War declared on bosses using 'omnipresent surveillance' tools to quash union efforts

America's labor watchdog says it intends to crack down on the growing use of technology by bosses to closely monitor and measure staff, as it is feared this software may be used to thwart efforts to organize and unionize. In a memo published Monday, the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)'s General Counsel Jennifer …

[Lordrobot]

NLRB one more reason voters in Muruca will crack down on UNION JOE

I am looking forward to INTEL employees Unionizing in the MECA of FAB... Columbus OH. OHIO is a UNION State which stands to reason that it is a rust belt state with former UNION factories growing grass in parking lots... Wisconsin and Michigan which are successful are RIGHT TO WORK STATES... That is what this bit is all about. Any state with a declining economy is a UNION STATE and any state that is thriving is a right to work state.

The worst economic state is Rhode Island. That's the same state where the former Gov of that rat trap economy is now SECRETARY OF COMMERCE... LOL. Way to go Joe. Find not only the most incompetent but look for one with an unblemished track record of failure to bring their wares the Federal Gov.

At least Liz Truss saved our cheese.

[DS999]

Re: NLRB one more reason voters in Muruca will crack down on UNION JOE

Yeah it is idiots like you who keep talking about how terrible California's economy is because it just doesn't fit in with your crazy notions. Nearly a $100 billion budget surplus despite those terrible policies and tax and spend liberals running it.

Oh but but poop on the streets in SF and crime crime crime, right? Nevermind that red states hold all 10 of the top 10 states with the highest crime rates per capita, with deep red state Oklahoma leading the way with the nation's highest per capita crime rate. Hey wait, isn't that a right to work state? Its economic growth has trailed the US as a whole for years. Isn't being run top to bottom by republicans supposed to be the recipe for high growth?

Funny how reality works, but I guess if you get your news from Murdoch reality and truth are optional.

[Joe W]

Re: NLRB one more reason voters in Muruca will crack down on UNION JOE

"rigth to work"?

Good grief. What a messed up system. What a copious amount of doublespeak.

It is not a "right to work", it is a right to keep employees down, trampling their rights in turn. Why an employee would fight against the right to unionise is incomprehensible (you don't have to, I know several places where everything is just great, as the bosses do care about their staff, pay is well, no need to fight - but it is good or would be good to have the right to do so - see Amazon warehouses). But then I come from a culture where unions are a normal thing. Not that I agree with them (quite often), but I can see the sense in having them. Just because I do not agree with them does not mean they are bad.

But hey, this is the new "normal": Things we do not agree with (or we do not understand) are WRONG and THE DEVIL'S WORK, and all caused by NAZIS or THE LIZARD PEOPLE or THE ESTABLISHMENT or (my favourite one) by THEM!!one1!

Oh, and if you deploy surveillance tools here in Europe you will be in trouble - and if you do it in my workplace you show you do not trust me and I will leave. If you do not trust your employees, why do you still employ them?

[MrDamage]

Re: NLRB one more reason voters in Muruca will crack down on UNION JOE

What's the matter? Forgot the password to your Bombastic Bob account, or was that banned?

[Gene Cash]

Re: NLRB one more reason voters in Muruca will crack down on UNION JOE

That word does not mean what you think it does.

"Right to work" in the US is a legal phrase that actually means "right to fire you"

For example, Florida is a "right to work" state as well, meaning they can pretty much fire you at a whim, except for narrowly protected things like age/race/gender discrimination.

[doublelayer]

Re: NLRB one more reason voters in Muruca will crack down on UNION JOE

"Right to work" in the US is a legal phrase that actually means "right to fire you"

For example, Florida is a "right to work" state as well, meaning they can pretty much fire you at a whim, except for narrowly protected things like age/race/gender discrimination.

I think your mixing up two terms. Your definition applies to "at will employment", which means that there are fewer restrictions on why an employment contract can be terminated. "Right to work" isn't the same, and generally means that a company cannot require its employees to be members of or financially contribute to a union, as opposed to states where employees can choose not to participate in union activities but are still required to pay for union representation if they are employed at a unionized location. You can have one of these without the other, so it's useful to know where one ends and another begins.

[lilly]

Re: NLRB one more reason voters in Muruca will crack down on UNION JOE

Yes, that is useful distinction to understand, but still in essence for the employers, right-to-work equals right-to-fire. Their bonus is that the fired employee won’t have union representation to challenge management. It’s easier to isolate and fire individuals without union affiliation. BTW, many large companies prevent union formation by contracting union busting consulting companies as part of their yearly budget.

[Ptol]

Re: NLRB one more reason voters in Muruca will crack down on UNION JOE

I think you are mistaking correlation with cause/effect.

I think its more likely its the industry mix that is defining the boom/bust difference, not the workers rights. If businesses can only survive long term by suppressing working conditions, then those businesses deserve to go bust.

[Anonymous Coward]

American labour laws/attitudes

Weirdest on the planet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: American labour laws/attitudes

Indeed! They are very strange. But then most US laws seem to live at the limits of the graph rather than in the more normal middle areas.

Its as if they have been written by self interest groups rather than anyone with half a brain.

[Antipode77]

Re: American labour laws/attitudes

Businesses writing laws to control employees.

What could go wrong, eh ?

[Sam Adams the Dog]

Depends on who owns the computer...

Regarding key logging, etc. on employees' computers, the question is who owns the computers. If they're talking about computers owned by the employees, it's very bad. If it's computers used by employees that are owned by the employer and used exclusively for work, then I don't see a "rights" problem with it. Use your own computer when you're off the job; on the job, you already know that your email is monitored, etc. Why would you use the device for anything that's not work-related, anyway?

That's not to say that I think it's likely to be very useful to the employer.

-P.

[Neil Barnes]

Re: Depends on who owns the computer...

It may be that the owner of the hardware has the legal right to run - and forbid - any software they want on it. The question though is whether they _should_ be monitoring every activity of the user of that hardware... are relations between US employers and employees so bad that this sort of monitoring is necessary, or is this some micromanagement fad instigated by the MBA theories of 'if you're measuring it, you're managing it'?

[Sam Adams the Dog]

Re: Depends on who owns the computer...

@Neil Barnes

I'm dubious about the utility, except maybe in extreme cases. I wouldn't assume it's MBA driven. Surveillance and AI based upon it might be described as a solution in search of a problem (if it's a solution to ANY problem), and it's the kind of thing that extreme techies might suggest to management as an aid to performance appraisal. (Shudder.) Not to even mention that the belief that Big Brother is Watching You is not exactly conducive to a happy, healthy work environment.

As to relationships between employers and employees in the U. S., it all depends on the company and which employees you are talking about.

I am retired from a company that has over the years consistently been cited as one of the best places in NY (and even the US, I think) to work.

Amazon, on the other hand is sometimes cited by employees as terrible. I don't know how much of that is belly-aching to arouse public support for unionization. But even some high level employees, including one whom I know and respect, have left after a relatively short time, commenting that it is a bizarre and awful work environment.

But then I know another who spent several years there and left for a position that interested him more. He respected the Amazon weltanschauung. He worked there over twenty years ago, a long time ago in the life of Amazon. Still, he liked it, though he was challenged and worked long hours. I suspect that warehouse workers are more likely to get surveilled than either of these friends.

[Neil Barnes]

Re: Depends on who owns the computer...

You could well be right - and of course whatever information we get about working conditions is highly partisan to one side or the other and so probably not to be trusted to any great extent.

Nonetheless I do see very many instances of people complaining about working practices/conditions under which I would never even consider working. Horses for courses, I guess.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Depends on who owns the computer...

Owning something doesn't confer any special legal right to use it for illegal activity. Such as monitoring workers for the U word.

[Joe W]

Re: Depends on who owns the computer...

Or constantly monitoring them, like, at all.

(one of the few times I agreed with jake wholeheartedly, he commented that he'd rather fire somebody when he did not trust them - and I would rather quit if you would not trust me - oh, and if you treat employees well they have no need to unionise, keep that in mind).

[lilly]

Re: Depends on who owns the computer...

Just how does this same logic apply to company owned toilets. What does the company have rights to? Video? Sound? Smell? Rest assured they are certainly getting each employee’s maximum daily output.

[Anonymous Coward]

Homer had the idea... using a 'drinking bird' toy to keep pressing a key

[Howard Sway]

crack down on the growing use of technology by bosses

Easiest solution : use the technology on bosses too. Every worker should buy a share in the company, then propose that as they are now the employer of the bosses, the same technology must be used to give them full information on everything the bosses do during the day. Any "poor" performance equal to the threshold for disciplinary action imposed by the bosses should result in those bosses being subject to the same punishments. Remind the PHBs that they're employees too, and the same rules apply to them.

[Claptrap314]

Re: crack down on the growing use of technology by bosses

If you are in the US, you clearly either slept through your harassment training or have a very short memory.

Yes, managers are employees. They are also _managers_, and as such have a lot of rules that apply to them that don't apply to line workers.

I'm not commenting on any other aspect of your post.

[Gene Cash]

Running them ragged

Does this count use of the tools to run the workers so hard they have to pee in bottles?

Because if they're being pushed that hard, then they certainly don't have time to "engage in protected activities"

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Running them ragged

No, that's a C-suite thing. Ultimately they set the performance standards, and the manning requirements, without looking at the two together. Lower level management is tasked with meeting those standards, and will themselves be written up/fired if their people don't meet the requirements. Management isn't the enemy so much as they're caught in the middle, and their performance reviews are based on the performance of the people under them.

One of the reasons I like my peon position and will never work another management gig.