201–210 of 227 posts
Everyone replying with "what's the big deal?" is showing their tech privilege. You may not have to deal with intrusive monitoring, but warehouse workers are increasingly being made to wear ankle bracelets so every movement of theirs can be monitored and stack ranked. Workers in WFH "gig" jobs are made to install always-on keyloggers and other monitoring software on their personal computers and phones (which are requi…
Not arguing against your points but I'm wondering if this is more a US related issue? I never heard this being a thing here in the EU but maybe it's just me being unaware of all the various situations. I don't know anyone who works from home (whether in tech and in other sectors) that has to deal with all that nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice try. The memo from NLRB mentioned in the article makes the claim. National Law Review is the top search result on Kagi: https://natlawreview.com/article/nlrb-general-counsel-issues...
Neither your link, the article from OP, nor the actual NLRB memo mentions ankle bracelets.
2nd paragraph of GP's link.
> Abruzzo’s memo cites things like wearable devices for warehouse workers
6th paragraph of OP article.
I don't think the commenter meant literal ankle bracelets. But I think that's a bit pointless. I don't think it's okay whether it is a literal ankle bracelet, or some BLE tag in their badge. Do you think some option is okay?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither your link, the article from OP, nor the actual NLRB memo mentions ankle bracelets.
> For example, employers ... track [workers'] movements using wearable devices 2nd paragraph of GP's link. > Abruzzo’s memo cites things like wearable devices for warehouse workers 6th paragraph of OP article. I don't think the commenter meant literal ankle bracelets. But I think that's a bit pointless. I don't think it's okay whether it is a literal ankle bracelet, or some BLE tag in their badge. Do you think some o…
Yes, definitely. The distinction between a supervisor watching their employee vs. cameras + CV vs. using wearables to automate the watching seems completely arbitrary to me. Are you OK with a cab company monitoring its cars via GPS? Or a trucking company monitoring its loads via tracker? I am, and again, I find the distinction arbitrary. With one caveat–the employee is informed prior to employment that these tools will be used and they are a requirement of employment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuinely interested to know what are some ways you suggest. The times webcams did not exist, coding interviews were done in-person.
That's what I was getting at. If you want to be sure that the human body who will be present in the office is the one doing the work, then you need to have at least one on-site interview. If the work is fully remote, then does it really even matter? If you hire Person A to provide certain business results, but he actually contracts it out to Person B who does all the work, yet the expected business results are provid…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>install always-on keyloggers and other monitoring software on their personal computers and phones 1. WTF is anyone doing using their personal belongings for their work? Cleanly and clearly demarcating personal and professional is CYA 101, for both employee and employer. 2. WTF is the employer doing if they don't provide all necessary tooling for the job prescribed? 3. WTF are you doing working for above employer? I…
Regarding 1: Not everyone wants to buy a burner phone to do 2 factor authentication. And many (most?) employers won't provide one just for this. The real evil are companies that require you to use a phone for 2 factor authentication and assert that they have the right to examine your phone because you use it for work purposes.
(Not necessarily directed at parent, but anyone who is unsure or worried about this.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever they're legally allowed to and I may never know. That's the problem.
Wouldn't you need to sign over your name, image and likeness (along with an affidavit that it isn't already exclusively owned) in order for them to legally reuse it? Granted, I've seen tech employee contracts that do include that wording, but it hasn't been in any of the pre-employment paperwork like NDA, etc., in my experience.
Legally? Probably yes. Practically? Fuck no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can change your name and address, you cannot change your irises.
That argument works for fingerprints because it’s possible to replicate them (kind of) but how do you replicate someone’s eyeballs assuming supervised setup ?
Either way, I think this is one of those "if it was used properly, people won't like the limitations, so they'll use it improperly" situations. Kind of like with social security numbers.
Never seen anything like this IRL despite working at various major companies. Hell the other day I explained to my rather senior boss that the yellow teams icon means away from desk. Work is me trading my time for money, and I can begrudgingly accept some level of monitoring. That's after all what a boss is - they supervise aka monitor. However the blurrying of boundaries really irks me. This is part of the reason wh…
Yep, my policy is to never "cross the streams." Work stays on work-provided (and controlled) devices and personal stays on personal devices, and never the twain shall meet . I work remotely, so I even go so far as to ensure all my work-provided devices are on their own VLAN which is isolated from the rest of my network and only have limited Internet connectivity. I don't really understand people who use work devices…
I have been told in at least two interviews that a condition of my employment is that i have a relatively recent Android phone.