3 ms·
They also pay low wages, don't provide paid sick days, fire you if you're late, provide less training, and so on. There's a lot of bad stuff about being poor; I
by mrosett 8y ago
They also pay low wages, don't provide paid sick days, fire you if you're late, provide less training, and so on. There's a lot of bad stuff about being poor; I'm not convinced that the privacy angle adds a lot.
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.
- UweSchmidt 8y agoWell, 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'?
- clairity 8y ago> "...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...