Slashdot Mirror


Biometrics in the Workplace

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.

7 of 554 comments (clear)

  1. Low pay always means more control by tobybuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Talking call centers which I know a bit about, it always seems to be the case that the lower you pay someone the more control the employer wants over them.

  2. Their time, their rules by sam0ht · · 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.

  3. Re:Better make sure... by DigitumDei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unlike that door handle they most likely touched while coming into the building?

  4. Canadian law? by tuxette · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm not very familiar with the new Canadian privacy law, but the article seems to imply that the protection of an individual's personal data only applies to the individual as a consumer, not the individual as an employee. It also implies that as an employee, your personal data can, in some instances, be used for other purposes than the original purpose for its collection. (Any Canadian privacy experts out there who can enlighten me and the rest of us?)

    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!

    --
    People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
  5. No kidding by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At a couple jobs I've worked I was expected to punch in and out. When I arrived, I took a card and put it in a stamper, same whenever I left. Was used to track my hours. Seems like a perfectly reasonable request by an employer, that they might want to know what hours you worked.

    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.

  6. Re:Swipe Card by B'Trey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What makes this "draconian?" How is it different from punching a time clock or swiping a card? It's simply an alternate method to clock in. In one sense, it makes things easier for the worker. There's no longer any need to keep track of an ID card. Is there something inherently undignified about placing your hand on a scanner that doesn't exist in the act of scanning a card? Why is the former worker being disrespected and latter not?

    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.

    --

    "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

  7. yeah, I'm an employer. by nblender · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...for a company not doing very well. I am the lowest paid employee at my company. ie: all of my employees get paid more than I do. The company has no profits. Sometimes I don't even get a paycheck. Sometimes part of payroll gets put on my personal VISA. Welcome to owning your own business. Imagine how you'd feel in this position, to discover that some of your employees were taking advantage of the situation, by not showing up and getting someone else to clock in? I have an employee who habitually shows up an hour late, takes 2 hour lunches, and leaves when the clock strikes 5:00. Yet complains when his cow-orker, who does the same work, gets paid more. Yeah, I love most of my employees. They do terrific work and I pay them as much as I can afford. But I'd implement whatever I could to keep them in line if they were taking advantage of me.