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

Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 312 posts

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#191

Post by davidgay »

zwkrt wrote: post #95
hangphyr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit of a tangent, but one should be careful with that path. Not all employers are 'evil' and have negative intentions for their employees. Think of an example such as the independently owned restaurant that cannot afford to pay employees high wages and their owners are not wealthy. Just as not all employees can be painted as untrustworthy and hostile, not all employers should be painted as untrustworthy and…

All employers will value the enterprise over any one of their employees individually. When is the last time you saw an employer shutter their business but continue paying their employees? It isn't that they aren't trustworthy, it is that it is a mistake to trust your employer to act in your best interest. As an example you yourself bring up, think of all the restaurants that only function because they pay their emplo…

> When is the last time you saw an employer shutter their business but continue paying their employees?

Just last month: https://web.archive.org/web/20200410153705/http://www.lafari...

(They've since re-opened)

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#192

Post by pen2l »

iask wrote: post #12

It’s old-fashion management. If you don’t understand your employees workload and don’t trust them then either you resign or fire the employees. Simple as that. I don’t see how this makes any employee productive. This adds more stress imo. An employee gives you 8 of their 12 hour day. Now, you tell me if that works only for you - the management. They’re people just like you. They have a life just like you. They have r…

> I don’t see how this makes any employee productive.

I'll contribute a counter argument, if only because I don't see it mentioned much.

I'm the counter argument. Since I'm at home now, with kids, if I'm not directly on the phone with a coworker or boss, I'm likely not working. Recently our boss mandated that webcams must be on hereon-forward... before today, I would sometimes just have airpods on for the meeting but otherwise be doing stuff (cooking, clean dishes, other chores). Honestly this part I don't really enjoy -- because rarely there is stuff said in the meetings for which I need 100% of my brain head-on.

But that's just me with all of my mental disorders and problems, who needs a helicopter boss to be productive. You may be different.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#193

Post by _curious_ »

boo_boo wrote: post #190
_curious_ wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said it was simple? But advisable, sure if you or anyone is not uncomfortable with what they are being subject to/asked to do as part of a job, YES, I would advise them to quit if deemed necessary. Would you advise them to stay and subject themselves to they type of treatment they did not agree with?

Would you advise them to leave and risk not being able to put food on the table if they can't find another position? If there's little to no opportunity for lateral movement in their job market right now?

I would advise them to do what they felt was in their net best interest. Either way, they are making a conscious choice - a choice to stay and continue subjecting themselves to such treatment or a choice to leave and assume the risk.

Again, would you advise them to stay and subject themselves to they type of treatment they did not agree with?

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#194

Post by orangecat »

hangphyr wrote: post #83
malux85 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't have said it better. One of the reasons I'm a supporter of universal basic income is so that the employees can have a better negotiating position. I suspect many bullshit rules will go out the window when the alternative to employment isn't destitution. For far too long has this negotiation been highly in favour of the employer.

This is a bit of a tangent, but one should be careful with that path. Not all employers are 'evil' and have negative intentions for their employees. Think of an example such as the independently owned restaurant that cannot afford to pay employees high wages and their owners are not wealthy. Just as not all employees can be painted as untrustworthy and hostile, not all employers should be painted as untrustworthy and…

It's possible that a UBI could work out to the benefit of employers that respect their workers. Suppose your job choices are an employer that treats you well and pays $20k/year, and an employer that treats you badly and pays $30k/year. You might end up having to take the higher pay and put up with the abuse just to make ends meet. But with a UBI of $15k/year, the lower paying job becomes a viable option.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#195

Post by evilolive »

_curious_ wrote: post #171
t-writescode wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment ignores the very real material realities that many people have around being able to afford life at all. While it is fair that "no one is 'owed' anything, legally" - actually, even that's wrong, but I'll pretend it's right for the sake of argument, some people are in situations where there is a single job in town, they do not have the money to move, and they have kids to feed. They cannot quit.

"where there is a single job in town" could you please point to such town in the US? Not having money to move and mouths to feed...that is whose responsibility/issue...an employers? A neighbors? Yours? Mine? And yes, they can quit if they choose to. There will be trade-offs and consequences, but they 100% absolutely can quit!

So .. can you rationalize in the same manner why the employees in the NPR story haven't quit yet?

Is it cowardice? Is it because they think they can't do better than what they have?

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#196

Post by WalterBright »

iask wrote: post #12

It’s old-fashion management. If you don’t understand your employees workload and don’t trust them then either you resign or fire the employees. Simple as that. I don’t see how this makes any employee productive. This adds more stress imo. An employee gives you 8 of their 12 hour day. Now, you tell me if that works only for you - the management. They’re people just like you. They have a life just like you. They have r…

There is another aspect to this. Many employees need guidance here and there. A manager told me once that he'd often find his team members working on something that wasn't the critical path, and he'd have to nudge them back on it. Every day. Team members may also be working inefficiently, and the manager observing it can help with that, too.

It's not always an adversarial thing.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#197

Post by WalterBright »

malux85 wrote: post #38
iask wrote: post #12

It’s old-fashion management. If you don’t understand your employees workload and don’t trust them then either you resign or fire the employees. Simple as that. I don’t see how this makes any employee productive. This adds more stress imo. An employee gives you 8 of their 12 hour day. Now, you tell me if that works only for you - the management. They’re people just like you. They have a life just like you. They have r…

Couldn't have said it better. One of the reasons I'm a supporter of universal basic income is so that the employees can have a better negotiating position. I suspect many bullshit rules will go out the window when the alternative to employment isn't destitution. For far too long has this negotiation been highly in favour of the employer.

> For far too long has this negotiation been highly in favour of the employer.

Henry Ford had to double the pay to lower employee turnover.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#198

Post by pthomas551 »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #53
Kalium wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once upon a time, I worked for a company in Kansas City where upper management genuinely had trouble with the idea that engineers were humans with lives outside the office. I was walking through their section of the office one day, and overheard the President of the company asking in tones of complete bewilderment why engineers were not voluntarily working twelve-hour days. Suffice to say that his confusion was refle…

Had the same experience in the midwest early in my career. Underpaid, overworked, our boss expected us to work weekends without any extra pay because we "all needed to pitch in". Corporate culture in the midwest is horrifically outdated.

Yep, an obsession with (the appearance of) "hard work" and "frugality" combined with hardcore nepotism is the Midwestern way.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#199

Post by Avicebron »

_curious_ wrote: post #193
boo_boo wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you advise them to leave and risk not being able to put food on the table if they can't find another position? If there's little to no opportunity for lateral movement in their job market right now?

I would advise them to do what they felt was in their net best interest. Either way, they are making a conscious choice - a choice to stay and continue subjecting themselves to such treatment or a choice to leave and assume the risk. Again, would you advise them to stay and subject themselves to they type of treatment they did not agree with?

By this time I can't tell if you're deliberately misunderstanding reality to virtue signal some sort of privilege?

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Vulnerable populations can have their employment opportunities gamed by powerful groups where they are essentially enslaved by their reliance on their paycheck to support their family, food, housing, etc. I don't understand why this doesn't register with you.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#200

Post by _curious_ »

evilolive wrote: post #185
_curious_ wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point to a single person who cannot quit their job right now?

Are you being extremely obtuse on purpose? Not everyone is an engineer who have employers fawning over them. A lot of people have few prospects of employment - especially right now - and have bills to pay. So weighing the two options : no food this month, or installing spyware willingly they take the easiest route.

"... A lot of people have few prospects of employment - especially right now - and have bills to pay."

Have you considered that you may be engaging with and replying to someone who falls into this category? What makes you think I am or speaking from the POV of an engineer who has employers fawning over them?

Beyond that though - why do you think that people do not have the ability to exercise their own choice in the matter? The final paragraph of this article literally underscores my point:

"Rather than download the software on her computer, she opted out."

So your assumptions of who you are interacting with on this topic appear ignorant, your belief in other people inability to choose whats best for them suggests you do not respect their power, meanwhile you've created the only extreme - as in extremely unlikely scenario - whereby people are forced to choose between self-administered surveillance or starvation.

Post reply on HN