Social networking sites cost UK economy up to £14bn pa

Running_Horse

worldtraveller wrote: »

Maybe it could be done in less time, with less staff, saving your company money, if staff are not allowed to log on to social networking sites on company time?

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Production tends to be short bursts of high value work followed by long periods of idleness. The offices are small highly specialised departments who are required to shuffle documentation between themselves, and if management were any more laid back they would fall over.

I got bored with playing games for 12 hours on shift and left facebook, but would think long and hard before banning it.

olly300

Mozette wrote: »

Well if it's part of your job, but I was assuming this thread was referring to 'social' use. I have to use the internet as part of my job, but if you need to go on a 'dodgy' or potentially time wasting site then you have to go to a designated computer and your use is logged. And apparently facebook is banned - I don't use it anyway so I've never tried to at work.

Even when I use it as not part of my job I find I get bored if I am allowed during working time to spend time doing it i.e. if there is nothing to do.

Graham_Devon

worldtraveller wrote: »

I disagree Graham. Just like with children there need to be boundaries. People will push the boundaries, just like children will. If you have a clear company policy everyone knows the boundaries. Often, when there are not, people in an organisation will just take the !!!! and other staff members will then get annoyed with colleagues when they do so. Smoking time is a classic example and often causes a great deal of resentment. The same goes for people that spend a lot of time on social networking sites, or taking/making personal calls. IMHO it's good for productivity when everyone knows that there are clear rules and, a ban is best.

I've worked in hundreds of different offices, as used to be an engineer covering the south west and wales.

Whats your policy on things like having the radio on in offices?

I've been in offices where people are sat on their own, in an office, and are not even allowed to listen to the radio. So they sit there, on their own, in silence.

I've always had radio's on in offices if I'm on my own, and if with other people. Found this really bizzare, but found that quite a few offices were that strict about it.

Cleaver

worldtraveller wrote: »

Let them go get another job IMHO!

There are now, and will be in future, a massive number of well educated "youngsters" willing to take these peoples jobs without the need to spend much of their time wasting company money.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but this is exactly the outdated type of thinking I'm talking about.

"We're an amazing company, so if you don't like it here, there's plenty of people who will take your job. So like it or lump it."

I guess it's one way to run a business. But increasing studies show that this new generation is vastly different to the ones that have come before (although I fully understand that you could debate whether this is a good or bad thing). People's perceptions of what a job is, and their relationship with an employer, have changed. If you want the best people then an organisation needs to move with the times and look at new ways to engage and attract the best young talent. Part of this is to really look at flexible, adaptable ways of working relationships between employer and employee.

Looking at Facebook whilst during the 9-5 work hours, for example, doesn't necessarily mean that you're wasting your employers time when you look at the bigger picture of how much they contribute to the organisation.

Graham_Devon

May I say, bloody good thread. Really interesting, and not a house price in sight.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

May I say, bloody good thread. Really interesting, and not a house price in sight.

It's 'cos I'm back Graham.

Cleaver

worldtraveller wrote: »

I disagree Graham. Just like with children there need to be boundaries. People will push the boundaries, just like children will.

Again I'm sorry to sound like I'm picking on you, but you're comparing employees with children. IMHO this doesn't create the type of environment young people want to work in.

kabayiri

Let's get this right.

This is one of those companies trying to get relatively cheap publicity by hiding under the 'it must be true coz we did a survey' drivel.

Ban internet access for social reasons at work, and we won't see any of this 14bn losses materialise on balance sheets.

Did we have the same number of surveys before the arrival of 24 hour news coverage? They seem to exist to feed the beast that is the news industry.

Cleaver

kabayiri wrote: »

Ban internet access for social reasons at work, and we won't see any of this 14bn losses materialise on balance sheets.

Of course you will still see these losses (if they were ever quantifiable in the first place). Social networking online is the symptom, not the cause.

Just to say again: if I'm the type of employee who decides that I'm going to waste two hours of my employer's time everyday, then that's exactly what I'll do. It doesn't matter what you ban, or how closely you manage me, I'll find something to do that isn't work whether that's Facebook, chatting, surfing the net, looking busy shuffling papers that are actually my bills or plotting Aberdeen house prices over the last five years in to Excel (which really does look like work).

People were messing about and wasting time at work long before social networking and will continue to do so long after it's gone.

olly300

The real issue with social networking is not the estimated cost of time wasting, but the cost of bad publicity a facebook or other comment made about the company by an employee can cost the company. Especially if the company reacts to the situation by sacking the employee concerned and getting in the media.