Force Skype for Business to remain signed in..



  • So this is a major gripe of mine, Skype for Business in a business environment, with employees who never login.

    Like what the crap is that..

    Is there a way to force a user to remain signed in via GPO that might be able to be applied?



  • Remain logged in, as in they can't log out? What happens when they need to reboot?

    I'm assuming you want an auto logon process at windows logon for SfB.



  • Correct I'd like it to pull their AD credentials, since that is what they are using to both sign onto the computer, as well as what SfB uses to authenticate with.


  • Service Provider

    Are you running 2013 or 2016? I know in the group policy kit for 2013, the only option is to launch at login. I haven't downloaded the 2016 .admk yet.



  • @Mike-Davis 2013, we haven't upgraded yet.



  • @DustinB3403 said:

    So this is a major gripe of mine, Skype for Business in a business environment, with employees who never login.

    Like what the crap is that..

    Is there a way to force a user to remain signed in via GPO that might be able to be applied?

    Why don't they login? They the type of users that just want a physical phone and don't care about the collaboration? They having PC problems that make SFB more difficult to use?



  • They're the kind of users who don't want to be contacted because they're LAF's


  • Service Provider

    There are also the anti big brother users that don't want people to know when they come in/leave/are idle...
    In Lync 2010 I had an on prem server and Lync started at logon, and autosigned in. I still had users that would click settings and exit as soon as it launched. At that point, it became a HR issue.



  • Yeah @Mike-Davis I totally get that, the big issue is I have is I'm a leg it guy. I get shit done.

    But I need information to do it.

    Often when I have a client on the phone, so it's not like I can run down Employee B.

    And they do it because they're LAF's nothing with "big brother" being signed out of SfB doesn't stop me from tracking the computer equipment we hand out to them.


  • Service Provider

    @DustinB3403 said:

    Yeah @Mike-Davis I totally get that, the big issue is I have is I'm a leg it guy. I get shit done.

    Completely not relevant. It is not your problem to solve. you give it to their management or HR as directed. This is not a technology issue.


  • Service Provider

    @DustinB3403 said:

    Yeah @Mike-Davis I totally get that, the big issue is I have is I'm a leg it guy. I get shit done.

    But I need information to do it.

    Often when I have a client on the phone, so it's not like I can run down Employee B.

    If an employee is choosing to not be found, that's an HR issue already.



  • @JaredBusch said:

    @DustinB3403 said:

    Yeah @Mike-Davis I totally get that, the big issue is I have is I'm a leg it guy. I get shit done.

    Completely not relevant. It is not your problem to solve. you give it to their management or HR as directed. This is not a technology issue.

    True... if management would enforce the tools we've been told to provide.


  • Service Provider

    @DustinB3403 said:

    @JaredBusch said:

    @DustinB3403 said:

    Yeah @Mike-Davis I totally get that, the big issue is I have is I'm a leg it guy. I get shit done.

    Completely not relevant. It is not your problem to solve. you give it to their management or HR as directed. This is not a technology issue.

    True... if management would enforce the tools we've been told to provide.

    Again, it is not your issue to fix.

    You report it. Repeatedly. Every time it is reported to you. There is no other responsibility for you on this. If you are doing anything else, you are wasting company money (your wage) chasing something that is not your problem to resolve.


  • Service Provider

    @DustinB3403 said:

    True... if management would enforce the tools we've been told to provide.

    You've provided them. Why is anything further your issue?


  • Service Provider

    @JaredBusch said:

    @DustinB3403 said:

    @JaredBusch said:

    @DustinB3403 said:

    Yeah @Mike-Davis I totally get that, the big issue is I have is I'm a leg it guy. I get shit done.

    Completely not relevant. It is not your problem to solve. you give it to their management or HR as directed. This is not a technology issue.

    True... if management would enforce the tools we've been told to provide.

    Again, it is not your issue to fix.

    You report it. Repeatedly. Every time it is reported to you. There is no other responsibility for you on this. If you are doing anything else, you are wasting company money (your wage) chasing something that is not your problem to resolve.

    That it appears they have no interest in resolving.


  • Service Provider

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @JaredBusch said:

    @DustinB3403 said:

    @JaredBusch said:

    @DustinB3403 said:

    Yeah @Mike-Davis I totally get that, the big issue is I have is I'm a leg it guy. I get shit done.

    Completely not relevant. It is not your problem to solve. you give it to their management or HR as directed. This is not a technology issue.

    True... if management would enforce the tools we've been told to provide.

    Again, it is not your issue to fix.

    You report it. Repeatedly. Every time it is reported to you. There is no other responsibility for you on this. If you are doing anything else, you are wasting company money (your wage) chasing something that is not your problem to resolve.

    That it appears they have no interest in resolving.

    Right, but that is not his concern directly. Granted I would be looking to go above the people not resolving it.


  • Service Provider

    @JaredBusch said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @JaredBusch said:

    @DustinB3403 said:

    @JaredBusch said:

    @DustinB3403 said:

    Yeah @Mike-Davis I totally get that, the big issue is I have is I'm a leg it guy. I get shit done.

    Completely not relevant. It is not your problem to solve. you give it to their management or HR as directed. This is not a technology issue.

    True... if management would enforce the tools we've been told to provide.

    Again, it is not your issue to fix.

    You report it. Repeatedly. Every time it is reported to you. There is no other responsibility for you on this. If you are doing anything else, you are wasting company money (your wage) chasing something that is not your problem to resolve.

    That it appears they have no interest in resolving.

    Right, but that is not his concern directly. Granted I would be looking to go above the people not resolving it.

    that was my point. Not only is he trying to resolve an issue that they haven't told him to resolve, they don't appear to even believe that it is an issue. So they might not be resolving it because they don't want to.



  • @DustinB3403 said:

    @JaredBusch said:

    @DustinB3403 said:

    Yeah @Mike-Davis I totally get that, the big issue is I have is I'm a leg it guy. I get shit done.

    Completely not relevant. It is not your problem to solve. you give it to their management or HR as directed. This is not a technology issue.

    True... if management would enforce the tools we've been told to provide.

    Why do you care if they use it or not?

    I'll tell you why, because they are still bitching about it!

    I have the same problem - the phones suck, why aren't people answering the phone? Why, because they are choosing not to, either because they see who is calling, or because they choose to be away from their desk doing something else, instead of answering the phone.

    This is not a technology problem, this is definitely an HR problem.

    Sadly, management just can't seem to see that and instead just keeps bitching, making us a bunch of nervous wrecks.


  • Service Provider

    @Dashrender said:

    @DustinB3403 said:

    @JaredBusch said:

    @DustinB3403 said:

    Yeah @Mike-Davis I totally get that, the big issue is I have is I'm a leg it guy. I get shit done.

    Completely not relevant. It is not your problem to solve. you give it to their management or HR as directed. This is not a technology issue.

    True... if management would enforce the tools we've been told to provide.

    Why do you care if they use it or not?

    I'll tell you why, because they are still bitching about it!

    I have the same problem - the phones suck, why aren't people answering the phone? Why, because they are choosing not to, either because they see who is calling, or because they choose to be away from their desk doing something else, instead of answering the phone.

    This is not a technology problem, this is definitely an HR problem.

    Sadly, management just can't seem to see that and instead just keeps bitching, making us a bunch of nervous wrecks.

    I am available for hire if you want someone to come in and write a bunch of reports on phone usage highlighting the actual time.



  • When we got SFB our boss told us he expected us to be online with an appropriate status. We're in different states so it's especially important. We also use the mobile app.

    It's pretty annoying when you see someone offline for days and days but they're working, or someone that's available but doesn't answer IM's or calls because they walked away from their desk and didn't change status.



  • @quicky2g said:

    When we got SFB our boss told us he expected us to be online with an appropriate status. We're in different states so it's especially important. We also use the mobile app.

    It's pretty annoying when you see someone offline for days and days but they're working, or someone that's available but doesn't answer IM's or calls because they walked away from their desk and didn't change status.

    I can definitely understand the changing status thing.

    If the status can be tied to something like the screensaver being active (MS messenger did that) and then set the screensaver to something like 2-3 mins, at least you'll show up as away from desk when you're not actively using the computer. Can't make a user login when they are there though... that's straight up HR issue.


  • Service Provider

    @Dashrender said:

    @quicky2g said:

    When we got SFB our boss told us he expected us to be online with an appropriate status. We're in different states so it's especially important. We also use the mobile app.

    It's pretty annoying when you see someone offline for days and days but they're working, or someone that's available but doesn't answer IM's or calls because they walked away from their desk and didn't change status.

    I can definitely understand the changing status thing.

    If the status can be tied to something like the screensaver being active (MS messenger did that) and then set the screensaver to something like 2-3 mins, at least you'll show up as away from desk when you're not actively using the computer. Can't make a user login when they are there though... that's straight up HR issue.

    I've had companies do that and it was bad. The screensaver is disruptive to work and very misleading as to status. If I'm at my desk working but not working on the computer, which was really common, I'd be marked as away while sitting right there able to get a message. Even when I had multiple devices being watched for messages it would tell people that I was away. Very frustrating when people would constantly complain about me being away from work while I'm sitting at my effing desk working but they used an algorithm based on things like mouse movement to determine if I was "around."



  • I can see what you are saying - but why would the person who wants to talk to you not just send a note anyway? this way you can respond when you return.

    I've never not sent a note when I've seen AFK - I post anyway, and when they return they answer me. It's what makes messaging so awesome.

    By that same token, is one to assume that just because your client doesn't report you at AFK that you are sitting their idly waiting for them to talk to you? Of course I'm being melodramatic on purpose, but you get my point. Just because I'm not listed at AFK doesn't mean I'm going to respond to you the moment you message me.


  • Service Provider

    @Dashrender said:

    I can see what you are saying - but why would the person who wants to talk to you not just send a note anyway? this way you can respond when you return.

    One has to wonder, but my guess is because they are looking for excuses to not work and it is a convenient one. Why have the status at all if they were going to be practical and use email? The status only exists because they are unwilling to use email.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @Dashrender said:

    I can see what you are saying - but why would the person who wants to talk to you not just send a note anyway? this way you can respond when you return.

    One has to wonder, but my guess is because they are looking for excuses to not work and it is a convenient one. Why have the status at all if they were going to be practical and use email? The status only exists because they are unwilling to use email.

    Well, I hate email - I understand the nice things about it.. but the live'ish nature of chat can make conversations a bit more meaningful sometimes.


  • Service Provider

    @Dashrender said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @Dashrender said:

    I can see what you are saying - but why would the person who wants to talk to you not just send a note anyway? this way you can respond when you return.

    One has to wonder, but my guess is because they are looking for excuses to not work and it is a convenient one. Why have the status at all if they were going to be practical and use email? The status only exists because they are unwilling to use email.

    Well, I hate email - I understand the nice things about it.. but the live'ish nature of chat can make conversations a bit more meaningful sometimes.

    That's fine, but it causes interruptions and problems like expectations of status. If people would use it like email it wouldn't have those problems, but it would act like email.



  • @DustinB3403 said:

    employees who never login.

    Fire the employee. Problem Solved.


  • Service Provider

    @anonymous said:

    @DustinB3403 said:

    employees who never login.

    Fire the employee. Problem Solved.

    That's really the only logical answer. Using technology to bypass or cover up insubordination never works out well.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @Dashrender said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @Dashrender said:

    I can see what you are saying - but why would the person who wants to talk to you not just send a note anyway? this way you can respond when you return.

    One has to wonder, but my guess is because they are looking for excuses to not work and it is a convenient one. Why have the status at all if they were going to be practical and use email? The status only exists because they are unwilling to use email.

    Well, I hate email - I understand the nice things about it.. but the live'ish nature of chat can make conversations a bit more meaningful sometimes.

    That's fine, but it causes interruptions and problems like expectations of status. If people would use it like email it wouldn't have those problems, but it would act like email.

    So you don't have your email client with notifications enabled? Even OWA has notifications on by default. I hear pings and pops all day long as new messages pop into my email box. They are only slightly less interupting than the messenger app blinking in the tray and the audible tones.


  • Service Provider

    @Dashrender said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @Dashrender said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @Dashrender said:

    I can see what you are saying - but why would the person who wants to talk to you not just send a note anyway? this way you can respond when you return.

    One has to wonder, but my guess is because they are looking for excuses to not work and it is a convenient one. Why have the status at all if they were going to be practical and use email? The status only exists because they are unwilling to use email.

    Well, I hate email - I understand the nice things about it.. but the live'ish nature of chat can make conversations a bit more meaningful sometimes.

    That's fine, but it causes interruptions and problems like expectations of status. If people would use it like email it wouldn't have those problems, but it would act like email.

    So you don't have your email client with notifications enabled? Even OWA has notifications on by default. I hear pings and pops all day long as new messages pop into my email box. They are only slightly less interupting than the messenger app blinking in the tray and the audible tones.

    I do, but people don't see it go yellow or whatever if you don't look at it right away. I see a note on the top of my screen and generally glance up and know if I need to look at it sometime in the near future. IM is more invasive because people expect a response faster than you can complete the sentence you are writing to someone else.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to MangoLassi was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.