An Interesting Social Experiment

[HugeFanOfBadReligion]

Today, in civics class, my teacher did an interesting social experiment. I'll leave out a few details that aren't really necessary to the experiment. What he did was largely based on a thing that teachers have done in several of my classes, where students are asked to go to a specific side of the room depending on their opinions on something. At first, he told us to go to one side of the room if we enjoyed sports in any way, whether it is from watching or participating in them. He told students who have no interest to go to the other side of the room. This may surprise you, but I went to the side of the students who did have some interest in sports, do to the fact that I do have some interest in snowboarding, but never watching it, and only recreationally. Only two students, who were female, went to the side that had no interest in sports.

After everyone took a side, the teacher explained some story about a man who was fired from his job because on the company's computer in the man's office, the man was visiting sports-related websites. He had been warned not to do so twice before. However, when he visited these sports websites, it was during his break, his productivity was not being reduced and he fulfilled all required tasks. Now, we were asked to take a side depending on whether or not the man should have been fired. If he should have been fired, we were asked to go to the side that previously was the side for the people who were not interested in sports, and if he shouldn't have been fired, then we were asked to go to the previously athletic side. I remained on the same side as I believed he shouldn't have been fired. It was not harming the company and by firing him, the company loses a valuable employee (his visits to the sports sites were the only reason why he was fired) and the man is without a job, thus it is a lose-lose situation. However, around half of the people left the side I was on and went to the side that believed he should have been fired.

Following a lot of discussion and debate, the teacher did one final thing in terms of making us choose a side. It was the same question, regarding whether or not he should have been fired, and the sides of the room we had to choose were the same, but there as one important difference: What if instead of visiting a sports website on the company's computer, he was visiting pornographic websites? Nearly everyone flocked to the other side of the room as nearly no one believed that he shouldn't have been fired if he was doing that. However, I still remained at the same side of the room with the few who held the same opinion as me. I believed that as long as the employer had no moral or political objections to pornography in general (i.e. religious objections or feminism), the man shouldn't be fired as the content of the website would have made no difference to the company.

What are your thoughts on each situation? Keep in mind that the first situation involving the man visiting sports-related websites is a true story and the situation that followed it is merely hypothetical.

Also, my civics teacher made a comment on the subject that I was appreciative of. After saying that he himself is against sports to some extent, he referred to a baseball pitcher getting paid millions of dollars as a "crime against humanity". I believe he was being hyperbolic, but he is right that it is wrong that professional athletes are paid such high wages.

[recovering_fan]

Here are my answers:

1. On the question of having "any interest in sports":

I would have gone to the zero interest side of the room. I really think that for something to count as a sport it has to be both physical and competitive. So hiking is not a sport (fails competitiveness test), nor is chess as far as I'm concerned (fails physicality test), despite what Karpov may say.

Mainly I would move to the sports-haters side of the room, because the gender ratio on that side of the room, even once I got to sports-haters side, would be 2-1 women.

2. On the question of firing the sports-nut:

That's a tough one, because he's supposed to be following orders, and he didn't. I think firing him is a bit harsh, but if there was no other possible way to punish him, then I guess they just had to let him go. Of course, it would depend on whether he spent serious minutes there or just clicked it "by accident" as I often do with some sites, before realising I did not want to visit that site at that particular time.

3. On the question of firing the over-sexed guy:

As long we're talking about legal pornography sites, then they should deal with it the same way as with visits to any other website, with a warning first and a firing if he didn't get the message. Again, it would depend on whether he spent serious minutes there or not. They can monitor employee browsing, so presumably they could tell how many seconds he spent at the site.

So...in summary I guess that means we'd be on opposite sides of the room after all the questions. Sorry!

--RF

[HugeFanOfBadReligion]

The teacher said that chess does not count as a sport. Although by your definition, if it has to be competitive, then I'd have to go on the other side of the room. And yes, the teacher defined that all websites the man visited were legal.

Of course, it would depend on whether he spent serious minutes there or just clicked it "by accident" as I often do with some sites, before realising I did not want to visit that site at that particular time.

But how does the amount of time he spends on the site affect the company as long as it is during his break and if he is still being 100% productive? Sure, it's disobeying orders, but what do rules matter if no one is being harmed when they are broken?

Again, it would depend on whether he spent serious minutes there or not. They can monitor employee browsing, so presumably they could tell how many seconds he spent at the site.

Yes, but just like the last situation, as long as the company isn't being harmed and all the work is getting done, what does it matter?

[ChrisOH]

But how does the amount of time he spends on the site affect the company as long as it is during his break and if he is still being 100% productive? Sure, it's disobeying orders, but what do rules matter if no one is being harmed when they are broken?

Hello HugeFan!

At the company I used to work for, use of bandwidth was the major issue, even if the employee was not taking time away from their work. I worked for a firm that electronically transmitted medical claims to payors, and those claims had specific deadlines each day. Therefore, there had to be enough bandwidth to handle all the claims that needed to be transmitted at any given time. I don't recall anyone ever being fired over this; the IT department simply blocked sites and categories of site (such as social networking sites) that were likely to occupy bandwidth for a long period of time.

[HugeFanOfBadReligion]

Hello HugeFan!

At the company I used to work for, use of bandwidth was the major issue, even if the employee was not taking time away from their work. I worked for a firm that electronically transmitted medical claims to payors, and those claims had specific deadlines each day. Therefore, there had to be enough bandwidth to handle all the claims that needed to be transmitted at any given time. I don't recall anyone ever being fired over this; the IT department simply blocked sites and categories of site (such as social networking sites) that were likely to occupy bandwidth for a long period of time.

Hey Chris. That's an aspect that I hadn't thought of before, the usage of bandwidth. However, I think that my teacher may have manipulated/left out some aspects of the story for the purpose of this social experiment, so the reactions everybody made was only based on the fact that he was disobeying orders yet the company was not being harmed. So if someone asked the teacher if bandwidth was an issue, he'd probably just say that the man's Internet usage wasn't causing a problem to the company.

[Fat Man]

I would say, that first, the employee should be issued a warning.

But if the issue happens to be taking up too much bandwidth, and if employee ignores the warning and persists in his behavior, then he should be fired, or at least have some of his pay docked.

Of course, the company he works for, they could install some kind of software that blocks access to sports web sites or pornographic web sites.

Problem solved.

I think.

[recovering_fan]

Of course, the company he works for, they could install some kind of software that blocks access to sports web sites or pornographic web sites.

Yes, if HugeFan had suggested THAT to me during his Civics class, I would have gone over to his side of the room--in the case of the sports fan who got fired, mind you, and not in the case of the sex fiend. Your solution is only practical in the case of sports-related websites, since those are limited in number, which means it would be relatively easy to block access to them. There are myriad porno sites, so there's no stopping an employee who's interested in porn.

[ChrisOH]

Of course, the company he works for, they could install some kind of software that blocks access to sports web sites or pornographic web sites.

Problem solved.

I think.

Well, my old company, the main IT guy was one of the biggest sports bores there, so of course the sports websites weren't blocked (after all, he needed to be able to check out stats for his 20 or so fantasy leagues he had going).

[HugeFanOfBadReligion]

Of course, the company he works for, they could install some kind of software that blocks access to sports web sites or pornographic web sites.

Yes, this was something I was wondering through the class, however, there wasn't much open discussion, as the only debating that really existed was the teacher questioning the people who believed the man should be fired in the different scenarios. I guess the purpose wasn't to debate, but just to see each student's opinion without much discussion.

[recovering_fan]

Well, my old company, the main IT guy was one of the biggest sports bores there, so of course the sports websites weren't blocked (after all, he needed to be able to check out stats for his 20 or so fantasy leagues he had going).

So much brain-power, wasted...

If I were running even a half dozen leagues, they would start to run together in my mind at that point.

Also, you'd think an IT guy would be able to write some kind of Java program to collect the statistics for each day's worth of action and to then keep track of what everyone's score was automatically. What else are computer programs for?

--RF

[ChrisOH]

Well, my old company, the main IT guy was one of the biggest sports bores there, so of course the sports websites weren't blocked (after all, he needed to be able to check out stats for his 20 or so fantasy leagues he had going).

So much brain-power, wasted...

Oh, this guy would spend literally hours each day walking from desk to desk, cubicle to cubicle, talking to people about some sports or fantasy-league bullshit. Yet, whenever I'd ask him to look at a computer, printer, or something that was required for me to do my job of transmitting the claims, he'd be like, "Duuuude...you're killin' me here! I can't keep up with all this work!"

[Lewis]

1. I would go to the disinterested side of the room. I'm not really interested in it, but if a friend is sporty and sports come up in the conversation, I'll talk about it just too be polite.

2. I think he should have not lost his job. He should have been given a severe dressing down, but seeing as he was on his break I don't think he should have been sacked.

3. Yes, he deserved to lose his job for two reasons. The first being, it was not his property and therefore he should treat it with respect. The second reason, is that it is unprofessional and if I were in charge I would expect better from him.

[The Imperialist]

1: Better definition of sports would have been appreciated, so I will refuse to budge until a clarification was made.

2: Fired, as if one was the employee of the company, to show true loyalty one must do as much as one can for the company and to try and increase productivity even if it is their break. If this logic is not applicable, than not fired (cautioned for using the company's internet for unproductive activities at the least)- but then it depends what kind of break it is.

3: Definitely fired, as it is most inappropriate to be viewing such material in the public. (And personally, all pornography should be burnt and anybody associated with it should be purged- yes, a blackmarket may emerge, but that will just give me the reason to proclaim a moral high ground)

[HugeFanOfBadReligion]

1: Better definition of sports would have been appreciated, so I will refuse to budge until a clarification was made.

I agree that he should have clarified better. I found it odd that I was on the side with an interest in sports when I'm quite unathletic and really have no interest in sports.

3: Definitely fired, as it is most inappropriate to be viewing such material in the public.

It wasn't in public, he had his own office.

[miketv]

1) I would have asked to designate the back of the room for rabid anti-sports nuts (like myself. I have zero interest in sports, but I am interested in in diminishing their stranglehold on the world). The illusion of only having two choices (for/against, Republican/Democrat) tends to make issues seem more cut-&-dry than they really are....that's why everyone in this country hates everyone else in this country. We're corralled in with people with "similar" opinions, but there's not much true representation of the spectrum of opinions possible. In reality, there are a lot of qualifiers & conditions that would make people change their minds to one side or another, often depending on which other issues this matter crosses over into. (For example, maybe he was on the site until the last second of his break. If they have crappy computers (like the one I'm using right now), or if the site is loaded with ads & scripts, it could take several minutes just to exit the site, taking away from work time.)

2) Work policy is dictated by the company. If the company says "no internet on breaks" then you're bound to that policy from day one. If you don't think you can handle the pressure, then you should get a job somewhere else. Most companies have a policy against insubordination: follow the rules, or hit the road. I don't see anything wrong with that. Especially in an economy where there are PLENTY of other qualified people willing to follow the rules.

Is it a horrible thing he did? Well....he WAS supporting sports.....but sadly, that's not a crime. On the other hand, my inner hypocrite says, "Fuck that guy!! Let the sports people see what it's like to not have 98% of the public supporting them based on what they watch on tv"

3) this is interesting. Comparing sports to pornography. Living vicariously through the actions of others, wasting time satisfying visceral urges instead of stimulating the mind, the flesh-on-flesh action....I can see the comparison. It still comes down to this: follow policy or clear your desk for someone who can.