Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 359 posts

Re: Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers

#231

Post by aidenn0 »

zer00eyz wrote: post #33

I have moved from "solutions architect" to "WFH consultant" at the behest of my clients. The problem I am seeing is that many managers have NO idea how their employees actually work. If you take your average MacDonalds manager they can (mostly) work every station in the joint and then know how to do MORE things. Your average corporate middle manager has NO idea what their staff does or how. To be quite honest, most o…

> To be quite honest, most of these middle managers are not only at a loss as to what they should be doing but are also dealing with the isolation far worse than "staff". I have come to realize that a lot of their time was spent on social aspects of the workplace and they have been removed.

I know exactly the affect you are describing but it just seems so backwards to me because this is the point at which the social aspects of work become more important. Coworkers aren't going to be informally communicating the way they used to so managers have way more "social" work to do.

Re: Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers

#232

Post by aidenn0 »

readme wrote: post #210
asveikau wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think deciding which human being to label as "dead weight" and overfocus on that question is on the same path to paranoia as thinking you need to monitor them all closely. How many times have you seen contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses mislabelled as "dead weight"? I think it happens pretty often, especially in performance-review-obsessed cultures.

>contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses Indeed, this is a problem too. In that case I'd point the finger at the boss who can't recognize what is and isn't a valuable contribution. None of this is 100% exact science, but have you worked with someone who did nothing but somehow kept their job, no problem, not even an eyebrow raised? I have, and these types of people won't last if the performance…

People are just naturally biased towards rewarding effort though. It feels really uncomfortable to label someone who gets into work before you, leaves work after you, and isn't ever seen to be doing obvious goof-off things as "dead weight"

Re: Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers

#233

Post by Cpoll »

trhway wrote: post #81
spamizbad wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised cubicles get so much hate. I loved mine at my first job. Oodles of desk space. Locking drawers and cabinets. There was a chair in the corner so a guest could sit. Made it easy to have 2 meetings without disturbing people. less aesthetically pleasing in office photographs, but overall a much better work environment than any open plan I've experienced.

>I'm surprised cubicles get so much hate. cubicles were a step down from individual offices, and was the manifestation of commoditization of the software engineering. The transition from cubicles to open offices was the part of that process going even further. Basically blue collar workers of 196x on a large factory floor. One would think that we've reached the peak of bad offices ... Well, i think some form of verti…

> vertically stacked option

Bunk-bed desks.

Re: Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers

#234

Post by asveikau »

readme wrote: post #210
asveikau wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think deciding which human being to label as "dead weight" and overfocus on that question is on the same path to paranoia as thinking you need to monitor them all closely. How many times have you seen contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses mislabelled as "dead weight"? I think it happens pretty often, especially in performance-review-obsessed cultures.

>contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses Indeed, this is a problem too. In that case I'd point the finger at the boss who can't recognize what is and isn't a valuable contribution. None of this is 100% exact science, but have you worked with someone who did nothing but somehow kept their job, no problem, not even an eyebrow raised? I have, and these types of people won't last if the performance…

Most of the time when I have seen that situation, ignoring for a moment that my own assessment of the situation is also subjective, the person keeps the job despite there being performance review culture in place.

Re: Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers

#235

Post by sbarre »

na85 wrote: post #116
lmilcin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was 90s then as I remember there were not yet standards to deal with this kind of problem. Actually, thinking about this now, I don't even remember they existed this type of software in 90s but I might be mistaken.

l0pht's Back Orifice tool (see: spyware) existed back then.

I think this might actually have been what he used.

I am actually still friends with the guy (we were both quite young back then, and you learn from your mistakes), and I tease him about this incident at least every few years.

Re: Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers

#236

Post by VectorLock »

simias wrote: post #108
stronglikedan wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an expectation of privacy on company owned hardware?

In the EU there is. For instance the company can't normally access directories or emails clearly labelled as "private". Monitoring can occur but it's pretty tightly regulated. See for instance https://gdpr.report/news/2017/11/17/5383/ > * Employers can monitor employees’ emails at work but need to approach this with caution and careful consideration. > * Follow the ICO Code and 29 WP opinion, including conducting a D…

What is the legality of this? Is this just an "opinion" that a company covered by GDPR could choose to implement or not implement?

Re: Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers

#237

Post by cookie_monsta »

I would like to see a study of the productivity drain of having to have someone interpret all this extra data. Who looks at all the screenshots and keystrokes and logins to decide if they're kosher? It seems ridiculous and meaningless.

A manager in another department has sent a spreadsheet around for WFHers to fill in what they do hour by hour. Aside from the relentless mocking that the guy has received behind the scenes, does anybody believe that he'll be reading all that and gaining useful insights?

I think that assumptions on how people are going to act unsupervised are a great window on how the person making those assumptions would act in those circumstances.

Re: Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers

#238

Post by Chirael »

jlarocco wrote: post #189
qwerty456127 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because he couldn't walk up behind me to see me working, he secretly installed a program on my computer that took a screenshot every 30 seconds > The irony was that I was probably the most productive person in that office (in my humble opinion). The easiest and the most efficient way to ruin my productivity is to look at my screen. I can't work (nor can I pee - a funny coincidence, that's called "paruresis") when s…

Off topic, but related to this... I had, what I felt, was the best seat in the office at my previous job. We had an open office with short cubicles and standing desks, and the cubicles were arranged so that two people shared a small area with two desks/cabinets/etc. For a while, it was wonderful. My "cube-mate" worked from home 4 days a week and only came in for meetings, and we had a window on one side and an empty…

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read HN through lynx for this exact reason.

Re: Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers

#239

Post by bmn__ »

gambiting wrote: post #200
lima wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a "mixed work/personal machine" not imply private use of the work computer?

It would. I said most people aren't provided with those. You sit at your desk and are given a machine to do data entry/accounting/etc all day long, not for private use.

This does not reflect reality. The employer must acquiesce in the full-time employee conducting private matters, such as making physician's appointments or checking in with one's child after school, over company owned equipment (phone/computer).

Re: Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers

#240

Post by rodgerd »

karatestomp wrote: post #134
sheeshkebab wrote: post #16

“ Frost declined to comment on whether Garrabrants, one of America’s top-paid bank CEOs in 2018, is subject to the same monitoring when he works from home.” Tells it all pretty much...

A lot of “very important” employee-control bullshit suddenly doesn’t matter when the person in question is in a C-level or board position. See also: piss tests, limits on doing other work while with an employer. Very important you’re sober as a judge and giving your company your undivided productive output—unless you’re CEO, then, a weekend habit or two and you’re involved with four companies at once in some capacity…

Anyone who hasn't read "Bullshit Jobs" really should. It's a book for the times.
Post reply on HN