Carding 4 Carders
Professional
- Messages
- 2,724
- Reaction score
- 1,588
- Points
- 113
85% of managers admit difficulties with trusting remote employees.
With the shift to telecommuting during the COVID-19 pandemic, many companies have experienced so-called "productivity paranoia", fearing that their employees may not work efficiently enough when left unattended by their superiors. In response to these concerns, many enterprises, especially abroad, have organized full-scale electronic monitoring and outright surveillance of their employees.
According to the September Microsoft survey, which surveyed about 20 thousand people from 11 countries, on average, about 85% of managers reported difficulties with trusting remote employees. In Australia, this figure even reached 90%.
American research firm Gartner concluded last year that the number of large companies around the world that monitor their employees and monitor their productivity has doubled since the beginning of the pandemic and was 60% for the summer of 2022. It is quite possible that this indicator is even higher now.
The employee surveillance software, dubbed "Bossware," lets you create screenshots, record keystrokes, mouse movements, and activate the device's webcam and microphones.
These tools can be used to collect statistics on employees and indirectly affect their productivity, but they also directly violate the personal lives of employees, often capturing much more information than is really needed for statistics.
In Australia, for example, privacy and workplace surveillance are regulated by a complex set of laws. For example, in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, surveillance of an employee is prohibited if the employer does not provide notice 14 days in advance, as well as details about what and how it will be monitored.
Clandestine surveillance, meaning no notice at all, is allowed in Australia only if there is a court order and is limited to situations where an employee is suspected of illegal activity. Covert surveillance is clearly prohibited for monitoring everyday work activities.
In 2022, a parliamentary select committee reporting on the future of work in New South Wales noted that the current regulatory framework has not kept pace with the rapid development of electronic monitoring and surveillance.
Thus, the pandemic has increased distrust between employers and remote employees, leading to the spread of electronic surveillance in the workplace. However, such actions often violate the personal lives of employees and require more precise legal regulation to ensure that the interests of both parties are balanced.
In Russia, the problem of surveillance of remote employees, in general, is not acute. And productivity monitoring is usually limited to data from specialized work programs or websites. Fortunately, we have not yet reached the point of tracking audio and video recordings. But things may still change in the future.
What if your employer confronts you with the fact that they plan to measure your productivity in every conceivable way? Would you be satisfied with this approach, or would you not tolerate such a violation of personal boundaries?
With the shift to telecommuting during the COVID-19 pandemic, many companies have experienced so-called "productivity paranoia", fearing that their employees may not work efficiently enough when left unattended by their superiors. In response to these concerns, many enterprises, especially abroad, have organized full-scale electronic monitoring and outright surveillance of their employees.
According to the September Microsoft survey, which surveyed about 20 thousand people from 11 countries, on average, about 85% of managers reported difficulties with trusting remote employees. In Australia, this figure even reached 90%.
American research firm Gartner concluded last year that the number of large companies around the world that monitor their employees and monitor their productivity has doubled since the beginning of the pandemic and was 60% for the summer of 2022. It is quite possible that this indicator is even higher now.
The employee surveillance software, dubbed "Bossware," lets you create screenshots, record keystrokes, mouse movements, and activate the device's webcam and microphones.
These tools can be used to collect statistics on employees and indirectly affect their productivity, but they also directly violate the personal lives of employees, often capturing much more information than is really needed for statistics.
In Australia, for example, privacy and workplace surveillance are regulated by a complex set of laws. For example, in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, surveillance of an employee is prohibited if the employer does not provide notice 14 days in advance, as well as details about what and how it will be monitored.
Clandestine surveillance, meaning no notice at all, is allowed in Australia only if there is a court order and is limited to situations where an employee is suspected of illegal activity. Covert surveillance is clearly prohibited for monitoring everyday work activities.
In 2022, a parliamentary select committee reporting on the future of work in New South Wales noted that the current regulatory framework has not kept pace with the rapid development of electronic monitoring and surveillance.
Thus, the pandemic has increased distrust between employers and remote employees, leading to the spread of electronic surveillance in the workplace. However, such actions often violate the personal lives of employees and require more precise legal regulation to ensure that the interests of both parties are balanced.
In Russia, the problem of surveillance of remote employees, in general, is not acute. And productivity monitoring is usually limited to data from specialized work programs or websites. Fortunately, we have not yet reached the point of tracking audio and video recordings. But things may still change in the future.
What if your employer confronts you with the fact that they plan to measure your productivity in every conceivable way? Would you be satisfied with this approach, or would you not tolerate such a violation of personal boundaries?
