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

The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#21

Post by buffet_overflow »

clpm4j wrote: post #8
1123581321 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the argument for the other side? I can see how someone would put up with it in exchange for some other benefit (money, unique company) but not how they would want it for its own sake.

I listened to the podcast episode yesterday. Apparently some (I think they only cited one person as a source) people use it as a form of motivation and focus. They also said some women view it as a type of equalizer. But the ultimate takeaway was that the systems and the data are inherently not very accurate in their measurements.

My concerns are:

1. Is this system calibrated down to the role and task at hand? Even just in tech, someone doing more design work is going to look different from the backend folks. Doubly so if one project is just starting while the other is midway.

2. How can we understand the potential bias already in this system? It's a black box by design, at what point is it reviewed and by whom?

3. Even if it's fine today, who is to say how it will be tuned tomorrow? Do you think new management would just leave it alone?

4. Do you think the people running this system are applying it to themselves equally?

IMO, this is a poor replacement for having a manager that's a human being and treats you like one too. I'm sad for people that can't find options away from these things, and can't vote with their bodies and leave.

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#22

Post by ghaff »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #20
mise_en_place wrote: post #15

With this type of surveillance and the push to go back to the physical office, a lot of companies are wising up to employees who were taking multiple jobs remotely. What’s sad is that it ruins it for the rest of us, who were honest and diligently working one remote job. This is why we can’t have nice things.

Why is ok for employers to have more than one employee, but not the other way around?

So work as a part-time contractor in that case. The issue isn't working for more than one company--many do--but being dishonest about it.

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#24

Post by jrjarrett »

ghaff wrote: post #18
mise_en_place wrote: post #15

With this type of surveillance and the push to go back to the physical office, a lot of companies are wising up to employees who were taking multiple jobs remotely. What’s sad is that it ruins it for the rest of us, who were honest and diligently working one remote job. This is why we can’t have nice things.

It's a small minority of course. But you'll even get people here vehemently arguing that essentially all is fair in love and war and screw companies anyway. So you get subreddits and news stories--which probably make it perceived as a far bigger problem than it actually is--which leads at least some companies to take action. As you suggest, you have selfish pricks ruining things for everyone. To be clear, a small moo…

Why not?

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#26

Post by iamacyborg »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #20
mise_en_place wrote: post #15

With this type of surveillance and the push to go back to the physical office, a lot of companies are wising up to employees who were taking multiple jobs remotely. What’s sad is that it ruins it for the rest of us, who were honest and diligently working one remote job. This is why we can’t have nice things.

Why is ok for employers to have more than one employee, but not the other way around?

Those are really not comparable things.

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#27

Post by ghaff »

jrjarrett wrote: post #24
ghaff wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a small minority of course. But you'll even get people here vehemently arguing that essentially all is fair in love and war and screw companies anyway. So you get subreddits and news stories--which probably make it perceived as a far bigger problem than it actually is--which leads at least some companies to take action. As you suggest, you have selfish pricks ruining things for everyone. To be clear, a small moo…

Why not?

Because of what the parent said. They're probably making life harder for their coworkers even over and above encouraging companies to put these monitoring systems in place. (Assuming, of course, that multiple jobs is not considered perfectly legit as part of employment contracts/business ethics.) And, just to go all-in, if I had a co-worker doing this and I knew it wasn't allowed, I'd probably rat them out. In fact, I expect it's entirely possible I'd be in breach of some ethics guidelines if I didn't.

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#28

Post by gruez »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #20
mise_en_place wrote: post #15

With this type of surveillance and the push to go back to the physical office, a lot of companies are wising up to employees who were taking multiple jobs remotely. What’s sad is that it ruins it for the rest of us, who were honest and diligently working one remote job. This is why we can’t have nice things.

Why is ok for employers to have more than one employee, but not the other way around?

Simple, because most likely your employment agreement says that you should be devoting your full time and attention to your job for 40 hours a week or whatever. If you're pulling 80 hour weeks across two companies, there's theoretically nothing wrong with that[1], and I suspect those are not the type of people the parent poster is against. The same applies to businesses. If you had a contract with a vendor promising that you'll be their sole client, and it turns out they're actually working for other companies, that would be unacceptable as well.

[1] unless your employment agreement also specifices some sort of exclusivity.

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#29

Post by odshoifsdhfs »

mise_en_place wrote: post #15

With this type of surveillance and the push to go back to the physical office, a lot of companies are wising up to employees who were taking multiple jobs remotely. What’s sad is that it ruins it for the rest of us, who were honest and diligently working one remote job. This is why we can’t have nice things.

It is your problem no? If someone takes 2-3 jobs BUT still producing enough, what does it matter? If a company has a problem with it and punishes everyone, again, it is a 'you' problem.

If I am laid off (company doesn't give a shit about me), will you give me part of your salary? No right? So why the f should I care if my actions (assuming they are legal) affect you? 2 salaries? Yay, I will get to retirement in half (or less even) time. Have a problem? Well change companies or do it the same. If your company punishes everyone for a couple individual actions, they don't know how to manage people or even who is working two jobs, just a suspicion. Change jobs, but let the people that can and prefer to work 2/3 jobs, finally had an opportunity to get ahead alone. It is your problem, not theirs

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#30

Post by Bakary »

ghaff wrote: post #27
jrjarrett wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not?

Because of what the parent said. They're probably making life harder for their coworkers even over and above encouraging companies to put these monitoring systems in place. (Assuming, of course, that multiple jobs is not considered perfectly legit as part of employment contracts/business ethics.) And, just to go all-in, if I had a co-worker doing this and I knew it wasn't allowed, I'd probably rat them out. In fact,…

We have to consider the system as a whole. If the industry in question provides a clear social good, such as medicine or energy production, then there is a moral duty to snitch or perhaps confront the person and give them a chance to reform beforehand. If it's just some tech company, especially a FAANG, ratting them out just means helping elites and reinforcing systems of control for no benefit except to the elites themselves. Ethics guidelines are meaningless at best or a sick joke at worst when it comes to the vast majority of companies in the overall picture. Just another twisted, internalized abstraction in favor of the masters.
Post reply on HN