WTF Bites
-
@blek What are the odds that was intended to be September 2018 (or earlier)?
-
-
Oh, right. USA and their famous labor laws...
As I said:
@Polygeekery said in WTF Bites:
they are on company time, on a company machine, on the company network.
Why shouldn't that be acceptable?
-
We have maglocks on our office, and they're opened by IP-connected RFID badge readers. One of our own hardware products does a UDP broadcast following a certain industry standard format as one of its features, and somehow the data it transmits disables the badge readers so the doors cannot open from either side. This was discovered while developing the product when an engineer left one running just before leaving for the day, and nobody could enter the building the next morning. We (actually some kind of building security subcontractor) had to physically tear down the door to get us in.
We complained to the upstream IT/security guys in our company, with the suggestion that perhaps the door readers should be on a VLAN separated from the general office network. Their official response was "Don't use that product in your office."
Yeah, we should totally cancel one of our products we sell to customers because the IT/security guys are too lazy to segment things properly.
-
@Polygeekery said in WTF Bites:
Oh, right. USA and their famous labor laws...
As I said:
@Polygeekery said in WTF Bites:
they are on company time, on a company machine, on the company network.
Why shouldn't that be acceptable?
It's usually a bit more complicated over here. Our labour courts mandate that surveillance should be the last tool to use, not the first one - they usually ask you if you took steps to prevent the unwanted actions from happening.
It also depends on what your ruleset states (is it: No private surfing / emails / phone calls at all? Or is it more lenient?) and how strict you are at enforcing them (rules you don't enforce or habits which have become customary cannot be suddenly used to fire someone). If you allow private emails during their break then continuous surveillance suddenly becomes a rather big problem: You may be recording stuff you're not allowed to record.
Also: This would be behaviour where the judge would ask you if you talked to the employee about it. You're usually required to give them a warning first (except in severe cases of going against company rules / the law).
-
I was driving home, and slowed down when I saw a vehicle emblazoned with PLANO POLICE.
As I drove closer, I could see it said CITIZENS ASSISTING PLANO POLICE.
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
Hmm, now I am curious... maybe they didn't set static IPs for the badge readers on the devices themselves but created static leases on their DHCP server and your UDP broadcasts are messing with DHCP so the readers can't renew their leases and fall off the network?
Nothing else on the network was affected. Only the RFID readers.
And I forgot the best part of the story. We sent the IT and security guys a Wireshark capture of the broadcasts, in case they needed to forward it to the readers' vendor and say "Hey, something in this data makes your readers lock up." Their response was, "Wireshark appears to be a hacker tool, you should not be using this in your office because it's a security risk."
-
Wireshark appears to be a hacker tool, you should not be using this in your office because it's a security risk
They must all be MCNA
-
I think we never got above the Level 1 support drones on the issue. Also,
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
develop and test things that use networking protocols
is our office's entire job, although Ethernet is just one small slice of what we do...
-
if you took steps to prevent the unwanted actions from happening.
"hey, employee. We pay you to work. You're not working. Start working or start looking for another job."
Done.
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
@Tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
"hey, employee. We pay you to work. You're not working. Start working or start looking for another job."
Done.
Sadly, you can't be this direct.
"say, that job there, would be a pity if something were to happen to it, say, if it were found out that it wasn't being done, eh?"
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
@Tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
"hey, employee. We pay you to work. You're not working. Start working or start looking for another job."
Done.
Sadly, you can't be this direct.
Of course you can be this direct?
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
@Tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
"hey, employee. We pay you to work. You're not working. Start working or start looking for another job."
Done.
Sadly, you can't be this direct.
You can.
-
-
I was driving home, and slowed down when I saw a vehicle emblazoned with PLANO POLICE.
As I drove closer, I could see it said CITIZENS ASSISTING PLANO POLICE.
A common one I see is people on big, white motorbikes with a high Viz jacket that says POLITE
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
Of course you can be this direct?
In the USA, the land of the
freeslaves? Yes.In the EU? Nope.
Okay, what misguided notions of how "The EU" (which, of course, is a monolithic entity) works make you say that?
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
Maglocks, battery backups, gas generators, ... So you are building a zombie apocalypse shelter, got it.
No.
-
Our labour courts mandate that surveillance should be the last tool to use, not the first one - they usually ask you if you took steps to prevent the unwanted actions from happening.
Yeah, tell them if they are not productive they will be unemployed. I don't see why one would need to do more than that. They are businesses, not charities.
-
Also: This would be behaviour where the judge would ask you if you talked to the employee about it. You're usually required to give them a warning first (except in severe cases of going against company rules / the law).
This is probably the guy's fifth strike. He is a shitty employee, has been for quite some time, and I would have terminated him a loooooong time ago if he were employed by me.
-
@Polygeekery said in WTF Bites:
Our labour courts mandate that surveillance should be the last tool to use, not the first one - they usually ask you if you took steps to prevent the unwanted actions from happening.
Yeah, tell them if they are not productive they will be unemployed. I don't see why one would need to do more than that. They are businesses, not charities.
Maybe an example to make it more clear: You run a small supermarket and there's regularly money missing from the till.
Now, you could install cameras everywhere.
Or simply make everyone count their money before and after the shift and then let it be counted by a second person.
-
@Polygeekery said in WTF Bites:
I would have terminated him a loooooong time ago if he were employed by me.
Terminated is what you call "burn his house to the ground with him in it"
-
Maybe an example to make it more clear: You run a small supermarket and there's regularly money missing from the till.
Now, you could install cameras everywhere.
Or simply make everyone count their money before and after the shift and then let it be counted by a second person.Or, find out who is stealing and terminate them.
Thieves gonna thieve. Let them go steal from someone else.
-
@Polygeekery Yes, but as I said, "cameras everywhere" runs into problems.
-
-
@TimeBandit said in WTF Bites:
"cameras everywhere" runs into problems
Tell that to the UK government
Well, those guys must've thought of 1984 as an instruction manual.
-
@Polygeekery Yes, but as I said, "cameras everywhere" runs into problems.
Yeah, but this situation would be more like, "camera pointed at the register, but only when this one guy is working."
-
@Polygeekery Yes, but as I said, "cameras everywhere" runs into problems.
Why? I don't get this. It is your property. Why couldn't you monitor it and if it catches thieves, all the better.
It sounds like you are saying that camera footage catching thieves is an issue?
-
@boomzilla said in WTF Bites:
@Polygeekery Yes, but as I said, "cameras everywhere" runs into problems.
Yeah, but this situation would be more like, "camera pointed at the register, but only when this one guy is working."
Then you have to make sure that it only catches this one register and somehow also make really sure that it only tapes that guy.
At which point a judge would ask: "Why don't you simply count the money before and after?"
-
At which point a judge would ask: "Why don't you simply count the money before and after?"
Why wouldn't the judge ask, "Why didn't you just fire the thieving bastard?"
-
@Polygeekery said in WTF Bites:
@Polygeekery Yes, but as I said, "cameras everywhere" runs into problems.
Why? I don't get this. It is your property. Why couldn't you monitor it and if it catches thieves, all the better.
It sounds like you are saying that camera footage catching thieves is an issue?
If it is accessible to the public then, yes, cameras are usually a no-go.
-
If it is accessible to the public then, yes, cameras are usually a no-go.
That makes no sense.
-
@boomzilla said in WTF Bites:
@Polygeekery Yes, but as I said, "cameras everywhere" runs into problems.
Yeah, but this situation would be more like, "camera pointed at the register, but only when this one guy is working."
Then you have to make sure that it only catches this one register and somehow also make really sure that it only tapes that guy.
Yes...that's what happened here.
At which point a judge would ask: "Why don't you simply count the money before and after?"
Because now you've stretched this analogy too far and it broke.
-
@boomzilla I'm not the one who took my supermarket analogy and ran with it?
-
@boomzilla I'm not the one who took my supermarket analogy and ran with it?
No, but you're the one who ran too far.
-
@boomzilla said in WTF Bites:
@boomzilla I'm not the one who took my supermarket analogy and ran with it?
No, but you're the one who ran too far.
Out of the range of the cameras?
-
@Polygeekery said in WTF Bites:
Our labour courts mandate that surveillance should be the last tool to use, not the first one - they usually ask you if you took steps to prevent the unwanted actions from happening.
Yeah, tell them if they are not productive they will be unemployed. I don't see why one would need to do more than that. They are businesses, not charities.
Would I be wrong if I assumed you have identical opinion about paid vacation?
-
@Polygeekery said in WTF Bites:
Our labour courts mandate that surveillance should be the last tool to use, not the first one - they usually ask you if you took steps to prevent the unwanted actions from happening.
Yeah, tell them if they are not productive they will be unemployed. I don't see why one would need to do more than that. They are businesses, not charities.
Would I be wrong if I assumed you have identical opinion about paid vacation?
I have no idea what you think my opinion of paid vacation is.
-
@Polygeekery "business is not charity".
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
Telling employees bluntly that "if they are not productive they will be unemployed" is consdered a threat in civilized countries.
Courts of law aren't civilized countries. In law, threat has a very precise meaning (it has to), and this ain't it. As long as you avoid certain keywords and grammar constructs, you can make threats all day long and they don't count. Remember, though, that threat isn't the only punishable offense - you're going to be liable for mobbing way before you'll be liable for threats.
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
Look, all I am saying is that in the EU (which is not monolitic and yes there will be exceptions in some countries) there are laws protecting the employees from abuse. For example there is a law against wrongful termination and stuff like that. You really need to be careful and run everything you want to discuss through your legal and HR department before talking to the employee. You are also not allowed to tell them things like that in front of the others. You must have proof of misbehavior or bad performance, then give them a written warning before firing them to which they have the right to respond in writing if they disagree.
After giving the warning you must give them time to improve (say six months), and only if they don't improve they can be fired without possible legal consequences. Trust me, it's best to part ways on good terms to avoid lawsuits which can sometimes drag on for years costing company more money and employee time on witness stands than you could have saved by firing them. Even worse, if you are found guilty of wrongful termination you must hire them back and pay them all the salaries you owe them since the firing.That is all just horrible.
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
Look, all I am saying is that in the EU (which is not monolitic and yes there will be exceptions in some countries) there are laws protecting the employees from abuse.
Yes but that isn't abuse.
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
For example there is a law against wrongful termination and stuff like that.
Yes but that isn't wrongful termination.
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
You must have proof of misbehavior or bad performance, then give them a written warning before firing them to which they have the right to respond in writing if they disagree.
After giving the warning you must give them time to improve (say six months), and only if they don't improve they can be fired without possible legal consequences. Trust me, it's best to part ways on good terms to avoid lawsuits which can sometimes drag on for years costing company more money and employee time on witness stands than you could have saved by firing them.Blah blah. Yes, it's not that easy to actually fire them but you can damn well say what was stated above.
-
@Polygeekery "business is not charity".
That doesn't mean I don't think people should have paid vacations. I most certainly do.
But I do not think it should be a government mandated requirement either.
-
@Polygeekery said in WTF Bites:
@Polygeekery Yes, but as I said, "cameras everywhere" runs into problems.
Why? I don't get this. It is your property. Why couldn't you monitor it and if it catches thieves, all the better.
It sounds like you are saying that camera footage catching thieves is an issue?
If it is accessible to the public then, yes, cameras are usually a no-go.
Why would the cameras be accessible to the public? You're increasingly moving the goal posts here...
-
@Polygeekery said in WTF Bites:
Our labour courts mandate that surveillance should be the last tool to use, not the first one - they usually ask you if you took steps to prevent the unwanted actions from happening.
Yeah, tell them if they are not productive they will be unemployed. I don't see why one would need to do more than that. They are businesses, not charities.
Would I be wrong if I assumed you have identical opinion about paid vacation?
I've never had this "paid vacation". Tell me about it, and why it's a good thing?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
why it's a good thing?
You're not at work but you're paid as if you are. What's not good about it?
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
there are laws protecting the employees from abuse
Are there laws protecting companies from abuse from their employees?
-
@loopback0 said in WTF Bites:
@Tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
why it's a good thing?
You're not at work but you're paid as if you are. What's not good about it?
I would probably go out of my mind. Approximately 62-to-one odds, increasing by ten per day. There's only so much in my extra-occupational docket...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
there are laws protecting the employees from abuse
Are there laws protecting companies from abuse from their employees?
Not in the EU. Their laws seems to encourage it.
Same goes for California and New York.
-
@Polygeekery said in WTF Bites:
@Polygeekery "business is not charity".
That doesn't mean I don't think people should have paid vacations. I most certainly do.
But I do not think it should be a government mandated requirement either.
The problem is, most employers, especially employers of low-skill employees, would give exactly zero paid vacations if they haven't had the government guns against their heads. And low skill jobs is about half the working population. I don't think half the working population not being able to take paid time off every so often is a good thing for the society.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
there are laws protecting the employees from abuse
Are there laws protecting companies from abuse from their employees?
Yes. They're called basic laws of economy. Employees usually have next to zero leverage against their employers.