Since when did workplaces become bastions of principles, rather than bureaucracies that have a business to run and have to, at some level, apply policies that suspend an employee's worktime freedom as part of the agreement that involves paying that employee's salary?
I work at a small company where no one would care. They also don't care if I spend time on Facebook, Twitter, etc. etc. But not everyone is in a company like that. Big legacy companies hire from the HN crowd too. Whether or not their policies are fair is not always a simplistic argument. However, what is as sure as rain is that trivial violations of those policies can be used as leverage to punish people, when the office politics get dirty and desperate.
It's best to let the worker -- the HN reader in this case -- make the decision whether he/she wants to pick that fight, rather than have them accidentally stumble into it.
>Since when did workplaces become bastions of principles, rather than bureaucracies that have a business to run and have to, at some level, apply policies that suspend an employee's worktime freedom as part of the agreement that involves paying that employee's salary?
Since people let them get away with it. The "agreement that involves paying that employee's salary" does not meant they should get away with treating him less than a civilized society accept.
Signing a contract to work on some place doesn't give the employer any inherent rights over the employee, besides those that the society is willing to accept.
Hitting an employee was once tolerated. Not so anymore. One time not hiring or paying blacks less was allowed. Not so anymore (not explicitly at least). Child labour was allowed. Not anymore. Racial or sexist slurs were allowed. Not anymore. Lax safety at work was tolerated. Not anymore.
So it's not like there is some undeniable inherent right of an employeer to "have the employee pee in a cup" or to "check his Facebook profile". It's just that people haven't protested enough to make it into law that it's not his fucking business what the employee does at his own time.
>It's best to let the worker -- the HN reader in this case -- make the decision whether he/she wants to pick that fight, rather than have them accidentally stumble into it.
Sure, but at least some anger should be directed against businesses having those policies, not just on HN titles, as if the policies are OK.
I work at a small company where no one would care. They also don't care if I spend time on Facebook, Twitter, etc. etc. But not everyone is in a company like that. Big legacy companies hire from the HN crowd too. Whether or not their policies are fair is not always a simplistic argument. However, what is as sure as rain is that trivial violations of those policies can be used as leverage to punish people, when the office politics get dirty and desperate.
It's best to let the worker -- the HN reader in this case -- make the decision whether he/she wants to pick that fight, rather than have them accidentally stumble into it.