TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: How many have this problem at work? From:Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com> To:techwr-l digest recipients <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:30:41 -0700
Chuck Martin <CMartin -at- serena -dot- com> wrote:
>Now I'm trying to decide just how offended I should be at the morally
>superior insinuation that anyone not at the fingers-on-the-keyboard
>grindstone for an entire 8-hour day has a less-than-ironclad conscience and
>merely poses as a writing pillar.
From your posting, you shouldn't be offended at all. You don't
sound like the sort of person I had in mind.
However, if you are going to be offended, please be offended by
what I actually I said, not what you extrapolate from what I
said.
If you check what I actually wrote, you'll see that I suggested
that internetting during work was appropriate in several
circumstances.
>Its absurd to think that any activity not directly related to actual
>production work must get explicit approval ahead of time. To suggest that
>someone needs to do that is an insult, a slap-in-the-face accusation that
>they don't manage their time and tasks well (not to say that some people
>don't).
I wasn't suggesting that you should check with the boss every
time you look at a web-site. Rather, I was suggesting that, if
you're going to do these things on company time, you should make
sure that there's no objection, and check what the limits of
toleration are. You shouldn't simply assume the right. For one
thing, doing so can prevent misunderstandings.
For another, I maintain that you have a contractual and moral
obligation to do so: you've entered into an agreement in which
you exchange your work for money and benefits. You're right that
many employers won't object, but you shouldn't simply assume that
they won't.
From your posting, you sound like a responsible person who
doesn't abuse his ability to define his working conditions. For
this reason, you may not be aware that other people aren't always
as responsible as yourself. Some of these people will eventually
be fired, but others are valuable employees who simply need more
supervision. At some companies, the time lost to rationalizations
of slack time becomes a serious problem. When management finds
out that half the office is playing Quake instead of working (an
extreme example, but one I actually witnessed), then everyone
suffers, including the responsible ones. One way to help prevent
this situation is for people who are trustworthy to be careful
about how they use their freedom.
My apologies if I came off too strong, but I've seen
irresponsibility rationalized with otherwise valid arguments too
often to be patient with them any more. And let me repeat: if you
behave responsibly, then my comments don't apply in any way to
you.
--
Bruce Byfield, Outlaw Communications
"The Open Road" column, Maximum Linux
3015 Aries Place, Burnaby, BC V3J 7E8, Canada
bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com 604.421.7189
"He in a new confusion of his understanding,
I in a new understanding of my confusion."
- Robert Graves, "Broken Images"
