Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: When Does Time Tracking at Work Go Too Far?

An anonymous reader writes "I work in a call center, full time, for a large mail order pharmacy. Recently, as part of their campaign to better track time spent both at and away from our desks, they have started tracking bathroom breaks. They use a Cisco phone system, and there is now a clock out option that says 'Bathroom.' My question is whether or not this is in any way acceptable in a large corporate environment (Around 800 people work at this same pharmacy) and is it even legal? How invasive would this really be considered, and beyond privacy concerns, how are they going to deal with the humiliation that their employees feel as a result of this? Has this happened to any of you?"

410 of 630 comments (clear)

  1. Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You need a union. It's the only way to fix this kind of thing.

    1. Re:Unionize by leromarinvit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You need a union. It's the only way to fix this kind of thing.

      This. So much this. You don't have to put up with this bullshit. And it will only get worse unless you fight back.

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    2. Re:Unionize by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Funny

      USA to china: "when I grow up, I want to be just like you!"

      (think about that..)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Unionize by dmacleod808 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unions will results in layoffs. Corporations will not just accept lower profits because their labor unionizes, they will layoff (Or go to India or the Philippines) until the costs are back in line to where they were.

      --
      There Can Be Only One...
    4. Re:Unionize by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and to fight back, any attempt at a layoff causes ALL the workforce to strike.

      THAT is why you have a union. 100% that.

      its high time we bring back unions. corps have shown they are not good at self-managing and self-policing. left alone, they will squeeze you dry. they used to! study your history!!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Unionize by dmacleod808 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Until the United States passes union laws, this will just result in the entire workforce being laid off and non - union talent being hired. There are plenty of people who want a job.

      --
      There Can Be Only One...
    6. Re:Unionize by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I agree. The bottom line is that nobody should be working for such a company [unless there is something going on in that company that I don't understand].

      Honestly, if a company can't treat its employees reasonably well, then it deserves unions, and I say this as a non-supporter of unions.

    7. Re:Unionize by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. The right has demonized unions while ignoring that they level the playing field between an employee and an employer. Without them, you get abuses like this. That doesn't mean that a union needs to drive a business into the ground. Typically they both understand that a strong business means a strong profit means a strong workforce. If things get unbalanced too much to one side, you end up with either corrupt management, or a company that goes out of business.

    8. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Seen how that tends to work out in the long run?

      Union in, costs up, profits down. Have to reduce costs so look into cost cutting measures which can include layoffs. Union in uproar and strikes. Costs spiral and profits tank. More cost cutting measures and can eventually cause the closure of the company or shifting of all work offshore with EVERYONE loosing their job.

      I've been involved in unions before and seen the destruction that they actually cause whilst claiming to be helping, NEVER AGAIN!

    9. Re:Unionize by Karlt1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hate to say it but it's not a highly technical job. If people start complaining they just outsource to India.

    10. Re:Unionize by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      that's why you hire teamsters (etc) to 'manage' the picket lines.

      to counter a brut regime, you bring in your own hired thugs.

      seriously, its the only way to fight fire. the bosses are not about to give in voluntarily. again, study your history. what we lost over the last 50 yrs, we have to fight AGAIN to get back.

      the repubs are busy trying to destroy organized labor. and they are winning, too ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:Unionize by digitalchinky · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Although I agree with the sentiment, as a former vicidial / polycom consultant in all cases where I had to log toilet breaks the underlying reason was always driven by the clients, not the call agent employers. The call centers would prefer to log nothing at all, but the clients pay good money for analysis of the dialler logging. Take a look at the contracts and you'll get an idea of how detailed these agreements are. It sucks, but that's where the pay check comes from. If you push back too hard there are a hundred more centers that could be up and running with the same product in a few days.

    12. Re:Unionize by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and then we need to counter that with laws (and tax codes) that, uhm, 'motivate' against such anti-american behavior.

      I'd be all for it.

      since corp ethics is on 'perma vacation', we need some teeth in the law system to stop this kind of continuing bad corp behavior.

      if we don't take care of our own people, we will slip into being a 2nd world country. you want that??

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    13. Re:Unionize by leromarinvit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea migt be shocking to you, but there's nothing wrong with having a union even when things are going well. When labor laws are being violated, you need a union that can draw support from and build upon an established base, so it is actually able to act. Just starting to build one then seems a tad late.

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    14. Re:Unionize by alere · · Score: 5, Informative

      Joined just to comment on this. Used to work at a unionized call center for a major corporation, they did the exact same thing. Tracked bathroom breaks, had people coming to work while contagious and ill, wouldn't let you use PTO you earned because it was "not available that day". The only thing the union did for me before I quit was take my money. Now I am extremely happy in a non unionized job making a fair wage, infinitely better benefits, and I actually enjoy going to work (not so much getting up to go to work though :) ). I've been on both sides of the fence, and my experience with unions have been they are more worried about their bottom line than helping the people who pay them. They may be good for some people and really help them, but I have not experienced one that does.

    15. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Until the United States passes union laws, this will just result in the entire workforce being laid off and non - union talent being hired. There are plenty of people who want a job.

      Last time I checked, there are plenty of union laws that already exist. In more than half the states, you don't even have a choice: if the employees are organized in a union, and you want to work there, you are required to join the union and pay your dues, so that the union is able to participate in their money laundering scheme where union dues get turned into campaign contributions to the Democrat party. If you refuse to do so, the employer is legally required to fire you. Furthermore, it would be illegal for the employer to do what you suggested: fire all the unionized workers, and replace them with non-union employees.

    16. Re:Unionize by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You unionize when labor laws are obviously being violated.

      You get a lawyer when labor laws are obviously being violated. You unionise when you want to negotiate with management on behalf of the workforce as a whole, not just on behalf of yourself.

      You also unionise when labor laws which don't yet exist (but should) are being violated. The law is often behind technology, so there will always be a place for this.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    17. Re:Unionize by tomhath · · Score: 1

      The solution isn't government regulation. The solution is to encourage more corporations to start and grow in this country. If the submitter had the option of quitting that job working somewhere else this whole discussion would be moot. You don't want that?

    18. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nice to see a well though out a reasoned response like this.

      I'm not a republican. I'm not an american. We do have unions in other countries you know - and I have first hand experience of just how bad they can be.

      Still, if it doesn't fit with your opinion then I guess it must be the opinion of a shill.

      --

      Oops, I nearly forgot those most important part of this response - how are you mr union shill. still enjoying helping making your country less competitive and forcing more jobs overseas then.

    19. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because organized labor is detrimental to the economy and a joke. If you can't make yourself valuable to your employer on your own merits without these sort of government-backed or thug-backed coercive tactics, you really don't deserve the job, and the corporation in question shouldn't be required to pay you more than you're actually worth to them in market terms. All that does is make the corporation less competitive with other global players, which is bad for our economy. (And yes, I apply the same logic to things like trade/tariff protectionism and corporate tax breaks that prop up domestic industries - bottom line: companies need to be self-sufficient and profitable on their own merits, and so do their employees, or the whole economy's headed for the shitter).

    20. Re:Unionize by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What a terrible first response. I mean fucking, stupidly, terrible. You don't unionize over a few bad practices, probably put in place by a stupid manager. You unionize when labor laws are obviously being violated.

      There is a distinct issue here of medical privacy that is most likely being violated. Tracking bathroom visits could be a way for someone to infer you have a medical condition.

      What you should do is seek an attorney who will look at this pro bono. They will probably tell you to start with your HR department with a complaint. It's all about the paper trail.

      I will never understand how the political and moneyed classes in the USA managed to convince the working man in that country that unions are the spawn of Satan. While I can see the problem when unions becoming lazy and corrupt I don't really see what is wrong with the vast majority of them who are properly run. I have been a union member all of my professional life. I prefer to have a union behind me to foot the bill if I have to take my employer to court as opposed to the situation in the US where you are frequently up shit creek without a paddle if your employer decides to crap all over you. Another service I get from my a union is legal advice regarding employment contracts. One of the many things the engineers union I am a member of offers to for it's members is to have a legal professional read over your employment contract and point out to you legal land mines your employer sometimes builds into those things like draconian clauses about IP ownership, anti competition stuff and requirements that you relinquish the right to take them to court in favour of private arbitration (no prizes for guessing who gets to choose the arbitrator). It's easy to abuse a single person, it's a whole lot harder for employers to abuse 100.000 of you standing together.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    21. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because organized labor is detrimental to the economy and a joke.

      Yeah, just look at Germany. Probably the strongest unions anywhere in the world, and look where it's gotten them. The economy in the ruins, all labour outsourced to India, poor hungry people roaming the streets, right? /sarcasm

    22. Re:Unionize by vlm · · Score: 2

      Just to bring it back on task, not reporting in great detail the exact time and duration of a digestive anomaly for later tracking, disciplinary, and promotional purposes is now defined as:

      thug-backed coercive tactics

      I'm curious what you'll define "not wanting to email a picture of the resulting turd using my smartphone to boss to document the event" will be defined as. I'm guessing something like "unamerican socialist terrorist with something to hide"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    23. Re:Unionize by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OR... you could just find a new job.

    24. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nice try Mr Romney...

    25. Re:Unionize by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I will never understand how the political and moneyed classes in the USA managed to convince the working man in that country that unions are the spawn of Satan.

      With an enormous amount of assistance from the unions themselves, of course,which have managed to be coopted at various times by the Mafia, the Communist Party, and just plain old-fashioned graft.

      Unions continue to do some good things - in particular, I think the delivery drivers' union approach to multi-company pensions is a great idea if you can trust the people who run it not to loot it. But you also have to understand that American labor law is not like that of other countries, and in particular takes the adversarial system used in the courtroom and generally applies it to labor-management relationships. In the US, there are trade associations that offer the same services your union does for a flat fee rather than a cut of every check.

    26. Re:Unionize by puto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i have been a member of the CWA for years, and about the only thing i have ever gotten out of them was a bag of popcorn, a pen that doesnt work, and dues taken out of my paycheck. Also union stewards who always agree with management. Back when I worked at Bellsouth we had 3 minute toilet breaks, and they had a speaker in the fucking bathroom and if your dump took over 3 minutes they would call out to you.

      --
      The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
    27. Re:Unionize by puto · · Score: 1

      Must have been AT$T.

      --
      The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
    28. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ..The only thing the union did for me before I quit was take my money

      Amen.
      Having also been a Union rep at one job, and seeing the way the 'internals'/politics of the Union worked at higher levels, made sure I never joined another one again after I left that job. ever.
      And this is coming from someone who had a very Socialist background/upbringing. (UK definition of Socialist, that is, for those of you in the US I'd probably be somewhere to the left of Stalin on your political scales..).
      Of my immediate family, two of my sisters are Union members, and both of them have similar horror stories about things like 'bathroom break time tracking' where their respective Unions have been of no bloody use whatsoever, so Unions are no panacea.

    29. Re:Unionize by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because organized labor is detrimental to the economy and a joke.

      The economic boom of the 1950s coincided with high union membership. The economic collapse we've had since 1980 coincides with low union membership. History says you're wrong.

      If you can't make yourself valuable to your employer on your own merits without these sort of government-backed or thug-backed coercive tactics, you really don't deserve the job.

      Unions are not "government-backed". Corporations are -- governments issue corporate charters, governments issue property deeds, governments issue copyrights and patents. And the history of labor is full of the aristocrat class hiring strike-breaking thugs.

      All that does is make the corporation less competitive with other global players, which is bad for our economy.

      A race to the bottom is what's bad for our economy.

      Stop drinking the right-wing Kool Aid; amnesia and ignorance are its main side effects.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    30. Re:Unionize by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The solution isn't government regulation. The solution is to encourage more corporations to start and grow in this country.

      Corporations are a government-created entity that allows investors to concentrate their wealth. If the government is going to create them, it must regulate them in the public interest. If you want more corporations, in order to allow more competition, you have to create a regulatory environment that prevents them from eating each other or getting too big to allow competition.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    31. Re:Unionize by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

      I worked at a place where management took the stall doors away in the toilets so they could see if people were slacking off. Union had the doors back up that afternoon and that was the last we heard of it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    32. Re:Unionize by BooMonster · · Score: 1

      The economic boom of the 1950's coincided with the our largest economic rivals having the ever-loving crap blown out of them. See, there was this thing called World War II, and everything modern that was east of Maine or west of San Francisco was reduced to Swiss cheese.

    33. Re:Unionize by JakeBurn · · Score: 1

      Unions were great when there weren't laws to protect workers. My family came from miners in the early 1900's and got shat on coming and going. They needed the protection unions could give. Nowadays they only help in a highly skilled worked force. For low skill positions like those in a call center a union is pointless and a waste of time. They make demands, the company doesn't care and the employees strike. Next step is for the company to realize that its just cheaper to fire everyone for not showing up to work, (which they have the legal right to do), then hire more workers at a cheaper rate than everyone they just fired. The only way a union won't result in everyone being fired is if there are more positions available than workers looking for a job and we are definitely not in that place today in our economy.

    34. Re:Unionize by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The only problem is this: I worked for Qwest / CenturyLink, who DOES have a union. Guess what? Bathroom breaks were still tracked, down to the minute, just like regular breaks, lunch, arrival, and departure.

      On top of this, I was forced to quit my job there when the union didn't allow me to change my schedule due to lack of seniority. I had my kids coming home for the summer, and there's not a lot of daycares that stay open until 8:00 pm; none that I could afford on my salary.

      Unions are great if they really do look after the workers, but this isn't the 50s anymore. If you need any sort of special accommodations, or the union decides some egregious policies aren't really an issue (bathroom breaks, mandatory overtime, etc) then you're screwed either way.

      Quit and find a new job. That's my advice; you'll be happier.

    35. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When employers start tracking restroom time in such a way, I think the intent is to embarrass the employee in order to cut down on restroom time. Instead of having a clock-out labeled as "bathroom", don't you think it'd be better to have the clock-out labeled as something else?

      Are restroom breaks paid or unpaid where this asker is located? If unpaid, how about labeling it as "personal break" where an employee can use the restroom, take a cigarette break, or just stretch and walk around after sitting for a long while?

    36. Re:Unionize by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the solution has to be government interference of some kind. There is no world government (thankfully), but the downside is that nobody mandates fair trade or labor practices between countries. That's up to the countries themselves.

      Consider an example under way right now in the solar panel industry. Domestic solar panel makers build factories that cost $10 million dollars to produce panels that cost $5,000 each. A Chinese factory with a leftover billion dollar chip factory (they upgraded to a $10 billion dollar factory to make state of the art chips) now starts making solar panels much more efficiently and with much cheaper labor, for $1,000 per panel. Domestic makers can't compete and will soon go out of business. Chinese factory will raise prices to $10,000 per panel. Domestic consumers will then be paying twice the price of domestic solar panels for foreign imports. Everyone in the U.S. knows that if a new domestic maker tries to enter the market to sell $4,000 panels, the Chinese will lower the price to $1,000 until the domestic factory is out of business, then raise them back to $10,000.

      That's monopolistic behavior, and would be illegal under the Sherman Act. Under current trade practices, it's perfectly legal for the Chinese to do it.

      There is no way to compete in a global market when domestic producers have to follow domestic laws that do not apply outside our borders. And those domestic laws are there to prevent domestic companies from doing exactly the same thing, which we already agree is bad for all consumers.

      The answer is punitive tariffs, (aka government interference.) We shouldn't try to balance everything out and derive a "fair price" for solar panels, and tax the Chinese solar panels until they're competitive with domestic solar panels. We should look at the behavior in this case, and say "you profited at $10,000 panels, you drove an American company out of business with $1,000 panels, the tax on all imported panels is now $10,000 and the tax on all solar panels from China is now punitively set at $20,000." If we do this in every case where industries practice dumping on us, the Chinese will get very mad at the factory owners who keep trying to screw the U.S., and will take care of the problem internally. Meanwhile, the $10,000 tax will prevent gray market panels from China making an end-run through other countries. And in the U.S., domestic companies will be free to compete with each other for our business, selling panels at fair domestic prices of $5,000 or $4,000.

      We're never going to take care of our own people until we protect them.

      --
      John
    37. Re:Unionize by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I will never understand how the political and moneyed classes in the USA managed to convince the working man in that country that unions are the spawn of Satan.

      It wasn't necessarily the political and moneyed classes that did it. I too see the necessity of unions, but I hope never to have to belong to one. Why? As a contractor who sometimes does work in factories and mines, I have seen first hand the greed, pettiness, laziness, and sense of entitlement that union shops often breed. When one union member files a grievance because an outside contractor is holding a nut into which another union member is turning a bolt, because 'a union employee should be doing that work', (even though there was no union employee immediately available to hold the nut), then unionism is going too far. When work is halted because a light bulb is burned out, (and we're talking about the screw-in kind, within easy reach), because changing the bulb is 'an electrician's job' and the electrician doesn't show up for an hour, the union isn't doing itself any favours. And when union employees *regularly* take 45 minutes to do an easy job that only requires 5 or 10 minutes even for an inexperienced person, then the union is shooting itself in the foot. In too many union shops, demonstrating efficiency, initiative, and overall competence is enough for an employee to be shunned, threatened, or even physically harmed, by his or her 'brothers' and 'sisters' - never mind the union grievance process.

      Politically I am fairly far left of centre; I despise the power that corporations have and the abuses they commit, and I'm all for strict government regulation whose invasiveness increases with the size and power of the corporation. For that reason I am in favour of unions. But I also believe in an honest day's work for a day's pay, and I believe that I should be free to work as efficiently and intelligently as I can, without fear of union reprisals, whether official or unofficial. For that reason, I hate unions that abuse the power they have.

      In many cases unions are their own worst enemies, pure and simple

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    38. Re:Unionize by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since I am neither bad, nor lazy, I often make a considerable amount more than my coworkers. Even those who supposedly have the same title and more seniority. If I don't like the job, the environment, or my boss, I can always leave and go somewhere else.

      Ditto, but I've also spent 15yrs on the other side of town where unions are often all that's between you and the gutter, doesn't matter how good you are at swinging a mop, without unions there are a hundred more who will do it cheaper.

      You seem to think that unions are there to protect lazy people? - Have you have actually tried raising a family while wearing a blue color? Do you have callouses on your hands from all your "hard work"? Do realize that when people call you a "suit", it's not a sign of respect?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    39. Re:Unionize by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      Unions can be very powerful, but there aren't the checks and balances that are needed. My experiences with unions have been 100% awful; they don't care about me, as an individual, at all. They just cared about keeping their overtime and career paths in place.

      Having had GOOD bosses, at good companies, I can say I'd MUCH rather work with a boss who cares about me than a union rep who doesn't.

      This isn't the 50s anymore, and not every industry needs unions. I think unions make MUCH more sense for the blue-collar worker; there are safety and wage issues galore. In a call center? Not so much; tracking a bathroom break isn't something the union will stop. Call a CenturyLink to ask one of their reps if you don't believe me.

    40. Re:Unionize by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You also unionise when labor laws which don't yet exist (but should) are being violated.

      Also, you unionize to combat unfair treatment that can't be addressed very well by laws. Like maybe you don't want to make it illegal for anyone to work 60 hour weeks, but maybe in this case, with this company, given the kind of working being done and the amount being paid, 60-hour work weeks aren't really fair.

      It's funny to me how you get free-market types who argue that the free-market is better because it's more flexible and able to deal with context, but then they don't think it's appropriate to complain about legal behavior. So the argument might be, "We shouldn't have laws restricting the numbers of hours that a person can work in a week, because it's too hard to measure what's fair, and not all jobs are equal, and maybe some people *want* to work 60 hours per week. If people don't like working 60 hours per week, then they won't take jobs that require it." Or whatever, something along those lines.

      But then the employees get together and say, "We don't want to work 60 hours per week. We're going to unionize and renegotiate."

      Then suddenly the argument becomes, "Whoa whoa! You have no right to complain to renegotiate! I'm not doing anything illegal. I should be able to exploit everyone as much as I can until I do something illegal."

      Then if you suggest that you create a new law to restrict the number of hours a person can work in a week, it drops back to, "Oh, you communists! This stuff should be handled by the market. If people don't want to work 60 hours, they can just quit their jobs."

    41. Re:Unionize by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Let me guess, all the shop stewards must also be employees? You don't have the choice to elect a processional shop steward employed by the union because he's not an employee of the company, right?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    42. Re:Unionize by Stormthirst · · Score: 2

      It's interesting reading this thread which is clearly very pro-union vs reading the thread on teachers unions - a very anti-union thread.

    43. Re:Unionize by InsectOverlord · · Score: 4, Informative

      When I worked as a consultant for a software company I had to log every break I took, no matter how short, for billing purposes. While that sucks, it's understandable. But one didn't have to log "bathroom". One just logged "personal" and that could be a private call, coffee, bathroom, fresh air, whatever. Requiring the employee to log bathroom breaks strikes me as a totally unacceptable violation of privacy.

    44. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm starting to suspect americans got conned once again, because your description of how your union worked sounds so far removed from how the unions I've been part of here in europe that you might as well be from another planet.

      For an example, "I was forced to quit my job there when the union didn't allow me to change my schedule due to lack of seniority." would not happen here, the only instance when the union would care about your schedule would be if you logged more than the legal maximum hours of overtime. The employer would care about your schedule, but here you'd be able to use your paid for parental leave to leave work in order to pick up your kids and there wouldn't be anything they could do about it (assuming they don't just start to making shit up, but that fight is what you supposedly have unions for, so not even that option will be cheap for them).

      as I said, accounts like yours makes me confused.

    45. Re:Unionize by bibliophage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've never understood the free market argument against unions. Unions are a *function* of the free market. They fit in the role of consumers (of employment) who want to have some control over the product they buy (the work they do). If the free market provided everything the employees need/want, no one would want to unionize.

      --
      There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    46. Re:Unionize by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      That would cause almost as many problems as it would fix. What he needs to do is hack it and reprogram all the bathroom buttons to say slashdot :-P

    47. Re:Unionize by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Because organized labor is detrimental to the economy and a joke.

      Indeed. Just look at how wonderful the economy was in late 19th century, before all those pesky unions organized. We call that period the Gilded Age for a reason.

    48. Re:Unionize by Jarmihi · · Score: 1

      Do you realize how difficult that might be? Jobs can be scarce nowadays, and not everyone can just "get a new job," especially if they've been around for awhile and have a family to feed and can't just switch to a lower-paying job. It could be an easier solution to convince the employer to change something.

      --
      ~Jarmihi
    49. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am doing that right now. I work as an engineer, and when we have a test failure we have to have a "technician" install our ohm meter to the 4 test points, unfasten the connectors on the test cables, and do other little jobs because of the union. I was about to hook up our ohm meter one time before I knew the "rules" and was told I would have a grievance filed against me. My thoughts are along the lines of B.S. I am not "qualified" to do that? WTF? I have a B.S. in engineering and over 12 years working with electrical equipment.

      I have also seen where unions do work well, and keep ALL workers safe, union and non-union. Those I don't mind seeing around. That job was at a chemical plant, and management and floor workers got along great. Unions have a place but they have squandered so much over the past 50 years. Oh well, history will repeat itself again and again. Like a mentor of mine put it, there is no new history rather only history we have forgotten.

    50. Re:Unionize by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fan of unions but if any shop needs a union it's a call center. Call centers offer some of the worst jobs available in terms of employee treatment; If I was reduced to a job at that level I think I'd rather collect the curbside trash.

      On the other hand how "skilled" a job is the call center where you work? Do you have specific technical skills as a prerequisite or is it something for which you get a couple days' training and then go at it? Unions only work for labor scenarios where hiring replacements is difficult.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    51. Re:Unionize by theurge14 · · Score: 2

      True enough, but some push back is required. Some of these clients are finding out that the bottom of the barrel perform on the phones much worse than they perform on their bathroom breaks.

    52. Re:Unionize by Jawnn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. So unions are always a bad thing..., because of your limited experience. See: provincialism. When you've finished learning why your argument is bullshit, please take the time to study some history, and learn why your premise is bullshit as well. There was a time, not that long ago, when working conditions, virtually everywhere, were nowhere near what they are now. The only thing that made that change was unionization and laws that allowed them to exist.

    53. Re:Unionize by cob666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The OSHA rules for bathroom breaks are that the employer cannot deny reasonable access to the bathroom and can't REFUSE an employee's ability to take a bathroom break unless the employees absence would put other people on jeopardy (such as requiring a certain number of people to run a piece of machinery, which would require somebody else to fill in for the employee while on bathroom break).

      There are no laws that prohibit or restrict the employer from tracking bathroom breaks but the employee must be paid for all breaks less than 20 minutes. Also, from what I've read, there is nothing to prevent an employer from letting an employee go for excessive time away from their work area.

      As far as 'when does time tracking go too far?' An employer should definitely be able to track when employees are NOT actually working, I don't see a problem here unless the employer is restricting bathroom usage.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    54. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He specifically said that it was only in HIS experience, and specifically did NOT generalize to other unions. He never said unions are always a bad thing. Read what he wrote, not what you think he wrote, you horse's ass.

    55. Re:Unionize by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Unions are a *function* of the free market.

      Yeah, sort of. They're a way to promote workers rights without direct government action, which makes it more "free market" than some alternatives.

      But it's a way for workers to exert control over the market in a way that they would otherwise not be able to, which subverts some of the "free market" forces. You know when people claim that free markets drive prices down through competition? Same goes for labor markets. Unions remove some of the competition.

      On the other hand, this kind of control over a market isn't much different from what larger businesses do all the time. Companies like AT&T and Verizon don't really compete. They compete, sure, but not *really*. There's a high barrier to entry, they have phone exclusivity deals, government-enforced control of the wireless spectrum. Also, the way they keep their prices in lock-step, I'd be surprised if there were no collusion. That's a relatively extreme case, but the "free market" is usually not completely free. Someone is pulling the strings.

      But really, the issue is that a lot of pro-free-market people really just believe that rich people should be able to do whatever they want without consequences.

    56. Re:Unionize by deimtee · · Score: 2

      I think this is an excellent idea. Everybody should take pictures of the resulting turds and email them to management, along with the time of production, and an estimate of the effort involved.
      Bonus points for cc'ing members of the board, external customers, etc.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    57. Re:Unionize by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You know, he was responding to the person who suggested that they bring in the "Teamsters" (aka the Mob) to fight back against corporate oppression. And that *is* thug-based coercive tactics. I'm assuming you didn't realize that, because if you're suggesting going with organized crime violence is better than logging your bathroom breaks, I'm not sure we're going to be able to see eye-to-eye.

    58. Re:Unionize by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The unions are just another set of corporations. They're not about protecting workers, they're about using workers to make their officers rich and powerful.

    59. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A quick search reveals that only 3,700 workers at CenturyLink are union members compared to 20,000 who are not. If only a sixth of the work force is unionized then the union has no power. If those numbers were reversed then all the bullshit you put up with would have disappeared in the next contract negotiation. Strength in numbers is what unions are. Your union had no numbers so it had no strength.

    60. Re:Unionize by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unions can be holdovers from a time where people were not so easy to get rid of.

      Although you are right to some extent, it is not often as easy as just firing everyone, but what does happen is that while the unions remain in place, all new initiatives head off to places like India or China that have no such things. Eventually, enough of the business moves that the workplaces can afford to lay everyone off in the US who is causing trouble. At that point the unions usually look out for their own survival and start caving in to businesses so that they can keep their members employed at all, and their own pockets lined.

      Having been a union member, and having seen the available "benefits", my experience is that for anything where you want an engaged and useful workforce, US unions are awful. I know some people bring up how German unions or some other ones do work better, and I have to do more research on it, but even assuming you can create a union that does not turn into a corrupt and useless feature that keeps the jobs of lazy "senior" employees on life support while making everyone join their closed shop, unions as they stand in the US are *not* what we need.

      The ways unions are, I wouldn't be surprised if the US-style unions did their best to force German-style unions out of their turf. Because that is what it comes down to sometimes with organized crime and political parties using unions as cash cows.

    61. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the flip side of it, I worked for a place that started searching employees coming in and banned employees leaving the building (glass factory) on lunch breaks; even to eat in the parking lot in nice weather because the convict laborers doing cleaning were caught with alcohol, and when three people complained to the union and demanded something be done, two hours later they were escorted out because the union management pulled their work cards.

      Good unions are good, and the ideal of unions are important, but 'Unionize!' is not and never will be an automatic fix for issues.

    62. Re:Unionize by vlm · · Score: 1

      You know, he was responding to the person who suggested that they bring in the "Teamsters" (aka the Mob) to fight back against corporate oppression.

      I don't think the teamsters would care very much about a call center. That would be like threatening to unionize plumbers in the IBEW (electricians) union. The mob is probably not amused at being confused with the teamsters. About 100 years ago the railroad union in my city had all kinds of riots and numerous people killed on both side. Ancient history is irrelevant as the modern battles happen in the courtroom, where they belong.

      Isn't having to document in detail every poop for your boss a "thug-based coercive tactic"?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    63. Re:Unionize by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2

      The 50's also coincided with a time when most of Europe, Japan, China, etc, were rebuilding everything that had been destroyed in the 40's during WWII. America was the world's factory during that time. Kinda makes it easy to have a boom.

      There are arguements for unions. 'Things were good in the U.S. in the 50's' is not one of them.

    64. Re:Unionize by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      If by "fix" you mean watch the company outsource the whole center to India and China, you're right.

    65. Re:Unionize by SlippyToad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      as I said, accounts like yours makes me confused.

      Well, it could be that he's trolling on behalf of the anti-union folks in this country who would just as soon see us return to slave labor, and his account is bullshit meant to terrify people who know nothing about unions into avoiding them at all costs.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    66. Re:Unionize by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      corps have huge power.

      unions are there to balance it.

      balance is needed.

      no one said anything about either side being a perfect entity. ideally, unions should neutralize the abuse in business and business should act well enough to its work force that union force is not needed.

      if there is only 1 side, its not balanced.

      time has shown, that workers without a focused voice, are ignored. do you deny that?

      simply let the employers police themselves? you think that works?

      unions are not perfect but they DO give at least some balance.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    67. Re:Unionize by ukemike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was about to hook up our ohm meter one time before I knew the "rules" and was told I would have a grievance filed against me.

      This sort of behavior is like a histamine reaction and it does not happen in isolation. It is an overreaction to a minor insult brought on by a historically learned need to be protective of their jobs. There are many tools that management can use to attempt to undermine unions. One technique is to hire non-union employees or contractors to do the sort of work that the unionized employees typically do. Over time you can reduce the size of the union you are dealing with until they become irrelevant. In workplaces where this has been attempted the union workers will tend to get very protective of the work they are supposed to do. The arrogance of doing work intentionally slowly probably has it's roots is some other bit of adversarial relationship with the employer.

      --
      -- QED
    68. Re:Unionize by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Uh, well, maybe not evil, but rather ill suited for his.her job. If someone is goofing off on the throne, or water cooler, or break room, whatever, disciplinary procedures should result, including firing the goof-off. Trust me, co-workers know when someone is not carrying their own weight, and really dislike having blanket punishment from management that does not have the balls to fire those that need it. I interviewed with a company in Dallas that had a policy that everyone took their 15 minute toilet break in the middle of the morning, and middle of the afternoon, all at the same time. Everyone. Toilet breaks were not allowed at any other time, so people would just have to stifle it. That way, management knew nobody was taking too long. Talk about fostering discontent. Why they were not union, I have no idea.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    69. Re:Unionize by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      I will never understand how the political and moneyed classes in the USA managed to convince the working man in that country that unions are the spawn of Satan.

      It wasn't hard, particularly when industries which were unionized were industries that ceased to exist in this country. See "steel industry" and "auto industry".

      Certainly you'll be sitting pretty if you have a union job. Provided there are any jobs left in your industry to be had. That's why the only unions still around are the public sector unions which aren't subject to market conditions.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    70. Re:Unionize by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      You unionize because a manager is abusive, even legally so. All sorts of horrible shit is legal. You are 100% wrong. If you're smart, you unionize before things get bad. That keeps things from getting bad.

    71. Re:Unionize by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      When he was stating "Teamsters" (in quotes) it was a short hand for a union that used muscle to help get its way. I'm not suggesting that the actual Teamsters union is what he is talking about.

      And logging your time on the pot is not actually a thug tactic unless the information is used in a thug like manner. If you are being paid a rate based on your availability on the phone, you better believe it is possible for people to abuse their bathroom breaks. I know people who will use time on the shitter to catch up on the news of the day. It can be abused.

      So no, it is not thug like, inherently. The fear comes from the fact that some idiot manager will look up some study that says that all normal shits should take no more than 3 minutes or something like that. That or, they will consider bathroom time to be equivalent to work ineffectiveness and penalize people who take more breaks, despite the actual necessity of those breaks. In short, the fear is that if it becomes a metric, it is a metric that will be used against you in a manner that does not just stop abuse, but to force you to work more.

      It all comes down to how it is used. As others have pointed out, a union will not stop these sorts of abuses. Indeed, unions tend to cause even *more* metrics to be collected because management needs them to even fire people who do abuse their break time and also to prove that they are allowing breaks as agreed to in a contract.

    72. Re:Unionize by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's called dumping and there is international law against it. If the US chooses, they can bring a complaint against China to the WTO. And in fact there is one ongoing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    73. Re:Unionize by jpmorgan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unions would be okay if they were subject to the same market forces as their employers. But they're not, they're protected by reams of labour law. Unions are allowed to monopolize labour in an industry and force anti-competitive security agreements, which would be considered anti-competitive and illegal in any other contract.

      Consider the infamous 'right-to-work' states. What does being a 'right-to-work' state mean? It means unions can't compel people to join. In Germany, for example, the decision to join a union is considered an individual decision, and workers have an equal right to join or not join a union; the right to free association, means you're also free not to associate if you don't want to. But if you disagree with your union in Michigan and want to opt out, good luck making that legal argument.

    74. Re:Unionize by jpmorgan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't worry, your union dues are well appreciated by the politicians your union supports in your name.

    75. Re:Unionize by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      >>>laws that allowed them to exist.

      In a free country like the U.S. you don't need the permission of the government to peaceably-assemble your coworkers & hold meetings to present a unified voice to the company.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    76. Re:Unionize by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

      In the US unionism as settled on "craft" or "trade" unions that are organized by specialty. The alternative is industrial unions that represent workers by industry. Before world war I industrial unions drifted more into social movements and lost ground to trade unions in the work place.

    77. Re:Unionize by cpu6502 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Way to mischaracterize. Most people are not anti-union but anti *taxpayer* union. They don't see why they should have to pay for bus drivers, subway engineers and other taxpayer-supported government jobs for early retirement at age 55, plus guaranteed right not to be fired even if they suck (instead the worker is placed on paid probation for years and years). People are tired of their taxpayer dollars being used to give better jobs than they have.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    78. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Unions are the reason labor laws even exist, and help to protect people when they are being violated today.

      To start off calling a post "stupid" when yours is uninformed is not a great move.

    79. Re:Unionize by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know a guy who was a dues paying union member, and his boss fired him unfairly. The union did nothing (it was an AT&T union, which has a bad reputation).

      Later, in another job, he wasn't a union member, and the manager started pushing them all to work ridiculously long hours. He got together with his coworkers in the division, and enacted a slowdown, giving the manager the worst numbers in the entire company. After that the manager stopped pushing them to work unfair hours. He did better as a union without an official union than with an official union.

      So unions in the general are a good idea, but specific implementations can be trash. In the US, the unfortunate reality is most unions aren't very good. A lot of times they do protect lazy people. I've heard the situation is better in countries like the UK, and I would believe Australia as well.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    80. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      No, that's bullshit. Maybe individual unions and individual officers are bad, but that is true of any organization. Are you in a union? Are you an officer of one?

    81. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It would not surprise me to learn that this guy got bad information. I hear sometimes people complaining to me about things the union won't let them do, aka. things that the organization told them the union wouldn't let them do. Don't believe what HR tells you about your union.

    82. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 2

      Because they work at a place, same as anybody else? It's OK to have slaves, so long as they work for you.

      If you want a better job than they have, quit crying and fucking unionize.

    83. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Logging the logs, so to speak.

    84. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Except, until recently, that wasn't even allowed (political donations at my union are still voluntary, but I believe Citizens United changed whether or not they legally have to be). And it wasn't unions who fought for that one.

    85. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      "Boss likes you" is the metric in absence of that. Seems to me that one isn't any more fair.

    86. Re:Unionize by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Right, they have to make it reasonably accessible, but they can still dock you for time if you are over your allowed break minutes.

      So you can ride the bus anytime you need to, but there is no free ride.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    87. Re:Unionize by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      And a society that takes away the "free" in market to force people to buy a product they don't want is also a "bad thing". It's reminiscient of the old company towns where you Had to buy the company product.

      In fact most of the "bad things" that happen in the market are due to government interference. President George "duh" Bush increased outlays on regulatory activities from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent. (Double Bill Clinton's 31% increase in spending.) Bush increased the federal government's regulatory staff by 91,196 employees. Clinton cut it by -969. The number of pages added to the Federal Register reached 88,090 in 2007 up from 64,438 in 2001.

      Same with the recent mortgage crash.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    88. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Grievances don't get filed against other members.

    89. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Issues come up, and unions deal with them. It's not all about money, time off, etc.

    90. Re:Unionize by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 2

      OR... you could just find a new job.

      Have you ever changed jobs? I'm not talking about moving from one Starbucks to another three blocks away. It can initially be quite expensive to do so. It could require new commuting expenses or even moving expenses, even if you get help from your new employer, multiplied by the number of people in your family. Unless you're expecting a giant increase in pay, and especially if you aren't, you'd better have an appropriate surplus of cash available to you because you're surely going to need some for both seen and unforeseen expenses.

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
    91. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 2

      And if they weren't, you'd be hearing "he doesn't care what happens to us -- he doesn't work here."

    92. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Someone get this guy a history lesson.

    93. Re:Unionize by sjames · · Score: 1

      So you believe only 'the job givers' should benefit from organization? You don't believe in freedom of assembly?

      When they give up their many advantages, the rank and file can safely give up unions.

    94. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Yeah, corporate management is totally reasonable. They never decide salaries based on who their golf partners or sisters in-law are... just value to the company, despite the fact that middle management generally makes the same thing regardless of who they employ.

    95. Re:Unionize by sjames · · Score: 1

      In one breath you claim workers have government enforced rights and in the next you suggest that they can all be fired at a whim. Which is it?

    96. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Lots of people want union labor working for others and slave labor working for them. I think there's a name for that.

    97. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      ...except in this case it happens to be accurate.

    98. Re:Unionize by sjames · · Score: 1

      Smart unions disrupt outsourcing as well. Everything from reminding people not to buy goods produced by outsourced labor to trucker's unions refusing to transport such goods.

    99. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Dues money was not, until recently, used for campaign contributions. At my union, it still isn't.

      Why does everyone think that working conditions are divorced from politics?

    100. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Why would they start here, and why wouldn't they compete in the way that the others had?

    101. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Having had GOOD bosses, at good companies, I can say I'd MUCH rather work with a boss who cares about me than a union rep who doesn't.

      Agreed. However, your boss is easily replaced with one who DOESN'T care about you. Your income is probably not.

    102. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Forming a union IS taking personal responsibility.

      The rest of your post doesn't need responding to because it's basically FOX talking points.

    103. Re:Unionize by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a flip-side to that and it is management-speak. For example, the maintenance guy who wouldn't change the oil in the manager's personal vehicle is 'not a team player'. The guy who filed a complaint about the rickety ladder with the broken rung is 'a disruptive influence'. The guy who actually expects to be paid for the hours he works is 'goofing off'. Because of that, the unions make it hard to fire people for those things. Unfortunately it also makes it hard to fire people who actually should be fired.

      For every union where someone militantly refuses to let the assembly line run 0.01% faster than the contract states, there is a management that tried to boil the frog by slowly speeding up the line.

    104. Re:Unionize by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing though is that 'right to work' as implemented is Orwellian in meaning. It is really the right to fire for no stated reason. That reason is often enough union-like activities.

    105. Re:Unionize by manaway · · Score: 1

      Unions are not perfect organizations, there's all manner of small and large corruption in some of them. Given that, unions have also gained huge benefits for people (e.g. 40 hr work week, health insurance, retirement), particularly when union members are involved in union negotiations. That means workers are on the negotiating team. If what you say is true, though it sounds false to me, were you involved in contract negotiations, helping your negotiators choose issues, or just letting things happen to you?

    106. Re:Unionize by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's just the way it is in America these days. No one wants to risk themselves, no one wants to stand out. Look back at the civil rights protests and war protests and other protests decades ago: people got out in the streets and fought for change. What do Americans do these days? Nothing but grumble. And for good reason, because most of the population is dead-set against them, and they know that it's futile. Some people tried it with the Occupy protests, and they were brutally shut down. No one wanted to come to their aid against the jackbooted cops. Back in the 60s, something like that would have required the national guard to come out with rifles. Today, some asshole cops with pepper spray can shut it down and arrest everyone and make them part of the prison-industrial complex.

      It's largely the same with unions. Except in a few places like Chicago, people know that they'll just get fired if they protest too much, and there probably isn't much the union can do about it thanks to all the rampant corruption in the government at all levels. So everyone's just hunkering down and trying to avoid having their lives ruined by those in power.

      The simple fact is that the USA is going down the tubes quickly, and is either going to break apart or turn into a totalitarian fascist regime within 20 years. The best course of action is to escape while you still can.

    107. Re:Unionize by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, yes you do. Where the hell did you ever get the idea that the USA is a "free country", or that there's freedom of assembly here? Did you never hear of "free speech zones"? In case you didn't know, it's now illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service may be; taking part in a protest against the government will now make you a felon and earn you a 10-year prison sentence.

    108. Re:Unionize by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      You don't need to move 3 blocks to change jobs within Starbucks; you can easily do it in just one block, frequently less.

      How that place manages to stay in business in this crappy economy, selling massively overpriced poor-quality drinks, I have no idea.

    109. Re:Unionize by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's probably largely true of a modern American union. American unions 50+ years ago, or modern European unions, no.

    110. Re:Unionize by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      Seems to me that they need the first person that is leaving anyway to file a sexual harassment complaint.

    111. Re:Unionize by atriusofbricia · · Score: 2

      The solution isn't government regulation. The solution is to encourage more corporations to start and grow in this country.

      Corporations are a government-created entity that allows investors to concentrate their wealth. If the government is going to create them, it must regulate them in the public interest. If you want more corporations, in order to allow more competition, you have to create a regulatory environment that prevents them from eating each other or getting too big to allow competition.

      That is incorrect. The Government does not create corporations, individuals do. Government recognizes them and provides a legal framework. That is a very big difference.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    112. Re:Unionize by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because there are already mechanisms in place for the government. They are elected by the people and hence if they are exploiting the people then people who won't do that can be elected in their place.

      Unions end up as political forces which gives them far more leverage over government than they have over businesses.

      Basically unions exist to balance the power of business, but the power role gets reversed in governments and hence unions cause more problem than they solve.

    113. Re:Unionize by Celarnor · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, you want to continue working for that company....

    114. Re:Unionize by cob666 · · Score: 1

      Right, they have to make it reasonably accessible, but they can still dock you for time if you are over your allowed break minutes.

      Nope, all employees must be paid for breaks that are under 20 minutes. Well, at least in the US.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    115. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What IS legal is that you may be made to donate an amount of money equal to union dues to a charitable entity, to eliminate the free rider problem.

      That's the same God damn thing! The argument is: if you do this job, you must forgo a portion of your income. How is that not coercion? The "free rider problem"? Horseshit: if you choose not to be a union member, you implicitly do not support the unions actions. If the union negotiates with your employer, you should be absolutely free to personally renegotiate those terms. You should also be entirely free to accept the same terms as the union members.

    116. Re:Unionize by Kjella · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that unions are there to protect lazy people?

      I don't think they do it intentionally, but it's very hard for a union to let anybody at all get fired easily. To their members the fact that their union will stick up for them even if you've been railroaded and the situation looks bad for you is more valuable than whether the employer is stuck with some lazy workers. I've certainly seen termination processes drag out and require more documentation and with more chances of redemption due to unions. It doesn't help only those that are unfairly being laid off, with the good comes the bad.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    117. Re:Unionize by couchslug · · Score: 1

      US unions became part of organized crime because there was no way to get conventional justice.

      This eventually backfired...

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    118. Re:Unionize by Znork · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course, unless one happens to be one of those people talking out of their ass, there's nothing preventing the combination of the activities. No break needed, problem solved.

    119. Re:Unionize by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      You only get so many breaks during the day. That is what i'm talking about. Legally it depends on how many hours you work in what you get, but a contract may expand on that. Once you exceed that total, you are outta luck.

      You cant run off an take a 5 minute break every 10 minutes for the whole day and get away with it claiming its under 20... .

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    120. Re:Unionize by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Because they work at a place, same as anybody else?

      No because government workers already have a mechanism to stop abuse by the politicians: Their vote. And the vote of their neighbors when they hear about mistreatment.

      The union is un-necessary and in fact has tipped the balance too far (bus driver getting retirement at 55; basically ~30 years pay for not working). Even socialist "new deal" president FDR said unionizing government jobs made no sense. It isn't necessary.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    121. Re:Unionize by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Non-relevant to the original organization of the unions in the late 1800s USA. They didn't need a law to makr unions legal. They already had the right to assemble peacefully and exercise the right of free speech or free press to put-out their union protests/complaints.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    122. Re:Unionize by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      The free market only applies to property owners. Nobody else gets to participate in the free market except as a consumer.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    123. Re:Unionize by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      In the USA of the late 1800s they didn't need a law to make unions legal. They already had the right to assemble peacefully and exercise the right of free speech or free press to put-out their union protests/complaints. The GP poster made it sounds like law came first to legalize unions. No. The unions came first through the inalienable natural rights of being human (read the Declaration of Independence some time) including the right of free expression, free speech, free assembly, free press, and so on.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    124. Re:Unionize by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      And union membership was what got my dad a living wage to support my family, along with health, retirement, and vacation benefits.

      Although I don't doubt that there are shitty unions out there, I'd be willing to bet that a majority of the complaints I see like yours are either a) bald-faced lies or b) gross ignorance of what your union actually did for you. And blaming 3-minute breaks on the unions is ridiculous: at best it's a non-sequiter, as it would be the employer enforcing draconian rules like that because the union was obviously too emasculated to fight them.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    125. Re:Unionize by icebraining · · Score: 1

      So, why aren't you all individually working, instead of joining companies?

    126. Re:Unionize by Kalriath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This may surprise you, but in nations that aren't the US (that haven't been brainwashed by their corporations) unions exist, run well, and exist to serve the members not themselves (and are in fact required to by law). And businesses run just fine with unions - even getting along quite well with them most of the time (contract renegotiation time notwithstanding). And you know what? The nations haven't "fallen into the cesspool known as communism" or even "[fallen into] ruin".

      Stop listening to Fox News and actually do some research prior to making yourself look stupid.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    127. Re:Unionize by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try peacefully assembling just about anyplace in the USA now. You'll have paramilitary troops (we call them "police") arresting you, tasing you, macing you, and beating you. Youtube is full of videos of such incidents.

    128. Re:Unionize by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      unions are there to balance it.

      balance is needed.

      Just like our two party political system?

      Once you have a close shop union (union membership is mandatory at that workplace) the union no longer requires the consent or approval of the workers. Closed shop unions trend towards being 'the other bad guy' over time.

    129. Re:Unionize by wealthychef · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, increasing spending on regulations is not the same thing as regulating. Spending money on regulating just means more bureaucrats shuffling papers and more lawyers. The size of the government is also the wrong thing to measure. The things to measure are stability, justice and infrastructure, which can be indirectly measured with the percentage of people in prison, the number of people on welfare, and the success of NEW business ventures. GDP is another red herring which tends to measure nowadays the success of the financial sector (investment banks) and a few mega corporations. We need to stop focusing on money and start focusing on real results.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    130. Re:Unionize by JakeBurn · · Score: 1

      Having many rights under both federal and state protections and freely choosing to work at an At Will employer are not mutually exclusive things. Unless you have a contract for employment you can both be let go for any reason or leave for any reason. It keeps companies hiring outside the family and gives you the ability to leave when things are done there that you don't like. The day the government forces companies to retain any and all employees that they hire is the day nearly every job in the USA becomes unavailable to the general public. I'm assuming you are not from the USA or a kid if you haven't already figured out the answer to your own question.Which is it?

    131. Re:Unionize by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      Except [...] Chicago [...] thanks to all the rampant corruption in the government at all levels

      Did you really write that? I hope I misread that sentence.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    132. Re:Unionize by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just switch jobs, push pull, click,click. That 9% unemployment (that is closer to 20% if you count the people who gave up looking) doesn't mean a thing!

      It sounds like you do not yet have any actual financial obligations.

    133. Re:Unionize by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 1

      How that place manages to stay in business in this crappy economy, selling massively overpriced poor-quality drinks, I have no idea.

      I've suspected for a while now that people become accustomed to Starbucks and forget what coffee is supposed to taste like.

    134. Re:Unionize by TwineLogic · · Score: 1

      I know! Right?

      It's almost like "they" are putting stuff in the food to pacify us and make us really fat...

    135. Re:Unionize by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

      we will slip into being a 2nd world country

      So you're saying that if we unionize too much, we'll slip into communism?

      Is it too much bother to understand the words and phrases that you're using?

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    136. Re:Unionize by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      You're fucking stupid. Prison-industrial complex? Prisons don't turn a goddamned profit they cost us money! The occupy wall-street movement was fragmented, disjointed, and full of morons. Youtube "occupy wall-street" and just watch a few videos for yourself. Screaming things at the top of your lungs at innocent people, and trashing parks doesn't help anybody. Everyone I know who happens to be a liberal hated the occupy movement, because it was embarrassing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Emds4AkOYY.

    137. Re:Unionize by imikem · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the far more desirable conditions of corporations using/being used by/run as organized crime and political parties.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    138. Re:Unionize by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Chicago is indeed famous for corruption. However, apparently things are a little better for unions there, since the teachers there are all on strike right now. I guess the corruption is either ambivalent or supportive towards teachers' unions or insufficient to counter their power.

    139. Re:Unionize by Grishnakh · · Score: 3

      You're a fucking moron. The prisons are privately run in case you didn't notice; they're run by corporations like CCA and Wackenhut. They turn a huge profit, and they use prisoners as slave labor.

    140. Re:Unionize by Seumas · · Score: 1

      If unions started popping up in my field, I would leave the tech industry and find another line of work.

    141. Re:Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine works for a railroad. They are most definitely a union employer. It's even in their name.

      He had a dispute with them once, and the federal Department of Labor ended up getting involved. Why? Because the union did 1) jack and 2) squat. The company was completely in control of the employee's union.

      The best part, though, is when the feds told the company to correct the situation. Numerous times (high single-digits), the feds wrote a letter to the company instructing them to do the right thing. Each time, the company responded with a one-word reply letter: "No." A federal court came down on them with both feet. My friend's case was handed to him in his favor, and the company was barred from firing him, pretty much forever.

      A union is only as useful as its most-corrupt official, making most of them completely useless.

    142. Re:Unionize by VIPERsssss · · Score: 1

      As someone who as worked in a family owned manufacturing business that was shut down, in part, by union influence... I absolutely agree that IT workers need to unionize. I don't say it lightly. I fucking hate unions. I've also seen how IT is the first on the cutting block when a company is failing (and will continue to fail from that point). The biggest problem is the Nick Burns certificate queens that make us all look bad. Figure that one out and you'll have a more perfect union.

      --
      We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
    143. Re:Unionize by shiftless · · Score: 1

      When labor laws are being violated, you need a union that can draw support from and build upon an established base

      No. You just need a pair of balls, so you can stand up for yourself instead of immediately drawing back into your crowd of buddies for support. Stop being a coward.

    144. Re:Unionize by sjames · · Score: 1

      In general it is NOT actually impossible to fire people for genuine offenses, it's just that there exist union rules that require documenting the offenses to prove they are real. In some cases the rules are quite strict because abusers gamed the less stringent requirements that were in place.

      It's like saying if too many innocent people are going to prison, we need to raise the standard of proof.

    145. Re:Unionize by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      We're supposed to trust the phone system more than the internet but government has done fuck all to protect that trust.

      This is a perfect example, my phone says a number in (wherever) I pick it up. The person on the other end isn't in (wherever). This should be illegal, problem solved.

    146. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Politicians affect public employees, but they are by no means their boss. There is literally no difference in working conditions in public and private employment -- it's the same kind of stuff both places.

    147. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      It still isn't.

    148. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Yeah, only that's not what happens at all.

    149. Re:Unionize by Sarius64 · · Score: 2

      Yes, the police unions work really well protecting cops from people like Kelly Thomas who simply wish to not be beaten to death. That selfish punk.

    150. Re:Unionize by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      You need a union. It's the only way to fix this kind of thing.

      Unions create their own set of problems.

      You need to find a new job. Now. Stop reading /. and start looking. Or go back to school during your time off of work.

    151. Re:Unionize by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Unions are a *function* of the free market.

      Yeah, sort of. They're a way to promote workers rights without direct government action, which makes it more "free market" than some alternatives.

      But it's a way for workers to exert control over the market in a way that they would otherwise not be able to, which subverts some of the "free market" forces. You know when people claim that free markets drive prices down through competition? Same goes for labor markets. Unions remove some of the competition.

      But the free market also works on economies of scale. Which shops (en_US: stores) are cheapest? The big chains. There's lots of small independent shops, so there's lots of competition, yet they are still more expensive that the big ones (of which there are fewer). The act of incorporation is directly analogous to the unionisation of the workforce -- several individuals band together and use their collective bargaining power to derive more benefit for themselves from the market. The only difference is that one very rich person can incorporate and form a powerful company (eg you could imagine a certain retired software CEO managing to establish a successful competitor to Wallmart in a very short space of time), whereas one individual cannot form a powerful union.

      The founding document of modern capitalism is (in many people's eyes) Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, and it was based on the notion of collectivisation, so that the workers owned the tools of production but were made efficient through cooperation.

      So, yes, collectivisation to form a controlled supply of services is no different to any other form of incorporation. That said, genuine monopoly is damaging in any collectivity -- just as a single monopolistic supplier of a commodity (eg diamonds) can pay as little as they like and be as environmentally damaging as they like, yet still charge however much they like for the product, a truly monopolistic supplier of labour could demand to do as little work as possible for as high a wage as they liked.

      The UK unions suffered due to seemingly unrealistic demands and cartel-like closing of ranks during the early 80s (miners), and they never really recovered in the public eye.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    152. Re:Unionize by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Good unions certainly exist (within the US and elsewhere) but that doesn't mean all Unions are. I know of a couple of very poor Unions within the UK, in fact my general perspective on Unions (again in the UK) is that many make donating to the Labour party easier, but if you actually want support when it hits the fan it's a crap shoot if they'll support you and how well.

      On the original article question. I know a company in the UK that does this, personally I don't think it should be stopped as there are clear cases of abuse of breaks. That said a company needs to consider the downsides in moral of implementing this kind of policy and of enforcing it badly or misusing the data. The UK has very strong protections for workers with medical issues so it isn't like a company could use that as a reason to fire someone anyway.

    153. Re:Unionize by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's depressing that these kids haven't been told that it was the activities of a union in Poland (solidarity) that demonstrated that communism was finished in Eastern Europe and about to fall in the USSR. Fuck ronnie rayguy and his attempts to start WWIII and fuck the Mudjahadeen with Charlie Wilson's stinger missiles, it wasn't them, it was a union that drove the wedge into communism and broke it open.

    154. Re:Unionize by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      In a free market, what's to stop the newly laid-off union members from forming a new company? They're already organized, just change the union to a corporation and you're done.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    155. Re:Unionize by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Right the union will allow the company to do this, in exchange of hiring 20 more unioned employees.

      I have worked in Union vs. Non Unioned shops, The Unioned ones seems to have far more employee restrictions then the non-unioned.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    156. Re:Unionize by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      You can always look for an other job, then quit.

      Turnover is expensive to a company it costs an average 150% of your salary to replace you. Now if enough people start doing this many of them will realize there is a problem, and try to fix it to keep retention. Others will make it worse, and thus get more turn over finally they cannot be competitive any more.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    157. Re:Unionize by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Ok get a job at a really good company to work for, then lets choose to give a portion of your salary to someone else. Who will need to try to show that your money is useful and put a bunch of new rules that are not needed on a company that already cares for its employees.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    158. Re:Unionize by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      American unions need reform however no one is willing to admit this, they are either Pro Union in all its stupidity or against all unions.

      Part of the problem is the fact the Unions hate discussing the issues against them, that means when we are taught by Unioned teachers in school most of the teachers will give a Pro-Union spin to the topic. How Unions gave us the weekend, Ended Child Labor, Made sure we were compensated due to injuries... But not about its historical ties with Organized Crime, or its cases where it worked for its own benefits over the workers.

      Unions are funded by each employee paying dues. This means their power = money so the more people they have unioned the more power they have. So they have intensive to get more lower waged employees into the union. This will make deals that will hurt the middle class worker, because they will make more money hiring more under employed people.

      I have seen cases where 15 professional were allowed to be canned in order to get 40 new unioned members in. This isn't protecting their workforce, this is strategic planning to maximize revenue. They are doing the same thing the companies are doing just as greedy too.

       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    159. Re:Unionize by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps US unions are broken.

      the United States Unions have huge problems and are corrupt. Are Other countries unions better... Well they probably operate differently. However Europe right now is in worse then the US is.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    160. Re:Unionize by usuallylost · · Score: 1

      Union fix this? You are kidding right? My brother works in a union shop, not even a call center, and due to contract enforcement on the Union / Company contract there is a guy with a watch who logs when you walk through the door. Putting this in a Union contract won't change a thing but will make it much more expensive for you when you have to pay Union dues.

      The sad truth is call centers are terrible places to work. I worked in one some years ago doing tech support and it was awful. They log everything and where I worked every quarter or so they would come in and compare your figures to the rest of the department. Well I was handling escalations and my figures where always terrible compared to the rest of the department because my calls lasted five times as long. So every quarter I got to listen to a lecture about my needing to bring my numbers in line and then they ignored it. Because the manager knew why my numbers were different but she still had to give me this song and dance. Call centers are not good places to work. They never were and they never will be.

    161. Re:Unionize by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Unions will results in layoffs. Corporations will not just accept lower profits because their labor unionizes, they will layoff (Or go to India or the Philippines) until the costs are back in line to where they were.

      One thing that unions should be good at is managing layoff payouts. There's a certain "first they came for the..." idea in layoffs. "It's not me, it's alright." People who're not getting laid off don't tend to make a fuss. The union represents the interests of both the continuing staff and the laid off staff, and makes sure there are adequate support networks in place for laid off staff (career consultancy etc). They've done this so successfully in the UK that many big non-unionised companies do it automatically to avoid looking bad in comparison to their unionised competitors.

      There's a balance to be made. Militant unions who simultaneously refuse both pay freezes (or cuts) and layoffs are unrealistic and unhelpful. Most unions in Europe aren't like that, although that wasn't the case in the days of the UK miners' strike, where Scargill ruined the name of unions in the public eye for decades.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    162. Re:Unionize by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Because organized labor is detrimental to the economy and a joke.

      What, you mean organised labour such as... oh, I don't know... companies? Corporations? Factories? The whole concept of the capital market was founded on the concept of the divisive of labour in a collectivised, organised manner. Read your economic theory more closely.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    163. Re:Unionize by BVis · · Score: 1

      When labor laws are being violated, you need a union that can draw support from and build upon an established base

      No. You just need a pair of balls, so you can stand up for yourself instead of immediately drawing back into your crowd of buddies for support. Stop being a coward.

      "You're fired."

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    164. Re:Unionize by BVis · · Score: 1

      If there were any 'really good compan[ies]' to work for, then unions would not be necessary. Companies do not care about their employees. They might talk a good game, they might even spend a little money on 'employee morale', but it's all bullshit. In a capitalist system, the purpose of a for-profit enterprise is to.. well, make profit. You make profit by increasing revenues and lowering costs. Employees are a cost. Therefore it is in the company's best interest to treat their employees like shit, because that's cheaper than treating them like human beings.

      Until the labor laws in the USA catch up with the rest of the world, unions will be necessary here. When you can be fired for no stated reason, you have no rights as an employee. Oh sure, you've got 'rights' on paper. But asserting those rights gets you fired. Enforcement is a joke; if you can't afford a lawyer to represent you, you have no chance of prevailing should you file a complaint with the relevant agency.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    165. Re:Unionize by bhengh · · Score: 1

      Settle down. alere didn't say unions were always a bad thing. He (or she) simply told us his experience, which is relevant in the conversation, especially since he works in the same industry as the OP. And after you are done lecturing others about fallacious arguments, you can work on your own reading comprehension.

    166. Re:Unionize by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      Your words are very true. The only problem is we really don't have much say in the matter, other than to keep our skills and resumes updated, and be prepared for opportunities as they come.

      The days of 50 years, a pocketwatch, and a pension are long over.

    167. Re:Unionize by jasper160 · · Score: 1

      Work somewhere else, unless you are in North Korea or Chicago you can quit.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished.
    168. Re:Unionize by ryanmc1 · · Score: 1

      I could agree with this if

      1. Unions were not allowed to donate to political parties (ie 100% of the union dues had to go right back to the members).
      2. The union leadership was volunteer (not paid).

    169. Re:Unionize by jemenake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      corps have huge power. unions are there to balance it.

      I have this debate with my brother (who hates unions) all the time. I try to point out that unions are a reaction to crappy stuff that companies do to their workers. When you look at what many workers had to go through in order to unionize (like getting their skulls cracked by club-wielding strike breakers, or worse), there's no way you can argue that they went through all of that just for longer lunch breaks or so that it would be harder to fire them. In short, if corporations would stop trying to screw over their employees in every way imaginable, unions wouldn't be needed.

      But it's inherent in the system. I actually work at a business college, and we've got a "Human Resource Management" concentration. The notion that human beings are a "resource" (like an oil deposit or a vein of coal) from which the goal is to optimize the "yield"... it just turns my stomach. But this is the world we live in. Adam Smith pointed it out in Wealth of Nations... it's all about self-interest. The whole system is powered by everybody's (the workers', too, in all fairness) innate desire to screw over everybody else and get as much for themselves, so it's folly to expect the shareholders to voluntarily set that drive aside.

      As for the short term on how to deal with the OP's problem of being timed on their bathroom breaks: I'd start documenting all of your bathroom visits on RateMyPoo or something. Then, after a weekend of eating Thai food, when your boss asks about your 45-minute bathroom break, you can open your browser and show him/her the fecal carnage unleashed from what used to be your anus.

    170. Re:Unionize by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      a handful of less qualified individuals make way more than they're worth, based solely on seniority

      Sounds like every non-union job I ever worked at...

    171. Re:Unionize by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Except the corps dump obscene amounts of political money on their choice of candidates or regulations, then whine about how broke they are and how they have to freeze pay.

      I wonder why the owner of the only non-union casino in Vegas has dumped millions on GOP candidates?

    172. Re:Unionize by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      enjoy:
      http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tactics-20120916,0,1457710.story
      There's bad on both sides.
      BTW, this article ran in the Los Angeles Times, which isn't exactly a bastion of GOP thought.

    173. Re:Unionize by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Even FDR thought public unions were a bad idea:
      http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445

    174. Re:Unionize by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      let me rephrase: he was against public unions striking in any way.

    175. Re:Unionize by omnichad · · Score: 1

      ...speaker in the fucking bathroom and if your dump took over 3 minutes they would call out to you

      That is just frightening.

    176. Re:Unionize by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Supporting a candidate or political party is very tangential to actual change. ANY politician in office is equally capable of making the correct decision given enough information (though it's true some won't). Money used for lobbying beats funding candidates outright. Even if it's less successful, it's overall more ethical.

    177. Re:Unionize by weiserfireman · · Score: 1

      Engineers aren't usually part of the union. They are "management"

    178. Re:Unionize by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Here's an example of how Unions have shot themselves in the foot.
      My father, and aerospace engineer, once had a last minute project that required workers in the machine shop to stay late over a weekend.
      They were paid the usual overtime as required, and once the project was finished successfully, the engineers planned to take the five workers who stayed late out for pizza and beer ( paid for by the engineers, and not the company) as a reward for putting in the time and getting the job done.
      The Union rep. found out, and demanded that ALL machinists ( I believe there were twenty of them) be taken out for Pizza and Beer. Their option was take everyone out or nobody.
      You can guess how many people got pizza and beer, and it didn't include any machinists.

    179. Re:Unionize by GoDj1rrA · · Score: 1

      Quit and find a new job. That's my advice; you'll be happier.

      Good advice, except you should find a new job, then quit. Better way to do it.

    180. Re:Unionize by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      That is incorrect. The Government does not create corporations, individuals do. Government recognizes them and provides a legal framework. That is a very big difference.

      I disagree. Corporations are granted special status by the government that a collection of individual does not have. The most important one, IMO, is that shareholders of a corporation are not legally liable for the actions of the corporation they own, except to the extent of their investment.

      When there is no personal responsibility for the "actions" of investor money, then the government needs to regulate to ensure that corporations can't be used to divest investors of the negative repercussions of awful actions -- like wanton pollution that causes cancer, for example. If I knowingly dump toxins that make people sick, I can be imprisoned. A corporation cannot be imprisoned... so we regulate to ensure corporations don't do that kind of thing.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    181. Re:Unionize by nine-times · · Score: 1

      The act of incorporation is directly analogous to the unionisation of the workforce -- several individuals band together and use their collective bargaining power to derive more benefit for themselves from the market.

      Yes, this was something I meant to imply: Unions are as much a part of the "free market" as corporations are. Both are empowered by the government, and both are capable of subverting fair competition. When people band together to increase their power in some kind of union or corporation, they are, to some degree, subverting the "invisible hand" that is supposed to be fixing everything.

      But that's just something that needs to happen. Completely free markets are going to be subverted by whoever is the first person to gain some power.

    182. Re:Unionize by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      I would, but modding is reserved for members of a different bargaining unit in my union.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    183. Re:Unionize by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      So I can see the day when a company will note:

      Our employees are so productive that they soil themselves for your maximized returns!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    184. Re:Unionize by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Tariffs are the one tax specifically endorsed by the Constitution.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    185. Re:Unionize by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Actually, everyone uses American. Go to Japan and try using anything but "American" and you'll get confused looks. Or China. Or Africa. or the Middle East. Pretty much everywhere except for your Mom's basement.

    186. Re:Unionize by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I've never understood that adversarial nature. Where I am, sure we take jabs at the management side, but we're all on the same team. Management takes care of us because we build the stuff that keeps them in business. We work hard because we know that our work is going to make money which in turn keeps us paid and comes back to us in raises and bonuses. It's a symbiotic relationship that seems to work extremely well. I honestly don't know of anybody in a union (maybe some of the manufacturing guys... who knows).

      It's not just business either, our current political situation is extremely adversarial - I'm of the opinion that we're suffering pretty greatly from it.

      Come on man, why can't we all just get along?

      --
      +1 Disagree
    187. Re:Unionize by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      "Isn't that what I pay YOU for?" is sometimes asked. Yeah, becuase a board of 8 or so and a staff of 3 or 4 is going to be able to accomplish anything.

      Isn't that board the same people that make the agreements the next time contracts are up? If so, then it seems like the board is EXACTLY the ones that should be doing something⦠while the rest of the people can actually be doing their jobs until the issue is resolved.

    188. Re:Unionize by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Because that's what we each individually choose to do! I think... maybe... Here, let me just set down my starbucks and ask siri.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    189. Re:Unionize by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, not when they haven't done anything wrong, and they're being incarcerated on bogus victimless "crimes" or trumped-up charges and convicted in a kangaroo court.

      And why should a private prison be making all this profit on prisoners? If it were the State getting money to offset the cost of incarceration in state-run prisons, that'd be one thing. But we're talking about private corporations here holding people against their will and profiting off of slavery, while simultaneously getting huge amounts of money from their corrupt buddies in the government in no-bid contracts.

    190. Re:Unionize by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, if you can. Best advice I have is to not let it get to the point where you have to quit to avoid insanity.

      Best to find a job, then quit. Better to quit, and then find a new job. Not so good to burn the place down over a stapler. :)

    191. Re:Unionize by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

      As a few others have stated, there are good unions and bad unions, at least in the US. In general, I respect the nurses' unions. Their demands are usually not only in favor of the nurses but also the patients. Occasionally they defend someone who really shouldn't be in medicine, but by and large, they seem to do a good job.

      My dad used to be a staunch union guy. He was in aerospace for about 25 years and there were a lot of layoffs and strikes back in the '80s. One day, while on the picket line, the union leadership showed up in limos and wearing some very fancy clothes and expensive jewelry. They made some comments about how important it was that the lines be respected and how they would win eventually. My parents were facing some difficult times because union strike wages were (and are) a pittance of normal wages and he had three kids to feed. He went home that night, bothered by the union leadership and how much money was going to them and their secure positions. The next day, he crossed the picket lines and went back to work and never participated in another strike.

      There were repercussions. Some work friends stopped talking to him. There were veiled threats. But as he was 6'1", a big guy, and a biker, no one actually messed with him directly. But he knew others who crossed the lines and found tires deflated or slashed, cars keyed, or who were sometimes "warned" in very physical ways. This, and my own experiences as a contractor in union workplaces, has led me to be very suspicious of unions in general and not in favor of working somewhere that requires union membership.

      I recognize the role that unions played in creating fair workplaces and I respect those who were injured and even killed by employers trying to resist the unions. But ultimately, I regard the need to unionize as a failure of the employer to keep the employees happy. Sometimes that's not entirely the fault of employers, but in most cases, the employers could have headed off the need for a union long before the vote to unionize.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    192. Re:Unionize by crypticedge · · Score: 1

      What does the United Mexican States have to do with anything?

    193. Re:Unionize by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think it's that simple.

      For one thing, I don't know about your area, but in my crappy metro area that isn't exactly a cultural mecca (Phoenix AZ), there's lots of competing coffee shops around: Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, Coffee Rush, etc. These actually do pretty well from what I can see, but Starbucks is still going strong.

      But secondly, $5 coffee drinks are a luxury. Normally, when the economy sucks, people economize, especially if they've lost their jobs, and that means cutting out non-essential purchases. Overpriced coffee drinks (even when they're good, which Starbucks' are not) are an obvious luxury, and you can save a lot of money by cutting out your daily coffee habit (or switching to a much cheaper alternative, like making your own with a coffee maker).

      I realize coffee can also be an addiction for many people, but still, all considered, it seems like Starbucks should be doing much worse now than they are.

    194. Re:Unionize by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Whoop! There it is! Mod parent up.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    195. Re:Unionize by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Well I've worked both private and public, and there's a definite difference. The public sector is "easier" with less workload and no deadlines. And yes the pay is better (was the highest-paying job I ever had). Had I stayed I could have retired at 60 and received a big fat pension for the next 30-40 years sucking money from blue-collar taxpayers (who can ill-afford the burden).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    196. Re:Unionize by JBaustian · · Score: 1

      That would quickly lead to 800 people out of work, since the call center could be easily moved to another city or state.

      If I was managing a call center, that's what I would do if the employees voted to unionize.

    197. Re:Unionize by shiftless · · Score: 1

      "So long, asshole. You can't fire me because I quit. I'm sick of the idiocy in this company; you retards wouldn't know how to manage a software project if your lives depended on it. I'm starting my own company that will be a hundred times better than yours, and I'll help a hundred other likeminded individuals become millionaires. Enjoy your life as a mediocre mid-level executive at a failing bank software company--jackass."

    198. Re:Unionize by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      It was surprisingly easy. First we got them all whipped up about things that it might be reasonable to be afraid of, like terrorists. That gave us a little credibility and we cemented that with all kinds of theater (an unnecessary war, the TSA, The Patriot Act) to make them feel safer from this "threat". Then we got them whipped up about things that they were already afraid of, like homosexuals, and made a lot of noise about "protecting the institution of marriage". I know, I know. It was all bullshit, but those sheep just lapped it up. They placed their trust in us, "their leaders". So we doubled down, and dusted off the old "commie" bogey man, and got them to thinking that their protectors would always do the right thing by them. By now, the sheep were just a glassy-eyed, unthinking mass, so we started emptying their pockets. It's amazing what you can sell when you can capitalize on a little fear. Just ask Hitler. By them time the German people collectively woke up and realized what huge fucking mistake they had made, it was all over but the crying.

    199. Re:Unionize by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      To be frank, any western company that chooses to outsource certain facilities (call centres and in a lot of cases, manufacturing) to India is idiotic and is unlikely to actually save money in the long run. While they might be outwardly known for a good work ethic, my experience in living here, setting up and running a company I set up here (I am a westerner myself) is entirely different.

      People in this country will strike at the drop of a hat, political parties will force shops to close seemingly at random (by force, I mean come around with weapons ranging from sticks to guns and threaten, cajole and beat anyone who refuses) and there are festivals for some minority or another seemingly 3 or 4 times a week.

      There's no accountability, they're prone to saying "yes" to pretty much everything but most of all... the majority of them are simply slack, especially young graduates - many of whom are unemployable, even fresh out of college.

      I instituted a policy in my company of refusing to hire anyone who comes from an IIT (Indian Institute of Technology) because they have this "I'm better than you" complex and a sense of entitlement I've not even seen in the west - they want to be paid western wages even though they just don't actually know anything (the sales pitch for the college said they would make this kind of money) and I've had graduates of IITs who were unable to tell me such simple things like how much bandwidth standard old GPON has (something pretty important to us). At that point I handed them back their CV and told them straight up they had zero chance of working for me.

      I have no problem with paying people well for doing a good job - and I do pay above average (the examples above are, while not embellished, a little on the extreme side) - but getting people who will do a good job here? That's an incredible challenge - the signal to noise ratio here is definitely way higher here than anywhere in Europe or Australasia (I've never lived or worked in America so I can't comment on that).

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    200. Re:Unionize by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Anyone who outsources to India is not doing themselves any favours - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3120989&cid=41372899

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    201. Re:Unionize by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Anyone who outsources to India is not doing themselves or customers any favours. There are unions aplenty here, actually and they strike at the drop of a hat - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3120989&cid=41372899

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    202. Re:Unionize by cob666 · · Score: 1

      If you take a 5 minute break every 10 minutes, you still have to be paid for it, but you would most likely lose your job in a day or two.

      If your state mandates that an employee must have a 15 minute break for every 4 hours worked that means you have to have one break that lasts at least 15 minutes. If you take 2, 5 minute bathroom breaks in that 4 hours, that 10 minutes doesn't come out of your 15 minute break.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    203. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Yes it is the same board.

      Board: "We want the day after Thanksgiving off."
      Company: "No." ...if the board does not have the membership behind them, "no" is the end of the conversation. If the company knows the membership will not do anything if they say no, then why should they go for a proposal?

    204. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      MOST won't. My point was that both are done, but generally from volunteer money, at least by the rules where I live and before Citizens United.

    205. Re:Unionize by ryanov · · Score: 1

      The alternative is to have some variety of binding arbitration, or something else to balance the fact that the public employees can't strike. In most cases, police have this for obvious reasons. If the boss can get a restraining order or whatever to get you back to work, there has to be something keeping it fair.

    206. Re:Unionize by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      This. So much this. You don't have to put up with this bullshit. And it will only get worse unless you fight back.

      Moving call center to Manila in 3... 2... 1...

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    207. Re:Unionize by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Several friends of mine that do contract work use Starbucks as a low cost meeting place for work. They can meet with clients somewhere other than their house, there is internet and refreshments, most people know what a Starbucks is so they don't have to explain what a particular mom & pop coffeeshop is.

      Several of them used to maintain offices and don't anymore. I think the bad economy might be boosting certain segments of Starbucks business.

      I personally hate their coffee and resent them driving a lot of indie coffeeshops out of business, but that doesn't interfere with understanding why some people go there.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    208. Re:Unionize by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I agree about their crappy coffee and driving indie places out of business, but you have some good points there I never thought of. So I guess Starbucks is profiting by driving rental offices out of business? (like those places where you spend $500/month and get a single furnished office with access to a color copier/printer)

    209. Re:Unionize by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1
      This criticism was valid 25 years ago, but is no longer. People using these terms differently than they used to be sounds grating to me as well, but your own link admits their definition is changing.

      the term has largely fallen out of use since the revolutions of 1989, though it is still occasionally used to describe countries that are in between poverty and prosperity, many of which are communist and former communist countries today. Subsequently, the actual meaning of the terms "First World" and "Third World" changed from being based on political ideology to an economic definition

      So GP is correct, your attempted pedantry is invalid according to the link you provided.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    210. Re:Unionize by plover · · Score: 1

      And that's "government regulation", which the GP decried as not the solution to American financial prosperity. Capitalism can't save business unless there's a level playing field.

      --
      John
    211. Re:Unionize by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I think there are several businesses that have found this niche. There is a Panera near my train station and if I barely miss my train I sometimes stop in for a snack or some coffee. It is amazing how full it is at all hours. I've been there from 8am to 8pm and it is usually at least 2/3 full. Many of the customers have what look to be business papers spread out with them.

      I think most people would rather meet somewhere like that than a rented office.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    212. Re:Unionize by swalve · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you define peaceful. Hint: blocking the fucking street is not.

    213. Re:Unionize by alere · · Score: 1

      Bingo!

    214. Re:Unionize by bibliophage · · Score: 1

      But they aren't buying a product, they are providing one-- the output of their labor.

      That depends on whose point of view you're looking at. From the employee's point of view, yes. From the employer's point of view, they are the one paying money for something, which makes them the consumer. Therefore, labor (or you could argue skills and time) is the product employees are selling.

      If one feels that their labor is worth more than what their employer is paying, they are free to move within the market and see if they can find another purchaser of their labor at their preferred price.

      And if the purchase of their labor can be arranged through a third party, is that third party not also a market force?

      all the union does is distort the price for labor

      If indeed the union is a market force, then its price for labor is not a distortion--unless the union is the only market force on that side of the equation, i.e., a monopoly. If it is not a monopoly, it is simply another competing provider of the product. The union can charge more for their product because it has been upgraded (much like a staffing company) by a guarantee of a certain skillset.

      Now take all of the above with one caveat: I'm talking about laboratory conditions. In the real world, unions get monopolies, they're corrupt, they protect the lazy and unskilled, distort the job market, yada yada yada. But employers aren't any better. Before unions, they abused and distorted the market. Child labor laws, the 40 hour work week, minimum wage, and safety standards all come from union efforts. Until unions began asserting some power in the marketplace, employers were the monopoly, and the market value of labor was low wages for long days and shitty working conditions. Even with all the progress made, to this day employers will still find a way to screw you over if it's good for the bottom line and legal, or if not legal, the penalties cheap enough.

      --
      There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  2. Short answer by mrsam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Time to start sending out resumes.

    1. Re:Short answer by yog · · Score: 2

      I was thinking the same thing.

      The job market's bad, but it's not THAT bad.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    2. Re:Short answer by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or simply time to get everybody to constantly hit the "Bathroom" button. When management realise that every cubicle is occupied by an average of 17 workers every minute of the working day and work is still getting done, they'll realise it's pointless. A virtual dirty protest if you will.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    3. Re:Short answer by CrashandDie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They can't. If they hit the bathroom break button, it changes their state, and they won't get any calls.

      I'm the lead dev / product manager for a software VoIP callcentre solution. We've had to develop features such as "don't allow an agent to take a bathroom break if there aren't enough agents available, or the waiting queue is too big, or if the estimated waiting is over X".

      Supervisors will spend the day looking at the monitor, constantly checking how many calls are waiting, how long each agent is on the line. They will put themselves in "whisper" mode, so they can yell at the agent, without the customer hearing anything. If you're ever on the line with a callcentre drone, and he suddenly starts taking time to answer, or suddenly starts having trouble finding his words, it's probably a sign you're using up too much of his allotted per-call time, and getting the poor lad into trouble.

      We operate in France, so we've had to deal with a lot of employee-protection laws, but more often that not, our customers (the callcentre) will force us to override specific settings (the mandatory 2 second break after each call can be revoked if the last call was too long; hence not effective enough), even if they violate the law.

    4. Re:Short answer by Read+Acted · · Score: 2

      C'est vous la probleme !

    5. Re:Short answer by TheEldest · · Score: 1

      1. Send out resumes.
      2. Start taking 8-10 minute breaks every couple hours. Force the issue. Let them call you out on having irritable bowels. Sometimes it's good to make everyone uncomfortable.

      Realistically, though: I worked in a call center for a really really big company here in the states and they never tracked bathroom time. I'd say it's borderline illegal because of what you can infer from the data but I don't know that there's legal precedent one way or the other.

      If your company is like mine you have an anonymous phone/e-mail line for inappropriate behavior or concerns. I'd leave a message that the new policies make you feel uncomfortable because you need to use the facilities fairly frequently due to a medical condition. (doesn't matter if it's true).

    6. Re:Short answer by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Then everyone should stop choosing "bathroom" when they have to go, and just go. Fuck the queue, your bladder is more important.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:Short answer by CrashandDie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's a solution... but it doesn't work.

      If an agent misses a call, the supervisor knows it. If the same agent misses x calls in a row (usually 3 times, sometimes 15), that agent gets disconnected (well, he gets put in a different state). Most companies handle this gracefully, because the agent's phone may be faulty, or there was an actual emergency.

      It really depends on how the supervisor sets up the callcentre: it can be atrocious, or it can be fantastic. One or our client companies is "abusing" the system so that instead of opening a "quality control" web page (where the agent is to input data regarding the customer's tone of voice, etc), he rewards his agents by giving them a browser to Facebook or their personal email for a few minutes, if they've had a good run of effective calls. This is automated, and the supervisors can't override it; this means that even if you have douchebag control-freak, the agents can still get 2 hours of breaks during the day, just by being effective.

      Other companies treat their employees like live stock. Miss a call? Have a browser window opened to justify why you didn't pick up. Miss 3 calls? Your state gets changed to "GO_SEE_($SUPERVISOR_NAME)_NOW", and you can't receive any more calls. We even had the case of a supervisor who attempted to display random images of animal cruelty if an agent missed a call. We did report that one.

      The "problem" is that a lot of our client companies justify the drastic rules they set up because of agent abuse. And the abuse, in some cases, is heroic:

      Two agents figured out they were on the same call queue, and that they were the only ones, on said queue, in a specific language. So what did they do? Every day, at 9:38, one of them would take a bathroom break, and the other's girlfriend would call. She'd navigate the voice menus until she ended up in the waiting queue of her boyfriend. He'd pick up, and they'd remain on the phone for 2-3 hours. The other guy would come back, and his girlfriend called a couple of minutes later, and end up with him. Their record, before being discovered, was 6 hours calls, each. They'd let the call running when they went on their lunch break. They were found out because the company thought something was wrong with our system, and pulled a "breach of contract" on us because we weren't able to fix it; that's how much they trusted their agents---until we had them listen to the call recordings.

      Some agents will figure out their direct phone line, and have all their friends call, or setup free international calls by calling someone, and then transferring them to other numbers.

      Does that justify giving a semi-dictator the authority to destroy people's psychological health? Hell no, but as always, finding a middle ground is difficult. We cater to the needs of small companies, sometimes with only one or two agents at any given time. One of the callcentres we directly operate (for another product) has two agents, up to six when they're backed up. We don't have a supervisor, only the (senior) agents get supervision rights. More supervisors is better, because they see/hear what the other supervisors are doing, and so they police themselves. We provide wireless headsets, so the agents can go out have a cigarette ('tis France, after all), or go make themselves some coffee while being on a call; most of the time, they don't need a computer, as it's just helping people click through software, and they know it by heart.

  3. Honestly? by dmacleod808 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get another job. You are just being treated like cattle and there is NOTHING you can do. If you were to sue, they will find some reason to fire you. If you were to Unionize, there would be massive layoffs. In my company, I don't clock in, I don't clock out, I can work 5 hours per week overtime without approval. And I work for a fortune 300 company who you think would be soulless. I see how our CSRs are treated, and it is a damn sight better than anywhere else. And we have metrics in the upper 90% range for hold times (Less than 90 seconds) and call backs. Customer first will always make you profitable.

    --
    There Can Be Only One...
    1. Re:Honestly? by YukariHirai · · Score: 1

      Basically that. I haven't experienced it personally, but a couple of the people I work with (at a small company; roughly a dozen people all up) used to work in call centres where they had this kind of toilet break timekeeping. They utterly fucking detested it, which is why it's somewhere they used to work.

    2. Re:Honestly? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ..not to offend hard working call center people, but wouldn't that be the usual recommendation to anyone working at one regardless of if they're tracking bathroom breaks?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Honestly? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      If you are going to quit, then you are essentially taking a voluntary lay off. If you unionize, then you/somebody takes a mandetory layoff. It seems about the same to me. At least, with a union, you get to stick it to the man.

      If companies can care only-about-profits then why can't unions and their workers?

      I'm not a supporter of unions, though.

    4. Re:Honestly? by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, getting out is the only sane option. I used to work at a place which implemented a tracking scheme like that, and after two weeks they had lost about two thirds of the people. Too many to have the remaining people work overtime. I was among the people who left, but heard from someone who stayed that they stopped that silliness only a month after introducing it.

      So getting out will make one of two things happen: Either you are free from a horrible employment situation, or you help make them see the error in their ways. If you're in the US chances are the place of employment will do like usual: Apply more beatings until morale improves.

    5. Re:Honestly? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1, Interesting

      you don't 'stick it to the man', when you unionize, you equalize what HAS BECOME an increasingly unlevel playing ground.

      you show social responsibility when you fight to get a union installed in a bad company. and this surely sounds like they need some EQ there..

      and while it may be bad for those fighting, they'll make life better for those that follow.

      we USED to care about stuff like that. we used to. what happened to us? why do we have this 'got mine, fark you!' mentality?

      your grandparents - that fought for unions and a better work life for you - feel you have abandoned them and all the hard work they fought for!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Honestly? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      :^D I don't think that my grandparents fought for unions.

      Why can't we use unions to stick it to the man? What's wrong with that?

    7. Re:Honestly? by jittles · · Score: 2

      you don't 'stick it to the man', when you unionize, you equalize what HAS BECOME an increasingly unlevel playing ground.

      you show social responsibility when you fight to get a union installed in a bad company. and this surely sounds like they need some EQ there..

      and while it may be bad for those fighting, they'll make life better for those that follow.

      we USED to care about stuff like that. we used to. what happened to us? why do we have this 'got mine, fark you!' mentality?

      your grandparents - that fought for unions and a better work life for you - feel you have abandoned them and all the hard work they fought for!

      You're assuming (wrongly in most cases), that unions exist to make life better for the employees. Certainly they do sometimes make things better, but unions often become large and corrupt, and the leaders there are just as corrupt as any politician. Was the labor movement important to our generation? Absolutely. But when labor unions are able to raise enough money to affect political outcomes in society, or coerce members of their union to vote a specific way, they become just as bad as the corporations they are fighting against. The problem here is people, and I don't know what the solution is. Labor unions have done good for the worker, but how do you prevent them from becoming as bad or worse than those they are supposed to be protecting you from?

    8. Re:Honestly? by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      if it doesn't result in a loss of quality, maybe they should focus on improving quality instead. demeaning your employees further is going to correlate negatively with quality.

    9. Re:Honestly? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      What is the problem with accurately logging your time? You are paid by the hour. Log your time. What is the problem unless you are in fact stealing from your employer by working fewer hours than you are paid for.

      This line of argument would be marginally less obtuse if the company were merely requiring its workers to clock out for any break, no matter how short. You're not "stealing from your employer" any more or less by going to the bathroom than by going to the snack machine or the smoking area.

      Of course, the real acid test is this: once you're logging your time to the second, does the time spent logging count as "on-duty" or "off-duty"? This will be important, at least until the Company automates it fully -- probably by installing eye-tracking software to log every fraction of a second that you aren't looking at your screen.

      All these retards calling for unions in a market where offshoring is easy and doesnt result in loss of quality - really?

      *chortle*

    10. Re:Honestly? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Your argument is against the entrenched unions. I don't see how it would apply to starting a new union, which would (at least initially) work the way you want it to.

    11. Re:Honestly? by fermion · · Score: 1
      Also, this may be seen as a concession by the employer rather than a restriction on the employee. In most cases I have seen employees much be given an unpaid lunch break after four hours and a short personal break every 2 hours. In 1996 Nabisco was sued because they did not let employees leave the line to use the toilet, even with a doctors note. That lawsuit was settled. It seems to be that a prudent employer, therefore, would allow bathroom breaks as needed, but also provide a means of tracking it to make sure that line workers, do not abuse it. I have heard of engineering firms tracking time in this way.

      It is certainly unfair, which is why I seldom am jealous of people who tell me how much easy money they make at jobs where they are treated like animals. I may not make the most money, and really don't really get to go to the bathroom whenever i want, but as long as I am responsible there is not a lot of tracking of my time.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    12. Re:Honestly? by bibliophage · · Score: 1

      Unions are like any other group of people in that they can easily become corrupt. However, corporations are groups of people too. I'm not saying fighting corruption with corruption is the way to go, but you can at least level the playing field, as TheGratefulNet said.

      --
      There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    13. Re:Honestly? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Always great people telling others to just quit and get another job. This is not always an option and just because you do not like one part of the job, does not mean you hate everything about it.

      I would wait it out and see what they actually do with the data. Are they going apeshit if you take 20 seconds more then assigned? Then I would leave. Do they tell you to watch it when you take 20 minutes more each day, then I would stay.

      It could well be that they are doing it because people are taking 60 minutes shit breaks and let the others take the calls.

      I also have seen management asking for whatever sort of numbers and then do absolutely nothing with it. (Seen the opposite as well)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:Honestly? by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Because unions don't stick it to anyone. They just collect dues from your paycheck.

      Oh, as a founding member *you* might be okay in your closed shop because you will get seniority. But the people who come after you will be doing the same job as you did before, with tracked breaks and everything, and they will pay union dues on top of all of that.

      Companies tend to become even more soulless with a union involved because then it becomes an adversarial relationship where the company has to allow certain things, but they will start ensuring that you don't take a minute or one cent more than what was allowed in the contract.

      Of course, you'd think that should be okay because you actually get stuff, but the union doesn't care about you, it cares about itself, so it will make deals that are a little unacceptable to both you and the company. With a union, you're getting whatever benefits the union thinks it can get away with without forcing a layoff or lockout. And they become one size fits all. That is great when there are no labor laws at all and you're being forced to risk your life for pennies an hour. It's not so great when the unions lock you into membership in closed shops even after labor laws and even companies have progressed to the point where they won't do that sort of thing to you.

    15. Re:Honestly? by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      You need the right environment for a "new" union. The fact is that any "new" union will be living in the same ecosystem as the old one. To get a good US union out of the crap we have, we need better laws. Good luck doing that until the old unions aren't there and in control of the Democratic party.

      Further, you appear to be suggesting that a new union would be awesome, until it sucks like all the other ones. That means you're okay with getting what you want, at the expense of the jobs of the people in the future who will be forced to do the same shit, but with a union making their lives just a tiny bit worse. That's not a solution. That's not a solution even for the people right now, because businesses already know how to work unions, and union professionals all come from the same schools of Labor Relations. You'd be lucky if the new union didn't immediately turn into an old union the minute the first contract was signed.

    16. Re:Honestly? by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      You see the thing is, corporations can be corrupt, but that is actually not their problem. When a corporation is corrupt, people are stealing from *it*. The problem with corporations is that they seek to minimize costs at all cost to increase profits, but they do so stupidly.

      The real way to get corporations to see the light is to show that corporations will be better and more profitable when they work on their own to treat their employees well. And this can be done. The original 40 hour work week was agreed to because corporate leaders like Henry Ford did the research and realized you get more out of people when you only work them 40 hours a week and you pay them better so they can buy your own product themselves. Corporate leaders aren't trying to create a sea of impoverished, unskilled workers, but they often suffer from two things, inability or greed.

      All too often, unions have tended to maintain a status quo in an environment, and if that goes on too long, it can drag down the entire industry. It happened to car makers and airlines as two major examples, but I see that even in places like grocery stores, where if you want decent service the best places you can go are the ones without the unions which have figured out how to treat employees well on their own.

    17. Re:Honestly? by sandytaru · · Score: 2

      This was my first thought upon reading the question as well. When I did business to business marketing for a Big Hardware Producer, I was treated much the same. We had certain call center goals - 120 "dials", 2 leads a day, 5-6 personalized emails. I quit about the time they raised the goal to 200 dials a day. Although they weren't cold calls, it was still telemarketing in the end, and the salary wasn't enough to justify the stress. I quit a week before I got married (since hey, I'm a lady and that sort of thing is still halfway expected in the south), and a little over a year later found a much better job in an incredible work environment. About the only thing the two companies have in common was that they were both IT-ish and both offered free coffee.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    18. Re:Honestly? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I know what it means to be in a union. I had a minimum wage job, and they still deducted dues from the minimum wage.

      Regarding unions on sticking to anyone, I disagree, but I'll accept it for this discussion. That might be how they typically are used, but why can't we use a union to stick it to the man?

      Also, if a group of employees are in charge of the union, then why can't they stick it to the man?

      Also, unions cause hassles to the company. So why can't that be considered sticking it to the man?

    19. Re:Honestly? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      There are reasons that there are professional union employees these days. Technically all unions are employee run, but the nominal fact of employees running a union does not mesh well with reality. The administrative apparatus of the unions tends to take over and run the unions because actual employees need to do their actual jobs. That apparatus may be more or less sympathetic to the causes of employees, but tends to become more and more staffed by people who are trained in how to run unions, rather than people who have actually been workers.

      As far as sticking it to a corporation goes, what does that mean? You put them out of business? Make them uncompetitive? You may not like the fat cats who run the places, but I'm not sure how employees benefit from that situation. Sure the employers will not want to go out of business, but you're counting on them not actually going out of business for your remaining jobs. And if they are big enough to not go out of business they may well be big enough to fight back.

      Now fighting it out eventually became necessary in the days when working conditions were abysmal. The industrialists went completely out of control and there were no laws to keep them in check. Unions, as bad as they would become, were a legitimate savior. As much as I dislike what has become of them now, there is no question I'd have supported them in that day and age. But that was born of pure need and desperation. Today, it's not a course that I would go on for something like potty breaks, to be honest. There are other ways to screw with employers that don't require me to become beholden to yet another corporate entity to do it.

    20. Re:Honestly? by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you're now in the tank for the anti-union shills. Way to go.

    21. Re:Honestly? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The bad unions tend to be the result of management capture. The best bet for the employees is to get a new union.

    22. Re:Honestly? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      You are still thinking in terms of the workers wanting to keep their jobs. I'm talking about workers, who have emotionally accepted their fate, and are willing to look for new work. Instead of just walking off, they could try to make things bad for the employer by making it less competative. If the employer can survive by charging higher prices, then that's just a bonus.

      What other ways do you know of to screw employers?

    23. Re:Honestly? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      More likely the immediate manager is a jackass. His/her superior said "we need X metrics" and the peon underneath overreacted.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    24. Re:Honestly? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The problem starts when supervisors get irate with employees who took a minute too long in the bathroom. The base premise is OK - the problem is it inevitably deviates from "acceptable tracking" to ridiculous THE NUMBERS ARE GOD metric worship.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    25. Re:Honestly? by ameoba · · Score: 1

      Exactly. OP's first problem is that he's easily replaceable, unskilled labor. You're at a desk, but it's not really an 'office job' in the sense that you have to use any real intellectual capacity to do the job. You have to expect to get treated like shit because you're not really bringing anything more to the table than a fry jockey at a fast foot restaurant.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  4. "Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by overlook77 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Your company should track all "Personal Breaks" together and not specify whether it's a bathroom break or not. A personal break would be a smoke break, getting water/food, bathroom, etc. There is no reason to break it down further in my opinion. I'm a call center manager, and at our company we lump all that stuff together. At the end of the month if someone is not meeting their percent time work goals we can see how much of the problem is attributed to personal breaks vs. other things, such as off the phone research. But I personally don't want to know that someone was taking a dump for 20 min.

    1. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It depends on the job. Back when I used to work security it would depend upon where in the building I was working whether or not the time was counted. When I was working in the building it usually wasn't counted as it was just a legitimate time to check for drug users in the restroom. When somebody had to relieve me to go, then it would be counted.

      Ultimately though, it depends a great deal on the work environment. For some jobs there really does need to be somebody doing it at all times. For other jobs if somebody is absent for a moment it's not a big deal. And for other jobs, one can keep working while using the restroom and get both done at the same time.

      But, without reason, it's something I'd be suspicious of. Needing to use the restroom between breaks should be relatively uncommon, provided that the individual doesn't have a medical condition. And that's where it really fails hard as once there's a few people with medical conditions that have to go, then it's hard to justify the hit to morale that enforcing it for everybody else leads to.

    2. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by JustOK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They should use the same methods for tracking management and the employees.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by vlm · · Score: 1

      Needing to use the restroom between breaks

      What makes you think the kind of place where mgmt daydreams of timing, tracking, and probably training and disciplining bathroom breaks would give people "break time"? They probably make them bring coal to work to keep the place warm in the winter.

      The solution, obviously, is if you have to go, then just whip it out at your desk and/or use those "first class" cardboard boxes and some tape to interoffice mail the result "somewhere". Ask for a potted plant in your cubical and a little privacy, or maybe not if you like that kind of thing.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by BonThomme · · Score: 2

      that's generally the single most effective way to eliminate bad policies

    5. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Usually taking a dump for 20 minutes means taking a personal call in the stall for 20 min. We had a kid at work who would disappear for 15-20 minutes a time to the bathroom to talk to his girlfriend. Needless to say he wasn't employed very long.

    6. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by je1330 · · Score: 1

      Precisely. I'm an op analyst in a large multi-site contact center, and I promise you, our Workforce department would really rather not know the details. We do not record the reasons, only the times, and only because it comes down to production. Our agents are given an hour lunch and two 15min breaks every day, more if working long extra hours. Along with that comes an allotment of not ready time, and realistic expectations on handle times that's based on the average across the entire center and the type of call they are handling. We don't treat our agents like cattle, but we do requite that they stick to the requirements of the job, and the fact is, in the call center business that means "cheeks in seats". The reason "bathroom" comes up in call centers is because the bulk of employees who end up in short term positions like this are only there for a paycheck, as long as it lasts. The most effort they put into the job revolves around avoiding doing the one thing they are hired to do, handle calls and process other customer interactions like emails and faxes. When half of your employee base is trying to avoid doing work, you have to have a way to do so fairly and accurately. In the post here, the company is going about it the wrong way, one that can be invasive. Our center tracks Compliance for agents, where we take the full 540min that exists in an agents shift from beginning to end, including Lunches and Breaks, and compare it to their schedule, including any descretionary segments that may be scheduled during the day such as training, mentoring, meetings and absences. We then can determine Compliant Minutes (on the phone when scheduled to be on the phone, and off the phone when scheduled to be off the phone) and Noncompliant Minutes (off the phone when scheduled to be off, and on the phone when scheduled to be on). The percentage of Compliant Minutes during the day becomes the agents score for that day, and it's tracked continuously so that every week, negative trends can be identified and addressed. When we rolled out this system, agents had averaged 92% over the prior year, and the goal was only set at 90%. Think about that, over a single day, that's 54 minutes where an agent can be out of compliance, and still make the goal. Even considering being late to breaks or lunches, and taking bathroom breaks when needed, it gets to the point that you have to really screw up to miss the goal when it's averaged out over a week, especially over a month. But this makes sure that those agents who can't meet the goal are identified and the issues are addressed. And that's exactly why the 'bathroom' code in the original post came up for, they're just doing it a crappy way. Blaming the corporation for wanting to manage time isn't the answer, finding a job that you can do without feeling like you're cattle is the answer. If you don't like the job, you're never going to like the rules.

    7. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by lakeland · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      One of the things I do is work out the team's efficiency and there's a big difference to how I would approach the team spending too long on client jobs (not billing enough) versus the team having big gaps between client jobs (not enough work coming in). In neither case do I care at all what personal thing people are doing, but knowing that it's personal time rather than jobs taking longer is valuable.

    8. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I'd be curious to know how the ceo justifies his 400x (and more) salary.

      if you want to break it down, this guy (or gal) is making TONS per hour. don't we have a right to know how well he's earning the company's money?

      ceo's should have to account for every minute they are working for the company. and middle mgmt.

      why would this only apply to the serfs?

      oh right. because they DO think of workers as serfs. hmmph.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Your company should track all "Personal Breaks" together and not specify whether it's a bathroom break or not. A personal break would be a smoke break, getting water/food, bathroom, etc.

      Still, a MAIL order PHARMACY is probably wondering what those guys are doing in the bathroom all day, wouldn't you think?

      Especially when they all seem to carry their hats nonchalantly at the belt buckle.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    10. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by Parts09 · · Score: 1

      This is most likely why this code was instituted. Bathroom is something where management should not be interfering - when nature calls you need to answer. But smoke breaks, food breaks, etc should not be a reason to stop doing your job. Maybe management did this so that people wouldn't be penalized for so many personal breaks if they were using the bathroom instead of going for a smoke.

      --
      My opinions are completely my own and do not reflect those of any entity I may be associated with - including the voices
    11. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Hourly workers face more scrutiny when it comes to meal and break times because they automatically qualify for overtime after 40 hours a week (and 8 hrs/day in some states). Certain employees, most notably executives and administrative workers, are exempt from these overtime requirements, so they don't get paid extra for working beyond 40 hours/week. So it's not really that management has it better. There is just less legal need to monitor management's work hours as closely.

      Federal law does not require time off for meals and breaks, but many states do. e.g. California labor law when I ran a business a few years ago was that employees were entitled to a 30 min unpaid meal break for every 8 hours worked, as well as a 15 minute paid break every 4 hours. This cuts both ways. The employee can get in trouble with the company if they exceed their break allowance. But likewise the company can get in trouble with the state if they're not giving you your full break time every day. In California's case, if you refused to take your breaks, I was forced to send you home after 7.5 hours (excluding lunch) but still pay you for 8. The reason being I'd have to pay overtime if you exceeded 8 hours of work in a day (7.5 hours work, 0.5 hours breaks). (There's all sorts of other fun things too like split shifts. I did my best to educate my employees on the legal requirements, so they could notify us if the way we scheduled them was illegal. The requirements are specific and complex enough that it's inevitable that managers will make scheduling mistakes.)

      I highly recommend reading up on the labor laws for your state, and discussing any concerns you may have with your coworkers (so you're not fired on the spot as a "troublemaker") and bringing it up with management. They're not monitoring bathroom break time just for the hell of it, they're being very literal in their interpretation of labor laws. But two can play at that game.

    12. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by sjames · · Score: 1

      If it fits, it ships!

    13. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by Blimbo · · Score: 1

      At one of the sweat shop outsourced technical call centers i worked at, we had various "aux codes" after you logged into the phone, which were used for different off phone activities. Research, tech lead, training, etc were different codes. Aux 1 was for total paid breaks, of which we had 30 min for an 8 to 10 hour shift. You must smoke, chat, handle your personal needs, etc within the time. Once they implemented "paid by the switch" any aux 1 over that meant unpaid time. You also received disciple, from a warning up to termination, if you were not within required metrics on our daily/weekly/monthly reports. I was young and pretty hardy, quickly moved up to top pay with tons of OT, but it became brutal as they clamped down. Sad to say, but most of us were never so happy when that company finally closed the location, moving it out of the country.

    14. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Usually?

      It's extremely rare to even hear people speaking in the restrooms, where I worked. People on the phone generally got uncomfortable-stared out of the practice.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by LordNightwalker · · Score: 1

      I used to work in a callcenter, programming the internal tools. One of the tools I had to work on was the "lunch & break" tool, which managed break requests by queueing them up but making sure no more than X people with the same "skill" could take a break together. When I was implementing it, I had to put in a specific category for bathroom breaks which had priority over all the rest. Apparently there's this law in my country that states an employer may not prevent you from going to the bathroom when you need to go. No clue what the laws have to say about this in your country, but that may be the reason there's a separate "bathroom" category?

      --
      Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
    16. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by Tom · · Score: 1

      No, they should not.

      They should use the method most appropriate to the task/context, no matter what hierarchy level is affected.

      Most management jobs do not require minute-by-minute tracking, and neither do most other office jobs where your thinking process is what the company pays for. But for call centers and other service functions, external availability is what is important and having statistics on how many agents you have available right now is an important business decision, e.g. whether or not to route calls to external service partners.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    17. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Availability of management is important. If you're not tracking what they do, how do you know if you have enough management, and if they are making effective use of their time?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    18. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by Tom · · Score: 1

      I said "minute-by-minute". Of course you need to know if you have enough managers, programmers, cleaning ladies, etc. - but you do not need a minute-graph of how many of them are at their desks RIGHT NOW, while for some jobs you do.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    19. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      A minute by minute tracking of management would reveal, in many cases, how little they contribute. A minute by minute tracking of "others" often over looks the value of those minutes.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    20. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by Tom · · Score: 1

      We are talking about totally different things.

      You have an issue with management and consider much of it worthless. I actually agree in many cases. But that wasn't the point here. Worth or not, there is no objective benefit to the company of knowing the exact number of managers sitting at their desks every minute of the day. There is an objective necessity for a call center to know the number of available agents.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    21. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Measuring how long an agent is on the phone with a customer is not related to the value of that time. A short call may seem better, but could actually cost the company more money.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    22. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      See also "Black Swan Farming" http://paulgraham.com/swan.html

      Just because there *seems* to be an objective benefit to knowing the number of available agents doesn't mean that knowing the number benefits your company.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    23. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Measuring how long an agent is on the phone with a customer is not related to the value of that time. A short call may seem better, but could actually cost the company more money.
      [...]
      Just because there *seems* to be an objective benefit to knowing the number of available agents doesn't mean that knowing the number benefits your company.

      That's not even what I'm talking about. Seems I have to be more explicit:

      A call center requires to know how many of its agents are available to take calls, how long average calls last, etc. etc..

      It does so not in order to judge the value of time or agents or whatever. Most do, of course, but that's not my point. The objective necessity is that a call center will have X calls inbound at any given time, and Y agents available.
      It needs current numbers to decide just-in-time whether to take the calls or route them to an overflow call center (usually outsourced and more expensive).
      It needs statistics on call durations, etc. to make estimates for tomorrow and future days in order to plan the workforce it needs available, when to hire more people, etc. etc.

      Nowhere in all of that does the individual agent even matter, nor does the call center need to have his numbers available. In one case that I worked on, representing the employee interests, in this very situation, our compromise solution was that the agents were assigned random pseudonyms, so that supervisors had all the numbers they needed, but without the ability to identify individuals.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    24. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      And yet, focusing on those KPIs misses the point of why the agents are there in the first place. Having management spend so much of their resources on this means there are far fewer resources to focus on the job at hand: how to meet the customers' demands and maximizing profit. Meeting the KPI becomes more important than doing that job. Sure, we've got AHT down, we're accurate on staffing levels...but we aren't effectively dealing with what the customers need.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    25. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by Tom · · Score: 1

      You are making a typical mistake in judgement - you assume that because they look at those KPIs, they don't look elsewhere. That may be true for some bad examples, but does not in general follow. Usually, you have a set of supervisors who are responsible for maintaining things like availability of the hotline by juggling call times, agents available, etc. - and then you have a set of quality assurance people who monitor calls, make test calls, etc. to measure call quality.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    26. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      And call quality is usually about things like talk time, saying the customer's name properly, making sure you upsell. Rarely do they look at first call resolution, for example.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    27. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by Tom · · Score: 1

      It seems you have made a few bad personal experience and judge the world-wide call center industry based on that.

      Sure, sometimes the QA sucks, and sometimes it is stellar and most often it will be somewhere inbetween. All of that is far away from the original point, so I'll just stop here.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    28. Re:"Bathroom" can easily be renamed.... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      My choice was to do research into call centers.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  5. Canadian call centres do it too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine worked in a call centre where they were smart enough to not label the button "bathroom" but just said "press aux 3 when you're going on break." I guess that way they can say they're not tracking bathroom breaks per se but telling the system when calls should not be routed to their phone.

    1. Re:Canadian call centres do it too by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you know the question asker isn't in Canada? They seem to assume that all /. readers are also mind readers who can answer "Is this legal?" without being told which jurisdictions are relevant.

  6. eat a lot.... by TenAngryPistols · · Score: 4, Funny

    of chinese/taco bell for lunch... They did this at my first job (tech support) a few years ago. I just did everything like I always did.. if I had to drop a huge deuce and it took 10-15 minutes... then whatever. What're they gonna say? "You're fired for taking big long dumps?" Besides, with those Cisco soft phones when you "log out" and choose the available options for why you're logging out, most people will select the most generic answer like "asking a question" or "helping a customer" or whatever. You'll eventually see that people in your apartment spend a LOT of time "asking questions/helping customers" and almost nobody has to poop anymore.

    1. Re:eat a lot.... by theRunicBard · · Score: 3, Informative

      What this guy said. Any REAL action is going to take a lot of work on your part and give you no real benefit. Meanwhile, if you just game the system, you win! That's why we love the system. In the meantime, keep an eye out for a new job. Couldn't hurt.

    2. Re:eat a lot.... by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'll eventually see that people in your apartment spend a LOT of time "asking questions/helping customers" and almost nobody has to poop anymore.

      And you've just discovered the REAL purpose of rolling something like this out. Anyone mgmt likes (hotties, brownnosers, relatives, etc) will ignored when they falsify records, but anyone they want to get rid of (wrong race, wrong church, wrong political party, whatever) will be fired with cause due to documented fraud resulting in no unemployment benefits because they were falsifying timesheet documents by taking a dump instead of "asking questions". I mean they'd got a timesheet showing you were "asking a question" and a avi file from the security cameras clearly showing you walk into the bathroom, it seems an open and shut case?

      This also goes higher level than just employee. Now any team lead / supvr / manager can be disciplined at any time for allowing the falsification to happen ... or perhaps not disciplined ... depending on how much the boss of the lead / supvr / mgr likes the victims race, church, political party, etc.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:eat a lot.... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      "I have to see a man about a horse"

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. don't overthink it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're in a call center, so when you get up today, you already have to hit something to stop receiving calls that were in queue. I would say the purpose of that button is to separate out a bit more detail on the reporting side vs, checking up on individuals. I came from a prior call-center environment, on the backend network/telephony team, and having to "check-in/out" each time you walk away from the phone/cube was normal. This was a 600 person call center, also healthcare.

    1. Re:don't overthink it by sjames · · Score: 1

      It may be the case. Of course, if working environments were generally better, workers wouldn't assume the worst.

      Call centers are generally not known for being the best places to work even if you like solving problems over the phone.

  8. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Every helpdesk and call center I have ever worked at (worked at a total of 5) they have always tracked this information. The company does not hire you to spend xx amount of time in the RR they hire you to be on the phones or working.

    They are doing this to see if there are any habitual people that tend to go off in "Restroom" to go talk to their buddies on the other side of the building. This also allows them to better schedule breaks and lunches if they notice employee x goes to RR at 10:15 every day - why not schedule his break then - he can then use the RR on break.

    They can set policy as they see fit - they are the company and as far as I know (i am not an attorney - they can track it if they want).

    1. Re:Really? by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      the problem with that is no one wants to waste half their lunch break taking a massive shit.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    2. Re:Really? by BonThomme · · Score: 1

      that also an effective way to make all your good people quit

    3. Re:Really? by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe if they gave people their lunch hour instead of a lunch half hour this would be less of a problem?

    4. Re:Really? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Except often that is the employee's choice: I have never seen a 9-5 job that offered a lunch hour (that would be a 35 hour work week). If you want a lunch hour, your schedule becomes 9-5:30 or 8:30-5... worse if you are a 40hr/wk employee.

  9. These anuses must not have anuses. by EWAdams · · Score: 2

    You can be pretty confident the management doesn't impose this on themselves.

    It's up to a human manager to determine if you're abusing bathroom breaks or not. Sometimes there are good reasons. A robot isn't going to give any leeway.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
    1. Re:These anuses must not have anuses. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      IBS / celiacs disease is difficult to confirm clinically. Submit "evidence" if they think you're faking. Watch them backflip when you suggest they are dismissing an employee for having a disability.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  10. I see it both ways by adosch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I do have to say I do feel a bit of empathy for OP. I'm sure if I had to 'time' my bathroom breaks after going to a Mongolian grill for lunch, I'd be a bit embarrassed to mark that down as well. All jokes aside, I do go back and forth on this subject of time tracking. I'd say inherently, company time gets more abused than treated as a flexible privilege. At my work in salaried careers, I see people taking 'multiple' breaks during the day that total up to 'hours' (yes not an hour, hours), plus smoke breaks, plus water cooler talk, plus BS about random subjects at their desk, 2+ hour lunch breaks, showing-up-late-leave-early enough, work-from-home-because-I'm-expecting-the-UPS-guy, etc. that I start to question who tracks all this or even matches this all up on their time sheet at the end of the pay period. I don't have enough experience in call centers to really say why they are really driven on 'time' as their measurement medium. Bottom line, I like to keep things simple: Either some suit thought it would be a good idea to do that so they get a bonus for meeting some silly 'goal' they had to dream up or it's been enough of a abuse problem because employees have figured out bathroom breaks aren't measured against you and do not effect your bonus incentives, so to get an extra break, they claim a weak blatter.

    1. Re:I see it both ways by Denogh · · Score: 1

      I feel for you, sir. Get out and let them know that is the reason you're getting out.

      Call centers have such high turnover that they really don't care why you're getting out. They've got a ready supply of people to take your place for $2.00 per hour less.

    2. Re:I see it both ways by evel+aka+matt · · Score: 1

      Well, when you talk about salaried employees, the breakdown & specifics of their workday are essentially irrelevant. The only issue should be whether or not said-salaried employee is getting their work done. A good, competent employee will get their work done in a satisfactorily-timely manner. If they're getting the job done, it shouldn't matter if their lunch hour is 30 minutes or 2 hours. If the work isn't getting done right, then they should be chastised or reprimanded or what-have-you. Companies that want to dictate every minute of an employee's work-week should be paying hourly.

    3. Re:I see it both ways by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Those hours /2 = brownosing time. Time to find a new company, next generation "management" is going to be a waste of space.

    4. Re:I see it both ways by asticia · · Score: 1

      Does the work get done by those salaried employees? Because that's all that matters. If it does, what's the problem they take hours in breaks? They may be reading e-mails and chasing up stuff at 1am in bed from issued Blackberry while you're happily sleeping. This is significant for many IT professions, I used to wander around office when there were days without too much of actual work besides preparations, but then hell broke loose between 1 and 4 AM during migration.

      --
      There is no light without darkness.
  11. Make that break permanent. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you care about your rights, working in a call center is not the right job for you. Only drones can tolerate it for long. It seems you have hit your limit, so go take a permanent bathroom break and find yourself a new job.

  12. I disagree with the general opinion by war4peace · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I worked for a couple years in a helpdesk organization where breaks were tracked. In my country you are legally entitled to 10 minutes break every hour. You can take 10x 1 minute, or 1x 10 minute, or even skip a few breaks and take a larger one. At the end of the day though, you should not have more than 90 minutes of breaks.
    This was tracked through Avaya CMS and usually there was no action taken even if those breaks were exceeded, as long as the offended didn't blatantly exceed his break quota for an extended amount of days.
    It depends a lot on how does the employer interpret that data. In my company, the processes and procedures are lax, there's usually no follow up unless someone really abuses breaks.
    Another reason for monitoring is capacity management. You wouldn't want all your employees to go on breaks at the same time (some tend to group up when going for a smoke, that affects call flow and customers). There was a live report publicly displayed on every center using projectors, so that everyone could see whether they affect call flow or not by going in a break. Sometimes agents had a particularly nasty call and they needed to lay off the pressure by stepping away for a few minutes, and all they needed to do was ask for an exception, that was always granted. There was a guy who tried abusing that as well, so I had to talk to him for a few times and he finally got back in line.
    Monitoring your behavior while at work is okay. being absurd about the data is not. Fine line between those two.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:I disagree with the general opinion by BooMonster · · Score: 1

      Clearly not American :)
      As an employee, I used to work a six hour shift, where I was allowed two, 10-minute breaks. I had one boss who would allow me to take them together in the middle of my shift, allowing me to take my bike home, fix and eat a sandwich for dinner, use the restroom, and return. Weather permitting of course. Then we were informed that doing my shift had to be shortened to 5.5 hours, because working 6.01 hours was illegal, and that I could only have one 10-minute break in the middle of my shift. So I had to make lunch and dinner in the morning, and take all of it with me to class, so I would have it for work.

      Later as management, I got two, 10-minute breaks and a 30-minute lunch, on a nine-hour shift. Sometimes, you just have to take a crap on company time!

    2. Re:I disagree with the general opinion by war4peace · · Score: 1

      It's a multinational company where in the help-desk organization people were from India, USA, Romania, Ireland, China, Chile, Mexico, Egypt, Singapore... so what you're saying is clearly not applicable.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  13. The Reckoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "The Reckoning" by David Halberstam has a very interesting, and somewhat scary, description of how bathroom breaks were handled at Ford, before unionization. It's indicative of just how brutally management thinks they can squeeze workers.

    1. Re:The Reckoning by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      can you elaborate in 2 of fewer paragraphs? I don't really feel like looking up, buying, and reading an entire book to know how 1 company handled bathroom breaks.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  14. I feel your pain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At my last company, I was salaried (IT support, not a call center), yet I had to have a daily meeting going over everything I did the day before (and if not enough was on the list, answering to why I did so little on a public call in front of the rest of the group), make sure every case I worked on was filled out immediately and in great detail in a ticket, and then at the end of every week, fill out a timesheet accounting for every second of my week, which was then compared to everything else I said/did.

    The short answer is, middle management is scared for their jobs. They're asked questions about your time by upper management that they're woefully incapable of answering (or have enough of a backbone to say, "ya know, we really don't need those numbers") and in a frenzy to find a way to answer them, dump a half-assed way of tracking time to the second on your lap, and then monitor like a hawk in hopes of getting answers they're looking for (generally, that someone or some small group is not doing everything right, so they can "fix" it and report back to upper management that they did something to justify their meaningless existences.

    Others have said it already, but the answer really is to get out of there. I stupidly stuck with my last job for probably a year longer than I should have, given the conditions, and it really cost me a lot, mentally (I was quite unhappy during that time, contemplating getting out of IT altogether). After I got a new job, I've been much happier.

    1. Re:I feel your pain by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      Well when they timesheet accounting for every second of my week put down time tracking at list say 10-30 min a day and after management sees how much time is being used on it then it may go way.

  15. It's normal in a call center. by Soluzar · · Score: 2

    I interviewed at a couple of places that do this. One was even worse. They actually place a limit on the amount of time in a day when you can be away from your phone using that button. After that you be counted as just AWOL. They also had another button for 'personal time' but that was limited too. The other place would permit unlimited 'personal time' or 'bathroom break' but they would be tracking it and anyone who used too much would get a talking to. They were both completely open and upfront about how their systems worked.

  16. Management Fail by heironymous · · Score: 1

    Somebody somewhere in the organization is abusing the flexibility you all enjoy. So instead of addressing that one individual problem, management tried to "fix" the situation in the way you describe. This is simply management choosing not to do their jobs.

    1. Re:Management Fail by BooMonster · · Score: 1

      The law says employment is "at will." The rest of the laws lay out the hundreds and hundreds of ways that it is not. In order to avoid lawsuits, you have to have *documentation* that Suzy is spending 45 minutes per day in the can. So you set up this ridiculous system to track restroom time, and Suzy, being Suzy, keeps it up, and you fire her.

      Then you're stuck with it.

    2. Re:Management Fail by heironymous · · Score: 1

      Yes, one needs to demonstrate that Suzy is not doing her job. Documenting this requires actual effort on the part of Suzy's manager.

      There is no need to make all Suzy's coworkers suffer. Unless the manager is taking a paycheck without actually managing, which is exactly what I'm arguing here.

  17. Very short conversation by EngrBohn · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can give you an answer, but it'll have to take less than three minutes to explain. More than three minutes gets rounded to six minutes, a billable tenth of an hour.

    --
    cb
    Oooh! What does this button do!?
  18. Really that big a deal? by kenh · · Score: 1

    I suspect that if, prior to this button being added to your desk phone, your manger saw you walking back to your desk and asked you where you were, you would have said you went to tgebathroom and never thought twice about it. Now, for some reason, because your employer put a button on your phone you think they are getting all 'big brother' on you...

    If the button offends you, don't push it - there must be another way to 'clock out' from your desk - use that. BUT if there is a policy that requires you to use the bathroom button under penalty of loss of employment, then the decision is yours.

    Personally, I've worked in call centers and I've been required to clock out everytime I step away from my desk, and on a monthly basis I was asked to defend any excessive time in the companies opinion. They didn't care 'why' I stepped away from my desk, they cared that I wasn't there to answer calls.

    Your employer has a valid reason for knowing when you are away from your desk - call routing decisions are influenced by this - if they added a bathroom button they probably had a reason (employees abusing honor-based system).

    Talk of unionizing are cute, but this really isn't that big an issue - is it?

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:Really that big a deal? by CubicleZombie · · Score: 1

      f the button offends you, don't push it - there must be another way to 'clock out' from your desk

      When I worked phone tech support, as soon as you hang up a call, it immediately rings with the next call from the queue. Non stop. There was a "Make Busy" button on the phone to keep it from ringing and it's use was logged to the second. Data entry, bathroom breaks, and the two 10 minute personal breaks per day all counted against that time. So to take bathroom breaks without getting yelled at, just skip your personal breaks.

      It gets worse from there. Internet Phone Tech Support was the most awful job I've ever had. And I've had some pretty bad ones.

      --
      :wq
  19. Wireless phones by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

    Your company should gives you wireless phones with headset, so you could be able to continue to answer calls while you are in the bathroom. And add a computer at each toilet to record the orders.

    1. Re:Wireless phones by Andy+Prough · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing - make lots of loud sounds of splashing and flushing while you are on the bluetooth answering customer calls, hahaha.

  20. I haven't see that detail - only phone & web u by a2wflc · · Score: 1

    I have worked place where a few people spent 50% of their time in the break room, at lunch, in the bathroom, on the phone, "talking to HR", or any other excuse to leave their desk. There seemed to be a correlation between who did/didn't do this and who didn't/did get good end of year evaluations. But it's still not good for day-to-day moral.

    The only time I've seen tracking used was when a contractor was let go for spending OVER 80% of his hours on the phone. In a job that required no phone (i.e. he worked only with us in the office and nobody outside the office). It was a pretty easy talk for the manager since he had the detailed phone usage report.

  21. Only Illegal if they pay you based on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I worked at a call center like this. They did not have tacking specifically for bathroom breaks, but we were paid by the time spent on the phone. If we logged out of the phone, we did not get paid. Basically the phone was our time-lock. I live in a right-to-work state. Even here this was illegal. I only worked there for a few months, but I still got a check in the mail months later when someone turned them in to the state and they had to pay out a settlement.

    1. Re:Only Illegal if they pay you based on it by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Even here this was illegal. I only worked there for a few months, but I still got a check in the mail months later when someone turned them in to the state and they had to pay out a settlement."

      THIS was the most interesting reply in the thread. Mod up!

      Don't try to "fix" the problem, but contact an attorney and see if you can't win a lawsuit. Much as yokels bemoan lawyers, without your OWN lawyer you have no rights.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  22. Misc Mail order pharmacy?? Pfft. by dentree4 · · Score: 1

    I worked in a Apple Call Centre. Apple the computer and iPhone company. Doing front line tech support. (1-800-APL-CARE). You know, Steve Jobs, etc. A real company, with 60 BILLION in the bank. We got 4 min a day for bathroom breaks. It was labeled "9. Aux" on the softphone, but when the only time you go in the code is to leave your desk, for something not covered by 1-8 and the only time you can leave your desk without a managers specific approval is to use the washroom, we all knew what they were doing.

  23. Legal as well as Morally inept. by upuv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most countries this is 100% legal. They can also listen in on all phone conversations work related or not. They can also place a video camera pointed at your face from 1 foot away.

    Is it good for the people working there. NOPE.
    Does it instil a sense of corporate loyalty. NOPE.

    I've been through these call centres. I feel depressed just entering the floor. It's a cattle station with better flooring.

    Get a trade, skill, education, anything and move on out.

    1. Re:Legal as well as Morally inept. by fedemp · · Score: 1

      They can also listen in on all phone conversations work related or not.

      True. They call this "QA". They would listen to any random call and later give you a feedback based on that. You had a nice call and managed to get rapport with the client, you got a "100% from QA" and (maybe) a little bonus at the end of month. You had a bad call; you do not deserve to live.

  24. Take your phone to the bathroom! by yog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Better than unionizing -- just take your wireless headset to the toilet. You can stay on your calls, and there can be an LCD monitor in the stall if you need to reference information, read from a script, check your Facebook page, etc.

    At the end of a particularly annoying call, the sound of a toilet flushing would be entirely appropriate, too!http://slashdot.org/story/12/09/16/1213226/ask-slashdot-when-does-time-tracking-at-work-go-too-far#

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    1. Re:Take your phone to the bathroom! by BonThomme · · Score: 2

      at least they'll find out who number two works for

    2. Re:Take your phone to the bathroom! by yog · · Score: 1

      yeah I fat-fingered that somehow... didn't see it until after it was published, dammit.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    3. Re:Take your phone to the bathroom! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      yeah I fat-fingered that somehow.

      That has disturbing extra levels of potential meaning on a comment about typing during toilet breaks.

  25. When they start out-lawing overhead by way2slo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lots of companies force employees to track their time. Even salary employees who legally do not have to punch a clock to get paid. That's fine. It helps them for future estimates and proposals involving labor hours. It can be a very valuable tool.

    However, all too often management begins to use these time tracking systems to try and shift overhead expenses to something billable to a customer. You walk in and read e-mails on billing guidance on how regular staff meetings, training, and even fire drills are billable to customers. Then another e-mail on billing guidance informs you that the normal overhead related billing is now forbidden unless given explicit authorization (that you will never get). Essentially, they are lying to themselves, that they have zero overhead when running their business. That nothing ever goes wrong and no one has to wait for anything.

    But the one thing they forget is that by charging their customers for everything, they are charging them too much for services. The business is now vulnerable to any other business that can provide the same service and not charge their overhead to the customer.

    1. Re:When they start out-lawing overhead by tapspace · · Score: 1

      I worked at a company that did something similar. Every minute of the day had to be assigned to a project. I have two points. The main one is that overhead is of course billable to the customer. Someone has to pay for it, and sales is the only inflow of money (or investment). That time is not magically free; those employees need to be paid. You raise a good point about remaining competitive, but many businesses aren't in great threat of competition undercutting them for the same product or service any time soon.

      The second point is that I think it's better to track overhead as just that... overhead. That way, it can be more fairly split amongst the projects on which that employee is working by some reasonable metric. Just having the employee choose which projects to assign overhead to is almost the worst possible algorithm, because at the end of a friday, employees just don't care that much. It's untraceable, unreproduceable and just not a very deterministic way to assign that time. When I wasn't allowed to track overhead time, I'd just pick any old project to put my overhead time into (usually, doing it as quickly as possible, not as thoroughly as possible). Sure, I kinda tried to do it evenly or fairly. For example, say 90% of my reading and answering email time is related to one project, then all email time goes to that project, not X/N where X is the email reading time and N is the number of projects. But, then that time probably should be binned with that project regardless of the system used. But sometimes, there are company meetings or trainings or whatever. That time should be split up and assigned to the different customer projects from which I am paid. And, the process for doing that should be deterministc and well thought out and consistent.

    2. Re:When they start out-lawing overhead by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I wonder just WHO exactly companies are supposed to charge their overhead to? If the average successful business model is used, overhead is necessarily included in what customers are charged in order that the company can show a profit.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  26. I install Cisco Call Centers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have come across a lot of managers that want to use Bathroom, Smoking, etc and I always recommend that they stick with "Break", "Lunch" and ask their legal dept if they should be tracking it to that fine grain a level.

    The system needs to know when you are Ready and Not Ready to take calls since it cannot see you. When you are Not Ready the manager wants to know why since you are paid to be ready or taking calls for 8 hours, minus your legally allotted breaks. Yes it is brutal to be ON for 8 hours but that is the semi-skilled job you have. If you do not like it, I would bide your time, save money and get training for a better job.

    Ultimately, you question is one for the dept of labor in your state. Google them, call them and ask if it is legal. Then give an anonymous tip. Do not confront HR or management about this as it will go on your record and then 6 months later you will be laid off with others. Guaranteed.

  27. The most abusive job by ElvisGump · · Score: 1

    I once worked in a Directv call center and I'd never work another call center job ever again. You get screamed at by frustrated customers all day long and abused by companies that run these thing - National Electronics Warranty or NEW ran the one I worked in. They are horrible human beings insisting that you can deal with the elderly, uncooperative and technologically incompetent in an average of 700 seconds or less. Which is impossible, but achieved by most CSRs by telling customers to do something that typically doesn't work, like hit the red reset button and giving them the bums rush off the phone. The whole thing is structured with tedious grading systems and spreadsheets and monitoring tracking your every second inside these buildings. The place I worked was like a high-school study hall left in the charge of the most viciously cliquish kids in the class. Don't get me totally wrong though, some of it was entertaining. Constant visits to the parking lot of trailer trash spouses and lovers that resulted in the police being called to break up these domestic violence away from home incidents. The best was the original manager's wife causing an eruption of screaming, throwing & breaking everything in reach tantrums when she caught the 50-something manager was screwing around with a 20 something CSR. Or the day some chick decided to leave the job in spectacular fashion by writing obscenities on the ladies room wall in her on feces. It was like working in the monkey house of a zoo. The hell of "Office Space" looked tame compared to my call center. Bottom line, most of the people that work in a call center aren't smart enough to want a labor union and corporations that run these junk job centers are sufficiently evil that they are confident that they can keep it that way.

  28. Happens in Argentina by fedemp · · Score: 1

    I used to work for a call center around 2008 that had this same policy. I had to tell a supervisor (a kid given my age) that after I finished the call, I would go to the bathroom. I worked part-time (6 hours a day) so I was allowed two bath breaks of 2 minutes each and one break of 15 minutes. I don't remember being denied the right to go to the bathroom but getting the break allowed was a different story. We had an union; not one related to telephone operator but one generic for shop employees. When I left this place, I went to the union to talk about the abuse employees receive there but I was told that it was my decision and my responsibility since I took the job in the first place. About the humiliation and privacy infringement, I was not smart enough to complain when I was still there. I just left that place the day after they suspended me for using Opera browser. Two weeks later I got my first IT job. As a side note, I worked for Teleperformance, that was hired by Accenture, that was hired by AT&T. I was assigned to high speed Internet support team, taking calls from Spanish speakers in United States. Oh, man... How much I loved that granny with no computer knowledge that translated everything to English to her computer savvy grandson (instead of the latter taking the call). Happened every day.

  29. Re:It's too invasive, but employer makes the rules by couchslug · · Score: 1

    If the guy pushing the lawn mower runs the landscaping service, he may be landing much more money than you do or will.

    Be careful before "assuming".

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  30. Probably will be ignored. by rsxaeon · · Score: 1

    Honestly they probably only want to track it so they can separate it out from other activities. For example, if a person takes a whole hour of personal breaks one day there is a good chance they'll ask that person why, at which point the person would have to explain they had some bad burritos for lunch. Alternately if they can see that the majority of that time was spent on multiple bathroom trips starting after lunch, they know they probably don't want to know any more than that and no body has to waste anyone's time asking questions with embarrassing answers. As long as they aren't giving you or anyone else (that isn't clearly abusing the button) a hard time about the amount of time spent in that mode, and as long as they aren't posting the information where everyone can see, It's probably something you should just ignore.

  31. People start to make stuff up by CaroKann · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've noticed that when companies start to go overboard with the amount of time and/or project tracking detail people need to record, employees resort to just making stuff up. I'm not saying they out-right lie, but because it's impossible to have a system detailed enough to record every little thing that may happen in a work day, people will often just pick a generic bucket to dump time into for things they don't remember or don't know how to categorize.

    This defeats the purpose of installing these types of systems. Instead of simply not knowing exactly what employees are spending their time on, they now have an inaccurate or down-right false picture of what employees are doing. This can lead the management to make the wrong decisions on things such as when to hire or how to allocate resources, especially when they believe the data over their lower level managers.

    1. Re:People start to make stuff up by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's interesting how few of those detailed systems have a code for time spent filling out the timesheet. If people don't make things up, time tracking becomes one of the most time consuming activities.

    2. Re:People start to make stuff up by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I worked in one place where time tracking was incredibly elaborate and time consuming because that increased QUALITY. Each Monday morning senior management would meet and go over the last weeks time figures in detail - however due to the vast amount of data it could not be ready in time. That meant filling out the entire weeks expected schedule on a Wednesday, then, as time progressed and the system got snowed under, on the previous Wednesday. It became a truly enormous clusterfuck when the fabricated time tracking information was used for interdepartmental billing and there was an insistance that every department turned a profit.
      The idiot that implemented that situation later went on to fuck up another electricity company so badly that a national capital was blacked out for five weeks. Everyone was either laid off or too busy doing pointless busywork to be able to fix the initial failure in the window of a few weeks before the second failure hit, and blacked the place out because there was nothing to fall back on.

  32. Manager here by stewbacca · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm a manager at a call center. We track time away from calls, not because we care how long it takes you to take a smoke, or to take a crap, but for metrics. We have over 25,000 people on the phones world wide and how many minutes a call takes vs. how many workers are available for a call vs. how many workers are away from their desk (for whatever reason, we don't care) is critical to improving wait time.

    As usual for the paranoia gang around here, it's not really about you. It's a big wad of data that is considered on the whole to make better business decisions.

    Now back to your extended shitter break.

    1. Re:Manager here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hello, I posted this originally - I very much appreciate your comment. I figured that the number one reason they were doing this was for metrics, and that the main focus would still be on how much work we actually get finished in a day. What a lot of people don't seem to be getting is that I work for a mail order pharmacy.

      I am a pharmacy technician, I have both a state license and a national license in order to do the work that I do for this center. It's not a low level, call with a script sort of thing, I interact with other medical professionals in the interest of getting patients their medications.

      Though they do track metrics, it has almost never been a problem until now how often you use the bathroom.

      And if they did not care how much time we spent in the bathroom, why wouldn't they simply group everything together as "Short personal break" or something like that? We talk on the phone - we occasionally need to get a drink and go to the bathroom. No one is happy about this.

      Also, people with the suggestion of "Find another job" - quit acting like it's that easy. Don't be naive.

    2. Re:Manager here by tempest69 · · Score: 1

      So then how would you feel if upper management asked you to press a button for "bathroom", where the information would be available to the operators.. You know for solidarity.

      I guess I see the bathroom button as a huge sign of disrespect. If a friend asked me how long I was on the can I'd tell them none of your damn business. Now when you realize that someone is taking the efficiency of your defecation into the equation it's horrible. Every frikkin aspect of their time is watched like a hawk, just logg it as personal time and call it good. By treating people like property your going to have horrible retention problems.

    3. Re:Manager here by gigne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This. I also work in the industry. There is a massive amount of truth to what you say here, but there is some truth to the submitters fears.
      I deal daily with several large call centres all over the world. Each want different things from their "Bathroom break" metrics.

      1) Some outsourcer call centres' clients pay for these metrics. Usually as a summary figure on the campaign they paid for. These cleint pay big money for a campaign to be run, so they want to know everything... time waiting for a call, time on a call, time wrapping, time crapping etc etc.

      2) Call centres themselves want to know about their own figures. Everyone has targets, SLAs to work to. Knowing how productive you have been is sumarised, and not focussed on individuals. Sure if 50% of the day was spend in the bathroom, you need to do something about it!

      3) To use as ammo. If you have an underperformer, pain int he arse, or otherwise undesirable person you want rid of, this is good ammo. Getting rid of someone for putting "bathroom break" while actually smoking/talking/whatever is great for a falsifying records offense. Sickening but have seen done.

      3 is a little tinfoil hat, but I have seen this done more than once.

      In short, there is probably nothing to worry about here, its pretty normal in call centres.

      Also, submitter, dude, you posted on slashdot with a reasoned question... Surely a call centre is not for you? (ignore me if I am not seeing some big picture)

      --
      Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
    4. Re:Manager here by arekin · · Score: 1

      If it were simply a matter of tracking agent availability then why not ave a general unscheduled break button? By labeling the button "Bathroom" the company is creating an environment hostile towards this behavior. The employee has the knowledge that the employer is constantly watching even when they need to use the restroom. No employer needs this kind of detailed info.

      --
      Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
  33. Hmmm by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    If you don't like it, start looking for work elsewhere. Have they gone too far? It depends. If everyone stays and just gripes about it a bit, then the programs a success.

    Having setup systems like these before, I have a fairly good idea why you have "Bathroom" on your phone. Management wants to track your time... you're a phone operator. They likely have a stat for you that goes something like:
    Employee in "Ready to take call" state > 90%
    You have to set your phone to a "not ready" state to do anything other than take calls. Otherwise your phone will ring while you're not there.
    They realize you can't be at your desk 100% of the time. They also realize you need time between calls to close up your ticket, whatever you do... as well as for bathroom. In fact, it likely came up in a meeting between management "How do they log out to use the restroom? I can't have my people peeing in bottles for christs sake!" to which someone said "Oh... um... lets just put in a code for bathroom" and that was that.

    This very same thing happened where I work... and there was an uproar. "You're tracking when we pee!?!?!" finally wiser heads prevailed and they change the code to "Personal" It has the same effect, you are away from your desk... maybe in the bathroom, maybe getting a soda... whatever... but you wont get a call now, and they can calculate your stats... AND the idle code doesn't have the ridiculous name anymore.

    1. Re:Hmmm by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      It depends.

      There ya go. There's your answer.

      Wear Depends adult diapers while at work and you'll never have to suffer the humiliation of pressing the 'bathroom' button again!

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
  34. Not Unusual by Bittoman · · Score: 1

    I've worked in call centers for many years and what you're describing is common practice among all inbound call centers (i.e. they take inbound calls as the majority of their business) because all time scheduled is actually forecast by interval (usually 30 min but some go as fine as 15 mins) based on historical data+any expected shifts in business (holidays, promotions, media coverage, etc.)

    I don't pretend to be a lawyer but odds are there is nothing 'legally' you can do about it. Labor is 70% of any call centers' business, successfully unionizing will only prompt the company running it to shut it down or move the call center elsewhere. Keep in mind, many (most?) states do not have a law or regulation requiring a business give breaks at all so the fact that they are being allowed is often seen as 'more than enough' from a labor dispute standpoint. These tend to be the same states that do not support or protect unionized labor which is where many call centers will set up to avoid inflated wages.

    --
    "Build It And They Will Come." Field Of Dreams
  35. 100th of an hour increments by spagthorpe · · Score: 1

    I can still remember the HR meeting at the typical DC beltway bandit place I worked. Huge company, thousands of employees. They were switching all timesheets to use increments of 1/100 of an hour for everything. So, every 36 seconds needed to be tracked. For that first month, I tracked every single thing too. These were computer based, and I enjoyed submitting a large stack of timesheets with detailed descriptions of walking between offices, my intimate bathroom details, and of course, several times a day, filling out the timesheet. Payroll also didn't enjoy the repeated calls to find out charge numbers for my various activities. All this lasted only a few months till they went to 1/10 of an hour...

    --

    WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
    (Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)

    1. Re:100th of an hour increments by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      So...what was the code for "filling out a time sheet?" I mean, unless you filled it out only second or third item, or had to call to look up a number, it would take more than 36 seconds, right?

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  36. Bad management by OldSport · · Score: 1

    Practices like this indicate not only indicate a disregard for basic human decency, but a general incompetence in managing employees as well: micromanaging your employees like this will only make them work hard enough to avoid getting fired. My advice is to avoid giving these incompetence assholes any more of your life's time, and start sending out resumes.

    Better yet, start developing a skill set that will enable you to be self-employed someday. It's not an easy life and there are a lot of sacrifices to be made, but not having to put up with this kind of garbage on a daily basis more than makes up for it, IMO.

  37. +1 parent please... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the real evil of overly draconian regulations or laws. Sure, the subjects can choose to ignore them, and the authorities can choose not to enforce them -- but the authorities can also choose to enforce them, at their own discretion, and with no apparent legal recourse for those they single out. As far as I can tell, "everybody else was doing it" is not a valid defense.

  38. Sounds like tech support? by tanawts · · Score: 1

    I guess I am desensitized... I realize this is a pharmaceutical company, but this is all very standard behavior in the tech support / call center world. I've seen this sort of thing since 1998, so it really isn't that new to me. In both cases it sounds like management is being asked to predict productivity and deliverables based on time. Is your job function serial in nature at all? Does someone have to do something to a product before its passed to you and do you pass it to someone after that?

  39. Re:It's too invasive, but employer makes the rules by BonThomme · · Score: 1

    ever notice how much most software engineering work areas look like a call center?

  40. Re:Both sides by BonThomme · · Score: 1

    some people do their best thinking on the toilet

  41. Use it wisely. Game the system. by theedgeofoblivious · · Score: 2

    When I worked in a call center, it was the reps' responsibility to hit a button on the phone so that after the call our phone would be put into a special mode, not dropped right back into the queue. This let us have enough time to document the call. After documenting the call, we were supposed to hit the button again to be dropped back into the queue to get another call.

    We had to have an average of less than 30 seconds per call in this mode.

    At the times of day when we weren't getting calls, I wouldn't hit the button. I'd go straight back into the queue and know with about 90% certainty that I wasn't going to get a call.

    I kept track of the number of times I went straight back into the queue, and at the times when we were getting slammed the hardest, I'd use up the extra time I had saved up, and stay out of the queue for a minute or 90 seconds, until we stopped being slammed again.

    I was really good at the job, and my average call time was about half of the average of most people on the floor, and for the ~6 months I was there, my lowest review was 97%.

  42. Re:Commoditisation by BonThomme · · Score: 1

    " where time is a key measurement"

    which is why phone support is at the frontiers of sucking

  43. Re:Go to College, Become a programmer by BonThomme · · Score: 1

    I think you need to find a new job more than the OP does.

  44. Its standard practice today by erexx23 · · Score: 1

    This first happened to me in 2008. I consider it standard practice today.

  45. It may not be that they are tracking you... by quetwo · · Score: 1

    In a previous job, I helped setup large call centers. In order for those call centers to best track staffing levels that were needed (on a 15 minute, hour, day, day of week, basis), they needed to know when people were available to answer the calls. If the stats came back that they were loosing 1 FTE between all the bathroom breaks between 10 and 11 every day, then they knew they needed to fill it with additional resources.

    If you get put into the situation where your boss sits you down and says you are taking too many breaks, then you know the data has become specific to you -- but I doubt that they are collecting it for those reasons.

  46. Start documenting Your restroom activity. by arekin · · Score: 1

    Take pictures every time you go, if you have to urinate, always use a stool instead of a urinal. This way if your "bathroom breaks" exceed the normal and they try to discipline you, you can show them a bunch of pictures of your shit to verified that every break is neccessary.

    --
    Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
  47. The Expectation of Privacy at the Workplace by cigawoot · · Score: 1

    This is my opinion, but when you're on the clock you have no expectation of privacy.

    When you're working, you're being paid to do a job. When you work for 8 hours, you're selling your time to an employer. Your employer has every right to monitor what you're doing with the time you've sold them.

    In the call center I work in, we really don't have a "Bathroom" idle code, and its pretty redundant. Instead we have codes such as Lunch, Break, System Problem, End of Day (for doing time sheet), Unavailable, Meeting, Training, etc. We're expected to take our bathroom breaks using our allotted "Break" time (which is 30 minutes over a 8 hour day) or during our Lunch. If we have to take a bathroom break and we've used all of our break time, we can use unavailable, but its heavily discouraged.

    This allows the call center to maintain their SLAs by keeping their workforce accountable for their time used, which is 100% okay.

    I'm very happy with the way my workplace keeps tabs on how I use my time.

  48. I frown upon time trackers by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    And I'd never work for an employer that think spending more time with the company is more important than being more innovative.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:I frown upon time trackers by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Good luck with ever finding a job if you leave your current company because 99% of the rest are actually like that.

    2. Re:I frown upon time trackers by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      The problem with your thinking is that most people aren't innovative. What's worse, neither themselves nor their employers want them to be innovative.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    3. Re:I frown upon time trackers by jep305 · · Score: 1

      "And I'd never work for an employer that think spending more time with the company is more important than being more innovative."

      Me either. But he's talking about answering phones in a call center -- a job, (hopefully) not a career.

      --
      In Reason We Trust
  49. Humiliating? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

    How invasive would this really be considered, and beyond privacy concerns, how are they going to deal with the humiliation that their employees feel as a result of this?

    Maybe the first thing to do is figure out why some people would be "humiliated" if other people found out that they use the restroom.

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    1. Re:Humiliating? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      How invasive would this really be considered, and beyond privacy concerns, how are they going to deal with the humiliation that their employees feel as a result of this?

      Maybe the first thing to do is figure out why some people would be "humiliated" if other people found out that they use the restroom.

      I get paid hourly and it has crossed my mind that sometimes I'm being paid to take a dump at work. Realisticly an employer has to take account of the obvious fact that staff are human and need to use the bathroom every so often. We all breathe, drink, eat, and poop, I also don't see why the OP would be 'humilated' by the fact he does exactly the same as the rest of the human race.

  50. Piss on the floor by sjames · · Score: 4, Funny

    If they're going to treat you like a small child, act like one.

    1. Re:Piss on the floor by jep305 · · Score: 1

      "If they're going to treat you like a small child, act like one."

      Yeah, shit your pants, smear your lunch on the desk, and cry until the manager comes and holds you.

      Then quit and go do something else that doesn't require you to surrender ALL of your dignity.

      --
      In Reason We Trust
  51. You are allowed to take a dump by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    It's part of the human condition to need a bathroom break every so often. Sure their time recording system might record you going for a dump or a pee, so what? They can't fire people for doing what they biologically need to do or they would have to fire everybody.

  52. Re:logging potty breaks by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    If you dont like it find another job....

    Maybe he can't. But he has nothing to be embarrassed about., every single IT professional takes bathroom breaks.

  53. Re:Metrics for the Sake of Metrics? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    Toilet Office Chairs (http://www.bored.com/photos/toiletofficechair.html)

    Wow. That's a new one.

  54. the left has done a good job in the US. by carpefishus · · Score: 1

    After reading through much of the posts I see what a good job the US divisive left has done in fulminating class warfare where classes do not exist. Well played left. Well played.

    --
    Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
  55. Call me crazy, but... by jonadab · · Score: 1

    Couldn't you just, you know, go to the bathroom at home before you go in to work, again on your mid-shift meal break (which should be at least 30 minutes), and again when you get home after work?

    If they're working you more than about five hours at a time between breaks, then that's the real problem you should be complaining about. That's very bad for productivity and worse for morale, plus it sucks.

    On the other hand, if you can't usually wait five hours between bathroom breaks, then you should see a doctor about that, because it's probably a symptom of a serious medical condition, such as a bladder infection or prostate cancer, either of which is potentially lethal if left untreated.

    (Exception: if you're currently pregnant, then having to go to the bathroom constantly is totally normal in that case, on account of the fact that the bladder is being actively squeezed by another organ, which has grown to a significantly larger size than it would usually be, in order to accommodate your prenatal offspring. In this situation if your employer questions you about needing to visit the facilities frequently, you can just point to your lower abdomen and say, "The doctor says I'm probably going to have this issue until [rough estimate of due date]." When you get to the point where you can't work -- this usually lasts at least three days no matter what, longer if it's your first time, even longer if the nature of your work involves a lot of physical exertion, and potentially much longer if there are complications -- that's what the FMLA is for.)

    (Second exception: if you're a primary-school-aged child, needing to go to the bathroom every couple of hours is normal. However, in that case you should be in school, rather than working some other job. Elementary schools generally make copious allowances for frequent bathroom needs, especially in the lower grades, because it is well understood that children have this issue.)

    If it's just an occasional thing (e.g., you ate too much plum pie at mom's birthday celebration and now you've got the runs today), then don't worry about it. Nobody's going to think anything about your going to the bathroom a couple of extra times a couple of times a quarter. Everybody has a day like that once in a while. This isn't what your employer is trying to catch or prevent. It won't even get noticed, because it won't differentiate you from everyone else. (What ARE they trying to catch or prevent? There are people out there who go to the bathroom for ten or fifteen minutes at a time, three or four times an hour throughout the entire work day, in order to get out of ever having to do any actual work. This practice is even worse for productivity and morale than long shifts with no breaks.)

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  56. What color by argee · · Score: 1

    Well, it is not bad now. When they add a button "What Color", then
    you know its getting personal and abusive.

  57. is it even legal by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    Yes, yes it is, tho it may not be good for morale

    You get x minutes of break time according to your contract/law. Bathroom breaks come out of that time, not the companies time.

    If you ever worked on an assembly line, or a construction job site you would already know this is how it works. Office people really don't have a clue these days on what real work is it seems.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:is it even legal by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      insightful

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  58. Don't Work For A Company Like That by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    What you're looking at there goes way beyond bean counters running the show. That company is not treating its employees with even a shred of dignity or respect. It is management wielding absolute power over its employees, because it can. This makes a toxic culture that is going to have high turnover.

    This is one of those things you have to research about the company prior to interviewing with them, and keep an eye out for warning signs during the interview. Warning signs in the lobby that bringing guns onto the site is illegal are good signs to watch out for, for example. The interview is as much you deciding you want to work there as it is them deciding they want to hire you. If it's a shitty place to work, you can refuse. Or add enough digits to your initial asking salary that you wouldn't mind working in a shitty environment for a while.

    If the culture changed after you arrived, I'd suggest either start sending resumes out again or, as someone else suggested, unionize. Most companies will shit a brick when employees start seriously talking about the U word. And sure, there are negative aspects to unions just like everything else in life. But if for some reason you want to stay where you are, it's really the only way to break the absolute power that management currently wields against its employees. Without balance, they'll just keep wiping their ass with people, and no doubt have access to a never ending stream of suckers who are willing to work there (Or are desperate enough to take any job, no matter how bad it is.)

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Don't Work For A Company Like That by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "keep an eye out for warning signs during the interview. Warning signs in the lobby that bringing guns onto the site is illegal are good signs to watch out for, for example."

      An even more obvious warning sign is that it's a call center.

  59. Really? by kbdd · · Score: 1
    Where I work, I suggested that bathroom breaks count towards Paid Time Off.

    That would eliminate the problem with people not taking all their PTO in the year.

  60. Allocated breaks by phorm · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, companies often allocate two 15-minute breaks which are intended for things like grabbing some air, or having a cig etc. These are fairly predicable and can be scheduled accordingly.

    Using the can because the cafeteria's food gave you gastrointestinal distress, or because you have IBS, whatever is a bit of a different beast. It's a need that varies in schedule and duration, and shouldn't be grouped together with other breaks.

  61. You can bet your sweet @ss by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

    Folks above a certain title or pay grade don't have to bother with this sh*t, though shareholders should ask for it to be instituted company wide.

    They might be surprised where the real bang for their buck comes from.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
    1. Re:You can bet your sweet @ss by isorox · · Score: 1

      Folks above a certain title or pay grade don't have to bother with this sh*t, though shareholders should ask for it to be instituted company wide.

      They might be surprised where the real bang for their buck comes from.

      Yet folks below that pay grade go home at 5pm and have nothing else to do.

  62. they ARE paying for your time by v1 · · Score: 1

    Unless you work purely on commission, they are paying you for your time. How you spend it is a metric they're entitled to.

    Some businesses will say "I don't care if you leave early, if you have your work done and didn't get sloppy because you were in a hurry, then go home.". Those places may be paying hourly, but they're effectively still working on commission.

    But the majority of jobs out there are paying for your time there as a warm body doing the work they need done, and want you to be as productive as possible every day. You like to keep an eye on what they're paying you, and naturally they want to keep an eye on what they're getting for their money. "We'll quit tracking your bathroom breaks if we start just telling you *about* how much we're paying you." How would you like some of that?

    And in many cases they're not merely justified in doing it, they NEED to be doing it. I've seen my share of coworkers that walk in the door and clock in, and always head directly to the bathroom for the next 15-20 minutes. And somehow also manage to be in the bathroom for the last 20-25 minutes of most work days. Funny, they all seem to bring their smartphones with them. And the other 4-6 long bathroom breaks they seem to need throughout the day. And on the rare occasion I'm int here at the same time all I hear is yakyakyak on the phone. Employees abuse it, company starts to buckle down. Big surprise there. One guy bought a kindle recently and it somehow has had a profound effect on the amount of bathroom time he needs, imagine that. Basically you have a few bad apples ruining the barrel. Stop blaming the barrel.

    And if you've ever been short-staffed on the sales floor and have to deal with one of the clerks being missing during rushes all the time, it starts getting on your nerves too. "Three more just came in, have you seen Brian?" "Take one guess where he is." "Great. Go tell him to hurry up!" Go pound on the door, "hurry up we have a rush here" and somehow they can always emerge within 30 seconds. Amazing bodily control they have, don't you think?

    I have a much bigger beef with smoke breaks though. We've had our share of abusers here. They like to go out back for "a quick cig" that turns into a 15-20 minute long break as they yak on their cell phone, repeat every 45-60 minutes. At best, a 15 minute break every hour, you do the math. Though after a number of times of the manager stepping out back looking for Joe and seeing him with no lit cigarette and on the phone and sparks tend to start flying. Managers don't have quite that level of monitoring for bathroom breaks, and that's what encourages their abuse.

    If I were the manager here, employees would be clocking out for cigarette breaks, and that would end the problem right quick. But I don't think that would necessarily be a good solution for toilet breaks. The majority of people need 1-3 toilet breaks a day. (I'm personally at 0-2 a day, my manager actually averages 4-8) Cigarette smokers like a hit once an hour or more, so there's much more reason for insisting on clocking out for them, it's arguably more controllable and is usually longer. At the very least, phones/ipads/etc would be forbidden on *paid* breaks, cigarette AND toilet. And before you flinch.... MY time, MY rules.

    Anyway, that's my 2c worth. And I'm a salaried employee but I'm the only one that really does the specific things I do there.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:they ARE paying for your time by Znork · · Score: 1

      Of course, that's assuming that the employee is the one who wants to visit the bathroom for a potty break. Once the employee starts using a potty at his desk for his potty breaks I'd wager visiting the bathroom will quickly become part of the actual job...

    2. Re:they ARE paying for your time by v1 · · Score: 1

      I think that's why I'd say considering clocking out for that is a bad idea. But then again there are certain behavioral expectations at any job, whether it's coming to work looking presentable to not dumping food all over the carpet. Obviously using the restroom is on that list, and isn't something that should even factor into the timeclock one way or the other. But it's expected behavior while on the job, and could be neglected or abused just the same. Wasting time reading an ebook in the restroom is a productivity hit just the same as leaving your lunch trash all over the break room. Those are usually handled as "management issues", not with pay reward/penalty reactions.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  63. In principal it's fine by mysidia · · Score: 1

    You work in a call center.... if you're a call center rep for answering calls, you're paid to be there at your desk, and take every call that comes in immediately

    If you're not ready to do so, then you're not working, and your employer is entitled to know that.

    Now the use of the term "bathroom break" might be offensive; but this could work either for you or against you.

    They should probably have just specified a generic break reason of "Personal reasons"; "Personal hygiene";; or "Personal matter"

    It would accomplish the objective of knowing when an employee is not at their terminal, without the embarrassment of having to identify a short respite as "toilet break"

  64. Ever work in a shop without enough bathrooms? by ewg · · Score: 1

    Ever work in a shop without enough bathrooms? Time gets wasted waiting in line or walking around the building looking for an open one.

    Glad I don't have to track bathroom breaks, but a silver lining might be metrics in support of sufficient restrooms.

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
  65. Re:Flip side by Kalriath · · Score: 1

    Try THAT here, and said boss would be in prison very quickly, and the company would be paying a fortune in damages.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  66. Typical inept management technique by alispguru · · Score: 1

    There are two basic ways you can measure employee performance:

    * Input effort - stuff like time on the clock
    * Output quality - customer satisfaction

    Measures of input effort are usually much easier than output quality, mostly because management has to be able to evaluate output results - i.e. they have to be able to understand the jobs of their subordinates.

    Any time you see management that primarily uses input effort measurement (especially if their spinal reflex response is to increase input effort measurement), you may conclude that they are turkeys, and you should get out from under them as soon as practical.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  67. The answer is easier than it sounds.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sometimes it is easier to push a fool down a hill than to keep trying to hold them up. Do this. Call for a meeting to clarify the following:
    1. Do you want the amount of time spent in the bath room broken down into actual bowl movement versus washing hands, etc.
    2. Do you want to know how much time my left hand is occupied while my right hand is wiping, or both?
    3. Where and how do we report personal clothing malfunctions, such as my zipper isn't working, or my friends zipper isn't working and I got my finger caught in the CEO's pants.
    4. Are you going to limit the number of sheets of T.P.? Or the number of shakes? Do I need to record the velocity at which I shake my junk?
    5. Do I get extra time for that itching problem that you gave me boss?

  68. Deal with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter whether you're lowly cheap outsourced labor, or unionized working for a major telecom, they will track you down to the second. I speak from experience, having been the second at a point in my life. If you want to be treated better than just another resource to be micromanaged, start looking for work elsewhere.

    tl:dr call centers suck, find a real job ASAP

  69. A Cisco engineer's perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As a consultant who designs and builds those Cisco call center products, let me offer a more innocent viewpoint: The Not Ready reason codes for bathroom breaks may have been created just to give the Workforce Management (i.e. scheduling and forecasting) software a way to exempt bathroom, or other non-predictable yet acceptable non-ACD time, from the compliance and forecasting logic.

    In this example agents may have been using the Break reason code when going to the bathroom; however, the WFO software views a Break as a predictable and scheduled occurrence. When the agent uses a scheduled reason unexpectedly it typically counts against them. It's possible that management was simply giving the agents a way of going to the bathroom without it counting against them. Additionally, depending on what WFO product they are using (Cisco only OEMs or interfaces with third-party products for this), the engineer may have needed a separate reason code to prevent the software from adjusting it's forecasting logic. In other words, if three employees go to the bathroom between 10:00-10:30 on the first Wednesday of this month, that is not a reliable indicator that additional headcount are needed next month at the same time.

    As many have pointed out in their responses, tracking bathroom time is not an uncommon practice. There may be technical reasons why it was done but the tool is neither good or bad. Ultimately it comes down to the tone of how the change was communicated and whether employees and management in that call center have a cooperative or antagonistic relationship.

    Disclaimer: These statements/opinions are my own and do not represent Cisco Systems or my employer.

  70. If everyone "forgets" to clock back in... by mykro76 · · Score: 1

    After a few weeks of 8 hour bathroom breaks they'll give up on this plan.

  71. Time to leave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I worked at convergys once upon a time. My team lead pulled me in one day and told me i was in the bathroom too much last month. I told her straight up that my bathroom time was none of her fucking business and even having this conversation might be in the legal grey area.

    stay away from companies that require you to schedual your shits.

  72. I also work for a call center by Extremesis · · Score: 2

    The call center I work for, they have a generic time code for when you are not on the phone taking calls. 'Personal' encompasses everything you might leave your desk or stop taking calls for a few minutes (bathroom break, make a personal call, etc). Its not meant to take more than a few minutes. Its different from a break or training or meeting with supervisors. They are all coded different. None of the supervisors really say anything about it as long as it isnt abused. Two or three 5 minute personals a week doesnt set off any alarms, a 15 minute personal every day, that will show up on some manager's radar. When I first started working here (in 2006) the whole concept of monitoring every single minute of your work day did seem a bit totalitarian to me, but as with most everything else in life, you get used to it.

  73. It's Walgreen's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know, I worked there. I quit. Not because of that, but because they were going to let some guy die rather than let me make an unauthorized call.

  74. Mod parent up... by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

    ...for ironic use of solidarity, logg, and retention.

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
  75. Simple answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > When Does Time Tracking at Work Go Too Far?

    As soon as it starts. I thought I was being employed to do a job of work, not to watch a clock ?

    If you want me to watch a clock then I'll do just that. Diligently. To the exclusion of all other tasks.

    Just saying.

  76. opinion by Tom · · Score: 2

    I used to work full-time in an elected position representing employee interests, so I do have a bit of expertise on the subject.

    That said, I can not comment on "legal", because that is a matter of your local laws, and I only know my local laws well enough to say that.

    Aside from legal, however, this is completely inacceptable. The employer does have an interest to track whether or not you are working, but when you are not working, you are spending private time, and what you do in your private time is your business.

    If you are in a position to negotiate, ask what the real interest of the employer is. Almost certainly, he doesn't really care if you take a piss or bone his secretary. What he wants to know is that you are not working and probably what kind of break you are taking in the sense of an answer to the question how soon you will be back. A solution here would be to make two options of breaks, one regular and one short break, where the short break option does the employer that you'll be back shortly (duh).

    Then again, he just might be a Big Brother control freak, in which case you need to get enough support from co-workers to put pressure on him and tell him that you and lots of others are not willing to accept that invasion of your private time and that either the bathroom breaks are paid time, or you will continue to book them as regular breaks and he can take you to court if he thinks he stands a chance of winning. Do consult a lawyer before telling him that last piece, though. In my country, you would almost certainly win, but your laws may vary.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  77. A: when it reaches a kafkaesque level of absurdity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My time is tracked in one application which takes the inputs from the badgereader, when corrections are needed (forgot to badge and such) It's in another aplpication, then the hours are transferred to third application (SAP), and i enter the times spent in a 4th application sitting on top of the third which provides management with metrics. Of course the apps don't push their data in realtime, they work in scheduled batches, which means a variable delay of 1 to 3 bussiness days before I can print it out, have it signed (typically takes 24 hrs, but there's been an occasion where it took 2 weeks)

      When the printed timesheet is finally signed, I scan the sheet and send it by mail to my consulting firm, then I have to enter my times in my consulting firm's application.

    And as cherry on top of the cake, I once had to redo the whole thing because I had billed 2 minutes TOO FEW. Yes they made me spend at least 10 minutes to correct the timesheet so they could pay me the 2minutes extra ... And the manager signing it had to redo his checking from scratch too ...

  78. aerospace by crotherm · · Score: 1

    At a USA aerospace company that has government contracts you have to keep track of your time in six minute increments. I understand why, but damn is it annoying.

    --
    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
  79. I have Irritible Bowel Syndrome. by TrogL · · Score: 1

    If my current employer did this, I'd be unemployable. Fortunately a lot of my work can be done by email on a smart phone or consists of staring at the wall thinking through code, which can be done just as easily ( or better) in the bathroom.

  80. When does it go too fa by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    When does it go too far?? When they actually look in the toilet after you take a dump lol.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  81. I think I see your problem. by jep305 · · Score: 1

    I have figured out what your problem is: "I work in a call center"

    --
    In Reason We Trust
  82. Re:Flip side by weiserfireman · · Score: 2

    This isn't Right To Work issue. It is confused with Right to Work, but it isn't the same

    What you are describing is At Will Employment.

    At-Will doesn't have anything to do with Right To Work. Most States recognize a Contract Exception that allows the Union and Business to negotiate to have At-Will rules not apply in a Union Shop,

  83. It depends by Kimomaru · · Score: 1

    Legality depends on where it's located (which country are you in? Let's assume it's in the US). Whether it's legal depends on what was signed when you started, which state you're located in, etc. The "bathroom" button is called a Reason Code and many call centers use them so that managers get a good feel for productivity and whether staff augmentation is warranted. It's likely legal, I'm assuming that a call center company probably has legal council that advises them. That said, just because something's legal doesn't mean it's a good idea. High attritition is usually proceeded by poor management policies. It may be time for a better gig if this kind of thing bothers you.

  84. In The IT Support World, Everyone Is Going Too Far by sabinelr · · Score: 1

    I finally escaped from the phone support world after a year and nine months, partly because the client is in the habit of canceling contracts after a couple of years, and partly because of finding another job. One of the main problems was uninterest and ignorance of the best way to track needed breaks. All the way from management down to shift leads there was no attempt to deal with the question. So the phone slaves would just come up with their own way to deal. Some would just run off and hope no calls came in. Others would sign off the phone and hope the numbers didn't rank them too far down. Not that the numbers were that important. There was no serious advantage to getting good numbers than you might get a better chance at the shift you wanted. Phone support is a necessary evil, and now I have much better sympathy for those guys than I did before. I'm sure a union presence would have one of two effects - one, possibly reduce the number of indignities, and introduce clear work rules, and two, send the support function off to India or China (funny, that is already happening without unions). Are you working in phone support? Get your certs and get a real job, or if you can't do that, get down to Mickey D or BK. They don't pay that much less, and have more flexible schedules, and the management is only incrementally worse.

  85. What've they done for us 99%ers lately? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Is the mass inequality of the U.S. distribution of wealth due to the lack of unions or their incompetence?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  86. Bathroom breaks by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    I worked in a non-union shop. While most of us respected the 5 minutes per hour of cigarette break, and the 15 minuts per 4 hours of bathroom breaks, some of us who did not like the job, or had some personal business that needed extra time, abused the system. If extra time was needed, the honest ones stayed longer to make up the time, or came in eariier.

    Then I worked in a time card oriented shop. People would punch in at 7:45am, and go to the cafeteria for breakfast, expecting to be paid for that time.
    Others would abuse the 15 minutes break mid-shift. We added a tolerance of 5 minutes to return before time was docked. If you can go for a smoke every hour, and you have 15 minutes in the AM, Lunch time (unpaid) and 15 minutes paid break in the afternoon, it was fair.
    There was for everyone, a five minutes pee and wash time at end of shift.

    So yes, it is ok to measure your breaks. The employer may look at a week at a time to see if there is a pattern of abuse.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  87. I had a similar experience... by lastrogue · · Score: 1

    I had this working on a help desk, they used a similar system to the one you're mentioning. they tracked bathroom breaks, lunch breaks, and different types of work, such as none call related work, all through the phone system. I'm still at the same company but moved up and out of the help desk, anything call center related will eventually have something like this. I recommend using it as a foot in the door job and move up and out of it as soon as you can. Too much stress involved with the micro management, for both the employees and the managers.

  88. One simple answer. by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    One simple answer is that it goes too far if
    you have a medical condition that causes you
    to go often enough that someone demands an
    answer.

    Pregnancy, prostrate, infection, can all interact
    as can drinking water as so many Weight-watchers
    do.

    Just begin wearing long skirts and put a
    piddle pot in your office. Fill it with anything
    that looks yellow enough. If the boss complains
    comment that you are unwilling to wear depends
    like he/she does.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.