Bosses Keep Sharp Eye on Mobile Workers 232
camusflage writes "AP is running a story on the penetration of GPS devices and monitoring of fleet operations. Such technology is hitting the mainstream, with UPS distributing 100,000 GPS-enabled handhelds 'to alert them when they're at the wrong address.' One driver is quoted saying, 'It's kind of like Big Brother is watching a little bit. But it's where we're heading in this society.' Needless to say, the Teamsters weigh in on the negative side on the whole thing."
If you're on the clock.. (Score:4, Insightful)
And the problem is? (Score:2, Insightful)
And the problem with that is... what? If you're on the company time, you're not supposed to be "goofing off on the other side of Manhattan" way off your route.
As long as the terms of tracking are put into the contract, I don't see any problem with that. You know what you'll be signing for.
Re:Sounds like bad management (Score:2, Insightful)
whats wrong with it? (Score:3, Insightful)
But from the other side, Is it really and diffrent than being in an office where you are being watched by your boss anyway?
Re:Seriously Sims, Give It A Rest (Score:2, Insightful)
While I generally agree with the opinion the most are overreacting, this is an issue as it moves the focus from someone doing their job [production] to simple attendance. It likely won't help oversight, instead likely will just be another example of people [low level managers in this case] using technology as a crutch instead of actually doing *their* job.
Re:If you're on the clock.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why shouldn't a company be able to know where their truck and equipment and products are?
Like another poster said, it's not as if they're tracking their employees when they're at home.
From the business perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
This is in regards to business. These businesses have a SUBSTANTIAL investment in their fleet, and in the service they provide. If you owned one of these companies, wouldn't you be a bit ticked off if your employees were racking up non-business related miles on your vehicles, putting them at more risk for accidents, and reducing the overall efficiency of your business?
Thats what I thought. If you're on company time using company resources, don't expect any privacy. I mean, I personally feel there should be a limit...I mean, I don't want to get written up for taking too much time in the bathroom or socializing a bit with employees, but in a case where you're on the road in company property, that is a very different situation.
Re:Seriously Sims, Give It A Rest (Score:5, Insightful)
> bloody job, then quit.
Aren't there more black-box ways of determining whether I've done my job without gathering extraneous information that invades my privacy? I see problems with the Big Brother approach as not dealing with root cause.
Example: At my workplace, we have a loser who is significantly less productive than his counterparts. He pisses his day away looking at the Internet, talking at the water cooler, forwarding unfunny internet apocrypha and jokes to everyone, and eating 15 meals a day.
He eventually gets his work done, but he does it so slowly, that he is not worth his salary.
Instead of enacting policy that cripples everyone else in order to deal with his particular loafing strategies, doesn't it make a lot more sense to fire him for not earning his compensation, barring a better excuse (health, etc)?
No. Why? The litigious nature of our culture? Personal feelings interfering with management objectivity? Who knows. Whatever it is, I'd like to find out so that I don't have to implement another custom snort filter or whitelist instead of just firing the loser.
The flip side of this is that it disallows me from accepting a job that is easy for me. If I choose to work at Joe's Tape Backup Emporium, and I am compensated for the duration of my time pushing catrtidges, and my work requirements are met, I don't see why I cannot read a book during the downtime (can't leave, but I'm idle). Just because I'm capable of exceeding my quota, while Johhny Newbie has to concentrate 100% just to match me at 50% effort, does not mean I should be compelled to share the benefit of my personal efficiency with my employer if he does not compensate me more than Johnny. If he's not paying me more for my efficiency, why does he care if I'm reading or staring at the screen? The right answer is that he shouldn't, but he does because people like getting shit for free. However, I see no justification of the position that you must work until it's a grind for you. And that's what pervasive monitoring could lead to, because it's always in the employers' interest to squeeze you for all you're worth at the cheapest possible price.
Re:Seriously Sims, Give It A Rest (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing new (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything went great until the first guy got fired because he was caught fishing (seriously) while on the clock.
Shortly thereafter the techs realized the system could be defeated by wrapping the antenna atop their vans with tinfoil. Management surrendered. Gave up on the idea. I think they probably wasted a couple million on it by that point.
Re:If you're on the clock.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is another example, you are very efficient at your job, and because of it can take a long lunch hour. Your boss realizes this and decides to give you more packages than somebody who is slower. However, instead of increasing your pay you just get more packages. Is that fair?
My point is that I don't agree with the big brother, and I don't think the teamsters are much better. But it does not give a company the right to watch your every move.
I find many people very hypocritical in this aspect. Especially managers and IT people. Imagine you were tracked like a UPS agent? Imagine your boss installing applications to see how much code you write per hour and minute. Imagine your boss watching your every click on the computer? Would you buy into that?
Yet it is OK to for UPS to watch THEIR trucks and equipment. The problem with these attitudes is that does not work. You cannot control people and expect efficiency. Control results in resentment because pure numerical facts are used to judge whether or not an individual is doing their job.
Humans are not robots, as there are always circumstances.
Re:Seriously Sims, Give It A Rest (Score:4, Insightful)
How better to figure out where someone is at a given time than a GPS unit that phones home? What other black-box solution do you suggest? Alot of them are already carrying the hardware needed to impliment this(nextel phones do it for one).
Invades YOUR privacy? How about protecting the owner of the company's assets?
Instead of enacting policy that cripples everyone else
How does a black box in a truck, or a cellphone that you carry anyway cripple anyone? Or did I just get trolled
Re:Seriously Sims, Give It A Rest (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the parent post demonstrates why excessive monitoring is counterproductive. If an employer creates a work atmosphere in which employees feel repressed by management - morale, motivation, and productivity are going to fall. No matter how much the "I pay you, you do what I say" line is repeated, people are just not that simple. They want to feel appreciated - such feelings lead to dedication - dedication leads to high productivity (in general, there are always exceptions).
When I think about my worst job experience, it was management that made it that way. Quitting that job was an absolute blast. I came in, 2nd in command asks me why I look so happy. I said "Today's my last day!" (big smiles) and then asked if I could leave early. She eventually just told me to go home right then - which made me happier still. This is in a context where the rules were in daily flux, people were terminated on management whim, and our pay-checks were bouncing. I got a little speach about "employee loyalty" - my retort - "what about employer loyalty?" Thinking back to that day always makes me smile - it was just so fun to walk in and show the bastards they had no power over me and I wasn't going to put up with the BS. Why did I feel that way? Because the employees were shown complete disrespect every second of the workday.
So, while so many have the "I pay - you work" sentiment - remember that treating your workers like shit means they'll treat you back in the same manner and love every second of it. Treat your employees with respect, and by and large, they'll be highly loyal.
Re:Hasn'y This Been Common With Truckers? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know the system you're talking about--read a big long article about it at the time. The company also had a policy that if a driver was more than 15 minutes late more than twice in a year, he could be fired--this is cross-country trucking! And yet the drivers didn't complain, because the GPS and communications were their link into an awesome backend support system. Any mechanical problem, any traffic jam, any unusual need and they'd have a person back at the home office working virtually hand-in-hand with them on finding a solution.
The trucking company in question specialized in guaranteed delivery times for time-sensitive cargo, and charged higher rates for this special service, and paid their truckers better than average as well. So, imagine that: higher performance requirements + good support staff + higher pay + the right people == satisfied employees. What a shock!
Re:If you're on the clock.. (Score:3, Insightful)
But I think very often it has nothing to do with "the need to manage", but rather with the need for managers to feel that they're doing something, even when it's actually counter-productive for the company as a whole (though it can be in the manager's best interest by giving him something to cover his ass with -- "I implemented a plan to improve employee efficiency by nailing them to the floor; inspiring slogans will maintain morale!").
Of course sometimes it's also just that the manager is an insane control freak.
Re:Seriously Sims, Give It A Rest (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you're on the clock.. (Score:2, Insightful)
On what planet do you live? A classic example of the folly of this argument is the issue of accountability re. public servants' travel.
Here in Australia, public servants are required to make bookings with airlines at grossly inflated (usually by 400%) fares purely because under the regulations the fare has to be refundable in the event of the person pulling a no-show.
It seems to me that accountability is only applied at the echelons of an organisation which actually perform any useful work. Nobody ever seems to require the senior management to be accountable.