Biometrics in the Workplace 554
ryth writes "The Globe and Mail reports that McDonald's Restaurants and a few other companies in Canada have introduced palm-scanning technologies for employees. Workers are now expected to 'sign' in and out using their palm prints to record the exact time of arrival and the identity of the employee. Quoted in the article Jorn Nordmann, president of S.M. Products, was blunt about why he installed a hand scanner at his fish-processing plant in Delta, B.C. 'If you want to control a whole bunch of people, it's the only way to go.' It seems that some of the most underpaid and undervalued workers are starting to be treated no better than the animals they are frying up." Except for the frying part.
Swipe Card (Score:3, Insightful)
No big changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it so significant that a palm scanner is being used now? It prevents deception - it's unlikely you'll cut off a hand for your friend to clock you in early. Other than that, it means you can't lose your timecard (major accidents excepted). Oh, and you might want to wash your hands more...
Low pay always means more control (Score:5, Insightful)
This is no different to a Timecard system... (Score:3, Insightful)
What am I missing here - they are paying for labour, so why shouldn't they make sure people start on time?
Their time, their rules (Score:5, Insightful)
When your employer is paying for your time, they have a right to measure how much of it they are getting. Just like you have a right to put that bag of sugar on the scales and check that it really is 1kg.
Seems reasonable enough to me, anyway.
Re:Better make sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Canadian law? (Score:5, Insightful)
If what I assume is correct, there is no reason for McDonalds to not use the hand/fingerprint data in some other way, if they wanted to, for example checking for criminal records, as mentioned in the article. They say they won't use the data for anything else, but they have also said their food is healthy. Would employees have the right to be informed if McDonalds suddenly used the hand/fingerprint data for something other than clocking in and out? Plus, it is not impossible for this data to be stolen and then abused. Who would then be responsible, under Canadian law? If employees have weaker protection under the law, does this mean that employers aren't required to secure the personal data of its employees the same way an e-tailer is required to the secure personal data of its customers?
Another problem is what happens when this technology becomes mainstream, and used in most workplaces. It is understandably used in workplaces where security is an issue, and for now it's only McDonalds and a handful of other places that do not have the same security concerns as say, a nuclear power plant. The more use, the more potential for abuse. Workers need to have their rights secured before these devices are used. I just hope Manitoba (and the other provinces lacking strong provincial privacy legislation) wake up and create new laws to protect the people!
Re:Swipe Card (Score:4, Insightful)
Paying for employees time when they are not there is a waste of money too.
The point is more about forcing the employees to be responcible and accountable. Just about everywhere I worked cared more about your atendance and puncuality than they did about any other aspect of our with. Its not like is any different that using punch cards other than the employees can't cheat the system.
Re:Swipe Card (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:huh? (Score:1, Insightful)
Wrong approach (Score:3, Insightful)
His 50 employees would often "buddy-punch," ... "They're typical workers," Mr. Nordmann said. "It's not nice work. You have a lot of turnover. You have them one week, and the next week they're gone. You can't tell the faces any more."
What a wonderful view of workers. Sort of Victorian workhouse style. He could always try treating his staff well enough that they don't cheat the system or quit all the time.
Re:huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I'm an employer and I think you're absolutely right. You can't trust people to do the right thing, so must treat them like children or animals.
They should have pay docked by the minute if they're late. Of course if they're a early that time doesn't count, and of course if at the end of the day it takes them longer to finish than the hours you are paying them for, them that must be their fault so they shouldn't be paid for that either.
At my company, all employees wear a special hat with a cam and microphone pointed at thier faces, so that we can see and hear them at any time. If they are doing or saying anything that isn't strictly work related, we dock those minutes from their pay too. It is very efficient - it keeps our salary bills low. We do have some problems with staff retention though.
No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
However time card have problems. They are easily damaged, since they are just paper. Also it is possible to get confused, and grab the wrong card, I did that on one occasion. However more important to an employer, another employee could punch a friend in, making it appear as if they were there.
This eliminates problems and just streamlines everything. You scan you plam, it knows you are you and clocks you in. Scan again to clock out. No confusion and no practical way to fake it.
This in no way limits your privacy your rights or anything else. You employer has a right to know when you are working for them. And guess what? If the system is lax, people will abuse it. Like now I work at a university and all hourly positions (which is only student positions really) simply fill out a timebook once a week, which is then signed by their supervisor. So what happens? You guessed it, people cheat. A student will show up to work 15 minutes late, take a long lunch, and slip out 30 minutes eairly yet still report a full work day.
It works the other way too. Makes it much harder for a company to screw you. Say you need to work late. They decide they don't want to pay you for that time to try to claim you weren't there. Hard for them to say if there is a palm scan record of you leaving. Much easier to say if there is no record, or just a punch card.
Re:huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad/good management determines whether a time recording system works or doesn't, the technology just makes it harder to cheat. So now the honest guy who is late by 5 minutes doesn't get into trouble while the sneaky guy comes in half an hour late, safe in the knowledge that his card is already swiped.
Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting. At my workplace, we don't use obscenely hyperbolic arguments to attempt to defend against completely reasonable points.
We Don't All Have Palms (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Swipe Card (Score:1, Insightful)
How do you force someone to be responsible? That's absurd -- a sense of responsibility can be inspired, but that requires that an employer treat the employees with respect, not force. Draconian measures like this only make the worker feel like a slave. The end result is an unmotivated and disgruntled workforce.
Bander
exactly- prevents theft (Score:5, Insightful)
...especially since the #1 problem with timecards, according to a friend who manages a small manufacturing business, is that employees regularly clock each other in/out as favors.
So lets get this straight- it prevents theft and reduces peer pressure("Hey bob, clock me in early tomorrow, will ya? The kid needs new braces.") It involves absolutely nothing intrusive(I fail to see how storing the dimensions of your hand is intrusive) and is merely an improvement on a system that's been in use for almost a CENTURY.
What's the problem here? That biometrics are evil?
Bad not necessarily because of privacy... (Score:2, Insightful)
A little workplace entropy distracts from the oppressive order of day to day work.
Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Lower pay jobs tend to be hourly. Well if employers are paying by the hour, they want to maje sure they get what they pay for. Likewise by the hour jobs generally include OT pay, which they don't want to pay if they can avoid it. Higher pay jobs are more often salaried so it doesn't matter as much. Sure you may come into work 15 minutes late but you also may be asked to work all weekend at no extra pay.
2) Lower pay jobs tend to be more time oriented, less results oriented. Like McDonalds. It is important that you are there for the time they expect. Why? Well because at any time customers may come in and require your services and you need to be there fore that. Much less important as a software developer. It's just important that you get the software done, regardless of if that happens 0900-1700 or 0000-0800.
3) People tend to care less about lower pay jobs. If you make $5.15 an hour, how movtivated are you to give it your all, really? I know I wasn't. I would have been perfectly happy to slip out if I could. There's quite a bit more motivation if you make $100,000/year to keep your job.
Not saying it's all justified or anything, but there are legit reasons why an employeer would want to keep a closer eye on a lower payed employee.
Free the oppressed worker kill the capitalist pigs (Score:4, Insightful)
In any environment where you have high turn over finding a way to track workers is critical, especially in low margin businesses like fast food. Business implements changes out of (hopefully intelligent) self interest, not part some conspiracy to "control" workers. Now, do there need to be safeguards in place to make sure corporations don't share biometrics as well as other personal data, absolutely. However, American corporations are so afraid of being sued most only confirm employement dates of former employees, rather than telling the truth, even when the former employee deserves a negative review. So I find it hard to imagine the circumstance where some minimum wage worker's handprint is so valuable that a corporation is willing to part with the data, and take the risk of a high profile lawsuit. The only real exception to this is of course, the government. There is a potential for abuse there, and if I were a potential employee I would like to know what the employer's policy on information requests from law enforcement looks like, ie do they require a subpoena etc. Also how long will the company keep the information would be something I would ask.
Metrics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Swipe Card (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that most opposition to this is merely knee-jerk reaction to biometrics.
That isn't to say that there aren't issues with the use of biometrics in all situations. The key is whether or not the use of the biometrics coincieds with a legitimate need to establish identity, and whether or not it exposes the user to additional risks or invasion of privacy.
Street corner cameras, for example, which purport to scan for wanted crimials, are an outrage. The government has no legitimate interest in establishing my identity merely because I stand on a street corner. It is recording information about me and my location which I have not authorized, and which I may not, for a variety of legitimate reasons, want known. It opens me up to the risk of being falsely detained in the event of a false positive. There is simply no justification for it, and many reasons to oppose it.
Biometrics are not inherently bad, and they can be used legitimately. The fact that they can also be used indiscriminately and inappropriately is not justification to oppose their use in all circumstances.
Re:No big changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Prove to us that you are a man of principle: Show us your years of uncashed paychecks. Don't let The Man take advantage of you anymore!
McJobs != Enlighted underpaid masses.... (Score:2, Insightful)
On the animal note... I can draw more references to the average aptitude needed to operate a fry machine than I can to the way people are treated. That and if your treated unfairly at one burger joint, move your damn cheese. Half the places out there required simply that you speak English (an even this might be waved) and that you are breathing/have a pulse.
When they start taking blood samples ala Gattica or feeding worker rendered coworkers, then complain.
Re:Swipe Card (Score:5, Insightful)
The math is simple enought even for the dumbest of business people. He only needs to ask whether or not the money spent on this device is less than or greater than the money stolen from him.
I think the fact that he's willing to spend so much money on such a device suggests that the incidence of theft is much greater than you think.
I also want to say that it's disturbing that you take lightly dishonesty. Things like morality and ethics aren't just stupid games philosophers play. What people believe is right and wrong has a real, though indirect impact on society. It ultimately come back to you, although for most people it's difficult to see.
This very story is about some of those more obvious impacts. The owner can't trust his employees to do the right thing, so energy and resources must be wasted on this device -- energy and resources that could have gone elsewhere and put to more productive use. He's unhappy and the employees are unhappy.
Ultimately, a proper moral code tries to guide people to make good decisions that lead us generally away from such economically wasteful and socially unhappy situations a this. I don't think it's too far off to suggest that dishonesty and theft are not part of such a moral code.
yeah, I'm an employer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Swipe Card (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Swipe Card (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem is data persistence
OK, so let's say laws currently in force protect you from misuse of this info. Who's to say what will happen to those laws tomorrow? Or for that matter, never mind law changes, what do you do once the credit-card harvesters turn their attention to this, and harvest your fingerprint? Cut off your fingers and ask AmEx to send you a new one? Fat chance this stuff will be even as secure as credit card data, what kind of network security do you think that fish plant has? What if some guy (let's call him "Bill") uses some large corporate meta-databases to link evil-OSS-programmer-X to fingerprint Y? "I'm sorry sir, our HR computer just doesn't seem to like your application - please apply elsewhere..."
...or what if the religious Funnies get control of the government? (more I mean) A few changes to the law, and all of a sudden there's a central database of biometric identifiers of anyone who's ever worked for an abortion provider and OH LOOK it accidentally got left out on the internet...
think AHEAD people, not what is it now but what does it risk tomorrow?
Reducing Us To Numbers! (Score:2, Insightful)
Take your job for example. What's the easiest way to keep one employee straight from another one? Assign some type of unique identification to each one. The easiest uniqie ID thus far has been a number...you don't run out of them!
Now, you have to keep in mind that this number is really only used on the backend systems...the payroll system, the employee benefits system, the HR system. You don't see employee #57823 greet you with "Hi, 23884!" do you? If you, please stop reading now, and find a new job. Your co-workers are freaks.
And metrics? Yeah, they're important. It's important for a company (or at least most companies) to make money, correct? So you need to know where you are spending your money to figure out how much you're gonna have left. One component of this is, you guessed it, finding out how much you're paying your employees! Now these hourly folks, you don't want them clocking each other in when they're not actually on the job, or otherwise finding a way to cheat the system (disclaimer: all systems can be cheated in some way)? In other words, getting paid for time they didn't work? Of course not. Would you pay the plumber for time he wasn't actually working on your clogged toilet? Pay the auto mechanic for time he wasn't working on somebody else's car? Pay the web monkey for time he wasn't marking up a webpage? No. You're not going to waste money.
So you're going to have your bosses, or at least the accountants in your company, run numbers to find out where the money's going. And this kind of thing isn't new, it's not some metrics trend, it's been going on for quite awhile now.
What about some other places? Do you think that store cares to know your name? The big one you buy your clothes at? Of course not, what possible use does that serve them? The mom and pop shops might, but they can afford to, that's their allure. But the larger shops aren't in the business of knowing the names of all their customers, they're in the business of providing you with a large selection of products to purchase. The larger entities in society don't care to know your name. There's no reason to know your name.
Yes, it is true, you are a number to them. Yes, they can probably track you and find out that "Customer #349374 likes to purchase grapes, red t-shirts, and fishing magazines, so we need to market product X to them". They can probably match this stuff to your home address and begin mailing you circulars.
But that's more to do with privacy which isn't going to be touched on here
Re:No kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
mcdonalds employees, whether you like it or not, are not the most honest people. the kinds of kids that work at mcdonalds generally do so because they really need the money or their parents made them get a job. it's easy with a regular punch card to have your friend clock you in and you show up an hour late or something. it's also easy to grab the wrong card. this way you can't screw up. this way your employer knows when you're there and when you're not which is their ABSOLUTE RIGHT in being your employer. if you don't like the fact that you might lose your job because you can no longer cheat the system, then quit, you shouldn't be working anywhere for any employer.
that's great that a college professor spoke out against it, but WHAT INFORMATION IS STORED IN YOUR PALM PRINT THAT THEY CAN MISUSE????? nothing. last i checked, my palm print was not on file anywhere in the country. my finger prints are on file in the state of CT because i used to work in a high school and that's the law. should i be fighting that system because it's put in place to protect the students (and me if you really get down to it)? no. what can i do with a copy of someone's palm print? nothing really. i can't easily go and make a fake palm to get them in trouble. you want to fight privacy issues, fight the american university system against using SSN's as ID numbers.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Your missing the point (Score:1, Insightful)
That recording can be easily mis-used, without your knowledge or control, to cause you harm in a false-positive situation.
Is it paranoid (with respect to the opinion of the average citizen)? Yes. Is that okay? Yes. Why? Because in this age the voters have chosen to let their government have A LOT more power over them than the last age (ie. about 25 years ago). Voters want their peace and comfort and are willing to pay almost any price for it, even if it means handing an absurd amount of control to the government.
If the government was made of perfect people who never made decisions that benefitted themselves at the cost of the citizens depending on them, there wouldn't be a problem. But instead we have a government made up of imperfect people who will and have made decisions that benefitted themselves at the cost of the citizens.
As a paranoid but possible example: Say you are standing on a street corner waiting for a friend to pick you up in their car, and there is no one else around. There happens to be a bank right behind you, and it's being robbed at that moment. Your friend happens to pick you up just seconds before the robbers run out of the bank, but you're facing the other direction so you don't see them. The bank customers are scared for their lives and demand that the bank owner do something otherwise they'll pull out their money and go to another bank. The filthy rich bank owner is outraged and demands to the mayor that the culprits be caught within the next few days or he'll stop making "large sum donations" to government programs. Well, it turns out the robbers could not be identified because they wore masks, and time is running out so the mayor does something dirty and has you arrested claiming "you were standing outside the bank as a lookout person" during the robbery.
Yeah, it's a weak example, but it can still happen. They'll have a recording of you standing there, where as if it was a police officer patrolling the area he'd see you but probably wouldn't even remember your face because you obviously didn't have anything to do with the robbery.
Re:Swipe Card (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying that I entirely agree with the grandparent, but legal rights are not the only kind of rights one has. Just because it's lawful for a government (or corporation, or individual) to do something doesn't mean it should -- moral rights should at least be considered.
Now, whether there's a moral right to privacy is another question.
mmm hepatitis (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Swipe Card (Score:3, Insightful)
That really depends on your jurisdiction. In the US, that's what the 9th amendment is talking about. In other jurisdictions such as the European Union, privacy and personality rights are actually spelled out in respective constitutions and EU treaties.
Either way, whatever rights I have isn't limited to what the government "gives" me. The government doesn't give you any rights. It's the people giving the government the rights to conduct their business.
Re:Swipe Card (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure? I've worked with people that used just that sort of logic. They think they're just being practical. They actually think it's a sign of weakness and naivete to consider such things as morality and ethics. If you bring it up, they just pat you on the head like you're a kid.
I'm not sure that putting in a system which is almost guaranteed to lower morale further is the best solution.
Maybe, but the fault lies with those that are dishonest, not with the owner.
The best solution is more public discussion about morality, ethics, and their purpose in a civil society.
Now for some armchair psychology... Perhaps he chose this particular solution because it allowed him to continue believing that "they" are the problem, not him. Fixing it is simply a matter of keeping them "under control."
"A proper moral code" is a two-way street. If you expect someone to treat you fairly, you had better see to it that he feels treated fairly by you. Otherwise, it's too easy for him to justify moral transgressions by telling himself, "I'm only taking what I deserved in the first place." My guess is that most of the people who cheated this employer used similar justifications.
I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right. But I am saying that actions have consequences. If his employees feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are getting screwed, they are more likely to screw him back. It doesn't make it right, but there it is.
Ah, there's the rub: how do we determine what is fair?
As far as I can tell, "unfair" has been reduced to meaning "I don't like it."