 1 hour versus their 2+ hours, the slow employees feel like they are getting cheated. They aren't, but they feel that way - I guess the goal there is to get rid of those who feel that way and hire better employees... the sad fact is that hiring better employees is harder than it sounds.
I would also say, generally, promote the ones that are really good at their job.
I'm not sure I would agree... but I have never been in that position. People who excel at one task like we are talking about may not, and from what I have seen, often don't excel at management or other tasks that come with a promotion.
Promote as in "pay more" yes. Promote as in "switch jobs" generally no. Study the Peter and Diblert Principles, lots of good insight onto promotional practices.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@wrx7m said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
They weren't productive because they browsed the web.
That's opinion and is neither here nor there. If they can't do their jobs, get rid of them.
I've had management tell me things like this and force me to change and have my productivity drop even when I struggled harder. People all work differently, stuff like this is in no one's interest. People need to be given the flexibility to figure out how they work and management needs to reward good performers and not reward bad ones and fire really bad ones. It's that simple. Anything else and you are missing the goals of each party.
This sounds great on paper - but employees that see other employees goofing off because they got their work done in 1 hour versus their 2+ hours, the slow employees feel like they are getting cheated. They aren't, but they feel that way - I guess the goal there is to get rid of those who feel that way and hire better employees... the sad fact is that hiring better employees is harder than it sounds.
I would also say, generally, promote the ones that are really good at their job.
I'm not sure I would agree... but I have never been in that position. People who excel at one task like we are talking about may not, and from what I have seen, often don't excel at management or other tasks that come with a promotion.
Promote as in "pay more" yes. Promote as in "switch jobs" generally no. Study the Peter and Diblert Principles, lots of good insight onto promotional practices.
Give a raise to would be more apt. When I think of promote I think of moving to a new position with different responsibilities. Although that may be a non-standard definition.
-
@wrx7m said:
The only level of control I want is for people not to be able to browse notoriously potentially infected sites and those that can potentially create legal issues.
Yes, there IS a value, and I totally agree, that if you are simply blocking "known very bad" sites, you can use a proxy to good effect. But you want to avoid the problems caused by collecting data that this allows or else it might undermine the value of having that. You can do this with DNS systems and don't need a proxy to eliminate the bottleneck problems and the data collection ones. OpenDNS provides these services.
