4 ms·

It's up to individuals as employees to decide if they want to subject themselves to this (agreed repulsive) treatment...what's with all these comments and senti

It's up to individuals as employees to decide if they want to subject themselves to this (agreed repulsive) treatment...what's with all these comments and sentiment in this thread acting like they have a gun to their head? JUST QUIT already if uncomfortable with whatever a given job entails should that include perceived invasive measures ie - surveillance.

boo_boo 6y ago
You're out of touch with the reality for a large chunk of workers if you believe it's simple or even advisable for them to "just quit". We should be making the case for better conditions across the board, and this means not leaving it up to those in shitty situations to figure it out for themselves.
- _curious_ 6y ago
  Who said it was simple? But advisable, sure if you or anyone is not uncomfortable with what they are being subject to/asked to do as part of a job, YES, I would advise them to quit if deemed necessary. Would you advise them to stay and subject themselves to they type of treatment they did not agree with?
  - boo_boo 6y ago
    Would you advise them to leave and risk not being able to put food on the table if they can't find another position? If there's little to no opportunity for lateral movement in their job market right now?
    - _curious_ 6y ago
      I would advise them to do what they felt was in their net best interest. Either way, they are making a conscious choice - a choice to stay and continue subjecting themselves to such treatment or a choice to leave and assume the risk. Again, would you advise them to stay and subject themselves to they type of treatment they did not agree with?
      - Avicebron 6y ago
        By this time I can't tell if you're deliberately misunderstanding reality to virtue signal some sort of privilege? But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Vulnerable populations can have their employment opportunities gamed by powerful groups where they are essentially enslaved by their reliance on their paycheck to support their family, food, housing, etc. I don't understand why this doesn't register with you.
        _curious_ 6y ago
        Thank you for giving me the benefit of doubt...I don't know what "virtue signal some sort of privilege" means? Does that make me dumb? Ignorant? Privileged? It could! "Vulnerable populations can have their employment opportunities gamed by powerful groups where they are essentially enslaved by their reliance on their paycheck to support their family, food, housing, etc. I don't understand why this doesn't register with you." Who in this article falls under your judgement of "vulnerable population"?
        Avicebron 6y ago
        "virtue signal some sort of privilege" - I'm referring to a particular "let them eat cake" sentiment I'm detecting by your posts. An apt analogy because it was a signal of her misunderstanding of the lower classes food situation. "vulnerable populations" - people who are unable to quickly and efficiently move either laterally or vertically, in whatever industry they are in, such that they run real risk of losing food or shelter.
        _curious_ 6y ago
        "virtue signal some sort of privilege" - I'm referring to a particular "let them eat cake" sentiment I'm detecting by your posts. An apt analogy because it was a signal of her misunderstanding of the lower classes food situation. Still confused…what does "virtue signal some sort of privilege" actually mean? Do you have some sort of privileged information on the matter? "vulnerable populations" - people who are unable to quickly and efficiently move either laterally or vertically, in whatever industry they are in, such that they run real risk of losing food or shelter. Under your definition here, what constitutes “quickly and efficiently”? Who are you to judge and label someone as being vulnerable - or not - based on that answer?
Fargren 6y ago
"JUST QUIT" makes it sound like quitting is an easy thing to do. "like they have a gun to their head" makes it sound like direct physical threat is the only mechanism of coercion that exists. These things are just not true. For a lot of people, who have more expenses than savings and are not in highly demanded jobs, quitting puts them at great risk. They have a metaphorical gun to their heads. They might not die the moment they quit, but by quitting they are endangering themselves and those that depend on them. Their relationship with employment is inherently coercive. This is especially true during a pandemic that's causing more people to be unemployed.
- _curious_ 6y ago
  "For a lot of people, who have more expenses than savings and are not in highly demanded jobs, quitting puts them at great risk. They have a metaphorical gun to their heads. They might not die the moment they quit, but by quitting they are endangering themselves and those that depend on them. Their relationship with employment is inherently coercive." With all of that said: whose responsibility is it to avoid this type of situation? Is it anyone (or anything) but the individual them-self? And should one unfortunately find themselves in this situation described above, whose responsibility is it to figure out a solution? Is it their friends and family who is responsible? Their neighbors? The government? Are you responsible?
  - curryst 6y ago
    I would argue it is the government's job to not allow businesses to impose dehumanizing conditions on workers due to the extreme imbalance of power. It's probably not a risk for most of the HN users. Most of us are in high demand jobs, and we would simply refuse to work for a company that uses this kind of spyware. A lot of people don't have that option, because there isn't as much demand for their jobs. Should we really be given that extra privilege simply because what we chose or wanted or had the ability to do is in higher demand? I would say no, it should be a fundamental right of workers in general. It's not as if there is some drastic harm that not installing spyware would impose. If your best means of measuring worker productivity is this junk, you're not going to last as a business anyways.
panda-giddiness 6y ago
Presumably these invasive measures were instituted after the pandemic. Employees didn't agree to these measures when they accepted their jobs, so of course they have a right to be upset with their employers now. If these measures are unpopular, we shouldn't blame employees for being upset; instead, blame the employers for dictating those unpopular policies. Employees have little bargaining power here. While quitting is hypothetically an option (albeit realistically not necessarily), so is shaming. And I see nothing wrong with shaming companies for their stupid, dehumanizing initiatives.
- _curious_ 6y ago
  "Employees have little bargaining power here." They hold all the power, actually, unless you are one who does not believe in the power of self-agency because perhaps you've already relinquished yours? "While quitting is hypothetically an option (albeit realistically not necessarily), so is shaming. And I see nothing wrong with shaming companies for their stupid, dehumanizing initiatives." Hey, me either, what kind of management culture even does this!?
  - panda-giddiness 6y ago
    > you are one who does not believe in the power of self-agency because perhaps you've already relinquished yours? It's hard for my response to be anything other than rolling my eyes. I'm a grad student. If my advisor demanded the ability to surveil me at all times, what would you expect me to do? Quit grad school, throwing away my last four years of work, because I have "self-agency"? No, I'd complain to some higher power -- in my case, the graduate student association or the university.
    - _curious_ 6y ago
      ...Is your default reaction to hearing an opinion you do not agree with or understand to roll your eyes? Thanks for describing what you would do in the situation. It sounds like you are the type who would accept it given the option of quitting or continuing, is that fair to say based off an incomplete answer? There's no right or wrong, there's simply choice in the matter we all have that power to choose :)

boo_boo 6y ago

You're out of touch with the reality for a large chunk of workers if you believe it's simple or even advisable for them to "just quit". We should be making the case for better conditions across the board, and this means not leaving it up to those in shitty situations to figure it out for themselves.

_curious_ 6y ago
Who said it was simple? But advisable, sure if you or anyone is not uncomfortable with what they are being subject to/asked to do as part of a job, YES, I would advise them to quit if deemed necessary. Would you advise them to stay and subject themselves to they type of treatment they did not agree with?
- boo_boo 6y ago
  Would you advise them to leave and risk not being able to put food on the table if they can't find another position? If there's little to no opportunity for lateral movement in their job market right now?
  - _curious_ 6y ago
    I would advise them to do what they felt was in their net best interest. Either way, they are making a conscious choice - a choice to stay and continue subjecting themselves to such treatment or a choice to leave and assume the risk. Again, would you advise them to stay and subject themselves to they type of treatment they did not agree with?
    - Avicebron 6y ago
      By this time I can't tell if you're deliberately misunderstanding reality to virtue signal some sort of privilege? But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Vulnerable populations can have their employment opportunities gamed by powerful groups where they are essentially enslaved by their reliance on their paycheck to support their family, food, housing, etc. I don't understand why this doesn't register with you.
      - _curious_ 6y ago
        Thank you for giving me the benefit of doubt...I don't know what "virtue signal some sort of privilege" means? Does that make me dumb? Ignorant? Privileged? It could! "Vulnerable populations can have their employment opportunities gamed by powerful groups where they are essentially enslaved by their reliance on their paycheck to support their family, food, housing, etc. I don't understand why this doesn't register with you." Who in this article falls under your judgement of "vulnerable population"?
        Avicebron 6y ago
        "virtue signal some sort of privilege" - I'm referring to a particular "let them eat cake" sentiment I'm detecting by your posts. An apt analogy because it was a signal of her misunderstanding of the lower classes food situation. "vulnerable populations" - people who are unable to quickly and efficiently move either laterally or vertically, in whatever industry they are in, such that they run real risk of losing food or shelter.
        _curious_ 6y ago
        "virtue signal some sort of privilege" - I'm referring to a particular "let them eat cake" sentiment I'm detecting by your posts. An apt analogy because it was a signal of her misunderstanding of the lower classes food situation. Still confused…what does "virtue signal some sort of privilege" actually mean? Do you have some sort of privileged information on the matter? "vulnerable populations" - people who are unable to quickly and efficiently move either laterally or vertically, in whatever industry they are in, such that they run real risk of losing food or shelter. Under your definition here, what constitutes “quickly and efficiently”? Who are you to judge and label someone as being vulnerable - or not - based on that answer?

Fargren 6y ago

"JUST QUIT" makes it sound like quitting is an easy thing to do. "like they have a gun to their head" makes it sound like direct physical threat is the only mechanism of coercion that exists. These things are just not true. For a lot of people, who have more expenses than savings and are not in highly demanded jobs, quitting puts them at great risk. They have a metaphorical gun to their heads. They might not die the moment they quit, but by quitting they are endangering themselves and those that depend on them. Their relationship with employment is inherently coercive. This is especially true during a pandemic that's causing more people to be unemployed.

_curious_ 6y ago
"For a lot of people, who have more expenses than savings and are not in highly demanded jobs, quitting puts them at great risk. They have a metaphorical gun to their heads. They might not die the moment they quit, but by quitting they are endangering themselves and those that depend on them. Their relationship with employment is inherently coercive." With all of that said: whose responsibility is it to avoid this type of situation? Is it anyone (or anything) but the individual them-self? And should one unfortunately find themselves in this situation described above, whose responsibility is it to figure out a solution? Is it their friends and family who is responsible? Their neighbors? The government? Are you responsible?
- curryst 6y ago
  I would argue it is the government's job to not allow businesses to impose dehumanizing conditions on workers due to the extreme imbalance of power. It's probably not a risk for most of the HN users. Most of us are in high demand jobs, and we would simply refuse to work for a company that uses this kind of spyware. A lot of people don't have that option, because there isn't as much demand for their jobs. Should we really be given that extra privilege simply because what we chose or wanted or had the ability to do is in higher demand? I would say no, it should be a fundamental right of workers in general. It's not as if there is some drastic harm that not installing spyware would impose. If your best means of measuring worker productivity is this junk, you're not going to last as a business anyways.

panda-giddiness 6y ago

Presumably these invasive measures were instituted after the pandemic. Employees didn't agree to these measures when they accepted their jobs, so of course they have a right to be upset with their employers now. If these measures are unpopular, we shouldn't blame employees for being upset; instead, blame the employers for dictating those unpopular policies. Employees have little bargaining power here. While quitting is hypothetically an option (albeit realistically not necessarily), so is shaming. And I see nothing wrong with shaming companies for their stupid, dehumanizing initiatives.

_curious_ 6y ago
"Employees have little bargaining power here." They hold all the power, actually, unless you are one who does not believe in the power of self-agency because perhaps you've already relinquished yours? "While quitting is hypothetically an option (albeit realistically not necessarily), so is shaming. And I see nothing wrong with shaming companies for their stupid, dehumanizing initiatives." Hey, me either, what kind of management culture even does this!?
- panda-giddiness 6y ago
  > you are one who does not believe in the power of self-agency because perhaps you've already relinquished yours? It's hard for my response to be anything other than rolling my eyes. I'm a grad student. If my advisor demanded the ability to surveil me at all times, what would you expect me to do? Quit grad school, throwing away my last four years of work, because I have "self-agency"? No, I'd complain to some higher power -- in my case, the graduate student association or the university.
  - _curious_ 6y ago
    ...Is your default reaction to hearing an opinion you do not agree with or understand to roll your eyes? Thanks for describing what you would do in the situation. It sounds like you are the type who would accept it given the option of quitting or continuing, is that fair to say based off an incomplete answer? There's no right or wrong, there's simply choice in the matter we all have that power to choose :)