Slashdot Mirror


Virtual Boss Keeps Workers On a Short Leash

Gr8Apes writes "Hitachi has created a 'perfect virtual boss.' The company is manufacturing and selling a device intended to increase efficiency in the workplace called the Hitachi Business Microscope (paywalled). 'The device looks like an employee ID badge that most companies issue. Workers are instructed to wear it in the office. Embedded inside each badge, according to Hitachi, are "infrared sensors, an accelerometer, a microphone sensor and a wireless communication device." Hitachi says that the badges record and transmit to management "who talks to whom, how often, where and how energetically." It tracks everything. If you get up to walk around the office a lot, the badge sends information to management about how often you do it, and where you go. If you stop to talk with people throughout the day, the badge transmits who you're talking to (by reading your co-workers' badges), and for how long. Do you contribute at meetings, or just sit there? Either way, the badge tells your bosses.'"

13 of 664 comments (clear)

  1. In otherwards by halfEvilTech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It just takes micromanagement to an entirely new level. No thanks to these.

    1. Re:In otherwards by mhajicek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Get ready for your new Terrafoam domecile.

    2. Re:In otherwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because, for those libertarians, the right to make a profit trumps anything as pesky as workers rights ... and if people weren't willing to work there they could work elsewhere and the 'invisible hand' would sort everything out.

      Those people are largely full of shit.

    3. Re:In otherwards by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For all the talk that libertarians give about freedom, they sure don't seem to care about worker freedoms in the workplace. Those freedoms are out the door when you step through it.

      Libertarians aren't about freedom (positive liberty), they are about (negative) liberty. What this means in practice is that if your oppressor isn't called "government", you're on your own.

      There's a certain consistency to their position, since guaranteeing my positive liberty to not wear a collar like this removes my employers liberty to demand it as a condition of employment. The problem is that libertarianism vastly overestimates the government's share of power in modern society, and consequently underestimates that held by the private sector, and thus sets its priorities wrong. And of course true believers refuse to acknowledge that any priorities beyond ideological purity even exist.

      A more cynical person might wonder if the movement isn't backed by the very oppressors who want to deflect would-be freedom fighters from themselves to windmills. But surely our corporate overlords wouldn't do something so dishonest.

      --

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

    4. Re: In otherwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if every company just happens to coincidentally implement the same antiworker policies then you are perfectly free to starve and die! Another win for the free market!

    5. Re:In otherwards by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Happy workers are productive workers.

      I have a hard time believing someone can be so ignorant of history. Do you think slaves were happy? What about feudal serfs? Or pre-unionized steel workers? Or the children working in textile factories?

      Capital has never, and will never, care about the happiness of their workers unless those workers force them to care. We had to fight tooth and nail for the rights we have now; eight hour days, forty hour weeks, weekends, workplace safety, sick leave, maternity leave, minimum wage. These things make workers happy, and none of them were offered up voluntarily. They had to be bought with the blood and the lives of the working class from generations ago, and capital has been tirelessly waging a ceaseless campaign to take them back.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    6. Re:In otherwards by Khashishi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Libertarians hate the state, but their ideal society is one where a corporation can essentially have all of the power of the state, but without any representation. They will say, you are free to leave a corporation and do business with another. How is that different than, if you don't like the laws of a state, go to another state?

      This isn't hypothetical. Company towns in the past were owned by a corporation which provided essentially all government functions. Quite the libertarian paradise.

  2. They should call it an anti-retention device by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guaranteed to get rid of off your employees who have other options!

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    1. Re:They should call it an anti-retention device by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not if this technology actually delivers and makes the workforce more efficient--even if it's through dehumanizing total control. Your hippy dippy startup won't be able to compete.

      So while you're giving extravagant perks to your employees such as unmetered bathroom breaks and letting them skip their quarterly non-work related conversation log review, your competitors are brutalizing their employees and reaping the rewards associated with turning human beings into pliable, docile, terrified, machines.

      The worst thing about fascism is that it can actually deliver; as long as you don't get side tracked by useless and expensive crusades of ethnic cleansing or territorial expansion.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  3. Re:Misunderstood? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know what world you live in where Japan has a healthy work culture. Abuse of psychology for net harm of workers is considered normal.

  4. Re:Why? by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have to agree, this goes against everything that is said about good management. Most good MBA schools would disprove of this.
    Why?
    1. There is a calculated benefit towards (water cooler chats), this increases overall productivity, by allowing informal collaboration and knowledge exchange.
    2. The issue between Introverted and Extroverted employees. An introverted employee in a meeting may seem very quite and engaged, however they are there listening and taking in the information, where they may come up with better solution later on. Extroverted may seem like they are engaged however they are just talking a lot of nonsense, and off topic, because they like talking.
    3. Employee intensive is Work Environment + Pay. If they feel like their freedom is being taken away from them, it is equivalent to paying them less. If an employee feels like they are being paid fairly they will perform better then one who feels like they are not.
    4. Synergy. How can you have Synergy if people are not working together, and knowing each others strengths and weaknesses?

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  5. Re:Let me be the first to say... by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You say Orwellian, but it's also what everybody on Star Trek lives with. The computer keeps track of every person on the ship, their location, and their vital signs, and never seems to require command-level authorization to dispense information. Any kid can query the computer and it'll respond "Counselor Troi is in Commander Worf's quarters. Her heart rate is accelerated and her pulmonary system is taxed." And we think of Star Trek as a utopian ideal.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  6. Calm down by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a hard time believing someone can be so ignorant of history. Do you think slaves were happy? What about feudal serfs? Or pre-unionized steel workers? Or the children working in textile factories?

    He said "happy workers are productive workers". He did NOT say "all productive workers are happy workers". See the difference? What he probably meant was "companies that use policies that keep their workers happy are more likely to have workers that are productive". Sure you can force someone to be productive under miserable conditions but you can get terrific productivity as well by treating your employees nicely.

    Capital has never, and will never, care about the happiness of their workers unless those workers force them to care

    True and there has been tremendous progress on that front. Working conditions in the US are FAR better in most cases than they were 100 years ago, sometimes to a fault.