Re:Trading privacy for survival is another tax on the poor
by UweSchmidt on Monday March 18, 2019 @12:16PM
(#19422375)
Well, if you have been working in a place with security cameras, then that place has gotten worse recently, privacy-wise. 10 years ago they would dig out the surveillance tapes to try and identify a burglar. Now they might automatically detect employee behaviour: That's something that affecs poor warehouse workers.
A lot of that creepy stuff is moving upwards to white collar jobs, does that weaken the argument the article makes or does it just mean the problem is expanding 'upwards'?
Re:Trading privacy for survival is another tax on the poor
by clairity on Monday March 18, 2019 @03:29PM
(#19424317)
> "...employers have to invest more in supervising low-productivity workers."
why do you believe these workers are low-productivity? are they unworthy of dignity and privacy as a result?
why do you believe the employers are qualified supervisors? have you never had a bad manager? might it be possible that the employers have no idea how to encourage productivity, and that low productivity is induced by a coercive and surveilled work environment?
so many assumptions packed into those little words...
The sentence you quoted is framed to make some of those things sound worse than they are. "Listen to phone calls" - does that just refer to call centers recording calls for training/quality purposes? And "Monitor closed-circuit television" just is another way of saying "Many low-income employees work in places with security cameras." Finally, "require psychometric tests" sounds ominous, but a) college serves as a long psychometric test and b) interviews are informal psychometric tests.
The unifying thread is that employers have to invest more in supervising low-productivity workers.