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

How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#21

Post by gwright »

saraid216 wrote: post #14
WalterBright wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand it happens. I was disagreeing with the attempt at justifying it as acceptable behavior. The moral way to improve your pay is to find a way to make your labor worth more to the employer. For a restaurant worker, that could be things like finding ways to boost sales, reduce wastage, find less expensive vendors, improve efficiency, etc. It's highly unlikely that any restaurant has successfully optimized all…

> For a restaurant worker, that could be things like finding ways to boost sales, reduce wastage, find less expensive vendors, improve efficiency, etc. It's highly unlikely that any restaurant has successfully optimized all aspects of their operations. What, for free? He isn't being paid to do that.

Your comment suggests that you are analyzing the situtation as a static configuration rather than a dynamic system.

From a static point of view where the job situtation will never change it doesn't make sense to put in an effort that exceeds the compensation but that 'solution' is certainly non-optimal from dynamic point of view where the employment contract gets continually revised over time resulting in raises, promotions or perhaps shifting to a new employer where your experience and skills result in a better employment situation.

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#22

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

jka wrote: post #5

I think the article in question spins a very positive light on surveillance - in the given context, theft has been occurring and is curtailed by the change in behaviour of staff, regardless of whether or not action is taken based on the surveillance being present. The larger problem with surveillance is that there is no global notion of what is 'right' and 'wrong' - theft is assumed wrong to almost everyone, but few…

> positive light on surveillance

Positive for whom? Do you suppose NCR offers a product that helps waitstaff recoup tips stolen from staff by restaurant owners/managers?

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#23

Post by consonants »

WalterBright wrote: post #16
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"When someone pays you minimum wage he is trying to say he would pay you less if it wasn't against the law." -- Chris Rock I agree, but it is hard for me to find sympathy for businessmen who hold wages so low. This behavior is widespread in the restaurant business, and it isn't limited to the staff stealing from the restaurant.

Sympathy has nothing to do with it. If you feel your wages are too low, negotiate for higher ones. If that doesn't work, accept it or quit. If you've been wronged, you have access to redress from the courts, and the courts are very sympathetic towards workers in disputes with employers.

>If you feel your wages are too low, negotiate for higher ones. If that doesn't work, accept it or quit.

Labor rights in this country are so laughable that this isn't a realistic an option. Any attempt towards that end such as simply unionizing has been eroded away by the law written to favor the owners of capital.

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#24

Post by icegreentea »

gngeal wrote: post #15
saraid216 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust, but verify. Same reason contracts are written down.

I have yet to sign a contract that would mandate that I be watched by cameras at all times.

I don't believe that that was his point.

I think that his point was that a healthy attitude to take on in life is to generally take other people's words as true (thus trust), but to have mechanisms to ensure that (thus verify). The key point is that unless you have specific reasons not to trust them, then you do not set up an antagonistic relationship.

For this to work, both parties must believe that 'trust, but verify' is a valid norm.

His example about contracts is exactly that. Typically, for most 'small things', you could probably just take someone's word for it. But just in case, we're going to sign on it. As I said before, this really only works when both parties accept this as a norm. Examine trying to sign a contract with someone from a culture which places far higher value on personal honor (or however you want to put it). They might get completely insulted that you would not just 'take their word for it'.

That's something of a similar situation with employers vs employees and video surveillance at work. Clearly, most employees -don't- warrant video surveillance, and simply imposing it on them could lead to serious issues (like the culture clash above).

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#25

Post by WalterBright »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #18
WalterBright wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sympathy has nothing to do with it. If you feel your wages are too low, negotiate for higher ones. If that doesn't work, accept it or quit. If you've been wronged, you have access to redress from the courts, and the courts are very sympathetic towards workers in disputes with employers.

I said I agree with you. >If you feel your wages are too low, negotiate for higher ones. If that doesn't work, accept it or quit. I wish more people would do just that. It's what I did, after about a month of working as a barback. >If you've been wronged, you have access to redress from the courts, and the courts are very sympathetic towards workers in disputes with employers. No, you really don't, and the courts are…

> Where did you get that idea?

Details of cases I am familiar with, and talking with lawyer friends who tell me that, although it is not supposed to be that way, jurors and judges often give the benefit of any doubt to the perceived underdog.

There's a reason why lawyers carefully dress their clients in certain ways, select jurors based on socioeconomic status, etc.

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#26

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

WalterBright wrote: post #19
saraid216 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a restaurant worker, that could be things like finding ways to boost sales, reduce wastage, find less expensive vendors, improve efficiency, etc. It's highly unlikely that any restaurant has successfully optimized all aspects of their operations. What, for free? He isn't being paid to do that.

Perhaps you misunderstood that the point of it was to demonstrate your higher value and hence you were worth more pay. If you choose to do as little as possible, it does make for a tough negotiating position when asking for more pay. When I've gone into my boss's office and negotiated for more pay, I'd come in prepared to show how I'd already demonstrated higher value to the company. Sometimes I walked out with a rai…

Forgive me for making assumptions about you, but, you sound as though you have never even known anyone who worked this kind of job. What you're describing would likely earn you enmity or a very antagonistic working relationship with your coworkers.

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#28

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

WalterBright wrote: post #25
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said I agree with you. >If you feel your wages are too low, negotiate for higher ones. If that doesn't work, accept it or quit. I wish more people would do just that. It's what I did, after about a month of working as a barback. >If you've been wronged, you have access to redress from the courts, and the courts are very sympathetic towards workers in disputes with employers. No, you really don't, and the courts are…

> Where did you get that idea? Details of cases I am familiar with, and talking with lawyer friends who tell me that, although it is not supposed to be that way, jurors and judges often give the benefit of any doubt to the perceived underdog. There's a reason why lawyers carefully dress their clients in certain ways, select jurors based on socioeconomic status, etc.

You think a person who makes minimum wage-ish + tips can hire one of your friends to sue their manager / boss / restaurant owner over wage / tip discrepancies? Do you think your coworkers who depend upon their waitstaff job to support their family / college education will agree to testify or be deposed in proceedings against their employer? Have you really thought about this?

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#29

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

consonants wrote: post #23
WalterBright wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sympathy has nothing to do with it. If you feel your wages are too low, negotiate for higher ones. If that doesn't work, accept it or quit. If you've been wronged, you have access to redress from the courts, and the courts are very sympathetic towards workers in disputes with employers.

>If you feel your wages are too low, negotiate for higher ones. If that doesn't work, accept it or quit. Labor rights in this country are so laughable that this isn't a realistic an option. Any attempt towards that end such as simply unionizing has been eroded away by the law written to favor the owners of capital.

Exactly, it is especially bad when there are so many unemployed, making labor a buyer's market.

Re: How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study

#30

Post by rustynails77 »

saraid216 wrote: post #13
jka wrote: post #5

I think the article in question spins a very positive light on surveillance - in the given context, theft has been occurring and is curtailed by the change in behaviour of staff, regardless of whether or not action is taken based on the surveillance being present. The larger problem with surveillance is that there is no global notion of what is 'right' and 'wrong' - theft is assumed wrong to almost everyone, but few…

> few readers here will have been at the poverty line, where it might appear a little more ambiguous whether taking a small cut from a very successful business which pays minimum wage is so clearly immoral. WalterBright's comment indicates some confusion with this, so I'll help explain. There's a basic notion of fairness that what you've contracted to do (your job) in return for money (your wages) is fair. But a lot…

I don't agree with it, nor do I understand it. I see the same behaviour in corporate bankers are are earning many millions per year. It's OK to steal because I deserve more. People like this are common thieves - and nothing more. Growing up, my family went from poor to middle class. We did the hard yards. We never stole. Why? Because its about principals and ethics. Never, never excuse a thief. If your statement were true, i'd rip off the volunteer organisations that I _volunteer_ in ... because they don't pay me enough.
Post reply on HN