Slashdot Mirror
London Tube Cleaners Don't Want Fingerprint Clock-in
Bismillah writes "Biometrics is hot stuff, not just for Apple but cleaning companies like the UK division of Denmark's IIS which tidies the London Underground railway network. However, the cleaners aren't happy about having to clock in and out with biometric fingerprint sensors, and are taking industrial action to stop the practice."
When I worked in a NOC for a major bank, we had full hand scanners, explosives sniffers and video records to endure when we clocked in. That was fifteen years ago. Just be happy you have a job.
I wouldn't want to touch anything down there barehanded either.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
The only "civil liberty" it attacks is the ability to fraudulently sign in for someone else. This is how unions get a bad name. Bio-metrics are used for time card validation on many places and it is neither "draconian" nor "an attack on civil liberties".
The article then goes on to talk about biometric authentication on mobile devices which has nothing to do with biometric time card sign ins. This is another sensationalistic piece which brings together unrelated information in an attempt to make a big splash.
Don't be wimps. Get the model number of the equipment, research how it works, and circumvent. The hard part is keeping the circumvention from management, unless they are participants. I enjoy modern tech. Old school tech like video cameras are tricky. It always raises suspicion when employees are clocking in wearing gorilla masks. One position I had used special encrypted key chain tokens to open the doors, which also clocked you in. Nice, but after a few weeks of trials I found the encryption was not so tough. I could copy other IDs as they walked by in the pub. It was as difficult as those smart cards they use instead of quarters at the laundry. I had $2,000 on my laundry card to make sure it didn't run out.
Just because it's easy to steal doesn't mean it's okay.
I'm currently undecided if this is a good thing or not. On one hand, I'm against technology for the sake of technology. Using computers and touch screens because they are new and fancy is stupid when a pen and paper will do. It's one thing to have biometrics in clean areas like banks and office buildings, it's another to have then in maintenance areas. How long before they start to fail and workers are not getting paid because they can't clock in due to dirt and grease build up.
On the other hand, They have really failed to outline how their civil liberties are being attacked. To what extent can someones thumbprint be abused and how will this affect workers and their rights. None of that was even attempted to be explained.
To anyone saying that the workers just want to fraudulently sign in for someone else and abuse the system needs to try again and come up with a real argument. The assumption that workers just want to screw over employers is elitist and is a part of the same poor logic of "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." It completely side steps the real issues and disguises the technology as only hurting the bad people. While I don't deny that fraud probably happens, there is no way that fraud is the sole reason for rejection of biometrics. Give real reasons for it, not made up reasons for why the are against it.
This is exactly where technology like this will be deployed. They will say you know what it is just a slight inconvenience to the menial tube workers. Then eventually the government and other employers will hand out some no bid contract to some corporation to install these in all places as self identification methods. This technology must be fervently resisted before it is too late. If you don't believe me, just look at the how the TSA is expanding operations from airports to rail stations, highways, and bus depots.
No, not necessarily. They might adopt a strict work-to-rule regime where workers do absolutely nothing that is not by-the-book, no staying 10 minutes over time to finish a job, no doing a job without that is not covered explicitly in their work agreements, taking every minute of meal breaks, reporting every little maintenance task they find in glorious detail, etc.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Right....but the AC said that it's the Peter Principle at work. That is, the situation they described (using inappropriate metrics of suitability for a job, like being able to clock in at the right time as a judgement of being able to clean the tube station) is an example of something that might happen when the manager is an employee who has risen beyond their level of competence.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
No, not necessarily. They might adopt a strict work-to-rule regime where workers do absolutely nothing that is not by-the-book, no staying 10 minutes over time to finish a job, no doing a job without that is not covered explicitly in their work agreements, taking every minute of meal breaks, reporting every little maintenance task they find in glorious detail, etc.
Otherwise known as a "slow down". Everything checked and double checked, not an I left undotted or T left uncrossed... No matter how long it takes.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Their data is obviously 100% secure so I don't really see any problems. Cleaning companies are famous for their rigid IT infrastructure, since their operational margin is huge and they have tons of cash to spend. There is also no market for hundreds (thousands?) of fingerprints with matching names and other personal data on a black market. So what could possibly go wrong?
Uhm, no. This is the Peter Principle:...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
Cute.
He quotes the actual book.
You contradict him citing the Wikipedia article summary about the book.
It is a sad world when people treat Wikipedia (a tertiary source) as more authoritative than the primary source.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Care to cite any studies or article where this has happened? Otherwise it is pure conjecture on your part.
If wishes were mod-points, we'd all be +5.
Hourly wage earners have their hours tracked world over. It is human nature to want to screw the system. This system just happens to be much harder to screw.
Not really... if workers realize that it is more important to clock in and out at the appropriate time than to do a good job, then that is probably what you are going to get. So it might be harder to appear to be there when you aren't, but it doesn't mean the system won't be screwed. Especially if they don't like it. I'm not saying it's right, but people who want to screw the system will, and this does nothing to stop that.
There's a bunch of problems with "clocking in as someone else"
1) If there's a disaster and they need to know "who are we searching for", time card records are a good source
2) There are wage and hour laws designed to prevent employer abuse of employees (e.g. overtime rules). Allowing one person to clock in as another opens the door to abuse: (you take my shift or I'll report that you were doing drugs in the restroom on break) (I don't care if you've got to get home, and I'm not paying overtime, clock in as Joe Blow for second shift)
3) Insurance rates and payments (worker's comp, unemployment) are set by number of hours worked/dollars paid.
4) Liability issues with "were you at work when you received this injury"
5) Safety issues with working hours (OK, now that you've driven that bus as John Doe for 8 hours and you've hit your max duty hour limit, you can sign is a Richard Roe and do another shift)
Yes, many employers have inflexible policies on work shifts, either out of inertia or bad management. But perturbing the record keeping to work around it is a bad solution. Fix the underlying problem, don't band aid it.
In the US, work-to-rule and slowdown are 2 different but similar actions:
- In work-to-rule, union members follow all procedures perfectly, including the stupidly contradicting ones as a way of slowing up the works. This is the least risky union tactic, because any time management calls union members on it they can point out that they are correctly and diligently following the procedures that management put in place, and that if there's a problem it's with the procedures rather than the workers following them.
- In a slowdown, union members simply work more slowly (letting some of the product get ruined if needed). This is obviously a bit more risky, but it is a common escalation if a work-to-rule doesn't solve the union's problem.
Both tactics can wreak havoc with productivity, but are significantly less messy than a all-out strike.
I am officially gone from
How is the scanning of a fingerprint to clock in and out of work a violation of civil liberties, exactly?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'