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."

48 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 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.]

    3. 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
    4. 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

    5. 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?

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. Re:Protip by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      But company property hooked up to company plumbing.

  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 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
    4. 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
    5. 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"
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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?

  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! --
  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 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"
    7. 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"?

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

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

  8. 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...
  9. 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"
  10. 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...
  11. 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?

  12. 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.

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

    Campbell :)

  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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/