Virtual Boss Keeps Workers On a Short Leash 664
Gr8Apes writes "Hitachi has created a 'perfect virtual boss.' The company is manufacturing and selling a device intended to increase efficiency in the workplace called the Hitachi Business Microscope (paywalled). 'The device looks like an employee ID badge that most companies issue. Workers are instructed to wear it in the office. Embedded inside each badge, according to Hitachi, are "infrared sensors, an accelerometer, a microphone sensor and a wireless communication device." Hitachi says that the badges record and transmit to management "who talks to whom, how often, where and how energetically." It tracks everything. If you get up to walk around the office a lot, the badge sends information to management about how often you do it, and where you go. If you stop to talk with people throughout the day, the badge transmits who you're talking to (by reading your co-workers' badges), and for how long. Do you contribute at meetings, or just sit there? Either way, the badge tells your bosses.'"
In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
It just takes micromanagement to an entirely new level. No thanks to these.
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, for those libertarians, the right to make a profit trumps anything as pesky as workers rights ... and if people weren't willing to work there they could work elsewhere and the 'invisible hand' would sort everything out.
Those people are largely full of shit.
Re:In otherwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Interesting)
People have twisted those definitions (Score:4)
As for "conservative", when people verbally push how conservative they are in politics it's sometimes part of a shell game to get away with doing something radical. I've got one of those in my state that is really 99% fascist and is trying to change or destroy everything he can - so much for "conservative".
So when you fit the original definitions I can see how it's a bit tough that people assume you are a disguised wolf instead as soon as you mention the label. Maybe don't. Democratic Socialists would be laughed out of this place or called Communists as soon as they bring up their label.
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarians aren't about freedom (positive liberty), they are about (negative) liberty. What this means in practice is that if your oppressor isn't called "government", you're on your own.
There's a certain consistency to their position, since guaranteeing my positive liberty to not wear a collar like this removes my employers liberty to demand it as a condition of employment. The problem is that libertarianism vastly overestimates the government's share of power in modern society, and consequently underestimates that held by the private sector, and thus sets its priorities wrong. And of course true believers refuse to acknowledge that any priorities beyond ideological purity even exist.
A more cynical person might wonder if the movement isn't backed by the very oppressors who want to deflect would-be freedom fighters from themselves to windmills. But surely our corporate overlords wouldn't do something so dishonest.
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Interesting)
I've mostly stopped typing out my own rebuttals and just started linking to the specific part of my .sig that addresses whatever particular libertarian fallacy someone is invoking. Rarely do I need to go offscript, and even more rarely is a competent rebuttal offered that doesn't distill down to a simple difference in values. Libertarians are, at heart, corporate fascists. They are simply working from a different value system--a horrifyingly barbarous one.
You can consider the debate over when you get them to affirm their subscription to the unadulterated version of those beliefs. For example, I've cornered one before and forced them to admit that rampant poverty is preferable to even a small amount of taxation to alleviate it.
I'll give them credit for their absolute devotion to ideological purity. That's real devotion.
Re: (Score:3)
Just out of curiousity, how would you manage to have "rampant poverty" that "a small amount of taxation" could alleviate?
An actual example would do, or even a reasonable hypothetical. With numbers, of course. It's easy to handwave situations when you don't have any numbers behind your assertions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, sure, there might be situations where entire low skilled s
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Happy workers are productive workers.
I have a hard time believing someone can be so ignorant of history. Do you think slaves were happy? What about feudal serfs? Or pre-unionized steel workers? Or the children working in textile factories?
Capital has never, and will never, care about the happiness of their workers unless those workers force them to care. We had to fight tooth and nail for the rights we have now; eight hour days, forty hour weeks, weekends, workplace safety, sick leave, maternity leave, minimum wage. These things make workers happy, and none of them were offered up voluntarily. They had to be bought with the blood and the lives of the working class from generations ago, and capital has been tirelessly waging a ceaseless campaign to take them back.
Calm down (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a hard time believing someone can be so ignorant of history. Do you think slaves were happy? What about feudal serfs? Or pre-unionized steel workers? Or the children working in textile factories?
He said "happy workers are productive workers". He did NOT say "all productive workers are happy workers". See the difference? What he probably meant was "companies that use policies that keep their workers happy are more likely to have workers that are productive". Sure you can force someone to be productive under miserable conditions but you can get terrific productivity as well by treating your employees nicely.
Capital has never, and will never, care about the happiness of their workers unless those workers force them to care
True and there has been tremendous progress on that front. Working conditions in the US are FAR better in most cases than they were 100 years ago, sometimes to a fault.
Re:Calm down (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure you can force someone to be productive under miserable conditions but you can get terrific productivity as well by treating your employees nicely.
Actually you really can't - its a policing fallacy. People count the costs of welfare, but don't count the costs of their police force.
Similarly, a part of that "force people to be productive" is paying a whole bunch of managers to stand around and bear over them.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually you're incorrect.
Modern archeological evidence shows that the pyramids were almost certainly not built by slaves. While it's true the Egyptians had slaves, from the building layout and likely meal compositions, the pyramid builders were actually working a well-paid, high status job (and why not, its building the tombs of the emperor - working on things for the whitehouse is usually considered to hold prestige as well).
Fast-forward to World War II and see how well slave labor worked out for the Germ
Re: (Score:3)
OTOH, the Great Wall of China *WAS* built with slave labor...i.e., with labor of political prisoners. IIUC it was often intended that they be worked to death, unlike many other projects where a high death rate was accepted as "the cost of doing business". I include in this latter group the Grand Canal. That was built by conscripted peasants, but it really was desired that they survive. Many of them didn't, but that wasn't really intended. But the Great Wall was an intentional sentence of internal exile
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think he did this out of the goodness of his anti-Semitic heart, or because he saw the writing on the wall and wanted to get out ahead of the labor movement? Things were heading in that direction anyway and he just preemptively implemented a policy which was rapidly approaching. Why was it approaching? The labor movement.
He probably avoided a lot of smashed windows.
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
" that simply provides an incentive to better one's self and maybe go back to college"
The problem with this logic is that society needs a certain number of people to work in those low end jobs. Society does not however need 100% of it's individuals to hold college degrees. We already have factories looking for college degrees when they hire line workers. These are jobs where the workers are doing simple repetative tasks like turning screws, inspecting paint as parts go by on a line, etc... all day long. Why? Because they have so many potential workers to chose from and no better way to differentiate between them!
How many years of college will we all need to escape the collar? How much money in student loans? The worse things get in these low-end jobs the more people try to get out of them the higher the bar gets but with no real advantage for society.
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Interesting)
You're missing the point. A business that did this would be at a disadvantage because of the dissatisfied employees (especially competent ones) who would go elsewhere.
My in-laws were shocked to learn that my employer doesn't ban digital frames in the office. The reason is because my father-in-laws employer (Boeing) does (or at least did at the time). Apparently some bean counter calculated that if every employee brought in a digital frame into the workplace it would cost the company X many dollars. So they banned them. I asked about employee moral, etc, and my father-in-law looked at me and said "Where else would they go?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Jobs are limited. The one business would have a massive advantage in hiring, but wouldn't need to (or be able to) hire everyone else. Jobs aren't like commodity goods, where you can simply change to a different supplier if you're not satisfied with the current one. Also, there's significant risk and expense in switching jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarians hate the state, but their ideal society is one where a corporation can essentially have all of the power of the state, but without any representation. They will say, you are free to leave a corporation and do business with another. How is that different than, if you don't like the laws of a state, go to another state?
This isn't hypothetical. Company towns in the past were owned by a corporation which provided essentially all government functions. Quite the libertarian paradise.
Re: (Score:3)
"Negative liberties" refer to interference from others, including both private citizens and government.
There's a slight problem here: Negative liberty is directly proportional to the size of your bank account. If you can't afford to defend your negative liberty on your own against interference from others, you lose it.
Progressives try to "enhance" people's "positive liberty"-- which is a zero-sum game.
Not by a long shot. If you don't have to spend so much time defending yourself from people who keep trying to make your life miserable for their own personal gain, you can actually go about using the more enjoyable aspects of your remaining liberty.
Libertarianism explained! (Score:5, Informative)
Tyranny by government dictators: Bad.
Tyranny by corporate dictators: Good.
Any questions?
Re: (Score:3)
Money is power. Government is power. In a broader sense, unions are an attempt to equalize the power playing field. Naturally, this is why they are fought tooth and nail by monetary power (i.e. wealthy owners).
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
That is until the the corrupt domineering religious right started forcing there values onto everybody else at the republican corporate ran prison system and then the extra greedy rich used them to extend their money power on congress.
Our government today is mostly bought and sold just as you would have it. Fuck you with forced at gun point. How about some common decency.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe if we actually had a viable liberal party in the USA. It's not a two sided note, it's a Möbius strip
What left? (Score:3)
Heck, when Liz Warren suggested reinstating Glass-Seagal to prevent another crash like in 2008 the question wasn't if it was right or wrong, but
Re: (Score:3)
And, oh yes, again another anonymous poster. You are either a shill or an idiot.
Re: In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
And if every company just happens to coincidentally implement the same antiworker policies then you are perfectly free to starve and die! Another win for the free market!
Re: In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Businesses who adopt "antiworker policies" will lose them to companies with better policies. (Until the government starts demanding all kinds of regulations that drive out competitive behavior...)
Not that I'm a big fan of what unions turned into, but they arose precisely because the above is not what happened. Workers had no mobility at all, between jobs, between companies, they had no input on company rules, and that was the standard across industries. Feudalism is feudalism whether it's the lord that holds the reigns or the company.
So indeed, I thank God for the unions back in those days -- they defused the situation, made conditions better, and the collapse that Karl Marx anticipated did not happen in the US as it did in Russia and other countries.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Obvious solution: MOVE. (Score:4)
The state I live in has weak labor laws, and the company believes it can do as it pleases. My fellow co-workers and I have been looking for other jobs for a few years now, but the market sucks. (BTW, all of us have at least a bachelors degree, mine is in engineering). There are thousands of jobs around here that pay minimum wage, but almost nothing paying any more than that.
I have an obvious solution for you. MOVE.
That's what I've had to do for years, just to stay employed. My last move was 200 miles. The one before that was 650 miles.
I see my family a week at Thanksgiving and a week at Christmas. Sure that sucks, but it's what I had to do in order to avoid what you're going through.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh and heaven forbid if it detects you stealing office supplies, it will chop off a toe! But hey freedom!
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Yay for indentured servitude.
Or alternatively,
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
Re: (Score:3)
patent time! (Score:3)
Hitachi has invented the RoboToady. now, the only reason to keep brownnoses around is to fill out the foursome at golf.
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Funny)
It just takes micromanagement to an entirely new level.
Considering the chip die sizes involved, it's probably better to call to call it nano-management.
Re:In otherwards (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait, wait, I know this one! [wikipedia.org] Ah, nothing like innovations in management to remind you that a dystopia is always possible. Anyone who hasn't read Manna, go do it! It is worth it.
It's too bad so much iconic dystopic science fiction was written or cinematized in the 80s (Nineteen Eighty-Four and Bladerunner, to name but two film examples), since it means that all you need to trick people into thinking it's impossible is a bright and cheery computer interface.
Most interesting read in decades..... (Score:3)
I don't know whether to thank you, or curse you!
I went to the author's page and read "Manna" just now, and the first half of that book scared me tremendously(more than any other sci-fi work I have ever experienced), then the second half was soul-tearing.
What I mean by soul-tearing, is seeing the possibilities in the Australia Project, and loving the whole concept...at the same time knowing it could probably never happen on this planet.
Too many entrenched entities(gov't. and corp) would see this as a worse c
Re:In otherwards (Score:4, Insightful)
When I saw the words "Perfect Boss" I imagined something totally opposite to the rest of the description (which describes the boss from hell...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that there is always some desperate person willing to take your place, either out of apathy or economic necessity. Eventually, if enough of these people fill in the vacancies, then you'll find this sort of thing spreading to other workplaces, again chasing you out. It'll spread if it's allowed to. Still, there's always collective action t
Re: (Score:3)
"I am ok with drug testing welfare recipients. Not because "Drugs are bad, m'kay?", but because the hell if someone living on welfare should be spending money on shit like that. If you can afford to keep yourself in an altered state of mind every day it just might be worth looking into whether or not you actually need that financial assistance again."
The problem is not so much that drug testing -- if it actually did what it was intended to do -- is inherently a bad thing. The problems are twofold:
The first is presumption of guilt. You are guilty until proven otherwise (by a drug test). Plain and simple, this is an un-American concept, and it should be taken out and shot dead with a cannon. It is simply not a concept accepted by those who truly believe in justice.
The second problem is that drug tests are unreliable. And the seeming paradox is that
They should call it an anti-retention device (Score:5, Insightful)
Guaranteed to get rid of off your employees who have other options!
Re:They should call it an anti-retention device (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why it is important for the plotucracy to engineer a global economy where capitol can freely traverse national borders but the workforce cannot.
Re:They should call it an anti-retention device (Score:5, Funny)
Beta!
Re:They should call it an anti-retention device (Score:5, Funny)
Grrr...I KNEW someone was going to catch that...why can't we edit our posts here?
The plotucracy doesn't want you to have that feature.
Sincerely,
Your coroprate overlords
Re:They should call it an anti-retention device (Score:4, Funny)
You misspelled coprolite.
Re: (Score:3)
Guaranteed to get rid of off your employees who have other options!
You are assuming that the employees would know about the sensors in their badges. Why would the managers tell them?
Re:They should call it an anti-retention device (Score:4, Funny)
Why would you assume that managers are bright enough not to tell them? :)
Re:They should call it an anti-retention device (Score:5, Funny)
But unfortunately, the budget has been spent on some new management tools.
Re: (Score:3)
On the plus side, salaries will be going up. (Because they'd have to pay people a whole lot more to put up with that).
Not if all the companies in your field adopt it at the same time. Then you have nowhere to go to to escape it and they don't have to increase salaries.
Re:They should call it an anti-retention device (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They should call it an anti-retention device (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if this technology actually delivers and makes the workforce more efficient--even if it's through dehumanizing total control. Your hippy dippy startup won't be able to compete.
So while you're giving extravagant perks to your employees such as unmetered bathroom breaks and letting them skip their quarterly non-work related conversation log review, your competitors are brutalizing their employees and reaping the rewards associated with turning human beings into pliable, docile, terrified, machines.
The worst thing about fascism is that it can actually deliver; as long as you don't get side tracked by useless and expensive crusades of ethnic cleansing or territorial expansion.
Re: (Score:3)
Efficiency is not the sole determiner of market success by any means.
Yes, but it is the sole metric of modern economics, meaning that any activity taken using this system as a driving model will eventually have a goal of increasing that metric. As such, you will devolve to a cog, and an efficient one at that, or your relative usefulness to the economic system will be over and your employment prospects will plummet precipitously.
The use of economics (and thus, efficiency) as the main (and almost sole) under
Re: (Score:3)
It's adorable that you think that.
Re:They should call it an anti-retention device (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this. Management has to wear these and the data gets broadcast to the workers in summary emails
Virtual slave (Score:5, Funny)
In related news, I am pleased to announce my new "virtual slave" hardware, which intercepts communication from the "Virtual Boss" device to PHBServer and provides an excellent replacement stream of communication indicating you always participate in meetings, visit precisely three fellow employees for ten minutes each day, and never go to the bathroom. ("Virtual Slave eXtreme" will be available soon, with many customization options.)
I think I have to say... (Score:3)
Or...Take this job and shove it.
Way too intrusive....treat people like adults, and only punish those that cannot act like an adult, but don't punish and track everyone else that is getting their job done.
Let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Funny)
.... I quit. I for one, do not welcome our Orwellian overlords.
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
You say Orwellian, but it's also what everybody on Star Trek lives with. The computer keeps track of every person on the ship, their location, and their vital signs, and never seems to require command-level authorization to dispense information. Any kid can query the computer and it'll respond "Counselor Troi is in Commander Worf's quarters. Her heart rate is accelerated and her pulmonary system is taxed." And we think of Star Trek as a utopian ideal.
Misunderstood? (Score:5, Interesting)
Japanese companies have tried stuff like this before, but not so that bosses can harass their employees. They genuinely want to know how to make the business better by finding out how people actually work... You know, like a good boss should.
Obviously the potential for abuse is massive, but I think the article author is projecting their own thinking on to this idea. Aside from anything else abusing it would probably be illegal under Japanese law, as it would be in most European countries.
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had any reason to believe that the device was for improvement of workflow and elimination of redundancy, I'd gladly wear it. The problem is that the way employees are treated today, there is exactly zero reason to believe that was the idea behind it.
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:4, Insightful)
Japanese companies are very different to western ones. They consider employees to be assets, and really do consider themselves a family. They are often undervalued because western investors consider high wages to be a weakness and a burden. Japan has the highest number of 80+ year old companies anywhere though, so clearly it works for them.
Of course not all are that good, TEPCO for example, but Hitachi has a good reputation.
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what world you live in where Japan has a healthy work culture. [carolinepover.info] Abuse of psychology for net harm of workers is considered normal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Misunderstood? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know what world you live in where Japan has a healthy work culture. [carolinepover.info] Abuse of psychology for net harm of workers is considered normal.
Several points:
1 - These studies usually look at general office workers, like public service or marketing departments, where there is no real way to gauge competence. So people think they need to put on the APPEARANCE of working 12 hour days to advance.
2 - These workers also SLEEP at their desks. That's right. It's not about actually doing productive work. Many young Japanese workers stay up all night, catch a few winks on the train, and a nap or two at work.
3 - People often take 2 hour lunch breaks to do shopping or whatever. It's all about arriving before the boss, and leaving after him.
4 - Respectable tech jobs are no better or worse than they are in the US. People generally work overtime when needed, but at enjoyable work.
This is the same as the statistics that said that Japanese live ridiculously long. It turns out that the general practice is to lie about age of death to get more government money. There's what people tell you, and reality, and they can be very different.
Re:Mean While, In the US... (Score:3)
It will be hailed as the greatest invention since the Blackberry. All those useless drones who aren't working every second of their 40 hours and take more than their "fair" share of the free coffee will finally pay! I can even be used to make sure people get truly "fair" pay, "You were here for 50 hours this week but you only really 'worked' for 39 of them...no overtime for you!"
I can see this not only becoming standard in most workplaces and probably even made mandatory in a few states (with appropriate e
Is removing the badge from your shirt a crime? (Score:2)
Re:Is removing the badge from your shirt a crime? (Score:5, Funny)
I can see the reports now:
Employee report #27135: "Employee arrived in the office, turned on their computer, and then crammed himself into a small drawer in his desk for the duration of the work day. He didn't move during this time except to climb out for meetings. Employee emerged from his desk at the end of the day."
Employee report #27136: "After speaking with four other employees in an energetic fashion regarding the new tracking systems, these employees went to the restroom and proceeded to flush themselves down the toilet. It might be worth noting that, following this, unknown individuals sent e-mails from these employees computers insulting their managers, most of HR, and the company executives. These unknown individuals then noted that the flushed employees had quit. As the unknown individuals didn't seem to be wearing tracking badges, it is not known what happened to them next. They either left or are living in the ventilation ducts."
Inevitable outcome (Score:5, Funny)
Good luck with getting people to wear those (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are there sensors that can measure height? If so, you can really mess with them by hanging the badge from the ceiling. "Employee seems to enjoy clinging to the ceiling for the entire workday."
Re: (Score:3)
Go across the street, there's another Starbucks hiring.
Don't have stats for Starbucks, but at another well-known coffee chain, it might not be quite as easy as you think [independent.co.uk]...
Badge Meets Clippy? (Score:4, Funny)
Manna (Score:5, Informative)
It seems like more people should take a read of Marshall Brain's Manna [wikipedia.org], a book about this very thing. (Online version [marshallbrain.com]).
It goes into what could happen (and given current economics, the rest of us are housed in tiny apartments to keep the away from the owners). And yet, it also details an alternative view where automation is NOT shunned, but instead used to fulfill what people originally dreamed them to do - do all the chores while the humans relax, or speculate, or invent, or do other things.
Quite an informative read if you have a couple of hours.
Re:Manna (Score:4, Insightful)
I read Manna a few years back, and I think about it often as I ponder our increasingly automated world. Google's self-driving vehicles are going to destroy so many jobs. At first, sure, they'll be required to have a person sit in them in case anything goes wrong, but once the technology proves itself, they'll get rid of that requirement. And don't think they won't...those with the gold will get rid of that rule because it cuts into their profits.
Eventually, no more truck drivers. No more UPS guys. No more mail carriers. No more taxi cab drivers. No more pizza delivery boys.
I don't know how many millions of jobs that would wipe out, but what will those people do?
And the thing is, it could go either way, just like Manna. But in the US, we know exactly which way it would go. And that's scary, because when people get hungry because they have no jobs, they don't stay hungry. They tend to get out the pitchforks and torches.
Re:Manna (Score:5, Interesting)
I was thinking old school, like the French Revolution.
I agree, I certainly don't approve of inefficiency for the sake of menial jobs. I'm not suggesting we throw our shoes into the Google car's engine.
I would love to see those people re-educated as artists, craftsman, teachers, whatever. And that's basically what the second half of Manna is about. My point is that we're far more likely to wind up with the first half of Manna. The very wealthy own the robots, unemploy the poor, and the poor are corralled into cheap public housing to sit and wait to die. In America, today, what'll happen when the robots take the driving jobs, and the Siris and Deep Blues take the call center jobs is the poor will be left to rot with their food stamps and unemployment benefits cut, and they'll be told it's their fault for being poor because they're too lazy. That is a dystopia to which I am not looking forward.
And it's sad, because in America TODAY we could basically guarantee everybody three squares, a small apartment and healthcare for less than what we spend on a war. Those people would then be free to better themselves without worrying about starving. But that will never happen, because the government is bought and paid for by the wealthy, and the wealthy want an underclass of wage slaves scrambling over each other for menial jobs.
Cue people starting to "work" at working (Score:4, Interesting)
No, I don't mean "doing their job". I mean they will start to game the system. People who want to slack off have been very inventive and creative when it comes to slacking, so this will be no different. They will come up with ways to tweak that. Don't want to go to a boring meeting? Let a coworker take your badge along. He'll do it for you next time and everyone's happy.
Of course this does not increase productivity, but rather decrease it for the necessary overhead involved to game the system. But hey, I didn't come up with the idea, management gets what management wants, and if they want me to spend time fucking with their spying system rather than work so my "characteristic figures" look the way they should, I give them what they want.
For reference, see the success of the "how many keystrokes did the programmer make today" for measuring the productivity of programmers creating code. It's not that much different from this junk.
Needs more automation (Score:4, Funny)
It needs a speaker, too.
"Attention worker #47293, you have exceeded your pooping allotment for the day. Exit the stall and proceed back to your desk. Thank you for your compliance."
At least there is no cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
True story: My CEO (US company, California) tasked me to install 3 motion-detection CCTV cameras at all of our remote staff locations (3 part timers, in their homes, in eastern Europe), and then review the footage daily to determine if they 'were at their posts' during working hours (and did not take 'too many' breaks during the day). Of course, the reason for this was to 'make sure we are getting what we paid for.' I'm glad this device was not around last year (or will be very expensive THIS year).
No, I did not install the cameras, I just let the issue die. (still have a job, too).
Re: (Score:3)
Last two companies most of the dev staffs have worked from home. Some have been in other states. But it was software and we could track things like did we make milestones, how often and what did they check into the repository, etc.. They were, however, all salaried. Frankly I never cared if it took them 4 hours or 8 hours to solve a problem or add feature so long as it was delivered on time according to what the project needed.
The other rule was quite simple: If the phone rings between 9AM and 5PM offic
Alternately... (Score:4, Informative)
The virtual boss will see - contrary to what the eyes of the real bosses tell them - employees who never get up from their desks, never go to the bathroom, and never hang around in the break room... because those badges are left behind on the desk all the time whenever the employees get up from their desks, go to the bathroom, and hang around the break room.
Because employees will quickly learn to "game" the system, rendering the whole thing useless.
Hell, most of the time those badges aren't even necessary to get into the office, since somebody inevitably will open the door [pacifict.com] for you. And inevitably the employees are going to discover that their badges are ratting them out.
Not that any of this matters. This is just another way for managers to collect "metrics" on their staff, to prove with the magic of numbers that their staff is working, rather than - oh, I don't know - looking to see if the work is actually getting done. But the latter would actually require the managers to understand what their reports are doing, and that requires knowledge and effort on their part. Better to just rely on computers to create a useless spreadsheet that they can point to during the yearly reviews.
A good argument for unions (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot imagine a better argument for unionization than such gizmos.
Re:A good argument for unions (Score:5, Insightful)
That is why they have been successfully dismantling the unions in the US and the rest of the world since the 1980's. [motherjones.com]
Unless more of this information comes to the forefront of American culture and Media, it will slide in "under the radar" and then it will be too late to bring back unions.
A solution in search of a problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Years ago I worked on early mobile field work software on GPS enabled PDAs. Periodically I'd take an installation and training trip so I could hear the stakeholder concerns. One of the concerns I frequently heard from field workers in private was that the boss would be tracking their movements every moment of the day, and he'd use this to go after workers he didn't like. This was new stuff, and it had a bit of a creepiness factor for people who'd never used a computer in their life.
My response was always this: What would *you* do if you wanted to show someone is goofing off instead of working? You'd go to the site where he claimed to have done the work and see if it actually got done. It's what you'd do, it's what I'd do, and it's what your boss does if he has any common sense. If he doesn't, *he's* the one who's goofing off. Field work is hard; traveling around and keying a few bogus entries is much easier, and would be sufficient to fool the system.
With a few exceptions like security guards, you don't need technology to tell if a worker is doing his job. You need to manage your employees by measuring the things you expect them to accomplish.
We are far from having a technological substitute for intelligent supervision. Anything that falls short of that is just pandering to management laziness.
Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
We are far from having a technological substitute for intelligent supervision.
The cynic in me would say that you pretty much analyzed why we need that technological substitute.
Sigh (Score:3)
A "perfect" boss does not need to instruct workers to wear a badge, need to know who you talk to, how often, where or how energetically, need to track everything, need to know how often / fast you walk around an office, who (or indeed) how much you stop to talk to.
Because he doesn't hire fecking idiots who he thinks need to be babysat by metrics in order to do their job. And he trusts them as professionals. And only needs bother even investigate if there are specific allegations or failings that he becomes aware of (and he WILL become aware of them if he's any kind of decent boss).
It's shit like that that propagates that entire fake management crap.
If you ever consider any of these things metrics even WORTH bothering to measure, you're a fecking idiot of a boss.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't see these being useful. You get a lot of data from a lot of employees and eventually it's just going to be too much data to be effectively useful, hampering creativity and the ability to solve problems. Then there's the other problem, let's say this works perfectly and only perfect employees are kept, who pays for the employees who can no longer get jobs because they aren't willing to be automatons?
"Perfect Employees" Of course this this definition of perfect is a bit swayed towards people that show up, sit at their desks, do not converse with their coworkers, and spend the minimum amount of time in the restroom or on lunch break.
No mention of if the people are actually getting any work accomplished. Talk about inappropriate selection pressure. At best it finds people that are good at subverting the process.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just a very good tool to get rid of people you can't get rid of easily any other way. I don't know about your country, but here, if you have been with a company for a long while, it gets increasingly difficult (or expensive) to get rid of you. Being able to "prove" that you're slacking makes it so much easier.
You needn't put everyone under surveillance. You just have to make everyone think that they are.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree, this goes against everything that is said about good management. Most good MBA schools would disprove of this.
Why?
1. There is a calculated benefit towards (water cooler chats), this increases overall productivity, by allowing informal collaboration and knowledge exchange.
2. The issue between Introverted and Extroverted employees. An introverted employee in a meeting may seem very quite and engaged, however they are there listening and taking in the information, where they may come up with better solution later on. Extroverted may seem like they are engaged however they are just talking a lot of nonsense, and off topic, because they like talking.
3. Employee intensive is Work Environment + Pay. If they feel like their freedom is being taken away from them, it is equivalent to paying them less. If an employee feels like they are being paid fairly they will perform better then one who feels like they are not.
4. Synergy. How can you have Synergy if people are not working together, and knowing each others strengths and weaknesses?
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
What problem are they trying to solve? They want to recover the cost of managers. They can't get rid of the technical staff - they actually need them - but they can get rid of that expensive middle tier by automating the tracking part of management. Which all they think there is to management.
Before you all say "Woohoo", think of this: The CIO is now your boss. You are no longer a person, you're a resource. The only way he knows you or of you is a set of numbers on a report. You either make whatever metric they use to gauge your performance or you don't. They don't care if you're sick, or if you're taking care of a child, or if you've got a personal problem - you don't make the numbers and you're gone.
Re: (Score:3)
I do measure just that. It's actually easy.
I don't tend to micro manage my teams. First of all, I'm lazy and I sure as hell have something more important to do than tell a programmer how to type. Second, they hate it and I can sympathize, I hated it too when I was still in programming. And third, they're adults, I don't see the necessity to treat them like kids who don't know how to work.
I give them a project and I expect to hear from them when they need resources or when some department gives them troubles
Re:You got it all wrong, this is GOOOOOD. (Score:4, Funny)
After all, it's the first step of automating management, and replacing all that management types with a bunch of shell scripts.
And who gets to write those shell-scripts in the end? Who? Exactly, we, the techies.
So it may be a slight inconvenience for a time, but in the end we will only have to do what the shell scripts we wrote ourselves are telling us to do. Sounds pretty much like paradise to me.
Yes but will those shell scripts be written with vi or emacs?