I've never seen an employee monitoring system that's built to the benefit of the employee. But nothing a company does it to the benefit of the employee. HR isn't there to help employees, HR is primarily a risk mitigation and compliance department. Who would assume employee monitoring systems are any different?
"They try to never speak up, never stick out, do nothing that might get noticed by management. This leads to a vicious cycle, whereby management grows more suspicious and feels justified in ratcheting up the surveillance."
This is the most troubling thing about surveillance, it changes peoples behavior. The people who implement these systems don't understand the psychology of surveillance, so they use the change in behavior as a indicator of increased risk. Its a vicious cycle.
> But nothing a company does it to the benefit of the employee
This isn't a feature intrinsic to companies, but rather a relatively recent social norm. There are still a few companies that do look after their employees, and do things to the benefit of their employees. They aren't very common though, usually it's smaller (often family run) businesses, and often a physical trade rather than an office job.
"But nothing a company does it to the benefit of the employee"
Paying them 10's of thousands a year is definitely 'to the benefit of the employee'.
The TSA situation is a really bad analogy because it's a high security environment wherein monitoring is basically a given. It's just that with that open window, management can't help but be idiots about it and monitor 'chewing gum'. The second problem is that it's a highly authoritative system with low skilled staff. If TSA were bankers and lawyers (or developers), they'd collectively have a lot more power.
Case and point: software developers, bankers and lawyers are not monitored for 'chewing gum' and 'bathroom breaks', moreover, they aren't monitored for that much other than communications.
Email and electronic communications have to be logged for a variety of reasons (including legal)but they should not be monitored by managers.
For instance, I work for a school where employees are pretty trusted (the extensive background check prior to hiring & fact that most people have master's degrees probably helps).
The only employee monitoring system we use is to turn on "find my iPhone" and the like for all devices. Technically this is pretty extensive location tracking, but no one monitors it unless a device is stolen/lost.
I really don't think it changes employee behavior. If people want to leave all of their devices at school and never take them home they can, but no one has ever brought it up as an issue.
I get more and more the feeling that HR do not understand how laws work and think they (the firm) are always right...
For a company claims to hate lawyers and don't want to work with lawyers. They sure as hell make sure that soon or later you will involve lawyers (did that already)
But, it is a live lesson. Like all those people claiming they hate gays (while they are gay) or say they are not drama queens (they are) I will now listen carefully when someone says they are not xxxx..
How about training? Training is beneficial to an employee. Employment itself should count, I’d argue, because the law of comparative advantage means both parties could (and probably do) benefit but even setting that aside, training should count.
When our company first began implementing employee tracking the goal was to help our staff understand their own performance, co-educate and to attempt to support a culture of experimenting with every aspect of our work.
Our initial systems ended up being decent at keeping people "moving fast" but in our first few feedback sessions we found it stressed people out, encouraged competition instead of co-education and locked people into workflows they "knew worked" rather than fostering experimentation.
We quickly killed all but the most basic performance tracking aspects of the project and we found better ways to achieve our goals.
We now have a sort of "opt-in" tracking for staff who are interested in testing the strengths and weaknesses of a novel approach, for example. This puts the data in their hands as a tool to convince us of the validity of their approach and the empowerment is not trivial.
It's far more friendly and humane but it's also something that benefits everyone at the company.
Pretty disgusting stuff. There are plenty of places in the world where a video camera provides relief and safety, but work is rarely one. The engineers building this tech should be ashamed, they grew up to be the bad guys.
A few years back a guy I knew from college wanted to have a meeting with me regarding a "business opportunity".
He pitched me an idea for a system that would essentially spy on IT contractors through the webcam during work. Fortunately his budget was laughably small and my participation out of the question so he never went through with this.
He is known for being utterly shameless but I guess what other kind of person would come up with such an idea?
The engineers building this tech should be ashamed, they grew up to be the bad guys
Make no mistake, if Google could get away with selling a live stream of your web activity to your HR dept they would do it in a second. After all that’s basically what Dragonfly is.
as someone who works a blue collar job in an auto repair shop, these articles always make me pause for a moment and ask if i really want to keep learning python in the hopes of pursuing an office job. The entire environment just sounds like high school all over again. Why does anyone in an office put up with it?? is this somehow different than time keeping? do you have a punch card?
If you asked my boss where i was, shed probably just point at the garage and wave at the 'authorized personnel only' sign. She has no reason to care what size wrench im holding or why im beating the living shit out of a siezed idler pitman assembly. I once drove a car with no doors and a missing windshield out of the lot and down the street, and the only thing she wanted from me was to know if id run to leroys donut and pick up a frozen coffee.
Why is this different in an office? are office jobs just not trustworthy?
There are good office jobs and there are bad office jobs. There are good employers and bad employers. The best jobs I've had usually have some basic deadlines (measurable goals and results), and some basic rules (show up every day), but other than that, not much structure or micro-management or anything. If you're a full-time programmer on a team, then you might have a lot of little tasks assigned to you (eg: "add feature X to user profile page", "fix bug Y on the logout screen", etc.), but not constant surveillance or anything. If you're constantly checking in code to Github, then your boss knows that you're working.
The model you should have for an office job is that it's basically a social game within which some actual work takes place. Most of the time people spend is maneuvering within the game.
As someone who has worked both, I’d encourage you to reconsider what you’re really seeking in an office job. I did aircraft maintenance in the Air Force, paperwork and management in the AF, got out and hopped around with AAA as a roadside assistance tech, and am finally at a remote job doing pentesting. I’ve been in then out then back in again. Let me tell you, I can’t wait to turn wrenches again. If you can tolerate the pay cut and live a simpler life, I’d hazard to say that nothing beats the satisfaction that a hands on job provides.
On the whole, id say that there is something to be said about how the tech revolution is just an iteration of the industrial revolution. People are more removed from the art of what they do. They are deprived of the fruit of their labor and instead forced to work a piece wise process instead of seeing something done start to finish. There’s no tangible result to all the toil.
Non derogatory caveat: some are content to say that the SDLC is an answer. I reject that notion, and realize that I’m the shrinking minority.
Most of the jobs described in the article are not office jobs, and are hourly jobs that probably have timekeeping and pinch cards or the equivalent on top of the surveillance.
Blue collar jobs, especially with large employers, aren't any less exposed to this.
Office workers put up with it for the same reason as other workers—its that or not have a job.
Don't let this stuff discourage you. People who put up with stuff are like the mechanics who work at Pep boys.
You can do better and you don't have to tolerate it.
Blue collar jobs are more rewarding and the work environment can be better for all the reasons you described but the money is worth it IMO. If the money were the same I'd hand in my two weeks and get my welding certs.
Also, calling it an idler pitman arm is somewhat contradictory (though probably not a technical contradiction) since pitman arm kinda implies it's located on the bottom of a steering gear. ;)
There's no job that's perfect in every way. Some office jobs are better than others. I do some Python work, and I don't have this kind of surveillance going on AFAICT. There's some things I don't like about this job, but overall it's a pretty good deal. There's some places that are horror shows; at place that tried to recruit me, I read reviews on Glassdoor.com about how HR monitored the parking lot and the bathrooms to make sure people were coming in on time and not spending too much time on the toilet! I turned down the interview.
> * Why does anyone in an office put up with it??*
The "prestige" of not being, ahem, blue collar.
But to be fair, there are some things in life from which you and/or one's offspring will/would be locked out if one's money comes from the wrong place(s). That said, this doesn't apply to most people. So, see my initial sentence.
It should be titled: How employers lose their best employees.
There are certain jobs that do require extra security and monitoring. But if a manager actually thinks their white collar underling is going to perform better, they should not be a manager.
In the case of IT people, it will probably just get hacked and disabled. I've done it at past jobs. I've also flat out refused to implement this sort of crap.
> “a culture where … people more often alter their behavior to suit machines and work with them, rather than the other way around,” and that this tends to erode their sense of “agency.” That is, the constant surveillance of employees diminishes their capacity to operate as independent thinkers and actors.
Isn't this the point? At least until the people can be replaced?
Personally, can't wait to see the autonomous robots attempts to subvert the system. That should be interesting.
How ubiquitous is this for TSA? I hear people on hackernews complain about theft from the TSA every so often, but according to this, they're being recorded so it shouldn't happen, or if it does, they should be able to prove if it was stolen by TSA.
Are people just blaming TSA for their lost things, is TSA covering up thefts that they know are happening, or what?
It said they were told that's why they were being recorded, it didn't say it was true.
It's very hard to be certain what's going on unless we install tools that monitor management. On the plus side studies show this would improve their productivity.
Even if they are recording everything, there are few people who will want to spend the time watching the recordings. I've been through this a few times in different places. People make up all sorts of excuses for why they can't access the surveillance record(s), that's if they even really have them.
These type of "tools" are used by low-lives to control people so that they feel that they have some sense of control over people. In terms of getting good hard-working motivated people to work for you, this sort of technology does exactly the opposite.
It makes me think of a piece from Peopleware (1987):
> Historians long ago formed an abstraction about different theories of value: The Spanish Theory, for one, held that only a fixed amount of value existed on earth, and therefore the path to the accumulation of wealth was to learn to extract it more efficiently from the soil or from people’s backs. Then there was the English Theory that held that value could be created through ingenuity and technology. [...]
> The Spanish Theory of Value is alive and well among managers everywhere. You see that whenever they talk about productivity. Productivity ought to mean achieving more in an hour of work, but all too often it has come to mean extracting more for an hour of pay. There is a large difference. The Spanish Theory managers dream of attaining new productivity levels through the simple mechanism of unpaid overtime.
This comment gave me a thought: maybe the reason that employees rebel against these systems has less to do with the implied lack of trust, and more to do with the loss of autonomy?
If the boss isn't around to watch you all the time, you get judged by your results at the end of the day. If you're being watched all the time, you get judged by how closely you adhere to every asinine rule that management makes up.
IMHO having a camera over your head is just one (small) step worse than working in open-plan offices. It got popular only for one reason, for just like cameras it gives the management that false sense of control.
Workers who are being surveiled should do the bare minimum while developing skills during free time that benefit future employers and not the current one.
Sadly, I think this almost always should be the case. That is, unless the employer actually is benevolent and puts effort into nurturing the futures of its employees. But how often do we see that?
People should basically work no more than 4 hours a day, and the remaining 4 hours should either be spent developing skills or running a side-hustle on a personal laptop. Better that than bullshitting, which is what the vast majority of people do after they're burned out working 3 hours.
so yeah, if a company considers surveillance of employees' performance to be documentation of their work for the company then all employees will do is just be surveilled.
[+] [-] joewee|7 years ago|reply
"They try to never speak up, never stick out, do nothing that might get noticed by management. This leads to a vicious cycle, whereby management grows more suspicious and feels justified in ratcheting up the surveillance."
This is the most troubling thing about surveillance, it changes peoples behavior. The people who implement these systems don't understand the psychology of surveillance, so they use the change in behavior as a indicator of increased risk. Its a vicious cycle.
[+] [-] toomanybeersies|7 years ago|reply
This isn't a feature intrinsic to companies, but rather a relatively recent social norm. There are still a few companies that do look after their employees, and do things to the benefit of their employees. They aren't very common though, usually it's smaller (often family run) businesses, and often a physical trade rather than an office job.
[+] [-] sonnyblarney|7 years ago|reply
Paying them 10's of thousands a year is definitely 'to the benefit of the employee'.
The TSA situation is a really bad analogy because it's a high security environment wherein monitoring is basically a given. It's just that with that open window, management can't help but be idiots about it and monitor 'chewing gum'. The second problem is that it's a highly authoritative system with low skilled staff. If TSA were bankers and lawyers (or developers), they'd collectively have a lot more power.
Case and point: software developers, bankers and lawyers are not monitored for 'chewing gum' and 'bathroom breaks', moreover, they aren't monitored for that much other than communications.
Email and electronic communications have to be logged for a variety of reasons (including legal)but they should not be monitored by managers.
[+] [-] panda888888|7 years ago|reply
For instance, I work for a school where employees are pretty trusted (the extensive background check prior to hiring & fact that most people have master's degrees probably helps).
The only employee monitoring system we use is to turn on "find my iPhone" and the like for all devices. Technically this is pretty extensive location tracking, but no one monitors it unless a device is stolen/lost.
I really don't think it changes employee behavior. If people want to leave all of their devices at school and never take them home they can, but no one has ever brought it up as an issue.
[+] [-] Bombthecat|7 years ago|reply
It is a mess right now. To say the least...
I get more and more the feeling that HR do not understand how laws work and think they (the firm) are always right...
For a company claims to hate lawyers and don't want to work with lawyers. They sure as hell make sure that soon or later you will involve lawyers (did that already)
But, it is a live lesson. Like all those people claiming they hate gays (while they are gay) or say they are not drama queens (they are) I will now listen carefully when someone says they are not xxxx..
[+] [-] samontar|7 years ago|reply
Still agree with the monitoring, though.
[+] [-] jeffalyanak|7 years ago|reply
Our initial systems ended up being decent at keeping people "moving fast" but in our first few feedback sessions we found it stressed people out, encouraged competition instead of co-education and locked people into workflows they "knew worked" rather than fostering experimentation.
We quickly killed all but the most basic performance tracking aspects of the project and we found better ways to achieve our goals.
We now have a sort of "opt-in" tracking for staff who are interested in testing the strengths and weaknesses of a novel approach, for example. This puts the data in their hands as a tool to convince us of the validity of their approach and the empowerment is not trivial.
It's far more friendly and humane but it's also something that benefits everyone at the company.
[+] [-] icebraining|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gorpomon|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tade0|7 years ago|reply
He pitched me an idea for a system that would essentially spy on IT contractors through the webcam during work. Fortunately his budget was laughably small and my participation out of the question so he never went through with this.
He is known for being utterly shameless but I guess what other kind of person would come up with such an idea?
[+] [-] gaius|7 years ago|reply
Make no mistake, if Google could get away with selling a live stream of your web activity to your HR dept they would do it in a second. After all that’s basically what Dragonfly is.
[+] [-] monksy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loriverkutya|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nimbius|7 years ago|reply
If you asked my boss where i was, shed probably just point at the garage and wave at the 'authorized personnel only' sign. She has no reason to care what size wrench im holding or why im beating the living shit out of a siezed idler pitman assembly. I once drove a car with no doors and a missing windshield out of the lot and down the street, and the only thing she wanted from me was to know if id run to leroys donut and pick up a frozen coffee.
Why is this different in an office? are office jobs just not trustworthy?
[+] [-] spin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] L_Rahman|7 years ago|reply
The model you should have for an office job is that it's basically a social game within which some actual work takes place. Most of the time people spend is maneuvering within the game.
I say this as someone with an office job.
[+] [-] haloux|7 years ago|reply
On the whole, id say that there is something to be said about how the tech revolution is just an iteration of the industrial revolution. People are more removed from the art of what they do. They are deprived of the fruit of their labor and instead forced to work a piece wise process instead of seeing something done start to finish. There’s no tangible result to all the toil.
Non derogatory caveat: some are content to say that the SDLC is an answer. I reject that notion, and realize that I’m the shrinking minority.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|7 years ago|reply
Blue collar jobs, especially with large employers, aren't any less exposed to this.
Office workers put up with it for the same reason as other workers—its that or not have a job.
[+] [-] danharaj|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pnutjam|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|7 years ago|reply
Also, calling it an idler pitman arm is somewhat contradictory (though probably not a technical contradiction) since pitman arm kinda implies it's located on the bottom of a steering gear. ;)
[+] [-] magduf|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsoc815|7 years ago|reply
The "prestige" of not being, ahem, blue collar.
But to be fair, there are some things in life from which you and/or one's offspring will/would be locked out if one's money comes from the wrong place(s). That said, this doesn't apply to most people. So, see my initial sentence.
[+] [-] lexicality|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulie_a|7 years ago|reply
There are certain jobs that do require extra security and monitoring. But if a manager actually thinks their white collar underling is going to perform better, they should not be a manager.
In the case of IT people, it will probably just get hacked and disabled. I've done it at past jobs. I've also flat out refused to implement this sort of crap.
[+] [-] sologoub|7 years ago|reply
Hawthorne effect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
[+] [-] tartoran|7 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticism
[+] [-] jsoc815|7 years ago|reply
Isn't this the point? At least until the people can be replaced? Personally, can't wait to see the autonomous robots attempts to subvert the system. That should be interesting.
[+] [-] ecnahc515|7 years ago|reply
Are people just blaming TSA for their lost things, is TSA covering up thefts that they know are happening, or what?
[+] [-] caoilte|7 years ago|reply
It's very hard to be certain what's going on unless we install tools that monitor management. On the plus side studies show this would improve their productivity.
[+] [-] jsoc815|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] babygoat|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twblalock|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devoply|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Terr_|7 years ago|reply
> Historians long ago formed an abstraction about different theories of value: The Spanish Theory, for one, held that only a fixed amount of value existed on earth, and therefore the path to the accumulation of wealth was to learn to extract it more efficiently from the soil or from people’s backs. Then there was the English Theory that held that value could be created through ingenuity and technology. [...]
> The Spanish Theory of Value is alive and well among managers everywhere. You see that whenever they talk about productivity. Productivity ought to mean achieving more in an hour of work, but all too often it has come to mean extracting more for an hour of pay. There is a large difference. The Spanish Theory managers dream of attaining new productivity levels through the simple mechanism of unpaid overtime.
[+] [-] wtracy|7 years ago|reply
If the boss isn't around to watch you all the time, you get judged by your results at the end of the day. If you're being watched all the time, you get judged by how closely you adhere to every asinine rule that management makes up.
[+] [-] kchoudhu|7 years ago|reply
I sent my MD an email saying I wouldn't be working that day because of it, and left. The software disappeared the next day.
[+] [-] ragequitta|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivanhoe|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] imhelpingu|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ravenstine|7 years ago|reply
People should basically work no more than 4 hours a day, and the remaining 4 hours should either be spent developing skills or running a side-hustle on a personal laptop. Better that than bullshitting, which is what the vast majority of people do after they're burned out working 3 hours.
[+] [-] a_imho|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lexicality|7 years ago|reply
As a side note, basically no one complies with Article 7.3.4: "It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent." (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/)
[+] [-] CaptainZapp|7 years ago|reply
Those things were you have to opt-out of 160 companies individually are really the pits (and quite likely illegal, but time will tell).
[+] [-] itronitron|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IamIan|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]