Slashdot Mirror


The Boss Is Remotely Monitoring Blue-Collar Workers

McGruber writes "The Wall Street Journal reports on the new level of surveillance available to bosses of blue collar workers. Thanks to mobile devices and inexpensive monitoring software, managers can now know where workers are, eavesdrop on their phone calls, tell if a truck driver is wearing his seat belt and intervene if he is tailgating. 'Twenty-five years ago this was pipe dream stuff,' said Paul Sangster, CEO of JouBeh Technologies, a Canadian company that develops tracking, or 'telematics,' technology for businesses. 'Now it is commonly accepted that you are being tracked.' In the U.S., workplace tracking technology is largely unregulated, and courts have found that employees have few rights to privacy on the job. No federal statutes restrict the use of GPS by employers, nor force them to disclose whether they are using it. Only two states, Delaware and Connecticut, require employers to tell workers that their electronic communications — anything from emails to instant messages to texts — are being monitored."

159 of 228 comments (clear)

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

    If you are using hardware or services provided by your employer, your data is not private and you should have no expectations of such privacy.

    1. Re:Protip by realityimpaired · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're on personal time, you can use personal equipment. But if you're using company-provided equipment, expect them to monitor it.

      And if you're driving a company-provided vehicle, with the company logo on it, you are on company time. End of discussion -- Anything you do while in that vehicle can have repercussions for the company. If you're on personal time, park the vehicle and go for a walk.

    2. Re:Protip by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      "should" have no expectations of privacy? It's just the opposite.

      Do you think this employee should have had an expectation of privacy?

    3. Re:Protip by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd moderate this some combination of informative/insightful if I weren't replying here.

      While I don't *love* that my employer is reading this very post of mine, I respect that they're entitled to to do so. I'm using their computer, network, and time to do so. They allow me modest personal use of the internet, and in return, I know I'm getting watched.

      I make a choice as an employee. I can choose to work for places that monitor my communications, or I can work elsewhere. I suppose the argument is that eventually I'll have no other option, but in the meantime, I'll just politely use their services and submit to minimal oversight of my activities. [e.g. this post being in a giant pile of other logs.]

    4. Re:Protip by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, yes we can all look at the obvious examples. Well done.

      What happens when you are on call? can the employer follow you all the time? how about unpaid lunch break?
      What happens when a boss doesn't like the movie you went to see? or the church you go to?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Protip by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What happens when a boss doesn't like the movie you went to see? or the church you go to?

      Well, my movie attendance isn't something federally protected, so, they can fire me if they don't like my taste in movies -- unless you're in some silly state where we can't choose who we hire and fire. Drink a Coke? Sorry, we prefer Pepsi drinkers here. Here's your last check.

      My church attendance, on the other hand, is one of those things already federally protected.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

    6. Re:Protip by alexo · · Score: 2

      Pray tell how do you prove that you were fired over your church attendance rather than your taste in movies?

    7. Re:Protip by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      They same way you do now.

      Tracking doesn't change this.

      If your employer doesn't like you, they figure out how to fire you.

    8. Re:Protip by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Do you want to live in a world were the boss has the right to fire you becasue you like Star Trek?

      Way to miss my point.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Protip by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      What happens when you are on call?

      It depends on the agreed terms with the employer. If you're on call, at a minimum they have a right to know you're available. If you miss a call, then you can bet that they will be asking what happened and why you weren't available. Depending on what line of business you're in, that may include them knowing exactly where you are when you're on call.

      can the employer follow you all the time?

      No employer has the right to do that. But if they are paying you for your time, then (presumably) they have a reason to know what you're doing, or in the case where you're on call, they have a right to assurance that you will be available if/when they decide they need you.

      how about unpaid lunch break?

      As long as you're not impaired when you return to work, it's none of their business what you do when you're not being paid. Unless you're using company resources. If you sit at your desk surfing Facebook using the company network and a company computer, then expect that they will monitor it. I'm not sure what's difficult to understand with that. If you don't like it, then don't use company resources for that purpose.

      What happens when a boss doesn't like the movie you went to see?

      The boss will probably tease you mercilessly for watching My Little Pony: Equestria Girls, and then move on.

      or the church you go to?

      Protected class/speech.

    10. Re:Protip by clickety6 · · Score: 1

      Last time I use the toilet at work then...

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    11. Re:Protip by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Too bad there are far too many people that just don't understand things like this, and feel they are *entitled* to do whatever they want with no repercussions. The 'me me me me' mentality that is being fostered by today's society.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    12. Re:Protip by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Unless you live in some union controlled state, your boss already has that right. I've lived and worked in that world since the 60's. If you don't like an employee, fire them. Get another.

      You can get fired for anything that isn't Title VII.

    13. Re:Protip by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I think you missed his point...

      In any right-to-work state, employers are free to hire and fire based on whim, so long as the reason cannot be traced to a certain list of federally-protected reasons (religion, race, etc).

      Don't like it? Work for someone else. In my own opinion, I'd much rather work for someone else if they were ready to fire me based on my like (or lack thereof) in Star Trek. If a manager is stupid enough to put such things at a higher priority than job performance, revenue-generation, or whatever other business-building/sustaining metric you get measured by, then the business will go under.

      Think about this - if a business bases its hiring decisions on stupid metrics, then would you want to continue working there when it finally does cave in?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    14. Re:Protip by kaatochacha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Playing devil's advocate here...
      The toilet at your job is provided by the company, yet they aren't allowed to film you in there.
      Some things are off limits, regardless of who provides them.

    15. Re:Protip by alexo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They same way you do now.

      Meaning that you practically can't, unless the employer was extremely careless and stupid.

      Tracking doesn't change this.
      If your employer doesn't like you, they figure out how to fire you.

      Tracking gives them a tool to profile you.
      Without such tracking they would have to either stalk you (criminal) or ask you (see careless/stupid above).

      If firing you for a particular reason is illegal, the employer has no right to that information.

    16. Re:Protip by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Toilet break would be that, a break, and on your own time.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    17. Re:Protip by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      But company property hooked up to company plumbing.

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

      Why would Bruce Springsteen care about your toilet habits?

    19. Re:Protip by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Toilet break would be that, a break, and on your own time.

      Only my lunch is unpaid. I get paid breaks. So that would mean the toilet break is also not my own time.
      If I'm standing outside making a phone call on my personal cell phone, should my employer have the right to monitor the call since I'm on their time?

    20. Re:Protip by somenickname · · Score: 1

      When I was younger and didn't have a personal machine, when I got home from work I'd boot my employer laptop with an Ubuntu Live CD and all was well. They certainly weren't savvy enough to have put some sort of monitoring below the OS level and so my por^H^H^H browsing habits were safe and the machine was in no danger of being compromised at the OS level.

    21. Re:Protip by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      protip, move to (northern)europe.

      employer can get the email headers and that's pretty much it - and that is after going through authorities. because really, it has to start there. otherwise it would be free game for your isp and everyone who owns a bit of the copper to keep total snoop on your connection. just because the mailman COULD xray and backlight scan your mail doesn't mean that it's legit for him to do so..

      (if, and most beard admins do since they don't know any better and are frankly dorks, they do more than that then you got them by the balls.. doesn't matter who is paying for it, either. which is kinda funny because they're all data and privacy activists outside of their own office where for some reason they think they're the fucking god and have the authority to eavesdrop on all telecommunications just because they can)

      really, notify them of snoop? how about just not having them snoop? just because they're paying for your post doesn't give them inherit right to mess wit it as they see fit... unless you already gave away all your rights and are working as slave - next stop getting paid with "Company Credits".

      (some things, like company delivery car positions and such of course are free game to follow - but using an on board cabin camera to snoop on what the ladyboy trucker is doing whilst on his/her stop..? of course not.)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    22. Re:Protip by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      > If your employer doesn't like you, they figure out how to fire you.

      They can fire you simply because they don't like you. That's all the reason required.

      If they don't like you because you are a woman, or are black, that's a different matter. But simple, non-prejudiced dislike is enough reason to fire someone.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    23. Re:Protip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And this is everything that is wrong with the US. People, get out. There's a good reason why those in Europe, Australia and New Zealand have a better quality of life.

    24. Re:Protip by sI4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      You could do the same thing (talk about unlikely events) in any debate about surveillance. You could even use such cases to argue that everyone should have government-operated surveillance equipment installed in their homes.

      This is about people choosing to install cameras on their private property to monitor people they hire to accomplish certain tasks, and not government surveillance, but I don't think pointing at rare cases of abuse is a very good argument for surveillance; all it does is get people riled up, not let them think rationally about the issue.

      --
      Ignorance is a choice
    25. Re:Protip by captjc · · Score: 1

      Voyager.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    26. Re:Protip by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have a tracking device (excuse me; telematics device) implanted in him - he's using his work computer, at work.

    27. Re:Protip by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The toilet at your job is provided by the company, yet they aren't allowed to film you in there.

      They can track you going there.

      They could but probably won't film there, because it would create an uncomfortable environment, even if they designed the system so that nothing below waste level could appear in the cameras' view

    28. Re:Protip by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I guess you test would be if you could quit without owing the company money or something. If you can, you are not indentured to them.

      As for being their servant, thats generally how employment works, you get paid to serve the employer's interests. What makes that different then slavery id the fact that you are there on your own will or desire and you can also quit by the same.

    29. Re:Protip by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Unless you live in some union controlled state, your boss already has that right. I've lived and worked in that world since the 60's. If you don't like an employee, fire them. Get another.

      You can get fired for anything that isn't Title VII.

      Even here in Canada, where we have sane laws, my boss could fire me for liking Trek. They'd have to pay me severance for not having proper cause, but they can do it.

      Pro-tip: real employment laws list what employers can fire you for without pay, not list what they can't. Make *them* do the work proving things.

    30. Re:Protip by almechist · · Score: 1

      Maybe they can't film you in the john, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if companies started installing special toilets that automatically test employees' urine and feces for drugs, and not necessarily just the illegal ones. Sadly, today's courts would probably find this to be perfectly legal. Hell, employers can already find out every medication being taken by job applicants, and sometimes even regular employees, under the guise of urinalysis screening for banned substances. Such screening discloses to the employer everything the lab finds, including legitimate prescription medication, and the practice is perfectly legal. Drug sniffing toilets are merely the next logical step. Oh, and they'll grab your DNA profile while they're at it, why not? Technology marches onwards...

    31. Re:Protip by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Depending on where you live, you get x amount of minutes of paid break time for x amount of hours worked. So technically its your time in those cases. Similar to how vacations (normally) work, they may be paid but they are your hours.

      But regardless of that, if you are hourly they can force you to clock out to go on a potty break, or have card readers and cameras on the doors to see who is going inside when for those that don't have time clocks. ( i have seen all of the above combinations in my travels as a contractor .. really frustrating when you have to go find someone to let you into the john ). Sure they cant put it in the stall, but they don't need to know what you are doing in there, they know you are not working..

      As far as monitoring you on your own phone on your own time, that isn't even remotely close to the topic of company equipment on company time.... But to answer the question anyway, are you on their property ? if so, they might... Some ban phones/cameras etc on property anyway to avoid security leaks, so in theory you could be canned on sight in those places.

      And sure, not all places are like this, just that they can be. Some need to be due to their employees screwing around on the job and have to be babysat, while at other places their employees take their jobs more serious and actually do them.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    32. Re:Protip by romons · · Score: 1

      If you are using hardware or services provided by your employer, your data is not private and you should have no expectations of such privacy.

      You have no expectation of privacy, period. Facebook? Credit services?

      --
      Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
  2. The logical end of all this .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

    1. Re:The logical end of all this .... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Funny

      Except the part about a section of the world where the already moneyed elites don't control everything at the end. That's all fantasy.

  3. Well yeah by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I should hope so. I mean it's not your truck, it's your boss'. It's not your computer and desk, it belongs to your boss. Etc etc. Of course the employer has the RIGHT. Now there's the ethical dilemma - how to use this information for more than just trying to "catch people" in impropriety, how to make the workplace better rather than make big deals about an accidental swear word or comment, etc. Misuse of this technology can and will affect employee morale rather sharply. Errare humanum est. The watchers are going to have to tolerate SOME degree of slack...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Well yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oftentimes it is used as a way, an excuse to get someone fired and a H-1B hired. In the truck category, this is especially true with truck drivers where it takes no training at all to get a Mexican CDL, so US workers tend to be brushed aside for people who will work for virtually any wage south of the border.

    2. Re:Well yeah by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      What if you're the sort of person who gets distracted by errant profanity? The boss catching such things would indeed make your workplace better, in your opinion. Similarly, a fleet mechanic's job would be easier if the fleet's drivers were more cautious, and marketing's job is easier if the executives aren't engaging in impropriety.

      It ultimately boils down to what kind of company it is. Is the management so paranoid about imperfection that they'll fire someone for minor problems, or are they friendly enough that encouragement and positive reinforcement are the go-to solutions? Surveillance technology is a tool, and it can be used for good just as easily as for evil.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:Well yeah by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 1

      I should hope so. I mean it's not your truck, it's your boss'. It's not your computer and desk, it belongs to your boss. Etc etc. Of course the employer has the RIGHT. Now there's the ethical dilemma - how to use this information for more than just trying to "catch people" in impropriety, how to make the workplace better rather than make big deals about an accidental swear word or comment, etc. Misuse of this technology can and will affect employee morale rather sharply. Errare humanum est. The watchers are going to have to tolerate SOME degree of slack...

      Precisely.

      Now I wish all this stuff actually resulted in getting rid of bad workers. A couple of years ago I worked in a coffee plant, in packaging. We had cameras all over the place, yet when we had down time and were supposed to be cleaning our machines, etc. certain employees would congregate to chitchat. Not being a supervisor, it was really no skin off my nose, and I was a temp to boot. Only real annoyance was when they gaggled around MY machine when I was trying to clean up. Every bit on camera, not a one of them let go.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    4. Re:Well yeah by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I mean it's not your truck, it's your boss'. It's not your computer and desk, it belongs to your boss. Etc etc.

      It's the companies laptop. In your home.
      It's the company's truck. After hours.
      It's the company's phone. On a private call.

      Misuse of this technology can and will affect employee morale rather sharply.

      Right. Because nobody who's morale dropped enough to complain was disciplined. Anywhere. Ever.

      I'm sorry, but this is a classic example of where government regulation is needed. Companies have the privilege (not right!) of monitoring their employees. Just like your driver's license isn't a right to drive: It can be revoked. Employers need to be held accountable for overstepping boundaries of reasonableness.

      Go ahead and record e-mails, but if it doesn't directly affect the business it should be deleted and no further comment made. Direct managers should be prevented from monitoring their employees electronically -- instead a separate department such as HR should do this, so as to prevent bias. Phone calls should not be monitored once the employee is off the clock. If they have a problem with this, remotely disable the phone at the appointed time. Same with computers with internet access, and other dual-use devices. Keep in mind many people use their personal phone for work-related calls, and likewise with laptops and other electronic devices. Remote evesdropping when you are not actively engaged in company business should be prohibited.

      And to seal the deal, we need federal legislation to drop the ban-hammer on so-called "right to work" state legislation; The laws should be written so only conduct which directly impacts the company, while using company resources, can be subject to disciplinary action. In other words, if you don't like JP Morgan's shady business strategies (which led to the subprime mortgage crisis), you should be free to protest on your own time without fear of reprisal.

      We need to draw a line that says only conduct that happens on company time or using company resources is subject to any disciplinary action. We need to prohibit employers from taking action against employers punitively on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identification, etc. And this is not just about protecting "the little guy"; This is about protecting the country as a whole.

      Merit-based employment and strong non-discrimination policies provide a direct and immediate benefit to society by making as many jobs available to as many qualified candidates as possible. It increases labor supply, and rewards companies who hire on the basis of merit with a more competitive and efficient labor force.

      Pervasive electronic monitoring is a strike against that goal. I will tell you, being on the other side of the IT version of the 'one-way' glass, that if you watch anyone long enough, you'll find a reason to hate them. You will become judgmental, and you will look at them differently. Which is precisely why managers should never under any circumstances be allowed to covertly monitor their employees. There is no "if" about morale suffering; It starts deteriorating the moment you start.

      And managers are notoriously short-sighted, poor judges of character, and often blow things radically out of proportion when they do come across something hinky. Just like the general public did during the hunt for the boston bomber. People who are not trained and experienced in surveillance, who are not impartial to the people being watched, should never, ever, ever be given the reins. Disaster is most often the result.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    5. Re:Well yeah by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      And to seal the deal, we need federal legislation to drop the ban-hammer on so-called "right to work" state legislation; The laws should be written so only conduct which directly impacts the company, while using company resources, can be subject to disciplinary action.

      I don't see what disciplinary action has to do with being forced to pay a union for permission to work in a particular industry.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:Well yeah by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      It's the companies laptop. In your home.

      If it's personal use, why aren't you using your own computer?

      It's the company's truck. After hours.

      Why are you driving the company truck for personal affairs outside of company time? This one, there is a *small* degree of leeway in favour of your argument, but generally our employees who have a company vehicle leave it at the company lot at the end of the day and have their own transportation to get to/from home. A small number of them dispatch from home, and park the company vehicle in their driveways overnight, but it's still really bad juju for them to take it on a grocery run after hours....

      It's the company's phone. On a private call.

      Why are you using a company phone to make a personal call? Especially in this day and age, when almost everybody has a cell phone....

      Companies have the privilege (not right!) of monitoring their employees

      Companies have a right to make sure they receive the contracted services for the money they're paying you. They also have a right to ensure you aren't misusing/abusing company resources. If you're on company time/using company resources, then it should be for the work they're paying you to do. If your company has a policy that allows you to use company resources for personal use when you're on your own time (just as my company does -- I'm posting this while on break, from my office PC), then you have to expect that they're monitoring it. If, for no other reason, then to make sure you aren't wasting their time/money when you're supposed to be on the clock.

      We need to draw a line that says only conduct that happens on company time or using company resources is subject to any disciplinary action. We need to prohibit employers from taking action against employers punitively on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identification, etc. And this is not just about protecting "the little guy"; This is about protecting the country as a whole.

      I agree with you completely here. Of course, I live in a country where we already have those protections. Every single one of the categories you listed has been read into the constitution and human rights/anti-discrimination legislations as protected classes of people.

      Pervasive electronic monitoring is a strike against that goal.

      It doesn't have to be. The company I work for has GPS trackers in the company vehicles. They monitor the location/speed of every company vehicle in the field, along with engine idle time, and people do get censured for driving like idiots or wasting fuel. They also monitor the data use on the cellular devices provided to employees, and make sure you're not wasting bandwidth, and disable data on company-provided equipment where people are using too much. On company PC's, everything is logged and goes through a proxy. Every phone call made, both on cellular and desk phones, is recorded, and if you're logged in to your PC at the time, screenshots of what's on your screen during the call are recorded as well. It's company resources, and this kind of monitoring is completely reasonable -- They don't care what I do on my own time or with my own equipment, but they do (reasonably) have a right to expect that I'm not going to waste their money, and that I am not impaired while on company time.

    7. Re:Well yeah by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      I don't see what disciplinary action has to do with being forced to pay a union for permission to work in a particular industry.

      Since it's clear you haven't actually read the law, "Right to work" allows an employer to fire you for any or no reason, excepting federally-protected reasons (like sexual orientation, sex, race, etc.). It means that any employment contract signed that stipulates a mediation or resolution procedure before an employer can fire you is rendered unenforceable.

      Removing right to work is a necessary first step in restoring merit-based employment decisions, instead of arbitrary ones.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    8. Re:Well yeah by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      If I'm paying you to use my pliers, and I only bug the pliers while you're using them in my employ, then yes. Of course I do.

    9. Re:Well yeah by mmell · · Score: 1

      Um, not quite. If I'm paying you to use my pliers, I'm okay if you use them for your own purposes as well . . . but I get to know what those purposes are. You don't want me to know what you're building in your off-hours? Heaven forbid you should be doing something contrary to my interests with my own pliers, aftera ll. If you don't want me to know about what you're doing, go buy and use your own pliers, somewhere private and out of my sight!!

    10. Re:Well yeah by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      If it's personal use, why aren't you using your own computer?

      Possibly because a personal laptop can do work-related activities just fine, and many in fact prefer using their own devices over what is company-issued. Nonetheless, many pieces of software allow remote monitoring regardless of who owns the equipment.

      Why are you using a company phone to make a personal call? Especially in this day and age, when almost everybody has a cell phone....

      Possibly because the company allows personal calls as they don't cost anything on a "everything" plan. Possibly because carrying two cell phones is inconvenient. Possibly because you are making business calls using a phone that you own and pay for but use primarily for work-related purposes. Possibly because you have purchased multiple lines for a single phone.

      Companies have a right to make sure they receive the contracted services for the money they're paying you.

      Actually they don't, unless the contract specifically states this. Most employment contracts do not state specific services to be provided, they only state severance clauses, and leave it to "tasks as assigned" for the work performed.

      They also have a right to ensure you aren't misusing/abusing company resources.

      They may take reasonable measures to protect company resources... they do not, for example, get to shoot you dead if they find you carrying a laptop out the back door. Sorry if you got confused over what a right is, and is not.

      If you're on company time/using company resources, then it should be for the work they're paying you to do.

      What if you're an on-call surgeon; You are being paid to be available. That does not mean you may be monitored and tracked during this time.

      If your company has a policy that allows you to use company resources for personal use when you're on your own time (just as my company does -- I'm posting this while on break, from my office PC), then you have to expect that they're monitoring it.

      Expectation does not create, or override, law.

      Of course, I live in a country where we already have those protections. Every single one of the categories you listed has been read into the constitution and human rights/anti-discrimination legislations as protected classes of people.

      I live in a country where states are allowed to pass so-called "right to work" legislation and then fire people on the basis of those things, and as long as they do not admit this as the reason for the dismissal, it is perfectly legal. So you can see where I might have a problem with some of these statements you're making; You're operating under false assumptions -- they may be true where you live, but not where I live.

      Pervasive electronic monitoring is a strike against that goal.

      It doesn't have to be.

      There is an old latin phrase: Ad mores natura recurrit damnatos, fixa et mutari nescia . Translated, it means "human nature ever reverts to its depraved courses, fixed and immutable." You're naive if you think that if you leave the barn door open the cows won't get out. They may not make a run for the gate immediately, but they will leave, eventually. The same is true of corporations monitoring their employees -- Where there is power without restraint, there is abuse. This is human nature.

      When I say we need to regulate these things, what I mean to say is we need to address the power imbalance present between employers and employees. In this country, the power imbalance is massive; Employees have no recourse for an employer that abuses them or fires them without good cause. And surveillance is a form of abuse. If you don't believe me, let me come over and sit at the foot of your bed and stare at you while you sleep. I promise... I won't do anything. I'll just sit here. Staring.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    11. Re:Well yeah by intermodal · · Score: 1

      My boss is usually the culprit in errant profanity, but I bet he'd fire someone almost instantly for doing it on a day when he was a in a bad mood. Even though the culture around here doesn't even discourage it.

      Thankfully, I'm not one who uses such language. While in my Volkswagen, though, I have on more than one occasion shouted, "Fahrvergnügen!" in situations that scared me while driving.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    12. Re:Well yeah by mmell · · Score: 1

      What part of this do you really believe the U.S. Government can make better?

    13. Re:Well yeah by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      > And we have not even discussed the rights of the shareholders (they own everything) and the
      > government (they are entitled to some of the money, aka taxes) yet.

      Taxes? Well yes but, lets not forget the elephant in that room: They create the company itself. What is a company other than a group of people doing some manner of business with eachother? Its that, plus a legal fiction.

      Companies must apply to become such and in doing so get limited liability. This is a hugely beneficial grant of privilege from the government, without which companies would have little choice but to rethink many of their operations.

      So, as long as this situation exists, I would say a company, as duely authorized by the state has only whatever "rights" the state deems it should have: because absent that agreement they are just a group of people acting with full liability for their actions.

      I tend towards the libertarian and, in theory, like the ideas that people should be able to make whatever agreements they want and its nobody else's business.... BUT current day companies, as they exist, are NOT wholly independent of the government; and I think it is important to remember and recognize that.

      For as long as they are in a relationship with the government where they receive this special status, I find it very hard to argue that the state has any reason to be restricted in what it can require of them, including imposing expectations of privacy in their employees interactions.... if they so choose.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    14. Re:Well yeah by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      It's about monitoring my ever-so-precious-pliers. Tracking my reach that point. It may be trivial to tag every last Styrofoam cup in the year 20whatever.

      Most people seem to understand tracking trucks and company laptops...

      The blurry line now is over monitoring software on personal equipment kept 24-7 by employees for things like (mandated) email on personal devices. Hey, you're salaried, and I need you on call, so go visit IT and get track-'em-all installed on your phone as a requirement for opening our mail client.

    15. Re:Well yeah by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even without explicit "right-to-work" laws, that's already the case in any state that has at-will employment, which is a separate issue. As for reading the law, yes, I did actually read the law that as proposed for my state, which was just one of several dozen proposals over the last decade. It had no provision effecting at-will employment.

      I'll also argue that enacting right-to-work laws is a major step along the way to merit-based employment, rather than basing job placement on who's been feeding the union coffers the longest.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    16. Re:Well yeah by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      There's a company near me that has company cars for all managers above a certain level. They're encouraged to drive it for personal use, partly because there's a big logo on the side, and partly because the managers participate in an ongoing marketing campaign.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    17. Re:Well yeah by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 2

      If a person can sue company X if a driver for company X hits them with company X's truck then yes, company X should have some sort of way of protecting itself and making sure it knows where and how it's trucks are being driven.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    18. Re:Well yeah by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I would certainly agree that by that logic the shareholders should be allowed total transparent access to the corporation's books, and any conscientious employee should buy at least one share of the company to keep track of the details relevant to them (or listen to a trusted source about it). Actually I'm rather in favor of such a situation, can you think of any strong objections? Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems like the state of modern industrial espionage is such that your business competitors would get precious little extra information from such an arrangement, and it would be a great boon to citizen groups trying to mitigate corporate excess and recklessness.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    19. Re:Well yeah by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      I live in a country where states are allowed to pass so-called "right to work" legislation and then fire people on the basis of those things, and as long as they do not admit this as the reason for the dismissal, it is perfectly legal. So you can see where I might have a problem with some of these statements you're making; You're operating under false assumptions -- they may be true where you live, but not where I live.

      I believe whatyou're describing is "at will" employment, Right to work is usually related to union membership

    20. Re:Well yeah by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You'd have a hard time making a case about your boss standing next to you looking over your shoulder while you work. Why is it different with an electronic device? Again I'm not saying it's the smart thing to do, but theoretically your boss can be next to you all day long, except maybe in the bathroom and during your breaks.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    21. Re:Well yeah by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      That implies some level of mutual trust

      Hahahahahaha. Yeah then explain to me the details of work contracts and non-compete clauses, NDA's, etc. The "relationship" of trust is only as far as the employer trusts the employee. Of course no one is forcing the employee to work for an asshole. But you know, recession, unemployment, etc...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    22. Re:Well yeah by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      All trees are public if they're on public land. Including the beech. Wait, what?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    23. Re:Well yeah by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Just like your driver's license isn't a right to drive: It can be revoked.

      Uh, no. If that argument worked then we would have no rights - no right to life because of capital punishment, no right to vote because most states don't let prisoners vote and some don't let ex-cons vote, etc, etc.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    24. Re:Well yeah by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's not your bathroom stall, it's your employer's. Just because you are at work and using company facilities doesn't mean you have no privacy and no rights.

    25. Re:Well yeah by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. If that argument worked then we would have no rights - no right to life because of capital punishment, no right to vote because most states don't let prisoners vote and some don't let ex-cons vote, etc, etc.

      Well, yes: once you accept that the state can revoke your right to live, vote, or anything, it follows that it was never a right but a mere privilege granted by said state. All that remains is debating over the proper procedure: for example, do you need to convince some random blokes that you deserve to die or can the president confirm that with an executi(ve/on) order?

      In much of the civilized world, you have a right to life; in the US, you have a state-granted privilege to it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    26. Re:Well yeah by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why are you driving the company truck for personal affairs outside of company time?

      Some companies prefer the work trucks be taken home. Why? So they have more space in the yard for other things.

      Why are you using a company phone to make a personal call?

      They made it clear that the on-call policy requires the phone be available certain times, and as a partial payment for that, they encourage use of the company phone for personal calls, as if it was a personal phone, to encourage use/carrying of the phone in off-hours.

    27. Re:Well yeah by Libertarian001 · · Score: 2

      Sooooooo...

      We're a distributed work force. I use my personal cell phone for company business and receive reimbursement that covers about 2/3 the monthly cost. Amusingly, about 4/5 of its usage is business-related. I have a vehicle allowance, but I pay all upkeep, fuel that is not explicitly work-related, registration, and insurance. When I need to print out work papers, it's on my personal printer, and I receive no reimbursement for it. Nor am I reimbursed for my internet usage, and I do use it (a very, very tiny bit) for work, while on a company-provided laptop. I also store parts in my garage. And some of my tools are mine personally, and some are company-provided (I've been known to use their tools to fix my car, which I feel is fair since I use my tools to fix their equipment).

      So where does that leave me?

    28. Re:Well yeah by way2trivial · · Score: 1

      Orientation is not currently included
      IT'S BEING WORKED ON
      http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/federal-legislation/employment-non-discrimination-act

      ENDA was introduced in the 113th Congress in the House by Reps. Jared Polis (D-CO) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and in the Senate by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), as well as Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) on April 25, 2013. ENDA was approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on July 10, 2013, by a bipartisan vote of 15-7.

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    29. Re:Well yeah by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      I've never seen a right-to-work law that prohibits organizing into a union. You and your coworkers can still organize into a group and make your demands to employers, but under right-to-work you just aren't allowed to force other coworkers to join.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  4. Ja mein komrade! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Funny

    Er ist gut to work in workers paradise!

    I am so glad we live in a police state where we are tracked and followed everywhere, and where we have always been at war with East Asia.

    Silly privacy - only good for whiny people - strong workers need no rights ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Ja mein komrade! by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      None of this involves the state at all. Nice job completely missing the point.

      If you don't want to be monitored, don't take a job that involves operating equipment owned by someone else.

    2. Re:Ja mein komrade! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      None of this involves the state at all. Nice job completely missing the point.

      If you don't want to be monitored, don't take a job that involves operating equipment owned by someone else.

      Neither did national socialist rule. That was all private enterprise, for the most part.

      Try watching Schindler's List for how that works.

      Hence, my point.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Ja mein komrade! by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      So apparently you know nothing about the present or the past.

    4. Re:Ja mein komrade! by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Schindler's List

      Well, that escalated quickly.

    5. Re:Ja mein komrade! by mmell · · Score: 1
      If Schindler's Jews had all been carrying GPS enabled cellphones around, there'd be a lot more of 'em today.

      Not that I see how this has anything to do with the main thread, but . . . GODWIN!

    6. Re:Ja mein komrade! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      I think it points out kids nowadays don't really understand how things worked almost 100 years ago.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    7. Re:Ja mein komrade! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      If Schindler's Jews had all been carrying GPS enabled cellphones around, there'd be a lot more of 'em today.

      Not that I see how this has anything to do with the main thread, but . . . GODWIN!

      Um. I think it means they'd be tracked down ... faster.

      But, thanks for playing.

      The point is that the combination of abusive corporations in a quasi-governmental ReichStadt with absolute control of workers leads to abuses that can - and frequently are (see FoxConn) horrific.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  5. I have only one thing to say about this by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This isnt remotely surprising.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  6. UPS by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We use software purchased from UPS to track our drivers. Their company cell phone has the UPS app, which relays data back to the server (including GPS). Of course, being on a phone and not built into the vehicle, it's dependent on the driver taking the phone with him or leaving it in the truck. However, it still managed to catch a driver "borrowing" the truck in the middle of the night to visit his girlfriend on the other side of the city, and then returning it a few hours later. He was let go the following day. The funny part is that he was one of the drivers who would always forget to take the phone or keep it charged.

    1. Re:UPS by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Informative

      > However, it still managed to catch a driver "borrowing" the truck in the middle of the night to visit his
      > girlfriend on the other side of the city, and then returning it a few hours later. He was let go the
      > following day

      That sounds like a bad management decision. So he broke policy in a way that didn't actually cause a problem and brought back the equipment he borrowed before anyone needed it... so in response they let him go and now have to train someone else to do his job.... which last study I saw said costs the company, on average, 150% of a workers normal salary

      I really doubt that if you took all of the incidents where any employee ever did that for the company, and added them all up, it wouldn't equal the loss in productivity of replacing one average worker.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:UPS by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My exact reaction. You have to assume that you're going to detect more prohibited behavior, so you need to scale back your punishments as a result.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:UPS by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He took the company truck without permission for non-company use. In most places, that's called "stealing a fucking truck." It costs the company gas and wear and tear, as well as being a huge liability issue. Returning what you stole doesn't really make it ok.

    4. Re:UPS by khallow · · Score: 2

      So he broke policy in a way that didn't actually cause a problem

      And if he had killed someone while driving that truck at the time, UPS would have been partly liable. That would have caused a problem.

    5. Re:UPS by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      None of that changes that they likely lost more by getting rid of him than by ignoring his transgression. There is a difference between being in the right, and making a good decision. Sometimes the smart thing to do is to let people get away with things that don't matter very much. Perhaps you have heard "no harm, no foul".

      also I never said that it costs them nothing. Yes it costs them wear and tear and even gas if he didn't refill it....but... I was thinking of tall that when I said, and stand by, the statement that they likely (unless there were other factors in the decision, which I wouldn't know) lost more by letting him go than they would by looking the other way.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    6. Re:UPS by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a bad management decision.

      How us this a bad decision? The worker used company property without permission, used company property for personal business, cost the company money through the use of fuel and potentially could have cost the company money had he gotten into an accident.

      This is an excellent example of a management decision. A clear cut one at that. If you think it's acceptable to randomly take company equipment whenever you fell like it, I'll be sure to do the same where you work. No harm in hauling off a server for overnight use at my place, right?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    7. Re:UPS by chuckinator · · Score: 1

      Can I borrow your car to visit my sick relative? No harm, no foul, but ignore that sticky mess in the back...

    8. Re:UPS by Imagix · · Score: 1

      Right up until that guy who "didn't actually cause a problem" hits somebody with the corp truck and that results in a lawsuit against the company. Thus the corp cannot condone the truck being used off-hours. Between the two arguments of "It's Corp X's truck, thus they need to be sued for letting the guy use it.", and "Well, the corp didn't do anything about me using the truck, if I couldn't have used the truck I wouldn't have had the accident, thus the corp is liable.", the corp is screwed. So they have to take a hardline against it so that they can defend against those stupid arguments (which they have to spend $$$ on lawyers just to present those arguments).

    9. Re:UPS by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know you from Adam so there is no way you are getting permission. However there are people I likely wouldn't give permission to that I would give forgiveness if they did it. Mostly family members; a couple of good friends.... we might have words if one of them did it, and I might register my displeasure, but.... the relationship matters to how much I care about the transgression.

      Hows this one.

      A) You find a stranger man sleeping in your back yard, and find out he has been doing it for a week now without you knowing.

      B) You find a good friend sleeping in your back yard, and find out he has been too embarassed to tell you he is homeless.

      Both are transgressions. Both you might be unhappy about, but kicking person A out and telling him not to come back is no net loss for you. Saying the same thing to person B means you are losing a good friend. Either way, nothing changes that there was a transgression, its just a matter of, is it worth it to you to lose a friend over?

      Now in this case the "friend" is actually an employee and the loss is the 150% of their salary that it takes to train their replacement.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    10. Re:UPS by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      > However, it still managed to catch a driver "borrowing" the truck in the middle of the night to visit his
      > girlfriend on the other side of the city, and then returning it a few hours later. He was let go the
      > following day

      That sounds like a bad management decision. So he broke policy in a way that didn't actually cause a problem and brought back the equipment he borrowed before anyone needed it... so in response they let him go and now have to train someone else to do his job.... which last study I saw said costs the company, on average, 150% of a workers normal salary

      I really doubt that if you took all of the incidents where any employee ever did that for the company, and added them all up, it wouldn't equal the loss in productivity of replacing one average worker.

      Well, maybe the next guy they train will be trustworthy, because the guy they fired sure wasn't.

      As an employer, I hate when my employees steal from me -- there's a cost to maintaining vehicles -- and stealing a few bucks worth of car rental is still theft, and still reason to fire dishonest, untrustworthy employees. It's also terrible for the other employees, in that they learn they too can steal.

      Replacing thieves is always less expensive than keeping them.

    11. Re:UPS by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      I said it elsewhere in this thread and I'll say it again.

      Replacing dishonest, untrustworthy employees is always less expensive in the long run than keeping them.

      I don't employ thieves, even when they're expensive to replace.

    12. Re:UPS by khallow · · Score: 1

      It would be UPS's insurance on the truck.

    13. Re:UPS by chuckinator · · Score: 1

      Would you still keep that friend around if they broke into your house to sleep in the basement for a week? There's a lot of difference between trespassing and grand theft. Besides, an employer trusts their employees to follow the rules and cultivate trust. The driver broke the rules, didn't get permission to use the vehicle on personal time, and violated present and future trust that they could be relied on at all. It doesn't matter if they depend on that salary or not, because if it matter that much to them, they wouldn't have screwed up. Sounds to me like the individual in question had no qualms about breaking the rules and proved it, and is only sorry that they got caught.

    14. Re:UPS by chuckinator · · Score: 1

      Also, I would like to point out that the principle of the banality of evil is at work here. The individual in question was not a horrible, shambling monster, but just a normal person with a normal life that failed to make good decisions that resulted in the commission of a crime. It was likely not his intention to commit grand theft auto, but he did, and he should face the consequences for it. There were no mitigating circumstances or emergencies that prompted him to do this, but he chose to commit a crime because it was more convenient than doing the right thing.

    15. Re:UPS by mmell · · Score: 1
      Yeah - never mind the risk that company assets might foreseeably be damaged or destroyed by illicit after-hours use which does nothing to benefit the company. It's not okay for the (presumably fatigued) driver to use the company truck for anything which he doesn't feel like explaining in full to his employer . . . period!

      So, was yon driver enjoying a little drinkiepoo whilst he engaged in his midnight tryst? Even sober, I have to wonder just how much attention he was paying to the "rules of the road" (since UPS's rules obviously didn't matter to him). Y'know, UPS would feel really bad having to pay for, say, a vechicular manslaughter case or even a liability suit because some driver couldn't keep it in his pants or hold his liquor.

    16. Re:UPS by mmell · · Score: 2

      You mean besides being the registered owner of the truck, or as we like to call it here, "Exhibit: A"?

    17. Re:UPS by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      There is a lot of distance between trespassing and grand theft, there is also a lot of distance between grand theft for profit and unauthorized borrowing of property (maybe not legally, but, the law is the rules of last resort not the first go to for solving your problems)

      So in short....my answer would still be, that it would depend on the relationship with the friend and might depend on things like whether they actually did any damage or took pains to avoid doing damage.

      > Sounds to me like the individual in question had no qualms about breaking the rules and
      > proved it, and is only sorry that they got caught.

      Odd, I don't see where there was any mention about the individual in questions personal reaction to or feelings about his firing, not sure where you got that.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    18. Re:UPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your post is 100% bullshit.

      First and foremost the trucking industry can't fill most of the open positions they have right now. The old guys are retiring and there just aren't that many new recruits coming in to replace them.

      As for the other points 99.9999999% of drivers HATE electronic logging / spying with a passion because they can't fudge the already over-restrictive logging they have to do now.

    19. Re:UPS by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Taking the truck wasn't theft. Grand or otherwise.

      Go on, look up a legal definition of theft before complaining.

    20. Re:UPS by chihowa · · Score: 1

      I think that your comment really cuts to the heart of it. The company didn't fire the man out of rational self-interest. To discuss the issue with him and (at least try, before firing him) to get him to discontinue would have stopped the activity and saved the company the cost of training his replacement.

      The company (or most accurately, someone in management) was upset that someone violated their rules. Compliance and control were more important to the managers than costs to the company. Firing the employee outright is more of a power game than acting in rational self-interest.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  7. Re:Good and/or bad by mlts · · Score: 1

    Sometimes it is good to have recorders. A crash happens, lawsuits fly, but the truck's dash cam sees it was a another car doing a swoop and squat from the breakdown lane in an attempt to run the semi off the road. This is not uncommon on I-35 in Austin where there have been semis jack-knifed by people deliberately wanting to cause wrecks.

    There has to be a balance somewhere. I've wondered about mandatory data expiration laws, but this would take a lot of crafting so as to actually be usable, have teeth, and not be easily weaseled out of.

  8. Blue collar-workers? by CurryCamel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lucky I am a white-collar. So none of this applies, right?

  9. Goverment coersion is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    " Only two states, Delaware and Connecticut, require employers to tell workers that their electronic communications — anything from emails to instant messages to texts — are being monitored. "

    This is a GOOD thing, it means 48 states respect the RIGHTS of private citizens to control the things they own. Basically to any right thinking libertarian this means Delaware and Connecticut are just really really bad places to set up a company and should be shunned. If employees don't like being monitored, they should find companies to work for that dont monitor them. End of story.

    1. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Informative

      > If employees don't like being monitored, they should find companies to work for that dont monitor
      > them. End of story.

      Then why don't you support their right to be informed of the monitoring so they can make an informed decision as to whether to continue that employment or find another job? as a libertarian myself I fully support people's right to do many things but.... I tend to look dimly on any notion that its ok to not inform people who are subject to your decisions, especially when your decision may have a bearing as to whether they would continue to choose to do business with you.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the government can coerce employers into revealing their human resources practices what else can the government coerce companies to do? There is strength in purity, and libertarianism is strongest when it is most pure, and that includes allowing holders of private property to do what they please and allowing all competent adults to sign whatever contracts they please. In other words employees are free to sign contracts of employment that specify disclosure about monitoring practices just as they are free to sign contracts of employment that specify disclosure about monitoring practices. Why does either party need the nanny state to step in?

    3. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If employees don't like being monitored, they should find companies to work for that dont monitor them.

      No federal statutes restrict the use of GPS by employers, nor force them to disclose whether they are using it.

      This is a GOOD thing, it means 48 states respect the RIGHTS of private citizens to control the things they own.

      So, wait, how does that work? How do you propose the employee find companies to work for that don't monitor them if companies are allowed to keep it a secret?

      What do you do for an encore? Argue that if you don't want lead in your kids toys just don't buy toys with lead in them, while simultaneously demanding that companies can keep using lead without having to tell anyone?

    4. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      employees are free to sign contracts of employment that specify disclosure about monitoring practices just as they are free to sign contracts of employment that specify disclosure about monitoring practices. Why does either party need the nanny state to step in?

      Because without the state we end up with these choices.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    5. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by Phasedshift · · Score: 1

      I believe employers are legally required to inform you of monitoring your actions, usually in an employee handbook of some kind. The issue is that in general it is "your actions / calls / etc are subject to monitoring", versus naming specific ways they are monitoring you.

      In general, if you're on the company clock and/or using company equipment - you should always assume you're being monitored. If you're doing something wrong and it is caught by you being monitored, then tough luck. If the results of monitoring are being misinterpreted and you weren't doing anything wrong, explain it to your boss and there should be no issues, and if there are you have a crappy boss (and the same situation would likely eventually happen without monitoring.)

      The issue is if companies are monitoring you on your personal time, when you're not using company equipment. That's another issue entirely and IMHO wrong.

    6. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by vux984 · · Score: 2

      No company that makes toys with lead in them will stay in business very long. All it takes is a few dead kids and that company will be out of business.

      So we get a series of fly-by-night companies that each kill a few kids and then pop up with a new logo. Well that certainly seems reasonable.

      Compare that to the MILLIONS of children who die every year thanks to goverment incomptence and corruption.

      Your blaming the government incompetence and corruption for not saving them, not for actually killing them outright. So if we eliminate the government, they still die.

      So you just argued for a more effective government, not a reduced government. Was that your intent? Somehow I doubt it.

    7. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      Unless your industry has lobbyists.
      How many children does the alcohol or tobacco industry kill every year?

    8. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Unless the Delaware or Connecticut laws are a secret, they are (or at least should be) informed.

      ....heck, it's probably an asterisk on that minimum wage poster in the break room.

    9. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      MAny have, plus it doesn't help the children in any way.
      I can make a lead based toy for cheaper, I make millions, close shop reopen under different company name. rinse repeat.

      "Compare that to the MILLIONS of children who die every year thanks to government incompetence and corruption."
      oh? millions? please site something that say the government is killing millions.

      " All it takes is a few dead kids and that company will be out of business. "
      well, if all it take is dead children...

      Bastard.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Well the government does not coerce companies at all. Companies are legal fiction created by the government and given the special privilege of limited liability. No restriction that is placed on such an organization can be considered coercion - they are free to disincorperate.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    11. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      This trolling thing, you're quite good at it. Just enough seriousness, followed by grandiose pronouncements. Bravo!

    12. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Ummmm you don't own the equipment your company is letting you use as part of your job.

      And they don't own me. We have this agreement that I work for them, with some performance terms that I will complete X,Y,Z for A,B,C.

      Its company property, and have every right to monitor its resources.

      This includes YOU, while on company time.

      I didn't agree to that. Did you?

      Or are you one of those that thinks you are "entitled" ?

      I'm not a slave. If the company expects me to show up for work, the terms of employment need to be agreeable to me. Otherwise I won't.

      I don't see why you have a problem with this.

    13. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Look I am all for reducing the state and making all manner of changes. However, until those changes happen, the state is what it is. Let us not forget that we are talking about incorperated entities.

      That is, the employer we are talking about is not a free individual, the employer has gone to the state and asked for a special status that allows him to deal with money in a different what which shields him from liability. As long as this condition exists, how can you even fall back on talk of free people entering contracts? Its just dishonest.

      We are not talking about some guy you personally hired to do work in your basement. We are talking about an employee of a legal fiction created by the state for the benefit of the owners. Any restriction put on such an entity is fair game.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    14. Re:Goverment coersion is wrong. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I don't think you really know me that well. Though actually, I am not so much for "every man for himself", I do think it is smart for people to form communities and work together collectively, but, I see no justification for forcing people to do so.

      That said, I don't see how any of this relates to the topic at hand which, is talking about the relationships of a state created and entitled corperate entity, operating under limited liability as granted by the state, which you dislike so much.

      Since those companies recieve, from the government, a special status that allows their members to operate together without facing personal liability for their actions, how is it exactly that you can say that any restriction put on them, for that privilege of operating as such, is improper?

      Frankly, i would think you should support restrictions on such state created entities, no matter how onerous.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  10. Tailgating by tutufan · · Score: 1

    There are a number of behaviors like tailgating and not washing your hands after using the restroom (esp in food service or medicine) that are simply not acceptable behavior. Surreptitious monitoring to catch and correct these transgressions isn't wrong in itself--it's a good thing. Might it be used as a pretext for more sinister behavior? Yes. So we will have to remain vigilant, but it was ever thus. This is no reason not to use these tools for good. Certainly there is no right to do wrong, just because we used to be able.

    1. Re:Tailgating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is no reason not to use these tools for good. Certainly there is no right to do wrong, just because we used to be able.

      This type of system lowers the bar for employing people in positions which require a certain level of attentiveness to legal and/or social norms. How many jobs require regular hand-washing, but no other rigor with respect to hygiene? How many forbid tailgating but not the innumerable other ways of driving dangerously and obnoxiously?

      So, strictly speaking, it is fine to use these tools for whatever narrow good they can provide. The problem is that they will be used to replace valuable employees who do not require babysitting with incompetent but lower cost employees who will eventually find some way of screwing up that isn't covered by the monitoring system.

      Employers won't care because The System says they are providing adequate oversight and compliance and you, the consumer, will be left holding the e. coli contaminated bag.

      It is human nature to value that which we can measure over that which we can't. Creating half-assed metrics is bad because even if they are 100% reliable in their narrow field, they distort the bigger pictures that we need to be aware of.

  11. Re:News? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Where's the new part...

    The increasing cumulative affect as new technologies are developed, accumulate, and interact.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  12. Unintended consequences by RogueyWon · · Score: 2

    I work in a job relating to airports and have come across a funny little side effect of this. As GPS trackers in company vehicles get more common, so too do employees resorting to the use of GPS-jammers. Those jammers don't just block signals to and from the vehicle in question, but also a significant area around the vehicle. When one of them drives past an airport with his jammer active, this can happen (and there are many cases beside the one in that story).

    1. Re:Unintended consequences by PRMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      As someone who writes software for this, do you really think the data doesn't make it 100% obvious who is doing this? Believe me, if you are doing this, they can find out easily.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Unintended consequences by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm not saying getting a jammer is a good idea. I'm just remarking that it's happening and that some of the consequences are ending up in unexpected places.

    3. Re:Unintended consequences by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      Undoubtedly a horrible idea. But some of the people we're talking about here are, shall we say, at the Homer Simpson end of the intelligence spectrum. And so it happens...

    4. Re:Unintended consequences by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Sure, for current generation jammers. But the next rev won't just jam, it will spoof. At which point you are going have a lot harder time distinguishing legit from fake.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  13. Re:I knew Bruce Springsteen was up to something by binarylarry · · Score: 1

    Good lord, could Bruce Springsteen have teamed up with Bruce Schneier as foretold in the Bible!?

    There's only once Bruce I know of who's Bruce enough to stop this unholy duo...

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  14. I'll bet ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... Dennis Weaver wished this technology was around in his day.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  15. Always wondered where he got his material... by richarnd · · Score: 1

    So that's how he's come up with such consistent hits over a multi-decade career, so many of which connect to the hopes and fears of working Americans. Turns out he was connecting with them a little more directly and often than they though.

  16. Re:I knew Bruce Springsteen was up to something by PRMan · · Score: 2

    Lee? or Wayne?

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  17. 25 years ago by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    All this technology was available. GPS, vehicle telemetry, monitoring software, phone tapping. It was just more expensive.
    Hardly a pipe dream.

  18. Already being done for 'White Collar' too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In my company, the corporate phone (SGS3) or BYOD (any device) must run the AirWatch app to get any emails. Despite trying multiple times to disable the GPS manually, it automatically turns on (by policy), so Im sure the data on where I go is monitored even when Im not on company time. And no, the point in carrying a corporate phone is to be available 24x7 on call or email, so keeping it at home isnt a viable option.

    I can only thank my stars that the other items I agreed to when installing Airwatch (like access to my camera to take snaps anytime, and mic) are not used (at least not to my knowledge

    Cant get a screenshot, but airwatch permissions according to my app manager include
    - Your personal information
    - Your location
    - Network communications (including bluetooth)
    - Your accounts
    - Hardware controls (take pictures and videos)
    - Phone calls
    - System tools (there are many here)

  19. Ten to one by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Ten to one the above comment was made during working hours.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Ten to one by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I'm retired :P

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  20. I thought it was implied.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That 'moneyed elites' had set it up using funding from the common man knowing what was going to happen, as a combination safe haven and psychology experiment.

    Honestly the people in Australia seemed as much trapped as the people outside, their cage was just a little more nicely gilded.

    1. Re:I thought it was implied.... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no, it was just another eutopianist whacking off at his dreamworld. "No one is fat because computer implants run on bodyfat" had me rolling my eyes pretty hard.

    2. Re:I thought it was implied.... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      "No one is fat because computer implants run on bodyfat" had me rolling my eyes pretty hard.

      Then again, assuming 100% efficient power conversion, a typical desktop processor with a TDP of 100 watts would burn over 2000 kilocalories per day, according to aqua-calc.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  21. You forgot.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Campbell :)

  22. s/should/ by mmell · · Score: 1

    Just sayin'.

  23. Asshole by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    Calling electronic shackles a pipe dream? Fuck him.

    1. Re:Asshole by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      From the context, I was picturing a group of manager-types, lounging around in 3-piece suits, hitting the pipe...

  24. Re:If you are on the clock by geekoid · · Score: 1

    No, it's not. It's your time to. You have agreed to use some of you time as an employee. That might giver a right to the boss to track you.

    Don't start thinking that the employees aren't also using their limited time to work.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  25. What about politicians? by Krneki · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since we pay their salary it should be our right to monitor what they are doing during work. Included reading their mails, and listen to their phone conversations and tracking their physical location via GPS.

     

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  26. The Boss? by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    Didn't Snake kill her?

    --
    /* No Comment */
  27. Re:If you are on the clock by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    If you worked for me your ass would be fired. While on the clock your resources are MINE. Period. Off the clock, you can do whatever you want and i could care less what/where it is, but while i'm paying you, productivity better be coming out of you.

    Notice again i never said 'all your time', just while you are 'on the clock'.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  28. It happens by __aaacoe2998 · · Score: 1

    I work in a sawmill in Canada. All our cameras are routed to a central location and recorded. It's a great troubleshooting tool, but also a great way to make sure people are doing their jobs. If our internet connection were faster, this information would be available over the internet now. It is happening now.

  29. Not always bad by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

    I was once almost fired from a job because my employer thought I went to customer B first instead of customer A, when customer A was already really upset with our company. I forget the details as it was around 20 years ago, but when I arrived at customer A, they informed me they were cancelling the 8:00 am service call, so I went off to customer B, getting there around 8:30 or so. Boss**2 was livid and wanted to blame me for the loss of the account, even though the customer was ticked because $COMPANY had really screwed up something completely unrelated to me. Boss**2 called customer B and asked the entirely wrong question, something like "Did SG arrive at or before 8?" Customer B, who liked me, tried to "cover" for me and said yes. If they'd had some kind of GPS tracker on THEIR $100,000+ truck, it would have shown that I rolled up at Customer A on time, stayed there for about 10 minutes, then went to Customer B.

  30. Managing results and not controlling behavior? by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I work as a SMB consultant and we run into a fair number of small business owners really intent on managing their employees "behavior" (web browsing, emailing, occasionally down to installing and running commercial spyware).

    I get why some situations (harassment of other employees, strong suspicions of financial crimes, corporate espionage, etc) may warrant this, but so often it seems like they're trying to manage behavior instead of managing the results of their employees work.

    If you have an employee who is supposed to produce a given work product, wouldn't it be more effective to actually focus on the work product (quality, quantity, etc) and not on whether or not they buy stuff from Amazon during work hours?

    If your employee can't produce the desired work product then you have a business-rational reason for firing them. If their work product meets the stated goals, then why do you care what else they may be doing provided it is not a detriment to the rest of the business?

    At the end of the day it seems like a kind of paternalism that is focused on controlling people, not managing their work.

  31. Erosion of trust... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2

    All this does is continue the erosion of trust employees and employers used to enjoy. It makes for oppressive working conditions. Yeah, people slack off now and then, but is really worth the morale hit this kind of garbage does?

    I wouldn't work for a company that feels the need to spy on my every move. That's not the kind of relationship I'm interested in having with someone I have to deal with every workday. Not acceptable.

    I would think employers would feel the same way. Do they really want employees they feel the need to babysit every minute of the day?

    This is a lose-lose for both sides. Nothing good will come of continued adoption of spying on employees.

    1. Re:Erosion of trust... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Huh? Erosion of Trust? Are you familiar with the Organized Labor movement in most countries? It's fraught with conflict and violence. I will give you an example of how things go.

      Let me give you a quick refresher. Jan 29, 1933 Ford employs the use of Strike Breakers. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19330130&id=z_8MAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YGkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2487,5787301

      in April, 1941 more violence with Ford.. http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7-RfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IgMGAAAAIBAJ&pg=4483,1409316&dq=ford+hires+strike&hl=en

      PATCO workers in a sick out in 1970.. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C14FD3E5A157493C5A9178FD85F448785F9

      Organized labor exists because workers aren't happy with their working conditions. Unfortunately over the last 30 years with the decline in US manufacturing and with concerted efforts by companies to keep unions out, we're seeing a reduced influence by Unions in general. With growing wage disparity however, we'll probably see a resurgence in the movement. In fact, recently we've seen it with Walmart and McDonalds workers and it's been openly encouraged by the past few administrations. More and more states are pushing for Right to Work laws, which on the surface may seem good but that also makes workers more of a commodity by driving out unions, rather than a vital part of any organization.

      So, when you say erosion of trust, I'd like to know exactly what era, or company you're talking about because when you work for somebody else, you're a cog in the machine and they'll do whatever they want with you within the definition of the law. If you're in a Right to Work state, you can get fired without cause so don't expect any kind of trust to be developed there.

      While I don't agree with tracking employees, I think it's a natural problem we have with privacy. Privacy in this country is eroding faster than a sand castle at high tide and unless we start pushing on our elected officials to get legislation that protects us form these kinds of things, well companies will do all kinds of things that by lack of decree, they'll be able to do and you won't be able to stop it. Even in Norway, companies are using such novel ideas like bathroom alarms limiting you to 8 minutes per day.... Think of how that works for your rights and your trust with your employer.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:Erosion of trust... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      Guess it's a pipedream that employers and employees have a decent relationship between each other, since they're both working together toward the same goals. Guess when I worked for some hardware/software firms, the good relations and trust I had between supervisors and coworkers, to the point that I considered them all good friends was just a freak of nature. Guess that doesn't exist anywhere outside my personal experience. A shame. It was a really nice way to work.

      Yeah, unions were at one time a good thing, then criminals got their fingers in the pie and turned unions into something...completely different than what they were supposed to be. Unions aren't about helping workers anymore, they're about helping the people at the top of the food chain. It's sad that such a great idea has been twisted into yet another way for the people at the top to squeeze everyone else.

      As far as privacy erosion.. it's the deal we've been handed and no one seems to mind enough to stand up and do anything about it. Everyone still goes to their job and 'puts up' with whatever their employers demand, because that's how America has become, don't like it, don't work, live on the street. That's the choices people have now. Put up with it, or starve. So it's no surprise this stuff is getting more and more persuasive and mainstream.

      Don't see any big revolts and cries of foul. Other than a few squeaky wheels you mentioned above which are pretty small scale. Workers want their paycheck and they'll take almost any level of abuse to get it. Sad how it's gotten to this. So sad.

    3. Re:Erosion of trust... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to add, you see that mentality all over this topic.. the 'don't like it, don't work for them' attitude. That's very common. And that's a problem. I'm not sure how people who say that can justify such a stance. They should trying being on the other side of it and see how it feels to get stuck with things you don't like, that're unreasonable, and your option is, "dont like it? leave. otherwise shut up and do your job." Just seems like a really awful way to go through live, on either side of the equation. How is that a life anyone wants to live? How is that a life someone could inflict on another and live with themselves???

  32. Another scary attack on employee decision-making by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    It's understandable that the employer has the attitude: "If the employee is fucking up, I want to know about it."

    For example, if the company driver is tailgating, the employer wants some monitor to warn him. Basically, the goal is to not allow fuck-ups to go unacknowledged.

    This, in turn, leads to an byzantine rulebook about what exactly constitutes a fuck-up. The employee learns the book, but there is a backup system in place in case some rules fail to be mechanically followed. Pretty soon, every rule which was once handled by common sense, like "don't pick your nose in front of customers" becomes another line in the rulebook and a subject of monitoring. (This trend is driven largely by the vastly increased possibilities for monitoring.) Such an employee simply stops using his/her own judgment, because there is nothing left for individual judgment to decide. You just remember the rules, and you follow them, so as to not attract negative attention from the rule-enforcement system.

    I think that this is a real trend in the low-wage labor market in the US, and it's moving up the payscale. The trend has some benefits, in that some people who cannot be trusted to use good judgment can be trained to follow explicit rules. In a regimented setting like this, such people become useful employees. But I honestly can't imagine having a job like this - spending 8 hours going from assigned task to assigned task, and performing the tasks "by the rules" instead of how I see fit to perform them. Hopefully the next step in this tragic progression is that the people in such jobs will be fired and replaced by robots with modest AI. Once the rules are formulated explicitly enough, it's won't be too hard to implement them with robots. Hopefully the productivity increases of this transition will allow us to pay for the welfare of the displaced workers. At least then they could use their time doing something fulfilling, like gardening, playing with Legos, or whatever.

  33. Re:News? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "Where's the new part..."

    Indeed, I don't see it either. His words seem to imply that 'white collar' workers are not cattle to be monitored, while every login, posts, emails, visited webpages, documents and every single letter he types into his computer are monitored and logged by his boss.

  34. I've seen it before, try a Union workforce and see by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    I hit this a few years ago with trying to implement Push to Talk phones to try and eliminate the old Motorola 2 Way Brick Radios. Unfortunately the pilot project was with a group of Union workers who initially liked the new PTT phones. They liked the ability to create notification groups for broadcasts and how much lighter and easier they were to use. Then Sprint, who owned the PTT technology (Nextel) started running the "Where are the DOTs" campaign on TV. The project ended very shortly thereafter because the Union became heavily agitated and thought that management was trying to track them. Of course the technology would have allowed that but that wasn't the goal of the project was to save money and get rid of 30 Year Old technology. Unfortunately they're still using that 30+ year old tech because it gives the folks a warm and fuzzy and it doesn't track them.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  35. employees have few rights to privacy on the job... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    ....then it is high time we made sure that the bosses have fewer rights. . . off the job!

  36. Re:If you are on the clock by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Ah, I see. you're an idiot.

    If I work for you for 8 hours, do I age 8 hours? yes? Then it's my time I exchanged with in for a service.
    I can walk the fuck away anytime I want, why? becasue it's MY life and MY time to choose to do what I like.

    " It is little different than if you sell me your car, its not yours anymore. This is not an opinion, its a legal fact."
    no, it's completely fucking different. If it was like a car, I would give you a bottle of time, and you would hand me cash.

    " This is not an opinion, its a legal fact."
    when applied to the car? yes, when applied to working? no.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  37. Re:Good and/or bad by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I agree, sometimes it is good to have recorders.

    Like on an Acela train today when a passenger recorded an "off the record" conversation between the former NSA chief and reporters.

    Not off the record anymore.

    He works/worked for us.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  38. Re:If you are on the clock by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    If you were my boss, I'd quit. Even if I had to live on the street in a cardboard box. Anytime a "boss" says "your ass would be fired" with such glee, they're obviously a terrible "boss".
    And yes, the quotes are intentional.

  39. Equality IS Basic Law by b4upoo · · Score: 2

    If an employer has the right to spy on me then I certainly have the right to spy on an employer. Notice that the equality under law for all people does not change with ownership or status of an individual. Frankly my experience has been that when employers use covert tactics that employees tend to catch on and find many ways to exact revenge. One foreman I knew, in a machine shop, was taking very expensive products and throwing them in the dumpster in an effort to bankrupt his company. He had been told that his future with the company was in doubt as his abilities and respect for others limited his potential for any promotions.
                      I wonder if some of these shooters that go nuts and walk in to their job site blasting away are victims of unwarranted surveillance.

  40. Work harder for less by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    It's what we're all about. These sorts of things are used to make employees work harder and harder. As they do productivity goes up, and you need fewer employees. Fire some of them, and then make the survivors work harder. Lather, rinse repeat. It's not called a race to the bottom for nothing, you know.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  41. The Management Leisure Suit by SuperElectric · · Score: 1

    The Yes Men's golden-phallused employee monitoring suit may be on the horizon: http://youtu.be/Rux-4LJr9mY

  42. Old old old news by dbIII · · Score: 1

    There's plenty of in vehicle GPS tracking hardware that in many vehicles can get info from seat belt lock sensors and the rest. The answer is not to be a prick about it - only use it if there's a good reason to track vehicles and to make sure the drivers know about it before they go anywhere near the vehicle. The place I work for uses it for vehicle tracking in relatively remote areas and the software is around a decade old.

  43. Re:If you are on the clock by swilver · · Score: 1

    You are a good example of the power drunk asses that must hate it that nowadays the SLAVES are required to be paid by law.

    Luckily in my business I choose where to work... and you better damn well provide a good environment and pretend like you care about my grievances or I you won't even have to fire me as I will leave on my own. Pray you never have to manage something where you can call yourself lucky you managed to hire the people you need.

  44. Re:If you are on the clock by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. Check your definition of slave, you are not indentured, and you are being paid a fair market wage.

    If you are a manager/owner and let your people screw off you are an idiot.

    If you are an employee that screws off you are a thief.

    If you are customer who allows it, you are a liar. I guarantee you would not be pleased if someone you needed service from decided to bail on you because they didn't feel like working at that moment. Or you buy a product only 1/2 built; 'the guy who does that was out back smoking today, sorry'.

    Anyone who purchases services ( or products ) expects to get what they paid for. Your boss has paid for your services for x amount of hours a day, which you agreed to. It is not unreasonable to expect you to provide what is being paid for. Unless you are a damned socialist or something.

    Furthermore, you wouldn't be hired by me in the first place, i can tell you have a poor work ethic and think you are entitled to be paid just because you feel important and show up. You are neither. And it would be quite clear in your interview what sort of lazy thief you are.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----