Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by pdonis » Wed, May 13, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #232

pdonis wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many employees need guidance here and there. This is best done by regular check-ins, not by monitoring everything an employee does every single minute.

Seeing what someone is doing is different from hearing a description of it. For example, someone may be using the wrong tool for the job. Or he may be using an ineffective sales pitch. Or he may be doing his job by going around the horn rather than using the canal. I'm not saying it's never abusive. Just that it isn't necessarily abusive.

> someone may be using the wrong tool for the job

So ask them what tool they are using and why. Or set up a video chat where they can show you what they are doing and you can make suggestions about better tools.

> he may be using an ineffective sales pitch

So listen in on the sales call and then give feedback afterwards.

Still don't see why any of this requires minute by minute monitoring.

> I'm not saying it's never abusive. Just that it isn't necessarily abusive.

If there are obvious alternatives that are (a) much less intrusive, and (b) much more respectful of the employee's professionalism, then it sure seems to me like minute by minute monitoring is abusive.

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

#272

Post by amaajemyfren » Wed, May 13, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

My question would be ... does it work?

Say there are people who are not being tracked using these tools ... does the act of tracking them make them more productive?

𝗔𝗻 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 There is the old joke paper given to the British Medical Journal (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/). The "problem" it tries to figure out is do parachutes work? There is anecdotal evidence that they work - bit there have been cases where people have fallen from great height without a parachute and not died and there are cases where someone has jumped from low altitude with a parachute and died.

What they then do is suggest a proper double blind analysis to confirm that a parachute actually works. But it is a joke so they do not go far.

The point they make applies here also. On the part of the boss it does feel like you are in control and I am sure HR would love it because they now have time sheets that they can use to process payroll etc.

But for the end user ... does it actually increase productivity?

Actually ... does it actually matter whether it does or not? Maybe their goal is to make the bosses happy. My suspicion though is that it may actually be reducing productivity as they mess up morale. But that has not been tested either. (Not sure if it can be tested).

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

#273

Post by wolco » Wed, May 13, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

0xffff2 wrote: post #235

wolco wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one supporting a family. The one who has bills. Someone who likes to eat. Do you live at home still?

>Do you live at home still? That's a curious question. Don't most people live "at home"? I'm guessing you mean "do you live with your parents still". Do most people consider their parent's house(s) "home" even after they move out? I sure don't.

By living at home, I mean supported by parents. Basic needs are met automatically

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

#274

Post by filoleg » Wed, May 13, 2020, 10:32 PM UTC

_curious_ wrote: post #200

evilolive wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You haven't heard of anyone working a job they hate in general? Why do you think they continue working? Is it because they just love feeling miserable for 8 hours a day? Or maybe it is because if they quit, they won't have an easily available opportunity waiting for them, that would allow to feed their family, pay bills, etc.?

This is one of the very few times I've seen someone make a serious argument on HN so ridiculous, I cannot believe this is real. And not only make it in the first place, but then also double- and triple-down on it.

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

#275

Post by rconti » Wed, May 13, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

Tade0 wrote: post #75

matheusmoreira wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably not difficult to work around these checks but nobody should be suffering this indignity in the first place. People can't even go to the bathroom without getting called out by managers over lost productivity. How dehumanizing.

And it's not even effective. There's a quote from one of the more known Total Quality Management evangelists, which stuck with me(paraphrased): "Don't engage in games with your employees, because you can't win." He elaborates further explaining that any scheme or incentive system created for a specific behavioral outcome is bound to be exploited or otherwise worked around.

It's central planning, seems like. Does "the boss" really think they can implement a system that one of their 5 or 10 or 50 or 100 employees can't figure out how to circumvent?

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

#276

Post by dang » Wed, May 13, 2020, 11:34 PM UTC

_curious_ wrote: post #111

That's a dramatic exaggeration...companies you describe exist everywhere and it's up to the individuals to change if they don't like it.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23168022.

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

#277

Post by dang » Wed, May 13, 2020, 11:35 PM UTC

_curious_ wrote: post #129

candu wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That works in certain fields - for instance, many of us here on HN can indeed walk across the street and get a new job if our employers are teetering into miniature surveillance states. To be honest, though, the average worker doesn't have that kind of leverage, they don't have pockets deep enough to wade through the interview cycle, and many of the other employers they'd go work for are doing exactly the same thing.…

They have all that they need should they decide to use it: the power of self-agency. That's the only and ultimate leverage anyone has if nothing else...

You've been posting all sorts of generic comments in this thread, and worse, and basically derailing it to the point of trolling. Please don't do this on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#278

Post by dang » Wed, May 13, 2020, 11:36 PM UTC

_curious_ wrote: post #114

Counterthought: anyone who would knowingly and willingly install spyware on their personal computer deserves to lose their privacy.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23168492.

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

#279

Post by dang » Wed, May 13, 2020, 11:36 PM UTC

_curious_ wrote: post #123

Everyone has a choice: yes or no. Consequences may vary, but then again, no-one is owed anything legally, morally, or otherwise so to act as though every individual does not have or exercise their own self-agency is disingenuous.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23168440.

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

#280

Post by eschutte2 » Wed, May 13, 2020, 11:44 PM UTC

eschutte2 wrote: post #268

gfxgirl wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious how much of this comes from working with unskilled labor (hope that's the right term). I once worked in fast food right out of high school. 80-90% of the employees were one or more of untrustworthy, unreliable, whiny, always making excuses or trying get out of work. My point being if you start there you might just assume that that's the way it always is for all employees no matter what type of job and the…

That's been my observation too. In tech, this kind of paranoid micro-management is a great (inverse) indicator for whether someone's used to working with talented people. If I were ever managing again in tech I'd be trying to find people much smarter than me and then get the heck out of their way.

Edit since I just re-read the parent comment and might have misunderstood: I don't distinguish between tech and other fields in this regard. I think it's an issue in all fields.