🚀 go-pugleaf

A recent issue of "U.S. News and World Report" talks about a most interesting
and controversial subject: management monitoring of employee productivity...

A number of cases are cited, and the photograph associated with the article
has a couple of women sitting in a room with a speaker phone prominent on 
the table they are all writing on and the caption ``Supervisors at Idaho's
Mountain Bell monitoring directory-assistance operators via speakerphone.''

Of course, the article cites the repressive totalitarian nightmare of `1984'
(by George Orwell) and various people from the ACLU and the like say the two
aren't as far apart as we think...

Experts (including, presumably, the ACLU person, Harley Shaiken of UCSD,
Michael Smith of Univ. of Wisconsin, and Alan Westin at Columbia University
(can we get them involved in this???)) estimate that over 33% of the people 
currently working with computers are being monitored in some way.  They 
further predict that within fifteen years 50 to 75% of those using VDTs will 
be monitored.

There are some horror stories too, like the AT&T employee who complains;

     "I can't even go to the bathroom without being watched.  I 
      have to put up a flag at my terminal, wait till the restroom
      is empty, sign out, sign back in  and remove my flag."

Various organizations to protect workers rights have popped up too, and they
claim, quite reasonably, that these monitoring techniques are too shallow and
don't take into account various working styles, the productivity of breaks
(to read documentation, for example) and so on.  Carl Robinson, postal-union
leader, adds that there is also a danger of disciplinary action for those
who might have a bad day, or have other problems.

Hard core management types, of course, respond that the purpose of the
company, and the reason the people are employeed at all, is to do the
job assigned to them, and if they perform poorly, for whatever reason,
they are poor employees.  

It's hard to argue with this logic, but I think that it is "hard core"
and that a company is much more than simply a place to 'put in your time
and get your paycheck.'  It's also certainly in the best interests of a
company to ensure that their employees are well off!

As Vico Henriques, president of the Computer and Business Equipment
Manufacturers Association, puts it, "Managers who use monitoring to
harass employees over tiny details will lower morale and probably
reduce overall effectiveness."  Vico continues by pointing out that the 
monitoring unto itself is blameless - it is how it's used that determines 
if it is good or bad.

So...

With that in mind, I'd like to start a discussion of this topic, with us
trying to address the following issues;

  1. Is this form of monitoring *ever* good?  When?  Why?

  2. Are there circumstances where this is *very* bad?  When?  Why?

  3. What level of monitoring should be performed?  (this is obviously
     relative to the task...)

  4. Are *you* being monitored at all?  Have you ever been?
	If so, was it positive or negative, and how did you and your
	fellow employees (and management) react to it??

  5. Finally, would information of this sort be viable information to
     exchange on the "market"?  (for example, an on-line search for all
     programmers who take short lunches, type > 70 wpm and know how to
     program in Fortran, by a placement agency).  A subset of it?   Do
     you think this already takes place??


Please keep in mind that there really needs to be SOME way for management
to have a way to keep tabs on employee performance, and that not all emp-
loyees can have 'goals' and such (like a directory assistance operator).

	I'll reply with my thoughts in a few days...

						-- Dave Taylor