There have been some recent stories about various organisations taking steps to stop employees accessing social-networking sites such as Facebook. The argument is that the benefit to the firm is not sufficient for the lost time. I've also noticed that OLO is almost deserted on a weekend, which suggests that a large number of people are choosing to connect from work rather than from home. At the risk of being accused of "bullying", I think there are a few interesting questions coming out of that: does the boss know and if s/he did, would it be an approved activity? How do you justify the time spent? Why don't you connect from home?

In my own case, I is de Boss and I connect from both work and home. I justify taking time at work on the grounds of I is de Boss, rather than anything rational, but I'm only spending my own time. I think I'd be less than thrilled with paying someone to do so.

I would not access OLO at work and when I work am too busy to take the time out. It is not allowed in any case.

Luckily, I work contract in chunks throughout the year so I am able to come and go a bit during the week. From some comments other posters have made I think some are semi-retired or retired and a few work part-time.

I don't access it while I'm working these days, it's not the kind of work you could easily do that with. I guess my work would be classed as part-time.

I did sometimes access OLO at a previous job, though my boss was always focused on my output at the end of the day or week. Provided that was always of a high standard and there was enough of it, it didn't matter. Generally I'd only stop in for a few minutes a day, or read an article with my morning coffee when I was starting.
Plus, it was important that I kept abreast of issues and current events and occasionally the main articles on the page would come in handy.

I see your point though. I'm curious as to the productivity element in this as well.

I don't work regular 9 to 5 hours and, as the academic year waxes and wanes, have periods of intense busy-ness that often precludes anything but projects in hand.

However, OLO is part of my work. Both in Journalism classes, and class discussion lectures and groups, OLO is one of the web-sites I and my students regularly trawl. Both Articles and posts have been used to illustrate good and bad writing; as excercises in comprehension, grammar and literacy; cultural studies; Western societal mores etc.in other classes as well.

As interesting as I find posters responses, I often find student reaction to articles and poster responses surprising in ways that continue to astonish and educate me.

For me daytime is work time and thus survival for my business.

Interesting topic, Antiseptic.

Most of the time I access OLO from home, but sometimes from 'work' too - although the distinction's rather blurred these days.

I'm semi-retired for health reasons, but I co-own a business where I work on site a couple of days a week. The rest of the time I do all the other stuff from home - plus we have a few acres that always need looking after. In between whatever I'm doing I read and check out OLO among other websites.

And of course there's fishing...

I've often wondered too, Antiseptic, how many people access OLO from work and how they manage to do it.

I certainly couldn't and wouldn't combine my work and OLO. I'm definitely better off if I'm focusing on one thing at a time!

I do casual and contract work which means I have some busy work periods and some stretches where there's little in the way of paid work. My OLO participation tends to be a bit erratic as a result.

It's also the reason why I never start a discussion thread, as I mostly don't know in advance what I'll be doing in the days ahead, and whether or not I'd have the time to be checking in and commenting on a thread I'd started.

Romany

"Both Articles and posts have been used to illustrate good and bad writing; as excercises in comprehension, grammar and literacy; cultural studies; Western societal mores etc.in other classes as well."

Interesting! I'm curious, but I won't pressure you to reveal more than you have. It might get you into all sorts of trouble! :)

Bronwyn - "I'm curious, but I won't pressure you to reveal more than you have. It might get you into all sorts of trouble! "
I hope not: I guess all netizens are aware that when they put something out into the public forum it becomes public, so often get used for all sorts of reasons.

The reasons I refer to blogs and fora in my classes is because the average Chinese person knows very little about the West.

Unfortunately, because of the differences in how Education is handled here and in the West, most of their knowledge comes from text books.

And there are three problems with this approach, I find:
1. Is that text-books, even though reprinted, are often 15 or so years away from their original publication date. Yep. Even in Universities.
2. The majority of the text-books that originate from overseas come from America.
3. Contemporary books in English are not readily available - and certainly not in numbers large enough to use in my courses.

This is where I find the Web a boon.

Interestingly enough, right up until the reporting on the Lhasa "riots", people here believed implicitly that Western Media was based on a Free Press and were unaware and then disbelieving about the slants, agenda and politics which skewed and governed what the West read.

That was when I started referring them to on-line discussions.

But then, because most of my students are English Majors they became even more confused about the kind of English they were reading. They thought that all native English speakers wrote and spoke a superior and grammatically correct language and found the "real deal" so different to what they had been learning in their old-fashioned text books as to be almost another language.

They also had this Hollywood Dream kind of idea of The West and its people which, while touching, was at the same time ludicrous.

This, in turn, caused me to completely change the way I was teaching and its been an incredible learning process for them and for me.

Interesting responses, folks. Noone except Romany has acknowledged that they routinely post to or access the site from work and yet, as I said, the roster is full every weekday from about 9am and almost empty on the weekends. Someone's got to be doing it.

Romany, I'm impressed with your innovation and lateral thinking. The English language evolves rapidly and the "blogosphere" (dreadful word) is driving a great deal of that change today. Well done.

Like Bronwyn, I do casual and contract work. So I mostly access the internet from home. However, when the opportunity presents and I need a break, I do a bit of surfing from work. I don't have a problem with this as I am highly productive and efficient, and it seems that the tea-break has gone the way of the dinosaurs.

If the net-surfing impedes productivity, then this needs to be addressed by the team-leader or manager. However if targets are met, where is the problem? As a former team-leader myself, I took this attitude and never had to tell staff to pull their socks up.

BTW - Editor

This is the second time I have tried to post on this thread - I tried yesterday and got fed up with the constant error messages.

I'm lucky, I work a casual part-time job near home, and set my own hours, I can come and go as I wish, as long as the daily list is completed, it doesn't matter how or when I do them. It makes online simple, and add to that the fact I don't sleep a great deal, av' 5hrs p/d, I spend quite some time wandering the net, or just reading.

How interesting. I access OLO only from home. There is little opportunity and no call to access from work.

I've never really thought about it, assuming that most posting would be 'in own time' and that people are working shifts, are retired or at home for other reasons.

For me to do this during work hours would have all sort of ramifications. I can get rather passionate on some subjects, though you wouldn't guess of course from the calm reasoned arguments that I post.

Rather admirable really, to post on OLO, then calmly and coolly resume with whatever humdrum activity a boss has set. I simmer for at least 10 minutes after myself! I'd be worse than having a smoker who needs to go for a smoko break every hour or so.

Well being a butcher for over thirty years I wake up at 4.30 to 5 am every day.

Nowdays I don't start until 7.30 usually so I often post in the mornings. Although I have a computer in one of my shops, I rarely post during work.

As for being my own boss, I am one who preffers to lead from the front, catch me if you can approach which makes my spare time very limmited during work . Not that I am knocking anyone who takes a different approach.

I think a lot of people (those that don't post on weekends) have a life, and are only posting because their work isn't very interesting, or they're lazy.

Romany,
I would be curious of their opinion regarding the personality/opinions types they would see their cultural impressions would be fascinating. I can see an interesting paper/ article on one of my pet topics that is cultural context on subjects. The west has (generally) the idea that their perspective is absolute and some posters go as far as biologically set. I constantly remind people that the nature/ nurture argument is slanted towards culture. i.e. our share experience in PNG.

Everyone
I read a seminal article some years ago where it was clearly shown that nobody works at 100% efficiency and that mental breaks help productivity.
i.e. I remember telling some salesmen that worked for me that providing they're on budget I didn't look too closely at their hours.
Sometime particularly in sales there are times when the salesperson is more of a liability at work than a benefit. In some cases I have sent a stressed staff member off to buy something with both a price and time limit to great effect.

I really reject the concept of the sweat shop mentality. I found that when extra time (effort) was required the staff put in without expectation of pay just acknowledgement of the effort.

My view if a manager is half smart they will pick the bludgers . I also saw team pressure bring the odd one into line. Therefore to answer the question it all depends on the person, the circumstances and the situation. A little lee way can achieve advantages beyond calculation.
I had the most stable staff employment and least sickies of all the other state branches several times. Did I fire bludgers yes. Most times the other staff backed the decision. Was I popular? weell! But they all saw me as fair and being able to be reasoned with. Their words not mine.

Hi,

I am new here,

wnmn1847

Tnx.

Examinator -

"fascinating" yes. Illuminating, humbling, embarrassing, vastly amusing, thought-provoking...all that and more.

I thought, before I went to China, that I had a pretty wide world view as a result of a lifetime spent in different cultures and countries.

But nothing actually prepares one for the unique experience of finding that the sum total of ones experiences, education, politics, ...all the hooks upon which we hang our ideas, opinions worth... are meaningless in the society in which one is living.

Not least of all the changes one undergoes is the semantic one of realising that the term 'world-famous' is actually racist! One uses this term and similar ones(world-renowned, the entire world,World War One etc.) without consciously registering that we are excluding many more than one third of the world population.

It is not only the citizens of China but, one realises, of many other countries, who have never heard of ...say...Mick Jagger, Mother Theresa, the entire Hippy movement, The Greens, Kyoto, Paris Hilton, Political Correctness, Swiss cheese,Maradona (spelling?) Romania, The Bosnian war, The Falklands, or petticoats.

Perhaps this gives a little insight into the reactions of Chinese Uni students sometimes to the pages of OLO, The New York Times, The Manchester Guardian, Ms. or Rolling Stone?

Its almost impossible to convey just how much I absolutely revel in my job!

It is time for a ruddy great dose of weed killer to be sprayed on the competing laws of Australia and one Australian government to step up to the plate, and restore its legal system to what we had in 1900. I would hope that those in the important jobs, the government jobs, where our lives are affected take the time to troll OLO. They may not find what they see here pretty, or be very pleased with the way we rattle their cages, but they need to know how some of us feel about them.

I once read a speech given by an English lawyer called Erskine in defence of free speech. It was a marvelous piece of logic, and successful. He argued that Charles I lost his head, in 1649 because he had suppressed free speech, and was not aware that the natives were getting very restless. I hope that the newspapers and other media realize that with the advent of the WWW their influence is now getting competition from another medium, and on this medium, what the editors want suppressed is being said anyway.

It may be that because of OLO there will be an outbreak of honesty and integrity in Queensland, or NSW or even blighted Victoria, but whichever State gets the Honests first will be like Queensland under Joh, and have billions of dollars flow into its government coffers. Because of S 118 Constitution as soon as one State breaks ranks with the rest and starts being a good corporate citizen, allowing free and unfettered access to its courts, constitutes them in accordance with Ch III Constitution with a jury, and takes from the Lawyer/Judges, their current veto power over private prosecutions, it will become the wealthiest State in Australia.

I am of Irish stock, and I had independent and pretty rowdy sons. When they stopped listening, I would tell them I would fix their ears up, and a smack on the backside worked wonders. The first State to fix up the ears of its Judges and Magistrates will work wonders for its future prosperity

Since we hope that public servants read OLO we ought to tell them what will happen when one State, and it might even be Tasmania, the Northern Territory or the ACT, wakes up to the fact that we are being governed not by Parliament but by lawyer/Judges, and restores honesty and integrity to their legal system, just how this will improve their cash flow.

Until 1970, in NSW anyone could sue anyone else in a Ch III court, to enforce any Statute law whatsoever. That Statute Law included the Constitution and all the hundreds of wonderful Statutes, that precluded governments from intruding into private lives. In 1914, the Fisher Labor Government, in the paramount Parliament of the Commonwealth enacted the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) and each and every Judge and Magistrate in Australia who sits without a jury was made answerable to the common people by S 13 of that Act. By S 15F of that Act a civil proceeding is authorized, and by S 43 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) the crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth was made punishable by five years imprisonment.

Under the common law there was no profit in sending people to gaol. So the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) has enacted a formula to convert prison time to dollars. Five years imprisonment converts to $33,000 for a Judge or Magistrate, and $165,000 for a corporation, and the common law split the blood money between the Sovereign/Crown, and the prosecutor fifty fifty; The original Private/Public Partnership. This law is still in force in New South Wales, in S 122 Fines Act 1996, and in Sections 42 and 43 Acts Interpretation Act 1954 in Queensland, and has its roots in the Imperial Statutes. Not only has this law been passed as Federal Statute, another Federal Statute the Judiciary Act 1903 has made every State Court a goldmine with untold potential to restore good government and accountability to the whole of the Commonwealth. Remove the cartel powers from lawyers/Judges, and get some prosperity going

Do feel free to babble on endlessly, Peter - but what does any of it have to do with the topic of the thread?

Now I am started lets hope the CEO’s of the big Banks and insurance companies are listening too. The Parliament of the Commonwealth has provided that when a corporation offends the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) it is subjected to a daily penalty, and each and every one of Australia’s lending institutions is a criminal and insured. They are using State laws, to repossess homes from Australian subjects of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, without providing access to the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth. They are using State Judges and Magistrates to pervert the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth, using illegal State Laws made over property that the State has no jurisdiction to make. At $165,000 a shot, made applicable as a daily penalty by Section 4K (2) of the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) they should start to sit up and listen.

Lets hope some of the lawyers who loll around their offices read OLO too. They should remember Arthur Anderson and Co; the auditors of Enron. Every partner in Arthur Anderson lost all their assets and was sent bankrupt, by the negligence of one partner. The great Taj Mahal like offices in Sydney’s CBD could be used for more that just accommodation, by lawyers, and they may take the option one took of attempting to fly. Gravity won. Sharpen up, ladies and gentlemen.

I recently argued with a very dumb Federal Court Judge, that section 268:10 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) is now law and applied to him. He was so dumb he failed to read or understand that when he sits without a jury he is a criminal, and is acting as a slavemaster and exercising ownership rights over another human being. He was so dumb that even though he was taken to the Dictionary in the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) : he refused to accept its authority, which defined him and myself as equals, and he really deserves all that will one day come his way. The penalty for that is $165,000 thank you very much

Under OLO Law this is the last post for 24 hours, so I will make it a good one. In S 268:10, Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) a person, the perpetrator commits an offence if he exercises any or all of the powers of ownership over one or more persons, and it is part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. Subsection 2 defines what the words mean, and rights of ownership over a person includes purchases, sell, lends, or barters a person, or imposes on a person a similar deprivation of liberty and also includes a power arising from a debt incurred or contract made by a person.

Every Judge and Magistrate who sits without a jury and sentences anyone to prison offends this Act, including the bod who sent Marcus Einfeld to prison. The Magna Carta prohibits a Judge from sentencing anyone, and this Statute reenacts it. Further in Section 13.6 of this Act any averment that could lead directly to prison is made illegal. They have been what one of my atheist Law Professors called Struthious. We went rushing for our Dictionaries, as good little Law Students are taught to do, and found it means making like an ostrich and burying your head in the sand.

The widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Australia has been conducted by the legal profession since 1949, in the service of the sector that pays them the most money; accused criminals like Richard Pratt. The worst of course was Abe Saffron who bribed the Premier to repeal the laws that would have curbed his illegal activities, and nobble the Supreme Court in not only New South Wales but Victoria and Queensland. Another very prominent lawyer/teacher said follow the money, and thats what one government must do in Australia. The ill gotten gains accumulated by the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity should all be returned to the public coffers, and the homeless housed. S 268:12, declares the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to be law also. Wakey Wakey Time, lawyers

PtB

I'm sure you are having a sensational time there in your world, but thought I'd interrupt your stream of whatever, for your edification.

This thread is about surfing the net at work. The issue arising from this practice is whether surfing net at work interferes with productivity or provides a break from possible tedium.

Capiche?

Fractelle,
Well he enjoyed himself.I lost the plot about the time of the mention of Joh. And he used up his quota on this thread so go for it girlfriend. :-)

You are not really getting it are you. The thread is not about people who access OLO at work, but about the people whose work it is to monitor what is said on OLO. OLO is an internet platform, where light can be shone into some very dark and dirty places, and the cockroaches lurking there can be seen and exterminated.

This is not just an internet forum. As you have seen if you have read it for about four months as I have, there is a worldwide audience watching, and OLO is showcasing the vanguard of the Internet led free speech movement.

Rupert Murdock, the Fairfax Press, and the Packer group, don’t have an editor examining what is posted here. We don’t have Aunty deciding what will be published or aired. I would like to think that behind the nom’s de plume, used by some of the people who take the time to write here, are people whose job it is to know what the electorate is thinking, so that they can take whatever action is in the best interests of Australia as a whole.

I happen to think Australia is a Christian Country and that the Constitution is a Christian document enacted as the will of Almighty God upon whom we called for a blessing in the second line. I also happen to think that by Standing Orders 43 and 50 the Parliament of the Commonwealth is a Christian Institution, starting each days session with Our Lord’s blessing and the prayer from the Sermon on the Mount. Others disagree.

However, I think it was Voltaire who said: I disagree with every word you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it. Words do matter. The English language is a wonderful medium for the expression of ideas, and English is the international language of the law. The law currently has enacted into it enormous contradictions, inconsistencies and conundrums. I happen to think OLO is working towards exposing some of those. Not just for us here in the lucky country, but on Planet Earth

The blog is mightier than the sword: From the SMH this morning. Paola Totaro is the Herald's Europe correspondent. Miranda Devine is on leave.

Sent to one of the British Prime Minister's most trusted advisers, the text message arrived with a chilling portent: "What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, to hear the lamentations of their women?"

Three days later its recipient, Damien McBride, was forced to fall on his sword, his political career ended by a dirty tricks email scandal leaked to the text's sender, Guido Fawkes, an incendiary political blogger.

Fawkes's scalping of McBride, known around Westminster as McPoison for sending excoriating text messages to offending political journalists, was a good, old-fashioned scoop. It has also been billed as the day political new media in Britain "came of age", sparking spirited debate about its consequences for politics - and politicians.

Campbell says that from talking to teens and young adults his sense is that they do not read newspapers but are informed and politically engaged. "They know what's going on in the debate," he says. But he is also cautious about the real import of the political blogger: "I think they are running away from themselves. They are still all about positioning themselves, getting on TV or radio and trying to become alternative news channels.

But my feeling is that they are still tiny in terms of reach. I think the jury is still out on the blogosphere's long-term future or its real impact."

Australia may be half a world away but it, too, has Westminster-style parliaments and a similar media, albeit much smaller and less pluralist. Chances are that an equally spirited - perhaps even dangerous - political blogosphere isn't too far away.

Read OLO at work, I bet they do.

"This is not just an internet forum. As you have seen if you have read it for about four months as I have, there is a worldwide audience watching, and OLO is showcasing the vanguard of the Internet led free speech movement."

That's an interesting comment. Is this really true?

Digressing from the topic under discussion, to the editors: I think it would be good to get some broad info about the readership on this site (that stays within the bounds of privacy laws, etc).

The effect of blogs and forums like OLO worldwide, are part of the information superhighway, that the WWW has become, and a forum like this one, on which Kevin Rudd has had articles published twice, and which promote vigorous discussion on topics proposed both by readers, and selected topics gleaned by the editors from newspapers and other sources, often in a way that is not encouraged by the mainstream media.

Some Electronic newspapers have forms where readers can comment, but they have strict control on what they publish and frown on nom’s de plume. This forum where we go by a Forum name, is willing to publish anything except obscenities, and vigorous discussion ensues.

All Ministers in Government subscribe at our expense to a clipping service, so every time their name is mentioned in any media, they get to know about it, and I would bet that OLO is monitored in the same way. We have one poster who calls himself Shadow Minister, and I have very little doubt he is what he says he is.

Barack Obama used this medium most effectively in his campaign, and received an enormous amount of money from little people like ourselves who read blogs. One of the reasons he is probably going to be free-er than his predecessor is that he did not have to borrow money to campaign from the traditional power brokers.

I am sure Kevin Rudd and the well oiled federal Labour Machine, will be watching this media phenomena with interest. After ten years, OLO is one of the best established general access blogs around, and does not have too many uninteresting bloggers, on it. I would equally bet that the Liberals are doing the same. So this is democracy in action. Whether we win or lose an argument is irrelevant, people themselves winnow the grain from the chaff. Political staffers try to be the commuter on the Liverpool train, and examine what that person would think if presented with the same argument. Go OLO

I do not post or even use the net if at work.
I will go on line to research work matters but that is it.
3 workers on one site have been instantly sacked, for using mobile phones!
Bosses use them all the time, one got away with it, but later sacked a truck driver for? ordering parts for his truck while pulled over to answer the phone.
We are forced time and again to warn people not to miss use the bosses computor, every year many are foolishly caught downloading porn or such.
In mining and much more jobs lost are often very high income ones.
We all should under stand the impacts of being foolish in such things as face book.

"...I would equally bet that the Liberals are doing the same. So this is democracy in action. Whether we win or lose an argument is irrelevant, people themselves winnow the grain from the chaff..."

But Peter this OLO site is run by a single person isn't it? And can't they just delete someone or a whole thread if they don't like what they are posting or the way the conversation has gone?

That stops it looking like any democracy in action doesn't it?

Interesting thread, guys, although I have to admit to being a little lost in the contributions of PtB in terms of relevance.

I admit to having used OLO at work, and also when I should be studying, but what I do and when I do it is reasonably flexible so it is never a problem. But if politicians DO read what goes on here, that can only be a good thing.

Cheers
Nicky