The rise of workplace surveillance [audio]
nytimes.comFor those who prefer text, the original report the podcast is based on was pretty interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/14/business/work... or https://archive.ph/Bejv1
Glad I'm a union software developer and don't need to worry about this.
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.
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 moonlighting gig that's in keeping with business rules is fine. A second full-time job is almost certainly not.
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.
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.
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
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.
> And I very much doubt they are producing enough.
They're almost certainly not.
The popsci figure for how much a human can concentrate during a day is six hours. A standard 5-day 40-hour workweek already consumes that and more. I can virtually guarantee you that people working more than a single (knowledge work) job are significantly shortchanging one or both of their employers.
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.
>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.
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".
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.
>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.
1. Yes, this would be against idealized free market 2. Yes, they are all against idealized free market
'Natural state of things' would only apply in the absence of all society and civilization, but since there are land owners and employers, its not a natural state but a man-made one, just like a gun. A bullet and homeless/starvation can be both deadly and/or cause severe bodily harm, just at different rates.
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.
Those are really not comparable things.
That was my first thought - I hate this, but I understand why they're doing it.
I genuinely cannot imagine any job worth being constantly spied on.
Why bother working with a company that doesn't trust you?
Might need the money…
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. The lyrics come to my mind, "Some of them want to abuse you. Some of them want to be used by you."
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.
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.
Yeah I suspect it isn't exactly a 50/50 split between "both sides" of this issue - not that the article necessarily argued that, of course.
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've noticed that the same sort of people who support workplace surveillance are also the ones who insist they love open offices and pair programming. I think they appreciate having another person to "fall back" on when they get stuck somewhere. If their boss is constantly monitoring them, and they're unable to solve a particular problem, the boss might wander over and say, "hey Bob, you've been on this spreadsheet for a while, let me show you this formula that might help". Or at least, that's the only explanation I can think of that makes sense.
I'm the opposite - I learn best by studying and tinkering (what with having 6 years of higher education steering me that way and all...). Nothing kills that off faster than having somebody looking over your shoulder saying, "why are you looking at the HTTP specification, somebody else already knows how that works".
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.
Makes sense--thank you.
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.
These kinds of things rarely include the people in charge—maybe middle-managers, sometimes, but not the actual big shots. See also:
- Open office plans, except the bosses get offices (there are exceptions, as with any of these other points, but that's the norm)
- Drug testing.
- Anti-moonlighting rules or other onerous contractural restrictions or claims on time off (these kinds of things apply to higher-ups more often than the other two, but it's still common for them to be universal for the "peons" while the C-suite is allowed to have their hands in several pies at once)
In general, being less-surveilled and less-restricted at work (and off work) is a perk of higher-status positions in a company. It's a social class thing, essentially. This tendency predates computerized surveillance.
"objective data to judge performance by" ... thanks for the laugh!
Makes sense--thank you.