4 ms·
"But nothing a company does it to the benefit of the employee" Paying them 10's of thousands a year is definitely 'to the benefit of the employee'. The TSA si
by sonnyblarney 8y ago
"But nothing a company does it to the benefit of the employee"
Paying them 10's of thousands a year is definitely 'to the benefit of the employee'.
The TSA situation is a really bad analogy because it's a high security environment wherein monitoring is basically a given. It's just that with that open window, management can't help but be idiots about it and monitor 'chewing gum'. The second problem is that it's a highly authoritative system with low skilled staff. If TSA were bankers and lawyers (or developers), they'd collectively have a lot more power.
Case and point: software developers, bankers and lawyers are not monitored for 'chewing gum' and 'bathroom breaks', moreover, they aren't monitored for that much other than communications.
Email and electronic communications have to be logged for a variety of reasons (including legal)but they should not be monitored by managers.
- joewee 8y agoTraders have all finances monitored. In some hedge funds monitoring is a lot more invasive. So I don’t agree, but my point is, monitoring isn’t done to protect employees, it’s done to protect the company.
- sonnyblarney 8y agoTrading is a very specialized activity, huge sums of money are actively changing hands and there are tons of regulations in place on this stuff - of course that will be monitored - just as bank tellers are. But most jobs in banking are definitely not. And there's zero chance that traders managers are monitoring for 'bathroom breaks' or 'chewing gum' or anything like that. But yes, monitoring is generally done to protect the company. But even in the case you described - trading - it definitely protects traders from being wrongfully accused of such and such (i.e. insider trading).