5 ms·

I work full-time and get monitored like this. Ever hear of Hubstaff? It's an unfortunate reality for some remote workers and I don't agree with it but it happen

by f8 6y ago

I work full-time and get monitored like this. Ever hear of Hubstaff? It's an unfortunate reality for some remote workers and I don't agree with it but it happens. There can be an inherent distrust from employers when they're unable to see you physically working. It's more of an assurance thing, but I've gotten used to working exclusively in VM's.

mdocherty 6y ago
Where do you work?
- cpach 6y ago
  There are probably lots of companies like this. Fortunately there are also lots of other companies who trust their coworkers!
antonzabirko 6y ago
Name company please
- yolo3000 6y ago
  Crossover is an example of this - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/06/workplace-surveillance-big-brother-technology https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/06/workplace-surv...
- curryst 6y ago
  Glassdoor should add a field for whether the company uses software like that.
3np 6y ago
While I think it's stupid and would never dream of going in that direction with my staff (the most talented would probably bolt fast), in principle I see nothing wrong with it as long as: 1) The employer has paid for all necessary hardware 2) If anything goes through third-party services, I can work on the tracked environment in a way that doesn't expose my personal information in any way (e.g. I shouldn't be required to open my e-mail inbox or any other online accound not strictly tied to my employment there) 3) The employer accepts the time wasted on any friction with moving information back and forth (and/or sees to minimize need for that) If it means running a VM, up any workstation with 16GB RAM.
- jeltz 6y ago
  I don't feel any of that solves my main issue: that I would not want to work for someone who does not trust me. That does not seem like a good environment where I can be productive and work on things which benefit my employer. The privacy issues is not the only issue. The only case I would accept something like this is if I was working at eg the NSA, a really high value target for state actors. Then I would get why nobody can be trusted.
  - 3np 6y ago
    Oh, absolutely. I wouldn't want to work like that either. Just saying I see it as a bad decision, not ethically or morally wrong. As opposed to, say, controling employees bathroom breaks as is routine in retail and industrial jobs in some places. Or prohibiting/preventing unionisation.
  - nojito 6y ago
    It's not a question of trust, it's a question of time tracking for hourly employees. I agree that if you are a salaried employee this type of tracking software makes no sense.
    - fabbari 6y ago
      In my head when I tell a client that a project/job is X hours it means that that is the market value in hours for that project. There is an old Italian story - I'm sure it's common in other places - about a TV repairman that goes to fix a TV at someone's house. He looks at the TV and tells the owner: "It's going to be 100$ to fix it". The owner agrees. The repairman walks up to the TV, hits it with his fist and the TV starts working again. The owner complains: "What? A 100 bucks to hit the TV with your fist?" and the handyman: "Yeah, because I knew where to hit it!". The idea is, say that you are a 10X performer: you have two options in front of you. Option one: you charge 1200$ for ten hours of work - this will make clients happy, even if you are only working an hour. Option two: you charge 1200$ for an hour of work: none is going to hire you because there are people that are only charging 120$ an hour. The funny thing is: even if the math always ends up the same - 1200$ - people will almost always choose the 120$ an hour because in their heads they are getting the best deal. Back to the topic at hand: if I say that a job is 10 hours at 120$ per hour I don't want to be monitored because trust doesn't enter into it. It's a simple matter of what's the worth of the job. If you don't think the job is worth 1200$ no amount of monitoring will fix it; if you think the job is worth 1200$ then if I do it in two minutes or 10 hours should not be an issue. The Speed-Cost-Quality triangle is lost in translation the moment the invoice hits the printer. * Edit 1 - Fixed some spelling.
Kaze404 6y ago
This is complete insanity to me. So now you're not only selling your knowledge and your time, but you're also selling your complete undivided attention with likely no changes to your paycheck. How do you employ someone and give them access to your company's systems but not give them the absolute minimum amount of trust? It makes no sense.

by f8 6y ago

mdocherty 6y ago

Where do you work?

cpach 6y ago
There are probably lots of companies like this. Fortunately there are also lots of other companies who trust their coworkers!

antonzabirko 6y ago

Name company please

yolo3000 6y ago
Crossover is an example of this - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/06/workplace-surveillance-big-brother-technology https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/06/workplace-surv...
curryst 6y ago
Glassdoor should add a field for whether the company uses software like that.

3np 6y ago

While I think it's stupid and would never dream of going in that direction with my staff (the most talented would probably bolt fast), in principle I see nothing wrong with it as long as: 1) The employer has paid for all necessary hardware 2) If anything goes through third-party services, I can work on the tracked environment in a way that doesn't expose my personal information in any way (e.g. I shouldn't be required to open my e-mail inbox or any other online accound not strictly tied to my employment there) 3) The employer accepts the time wasted on any friction with moving information back and forth (and/or sees to minimize need for that) If it means running a VM, up any workstation with 16GB RAM.

jeltz 6y ago
I don't feel any of that solves my main issue: that I would not want to work for someone who does not trust me. That does not seem like a good environment where I can be productive and work on things which benefit my employer. The privacy issues is not the only issue. The only case I would accept something like this is if I was working at eg the NSA, a really high value target for state actors. Then I would get why nobody can be trusted.
- 3np 6y ago
  Oh, absolutely. I wouldn't want to work like that either. Just saying I see it as a bad decision, not ethically or morally wrong. As opposed to, say, controling employees bathroom breaks as is routine in retail and industrial jobs in some places. Or prohibiting/preventing unionisation.
- nojito 6y ago
  It's not a question of trust, it's a question of time tracking for hourly employees. I agree that if you are a salaried employee this type of tracking software makes no sense.
  - fabbari 6y ago
    In my head when I tell a client that a project/job is X hours it means that that is the market value in hours for that project. There is an old Italian story - I'm sure it's common in other places - about a TV repairman that goes to fix a TV at someone's house. He looks at the TV and tells the owner: "It's going to be 100$ to fix it". The owner agrees. The repairman walks up to the TV, hits it with his fist and the TV starts working again. The owner complains: "What? A 100 bucks to hit the TV with your fist?" and the handyman: "Yeah, because I knew where to hit it!". The idea is, say that you are a 10X performer: you have two options in front of you. Option one: you charge 1200$ for ten hours of work - this will make clients happy, even if you are only working an hour. Option two: you charge 1200$ for an hour of work: none is going to hire you because there are people that are only charging 120$ an hour. The funny thing is: even if the math always ends up the same - 1200$ - people will almost always choose the 120$ an hour because in their heads they are getting the best deal. Back to the topic at hand: if I say that a job is 10 hours at 120$ per hour I don't want to be monitored because trust doesn't enter into it. It's a simple matter of what's the worth of the job. If you don't think the job is worth 1200$ no amount of monitoring will fix it; if you think the job is worth 1200$ then if I do it in two minutes or 10 hours should not be an issue. The Speed-Cost-Quality triangle is lost in translation the moment the invoice hits the printer. * Edit 1 - Fixed some spelling.

Kaze404 6y ago

This is complete insanity to me. So now you're not only selling your knowledge and your time, but you're also selling your complete undivided attention with likely no changes to your paycheck. How do you employ someone and give them access to your company's systems but not give them the absolute minimum amount of trust? It makes no sense.