Nowadays, with constantly emerging

tantalizing online activities, as people are spending more

and more time online not only in their leisure time but also
in workplace, whether admitting the employees to use
nonprofessional online activities while on job should be
controlled or not, becomes most debated topic. In
accordance with two E-mails sent to Employees of Niagara
Equipment Corp, Justine Timmons, CEO suggests that
employees’ internet access should be restricted not to surf
the internet for personal purposes in working time by
blocking non-work-related cites on company-owned
computers. On the contrary, Honoria Bell who is an
undesigned employee in Niagara Equipment Corp., claims
that employees in workplace spend an ordinate amount of
time on the Internet and that cannot in turn lead to the
falling of company’s profitability and productivity rate. In
my own perspective, I am of the same mind of Honoria since
her argument is well-supported with reliable facts, logical
considerations and sensible suppositions that can be
convincing to all readers and I also believe personal internet
use can create a rest for workers that encourage workers to
be more concentered in their work again.
To begin with, Honoria statement includes
assured statistics in her statistics to prove how much time
the employees spend for cyberspace and it does not have
any impact on company’s productive hours. She initially
describes that cyberslackers just browse the content of the
web one hour per week that is equivalent to the taking a
walk to the water cooler. Moreover, she further mentions
the data from the National University of Singapore that net-
surfing relieve the employees’ work stress and refresh them
to be active and energetic in their working hours.
Consequently, the more they are alert and focus on their
work, the more the employer’s productivity escalated. In
other ways, Justine Timmons presents that allowing the
unlimited web access for employees is much the same to
the letting them wasting company resources and misuse of
electronic communication media can place organizations at
risk for legal liability and breaches of data security. By
comparing these two incidents, Honoria can point out her
reason statistically while Justine’s statement is influenced
with one-sided opinions from the sides of the company and
employers.
In addition, Honoria formally demonstrates
the point that employees should be authorized to use
internet as a communication tool in their company. In her
illustration, she highlights the way employers can
communicate their families or friends via net use so that
they can keep in touch with them wherever they are and
feel secure for them. Conversely, Justine prefers not to offer
permit to employers for access of non-work-related
websites because he totally believes that workers checking
their newsfeeds or messages online can lessen the focusing
rate on work that leads to decreasing in company’s
profitability. To my mind, since workers have their families
and friends and they have full rights of a human beings,
they should have a chance to communicate with their
beloved ones in spite of being in work.
 Lastly, Honoria argues reasonably the
statement of Justine that the workplace without limits on
internet use of workers can front on to harassment suits for
some activities like accessing offensive material on
company’s computers. She proclaims Justine’s argument by
pointing out the requirement of the company. She includes
that company should accept the responsible appliers and
prove company’s development or productivity is dependent
in their hands. These outstanding or responsible works can
not only understand how they should limit their personal-
internet-use but also determine which sites are
inappropriate to access. At variance with Honoria, Justine
portrays his opinions in a fanatic way. He does not consider
for workers’ rights or freedom and I think he just expresses
his points that workers who access non-work-related web
can create a hostile workplace environment, biased on the
side of employers and company.
To conclude, Honoria’s statement is well-
supported with certain statistics, favorable thoughts and
practicable assumptions. Additionally, her reasons in her
statement can totally deny all of Justine’s submissions and
make the readers to agree with her statement that workers
should be allowed to use internet for personal purposes in
workplace area while Justine’s reasons are dominated with
the growth of benefits of employers and company. Thus, I
want totally consent with Honoria’s argument.