IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Time Wasted Survey

0 helpful
46 replies

by marileev9

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Salary.com conducted a survey which says workers waste two hours a day cruising on the web and socializing. By one calculation employers spend $759 billion per year paying - http://www.salary.com/careers/layoutscripts/crel_display.asp?tab=cre&cat=nocat&ser=Ser374&part=Par555

The nature of my job is very collaborative, even if I take a minute off topic our department is still able to get their deliverables completed like this tips article http://www.essentialsecurity.com/Documents/article18.htm

Do you spend more than 2 hours a day "goofing-off?" Has goofing off ever negatively affected your job? I think taking a break gives you fresh eyes.

46 replies

by deadly ernest

In one IT contract job I had a few years back, I spent three hours a day cruising the web. Getting info and feedback on various programs and applications and then writting reports on which we should try and why. It's called information gathering.

In a job I did for most of the 1990s I spent about 8 hours a week, on average, just speaking to people about things in general, there were a few hundred people in the facility. The result waas that i was on good terms with nearly everyone, and those I didn't really know, knew someone who knew me and would put in a good word. So I got to know about problems BEFORE they were problems. If I needed to get something done now, and sort the paperwork later, it got done. All because people knew and trusted me to do the right thing - ALL PART OF NETWORKING

by marileev9

Here's what Salary.com (with AOL) said were time-wasters:

1 Surfing Internet (personal use) 44.7%
2 Socializing with co-workers 23.4%
3 Conducting personal business 6.8%
4 Spacing out 3.9%
5 Running errands off-premises 3.1%
6 Making personal phone calls 2.3%
7 Applying for other jobs 1.3%
8 Planning personal events 1.0%
9 Arriving late / Leaving early 1.0%
10 Other 12.5%

I have contentions with the top two. Socializing with co-workers can help gel a team to work better and be more effective with the time they do use to work.

by jdclyde

As in, waste of time to formulate.

How much time is wasted taking surveys on wasting time?

Plan and simple, you get your job done or you do not get your job done. I have known workers that are always "nose to the grinding stone" and put in all kinds of extra hours getting their work done. This wasn't because they were more dedicated, it was because they weren't as good of workers and it took them extra time to get the same job done.

Just one more thing for useless managers that have no idea how to lead to use to bash their workers. It also only goes to create jobs for alledged efficency "experts" to tell everyone else that they are doing things wrong.

I did notice smoking was not on their list. Nor was sitting in meetings that do not concern you directly. Or having to deal with a micromanaging twit that doesn't know how to do what you do, telling you how they THINK it should be.

by jdclyde

survey taking of AOL users. These are the people with more money than brains to begin with, that pay twice the going rate, just so AOL can hold their hands at getting them on the web.

Yeah, there is a bright bunch to sample.

by marileev9

jclyde, you brought up a great point about having to attend "meetings that do not concern you directly," When I worked for a bigger organization, I used to fret when I got Outlook meetings to talk about when best to meet. Ugh!

Yeah, c'mon, people need a way to get fresh eyes at work let em' goof off a little. At my current company we've got an office ping-pong table for that.

by jmgarvin

The meeting would be a small portion of sys admin, net admin, et al and a HUGE portion of people like finance and HR.

So we'd typically say things like:
We need more bandwidth because we are almost at max capacity. Our poor web server is struggling to keep up and our gateway is almost 10 years old...

We'd hear:
But the network is just fine, we don't notice anything...

*le sigh*

by dmambo

"Can you come into my office for a few minutes?"

When I hear our general manager start out with that one, I know that it's going to be one hour minimum and generally half of that is listening to him ripping some other manager in the plant or talking about his boat. Makes me wonder what he says about me when I'm not there.

by jdclyde

but it is his hour to waste, right?

Just try to stay awake and pretend your interested. :D

by jck

Dude...yeah...I have that all the time. My boss is a cool guy, but listening to his house roof story, or house tile story, or how his son is bulking up in college, etc...waste of time too...

But still, I will never ever say that humans should be able to work at 100% efficiency...or even close to it...we're imperfect...our minds are random firing machines based on incalculable random stimuli.

For execs to think blue-collar should be as-close-to-perfect workers...shows how daft their thinking is.

Glad my boss isn't like that...otherwise, I'd have walked out by now.

by marileev9

At a larger organization I was with, I had to keep an excel log for a month to get my boss's boss to approve a new machine.

by jdclyde

At the beginning, only an accountant "needed" a computer. Getting a computer for others was pretty much out of the question.

We could buy computer parts though. It was acceptable to MAKE a computer, but not buy a computer. AAAAAAAAA!

Now, a new secritary gets hired in and a P4 is dropped on her desk with a flat screen. My, how things have changed!

Don't ever get me STARTED about getting people on email..... :0

by jamesrl

1) He/She is your boss. Unless you are independantly wealthy, part of the job is listening.

2) Its bonding. Management needs to vent sometimes and sharing a secret is bonding and cementing the relationship. Some day you may need to do this too. Better to listen than to have the manager build up steam.

3) It is insightful. You will learn about your boss, by his/her choice of topics, what frustrates them. etc. Helping your boss overcome those frustrations can be good for you, for your boss, and for the company.

Listen to me......

James

by jdclyde

When they started giving out Nextels, I ducked out so I wouldn't have to have one. My co-worker JUMPED at the chance, because SHE was important because SHE had a company phone.

Two years later, who is it that gets calls at home from 5 in the morning to 9:30 at night? Not me! :D

She has tried sence the to hand it off, but no thanks. I rarely answer the phones that I DO have. Why would I want another in my life that I HAVE to answer? :0

by marileev9

Funny you say that about email too. When I worked in corporate for a large retailer you could have a nondescript 12345@mcimail account, but to have an email with your name and Outlook installed on your machine was a great big bureaucratic mess. They didn't globally roll out Outlook oh wait Outlook Express to everyone until oh 2000.

by bert_c

Surveys like this are deliberately geared to produce controversial or at least remarkable results because no one is going to get any money, column inches, publicity or ever be allowed to do a survey again if their headline is "we did a survey and found out nothing useful or interesting."

It's like the old statistical joke that 40% of all sick days are taken on Mondays or Fridays. Gasp ! Can this be true ?! Of course it can, 40% of working days are on Monday or Friday.

If you could be bothered to sit down and do the math I'm sure you would find that about $50 billion per year is spent paying for employees to go to the toilet. It sounds bad when you express it as dollars but that's what statistics are used for.

by subscriptions

Another $68 billion was wasted by employees posting and reading on this forum.

I agree with Bert_C, stats can be skewed any way you like. Just have to be selective with what your stats are about.

Another one of the $50 billion in toilets could be:
$1 trillion is wasted in voice in mail. First people leave a message, then people check the message, then they call back or wait for a call back. Long distance charges and phone equipment maintenance not included! ;-)
So at the end of the day, $1.8 trillion is wasted every year by employees. Amazing!

by jdclyde

in keeping track of how much time/dollars was wasted? :D

I wish people would stop paying other people to do stupid surveys and studies!

by marileev9

You could always say that you were being productive, trying to find out how not to be unproductive - you know, that management doublespeak.

by plumley9

1st - Surveys inflate their findings. I spend an hour most days between e-mail and e-news and articles about technology.
2nd - If one of those hours solves a problem or better avoids one then it wasn't a waste.
3rd - IT, computing, networking is about being the best generalist for your company/business.
4th - i.e. the article above this link was on "RPC" and it definitely was NOT a waste of time. But two weeks ago the "earwig hell" discussion was pure fun.

by logos-systems

Well when you figure that most salaried employees put in over 45 hours a week a think it is a small price for employers to pay, considering that they don't pay of the overtime.

by jdclyde

Not sure how your company handles this, but in our handbook hours for Salary employees is "The hours required to complete the job."

No such thing as overtime for Salary, which is where some people get nailed when they first switch to it from hourly pay. They see a higher dollar amount but forget to factor it by the added hours they WILL be working.

When I have a day go way over, I will leave early on a different day to average them out. Hours stay at between 45 and 48 a week. Anything more and I am out on a nice sunny day! B-)

by kencope

I think in many cases, the amount of time spent chatting or doing personal email, surfing, phone calls, etc. is far less than the extra time companies are increasingly expecting of their employess. We need ways to stay sane and keep up with our personal lives, too. Much of the "wasted" time is simply fallout from the demands of the job.

by jck

How can the rule-setters in corporate America expect the blue collar laborer to work like a robot unerringly and without inefficiency, and still qualify playing 18 holes of golf followed by an overpriced gourmet dinner with a client as "work"?

You can't tell me...swinging a golf club and driving a cart and eating food involves 100% focus on reaching your business goals.

I'd love to see someone follow around executives and shotgun mic their conversations and see if their conversations with clients are all about business, or if they "time waste" too.

And, I wonder how much unpaid OT salary employees are cut out of by the business sector?

Capitalism...it's what's for dinner...NOW EAT! :D

by jdclyde

You have that "rule-setter" that makes more profit for the company in a month than that blue-collar worker will in a year, it isn't too hard to figure out why they have different rules imposed on them than the working ranks. Especially when it is unskilled labor involved. If I had a dime for everytime I heard "You could be replaced by a trained monkey" when I worked the shop jobs.

I DID hear a Marketing person crying about how eating out all the time "just isn't fun" when they are out all the time. waaaaaaa! ;\

by jck

I keep hearing how they make more profit for a company.

Please...I beg you.

Show me *one* example of how any rule-setter brought in, of their own direct effort, any significant amount of profit increase to an already-established publically traded company that validates their exorbitant pay.

All they ever produce at most is a promise (i.e.- contract) from a client to purchase a delivered product. And even then, usually they need a legal department and sales staff to finalize the details.

You don't see rule-setters even hiring the blue-collar worker, let alone produce any deliverable.

It's the blue-collar who makes the company a profit...not the guy who is essentially an over-paid salesman out schmoozing.

Without product, you make no profit...no matter how many contracts are signed.

Anyone can make a profit by selling their product in an open market...need proof?? Car salesmen. Flea markets. Roadside fruit stands. Pooka shell necklace guys on the streets next to the docks for cruise ships in Mexico.

So long as there is demand, supply is needed and things will sell...with or without the rule-setters.

I think investing in design and manufacturing a more robust product to draw more market and a more premium price is more prudent. Demand and innovation drive the market far better than overglorified car salesmen.

Oh yeah...and PAC and SIG guys in D.C. You need those too. hahaha ]:)

Of course, I guess we need to employ those guys too...can't afford to have the welfare system paying out 6-figure checks any time soon... ;)

You'd be better to fight for the rights of paid endorsers being worth their facetime on ads...like Dan Marino for Autoway...I bet he increased the car sales in Miami for them by 10 fold.

Anyways...rules for employees should be the same at all levels...if you're working...you're working...if you're on the phone scheduling a cable repair appointment or talking to a client about the new Benz you're getting for Christmas...that's "time wasting"...plain and simple.

by jdclyde

without that order, the rest of the employees are out of a job. Peroid.

Class-envy will not change that one fact.

by jck

Then how did anyone ever start a company?

You're telling me that Henry Ford, Paul Allen, Steve Wozniak, Mark Cuban or Marc Andreesen all went out and made their huge money because...they hired executives? WOW...you are so smart! *cough cough sarcastic cough*

I guess they had to hire those rule-setters before they hired the labour, eh?

Talk about weird assertion...companies can't employ people without the rule-setting execs? Right...and I get to work with the engine of my car in the passenger seat too.

Class envy...no...it's fact.

Companies make profit based on the sale of a manufactured product...not a promise.

The market dictates what the demand for that product is...not the executive rule-setter.

The Sales and Promotion Department devises advertising that makes the product appealing...not the executive rule setter.

The labour makes the product that is advertised.

And if that still doesn't make sense to you, I'll make you a deal.

I'll start a company and hire myself to sell and provide a service as a computer tech.

You start your company by hiring yourself as an executive doing rule-setting and golfing and having meetings about having a computer tech.

I bet I'll make more money...then I'll buy you out!!! hahaha ]:)

Now THAT is funny...class envy...hahaha...you crack me up... ]:)

So...you gonna open a bottle of beer with a can opener too? ;)

by jdclyde

So it is the bottom laborer that makes all the money?

Someone chosing a direction for the company didn't have an influence at all, huh?

Someone deciding which products to build, how much to build them, and how to build them, has less of an influince?

So figuring what materials, and what tools had little influince either?

Wow, you really have no idea how a manufacturing company works, do you? The floor worker comes in and does the parts he is told to do, as part of a process someone else has figured out.

And of course, as much as everyone hates salesmen, the salesman is the bread and butter of a company. If he is not successful getting orders, the floor laborer is out of a job waiting for orders to come in.

Go take a business management course somewhere to learn something about this.

And yes, this is all part of your petty class-envy, to think that the floor worker is worth as much to the company as the execs. There is a reason execs make so much more than people doing unskilled labor. You can have the greatest workforce in the world, but if they are not working on the right job at the right time, you are out of business with a warehouse full of inventory you can't move. That inventory is money that could have been used to pay the monthly bills, but instead it went to pay for materials and labor costs.

by tioedong9

You think it's bad in the tech industry, you should be a doc in an HMO that wants you to see people "efficiently" in ten minutes, and then spend five minutes writing every trivial detail so they get paid.
What's wrong with this picture?
Well, lots of people coming in for "colds" have other problems...alcohol, a teenager causing problems at home, questions about a symptom they are hesitant to bring up (e.g. rectal bleeding) so they come in for " a cold". If you don't "waste" time socializing, they may never bring these things up.
Similarly, often I would play solitare between patients, but my mind at another level was thinking and then eureka, I'd figure out the diagnosis.
Finally, "wasting" time in coffee breaks allow people to work together.
The emphasis on busy work dehumanizes us, which is why the Pope last week reminded us we need to be lazy once in awhile and relax.

by marileev9

Ditto, no matter what industry you work in, you can only run at 110% so long. After all, we're only human

by doc.two9

automaton
One entry found for automaton.
Main Entry: au?tom?a?ton
Pronunciation: o-'t?-m&-t&n, -m&-"t?n
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -atons or au?tom?a?ta /-m&-t&, -m&-"t?/
Etymology: Latin, from Greek, neuter of automatos
1 : a mechanism that is relatively self-operating; especially : ROBOT
2 : a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions
3 : an individual who acts in a mechanical fashion

-There must be complete efficiency so that we can be viewed as doing our jobs- Some middle management type, circa the start of the Industrial Age

by helpusobiwan

I just came from a company that has the solution to this "spare" time problem ... they downsize on a regular basis until everyone is working 50 hours plus just to keep up. This solves the problem quite nicely (except for those of us downsized of course) although it doesn't do much for the health of those left. I am reminded of a poster seen once: "Beatings will continue until morale improves!" :-)

P.S. Where in heaven's name did you find a place where one can goof off for two hours a day?!?! I would like to submit a resume immediately! I am kidding of course; their present staff would kill me for working 8 hours and making them look bad.

by marileev9

Wow, I remember those and actually taking a lunch. Our ping-pong table in the front area can be a bit deceiving to those interviewing. While it gets lots of use - the 8 hour day for so many has gone the way of the rolodex.

by jdclyde

of punching a clock in and out on a regular schedule........

When I get older and need to slow down, I guess I could cut back to only 8 hour days! B-)

by onbliss

...I do goof off more than 2 hours a day or many days a week. But that would be because I had no work. Or if the deliverables expected from me could be easily completed in the given time.

If there is work, then it gets completed. No question about it. I don't think my deliverables have ever been delayed because of my browsing abilities :-)

I always wondered why they hire contractors and give them (us) so little work. I see that it boils down to the company's work culture and software release cycles. In few companies I had to go and pester the leads or managers for more work. In some contracts there is no breathing room.

by jdclyde

by being understaffed. Better to have a little extra overhead in personel than to lose out on an opportunity because you were short staffed.

Also, some people just get their work done faster than others! :D

by ibanezoo

...but some of my time is dedicated tracking down those who waste time. So when you think about it, other people wasting time also waste my time at the same time. :)

by jck

Makes all the money? Another generalistic question.

You saw what I typed. Without the laborer who makes the end product, NO income comes into a company (unless of course, you're a scam like 1990s internet IPO or Enron and lie to the stockmarket selling a "box of bricks" to people).

Salesman <> rule-setting executive
Engineer (who designs the products) <> rule-setting executive
Purchaser (who acquires materials) <> rule-setting executive
Labourer (who builds product which is profit generator) <> rule-setting executive.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Oh and btw...I never said floor labour figured out what to make...did I? Nice try ;)

Contrary to what you think, I have had a business course. I had it when I was a Computer Services Section Head. I do understand both how manufacturing works the business model as well as accounting, forecasting and trends, and asset management.

Oh...and...BTW...if you know anything about business, you'll know every company has a product line and development scheme before they even start operations...let alone hiring executives. It's called...a business plan. Business 101 for ya there. So, executives are not needed for that as you've proclaimed. QED ;)

I could have been a CTO or Director by now. I chose not to do that. That's all the proof I need to provide you're wrong about me and my "class envy". Climbing the ladder isn't my modus operandi.

As for how much inventory to keep...if you're basing your company's business on the size of your warehouse and keeping it full...you are really putting your cart before your horse. The only thing you should worry about keeping your warehouse filled with is employees who are moving that product constantly. ;)

No matter what you say, executives are truly nothing more than overpaid middlemen who get a check for being corporate gamblers using other peoples' money in making decisions that could be made by more competent people who work below them.

I've decided not to speel anymore here and bore people anymore with replying to your silly presumptions about me.

Now...go back to Friday Yuk. At least you mean to be funny there. :p ]:)

This discussion is closed to new replies.