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

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#31

Post by ShamelessC »

EastSmith wrote: post #5
kornhole wrote: post #3

Interesting how some workers know and like the monitoring tools on themselves. Many of the debates on HN and elsewhere around this technology are split between psychologies. Many hate to be watched and controlled while others want the opposite. Being on one side of the spectrum, I was long puzzled at the other side's position until I came to accept it. I still try to understand how people have come to their position.…

I am not sure I've ever heard someone being happy for being monitored at work.

It’s a long episode, but it is in fact mentioned in a lengthy segment near the end that some workers interviewed liked the accountability and focus the monitoring provided.

Perhaps not the wisest opinion, but so it goes.

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#32

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

gruez wrote: post #28
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The expectation and contractual requirement of sole employment goes against free market principles. These requirements, and absolutely the ones making any sort of restrictions on where/who someone can work for after leaving a company, should be legally unenforceable.

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#33

Post by gruez »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #32
gruez wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The expectation and contractual requirement of sole employment goes against free market principles. These requirements, and absolutely the ones making any sort of restrictions on where/who someone can work for after leaving a company, should be legally unenforceable.

>The expectation and contractual requirement of sole employment goes against free market principles.

What "free market principles"? The wikipedia article for "free market" says:

>In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

In this case, two parties (employers and employees) are voluntarily entering into a contract without government coercion. I fail to see how that's against "free market principles".

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#34

Post by etempleton »

My hard line is I won’t work for any company that enables the ability for the company to to turn on a web cam or microphone in my home. Web tracking software, key loggers, and automated screenshots is is the norm, unfortunately. I have a personal computer right there if I don’t want to be tracked, so that doesn’t matter to me.

If you feel like you need these monitoring tools as a leader or manager perhaps take a long hard look in the mirror in regards to your own management abilities. I know what employees are doing their job and doing it well by the timeliness and quality of their deliverables and the amount of imitative they are taking. If an employee is not meeting expectations have a conversation with that employee and figure out why. The only thing monitoring software does is make everyone feel disrespected.

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#35

Post by etempleton »

sebdufbeau wrote: post #10
EastSmith wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure I've ever heard someone being happy for being monitored at work.

In the episode, you here about people who like the monitoring as it "levels the playing field" and reduces the perceived performance (eg: slackers that get promoted), leaving only the concrete performance as monitored by such tools I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that position personally, just exposing it

My problem with this line of thinking is it creates a perverse desired outcome.

Hours Worked at Computer > Productivity

Not everyone is going to take the same amount of time to do the same amount of work. Not everyone’s work is of the same nature. If an employee goes for a walk and is thinking through a work problem the whole time was that not an effective use of time?

I heard from a friend during the pandemic that they were having problems with a couple of employees and were considering this type of software. My response was why do you need the software, you know they are not getting the job done. Have a conversation with them and warn them about their performance and then if it doesn’t improve their future employment has to be considered. I don’t see why this is hard.

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#36

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

gruez wrote: post #33
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expectation and contractual requirement of sole employment goes against free market principles. These requirements, and absolutely the ones making any sort of restrictions on where/who someone can work for after leaving a company, should be legally unenforceable.

>The expectation and contractual requirement of sole employment goes against free market principles. What "free market principles"? The wikipedia article for "free market" says: >In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government,…

In idealized concept, all participants must be free to buy and sell their goods and services to all other participants. A market where buyers can only buy from certain sellers or sellers can only sell to certain buyers isn't free regardless of whether the constraints are government mandated or privately decided. For example, if the owners of all the food production refused (on their own accord) to sell to certain groups because of their ethnicity, that wouldn't be a free market. Also in the vast majority of cases, the employee has much less negotiating power than the employer. So 'voluntarily ' here has the same meaning as voluntarily giving your wallet to mugger pointing a gun at you. In this analogy the gun is potential homelessness and starvation.

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#37

Post by pixelfarmer »

Barrin92 wrote: post #7
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.

if it's transparent and includes everyone including whoever is in charge it creates objective data to judge performance by. Just like pay transparency if it's universal it's a good way to make compensation more meritocratic. Catching slackers isn't a bad thing, Only doing it in one direction is.

"objective data to judge performance by" ... thanks for the laugh!

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#38

Post by 2ICofafireteam »

gruez wrote: post #28
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>If you had a contract with a vendor promising that you'll be their sole client ...

Where I am in Canada, I've had exclusivity required for an employment contract but only within the employer's niche and for pay well above industry norms.

The problem over here comes when the work is structured as a contractor/client arrangement.

If someone is set up as contractor, even with a registered company, they can be considered a de facto employee and have all the protections given to regular employees. Additionally the client, as the de facto employer can get in trouble for not making and remitting payroll deductions.

Even incorporating won't save you. There are several criteria but, if you're the sole employee of a corporation, you're considered a personal services business. It makes you ineligible for any corporate tax reductions, an additional 5% tax, and virtually no deductions are allowed outside of payroll expenses; even supplies and directors' action payments.

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#39

Post by mise_en_place »

odshoifsdhfs wrote: post #29
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…

No it isn't my problem. The company I work for knows that I have a business. Because they were originally my customer. I was honest and completely transparent with them, so there was no issue. Completely different if I had kept the business and not told them about it.

It's about integrity, something many people lack here in America today. And I very much doubt they are producing enough. They are likely working 10 hours a week per job. Being both an employee and a business owner that has employees, integrity is critical to any type business relationship. It may not seem like it, but trust me, it is paramount.

Re: The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]

#40

Post by gruez »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #36
gruez wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The expectation and contractual requirement of sole employment goes against free market principles. What "free market principles"? The wikipedia article for "free market" says: >In economics, a free market is an idealized system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government,…

In idealized concept, all participants must be free to buy and sell their goods and services to all other participants. A market where buyers can only buy from certain sellers or sellers can only sell to certain buyers isn't free regardless of whether the constraints are government mandated or privately decided. For example, if the owners of all the food production refused (on their own accord) to sell to certain gro…

>In idealized concept, all participants must be free to buy and sell their goods and services to all other participants.

And who uses "free market" to mean the definition you just proposed?

>For example, if the owners of all the food production refused (on their own accord) to sell to certain groups because of their ethnicity, that wouldn't be a free market.

1. While I agree the example you gave is undesirable, the unclear whether the badness stems from "buyers can only buy from certain sellers" or something else. An easy test of this would be: if I refuse to buy widgets from Acme Co. because they also make cluster munitions, does that mean I'm violating free market principles?

2. how does exclusivity agreements play into this? Are they all against your definition of "free market"?

>So 'voluntarily ' here has the same meaning as voluntarily giving your wallet to mugger pointing a gun at you. In this analogy the gun is potential homelessness and starvation.

This is a terrible analogy because homelessness and starvation is the natural state of things, but the same can't be said of a bullet traveling towards your head at 300 m/s.

Post reply on HN