GameKnights - The Official homepage of Wednesday Night Game Night

Forums 2.0 BETA

Search Forums

Pages:«Prev 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next»

Viewing Topic: Why they call it work - Page 8
#70: 08-31-2015 @ 11:23:46 am
Link to this Post: http://www.machvergil.com/gamenight/messages.php?go=10900#10900

Misharum KittumMisharum Kittum

Misharum Kittum Photo.
  • Real Name:Tim
  • Joined:2010-01-22

Oh man, sometimes I think I work with idiots...

Today at work I had to write $Lady at $PhoneCompany to ask for information on how to open and process call detail record files that her company sends to our company. In the past she has been hard to work with and everything we tried to do together took a long time, so neither of us really likes the other. So I compose her a polite email asking her for the information or for a better contact to talk to about it. Then I write another email to $Coworker1 and $Coworker2 letting them know I've got the ball rolling but that she's a royal pain to work with so it could take a while.

Well, $Coworker1 then forwards my message to $SalesGuy who works with that $PhoneCompany to let him know we're working on this. $SalesGuy proceeds to forward the same message onto $Lady and $Lady'sBoss to apply a bit more pressure. $Lady writes us back quickly to that email with the information (CCing a bunch of people at her company and mine) with the information we were looking for, and quips at me that she doesn't want to be a "royal pain" when I send back a thank you.

My foot has been shoved waaaaay down my throat thanks to $SalesGuy not actually reading what he was forwarding outside the company.

This post was edited by Misharum Kittum on August 31, 2015, 1:29 pm


Justice and Truth
#71: 08-31-2015 @ 11:37:12 am
Link to this Post: http://www.machvergil.com/gamenight/messages.php?go=10901#10901

DominionDominion

Dominion Photo.
  • Real Name:Mark
  • Joined:2010-01-22

Something something about forwarding internal company emails to non-company people.

Also, yeah, I try not to say anything potentially bad about anyone in writing cause I know something like that would happen. People are morons.

 

Don't forward that to that sexy moron Tim please.


"Video games are bad for you? That's what they said about rock and roll." Shigeru Miyamoto
#72: 08-31-2015 @ 12:16:49 pm
Link to this Post: http://www.machvergil.com/gamenight/messages.php?go=10902#10902

Misharum KittumMisharum Kittum

Misharum Kittum Photo.
  • Real Name:Tim
  • Joined:2010-01-22

Yeah, that's a lesson I'm learning today. Just because I think I'm saying it in confidence doesn't mean other people are taking it that way. Or paying attention at all. I shouldn't have said it at all.


Justice and Truth
#73: 10-07-2015 @ 05:35:37 pm
Link to this Post: http://www.machvergil.com/gamenight/messages.php?go=11127#11127

St00fSt00f

  • Real Name:Steph
  • Joined:2010-01-22

Jesus christ, I have no idea what is wrong in my HR lady's head.

When I got into work today (after being away at a conference), I was informed that I couldn't take any more time off because......I had 96 hours of work to make up from the time off I had already taken.

Naturally, I was flabbergasted.  So I ask her to show me WHY THE HELL SHE THOUGHT THIS.

I will present one of the first instances of the insanity:

Pay period is 14 days, they expect you to work 10 8-hour days (2 M-F weeks), equaling 80 hours in the pay period.  For the pay period in this example, I happen to work a weekend.  I have been told that, in order to keep in line with the aforementioned 80 hour pay period protocols, I would take 2 days off during the week in trade for working Sat/Sun.

I worked 10 days.  She has this documented via our biometric time logger thingamabob.  She also has down the hours that I worked: 86.  All is well and good.

......except that I submitted paperwork letting her know I was taking 2 weekdays off in exchange for the hours worked on the weekends.  Within the same pay period.  Dates are on it and everything.

She has now docked 16 hours from that pay period for the 2 "days off" that I have taken.  And refused to understand when I walked her through what I had done.  My 86 hours actually worked....she has it down as 70 hours, and oh, now you're under the 80 hours and that's a problem.

So, because I was being honest, and let her know I wasn't going to be in those days, she has basically punished me for it -- she wouldn't have said anything to me if I hadn't submitted the paperwork (after all, I had 10 days and 80+ hours of work).  

I now understand why the other fellow hasn't told her anything regarding the days he doesn't come in.  

Thankfully my supervisor seems to understand my situation, and I have typed out a long email to both of them walking them through the fact that, while I have worked 67 our of 68 days traditional working days for the pay periods in question, I have an excess of 19.3 hours.  I don't owe anything.  Hopefully this will be sorted out tomorrow.

/rant

EDIT: Everything is fine, it's all been sorted out.  I now know to not submit paperwork for stuff, and as long as I average out to 80 hours per pay period, she (and the higher ups) won't care.  Who knew that there were multiple ways to interpret "in lieu of"?

This post was edited by St00f on October 8, 2015, 4:34 pm


Canadians are my favorite mythological creature.
#74: 10-09-2015 @ 10:09:30 am
Link to this Post: http://www.machvergil.com/gamenight/messages.php?go=11128#11128

Misharum KittumMisharum Kittum

Misharum Kittum Photo.
  • Real Name:Tim
  • Joined:2010-01-22

I do full backups of our servers weekly, and we retain these full backups for four weeks. The past couple weeks I've actually run out of space on the backup server, so had to delete the fourth week early in order to get a current backup. That left us with only 3 weeks of backups. We've also started to run low on free space on our network drives (low being less than 200gb free).

Well I finally had time to try to do something about it at work this week. The first thing I looked into was trying to increase the disk size for where backups were being saved, but it was at 15tb already which is the largest disk that the storage device would let us set up. So next I used a tool called WinDirStat to scan the network drives on our file server to try and check out what was using up all the space there. What I found was a lot of space on individual user's private network drives that was being eaten up by things that really shouldn't be there.

To be honest, I was the worst offender. I had a 64gb computer image file in my user drive that I wasn't using for anything any longer. But there were just so many people with gigantic picture, music, and even movie collections. I finished cleaning things up today, and in all gotten people to remove approximately 500gb worth of files from the network drives. Over the course of the next month that'll clear up 2TB worth of space on the backup server! I'm extremely happy about this.

This post was edited by Misharum Kittum on October 9, 2015, 12:12 pm


Justice and Truth
#75: 10-15-2015 @ 06:36:19 pm
Link to this Post: http://www.machvergil.com/gamenight/messages.php?go=11151#11151

Misharum KittumMisharum Kittum

Misharum Kittum Photo.
  • Real Name:Tim
  • Joined:2010-01-22

At work they've hired a consultant to work us through getting some compliancies. Last week we were handed a thick book of the policies we are to implement in order to meet these compliancies for reading and raising concerns about. This evening I found the worst one by far.

Security Standard for Home User Computers - The Company Information Security policy set contains a standard for the security configuration of home computers which employees use for remote access to Company networks Specifically, the InfoSec policy calls for personal firewalls and up-to-date antimalware managed remotely by IT. In addition, all personnel must adhere to the Acceptable-Use Policy regardless of equipment ownership if using the Company network.

 

The Acceptable-Use Policy is your standard "don't use the company computers for illegal stuff, don't access offensive material, blah blah blah" kind of thing.

I am absolutely enraged by this. It is preposterous to expect IT (which is me) to be able to remotely manage the security of employees' personal computers! And it is even more ridiculous to also require employees to adhere to the Acceptable-Use Policy on their home computers! How the hell do they expect me to be able to manage computers I have no access to, and be able to keep people from looking at porn on their home computers in the privacy of their own homes!? Hell, my workload requires me to be able to use the VPN work remotely for after-hours work. I don't know how the rest of the company feels about it, but I refuse to agree to not look at boobies on the internet! It occurs to me that this policy would also make playing games on your own computer, watching Netflix, etc. a terminatable offense.

 

This post was edited by Misharum Kittum on October 15, 2015, 8:56 pm


Justice and Truth
#76: 10-15-2015 @ 09:22:10 pm
Link to this Post: http://www.machvergil.com/gamenight/messages.php?go=11152#11152

BountyHunterSAxBountyHunterSAx

  • Real Name:Ahmad Rasheed
  • Joined:2011-06-29

It's retarded that that interpretation is even moderately present in the reading. There is hoep though. The way I see it, the "if using the Company network." bit could mean literally *while* using it rather than "if that is ever something you ever plan on doing".

Of course, that sort of ambiguity has no place in a document like this. That, and it really does nothing to address your first point: that you (as IT) have none of the tools you'd need to do the policing task that you wouldn't want to do in the first place since it's really nobodies goddamn business.

What's next? "In order to log in from home, you have to submit and register your IP, MAC address, install three pieces of "IT-department snoopware" and give up administrative rights/access"?

-AHMAD


#77: 10-15-2015 @ 10:08:55 pm
Link to this Post: http://www.machvergil.com/gamenight/messages.php?go=11153#11153

DominionDominion

Dominion Photo.
  • Real Name:Mark
  • Joined:2010-01-22

Huh, funny you mention this since our work just released some new use policies with a similar trouble "IT needs to make sure everything is up to date" except they basically now said "no non-company computers on the network" to adhere by this. If they are forcing you to make sure everything on the network is up to date, I would intact a similar deal of "no non-company computers" or tell them to go fuck themselves. This causes other issues with work from home scenarios but is far more manageable from an IT security stand point.


"Video games are bad for you? That's what they said about rock and roll." Shigeru Miyamoto
#78: 10-16-2015 @ 06:29:57 am
Link to this Post: http://www.machvergil.com/gamenight/messages.php?go=11154#11154

Misharum KittumMisharum Kittum

Misharum Kittum Photo.
  • Real Name:Tim
  • Joined:2010-01-22

Yeah, having the rule instead state "no non-company computers on the network" is the only actual way to accomplish the same thing. Then in practice they'd need to switch any desktop users who might possibly need to work remotely over to laptops and require them to take them home at nights just in case.


Justice and Truth
#79: 10-16-2015 @ 07:53:39 am
Link to this Post: http://www.machvergil.com/gamenight/messages.php?go=11156#11156

MachVergilMachVergil

MachVergil Photo.
  • Real Name:Adam
  • Joined:2010-01-22

I feel like this whole "Your company can determine policy regarding your personal technology" is a honest to god 100% serious here violation of personal property rights of the United States of America.  I also agree it is 100% fair for a company to say "Systems we cannot secure may not connect to our network" especially from a liability standpoint, but to say "You work here, so we can determine policy on your personal policy" is just high order bullshit and if I were a lawyer I'd be making it my job to do something about it.

That said I see nothing wrong with it being an optional compliance thing.  For example "If you wish to connect to our network with you personal property then it MUST comply."  That's fine to me for one really important reason:  you can say no and it is no longer a condition of employment.  You could choose to have a machine at home that meets the policy and others that do not.  

Of course where this falls apart is when it becomes company culture to comply and also ignore the policy.  My organization for example has a policy that if you want to use company e-mail on your smart phone you have to install scripts that allow their IT people to basically wipe it by remote if you tell them it has been compromised.  I am not okay with giving that power to our IT department so I still don't have company e-mail on my phone.  Yet nearly all of my colleges do and are either ignorant to the policy or have found ways around it. The guy sitting next to me has company e-mail on his iPhone and removed or got them to forget to put the script on his phone.  We regularly have the conversation that I should just side step the policy like he did.

I am sympathetic to the nightmare being accountable for network security in a world where more and more personal tech is being used on a company network but IMO that's not an acceptable reason to violate personal property rights.  IMO if a company wants you to be a mobile, digital workforce it is up to them to provide all of the devices needed to achieve it.  If they want us getting company e-mail 24/7 on a smart phone, they need to provide the smart phone.  If they want us able to telework they need to provide us the laptop to do it. If they cannot afford to do that then the company's policies and cultures need to reflect this limitation.  Offloading that expense on your employees and then expecting your wage slaves to comply with your draconian IT policies on their personal property is fucking totalitarian bullshit.

This post was edited by machvergil on October 16, 2015, 10:54 am


We set Wednesdays on Fire!

Pages:«Prev 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next»