[jamestanderson]

> In a statement, the bank said: "We always intended to listen to colleague feedback as part of this limited pilot which was intended to tackle issues such as individual over-working as well as raise general productivity."

Riiiight.

[GordonS]

If they intended to listen, or indeed cared an iota about their employees, they wouldn't have rolled this out in the first place. This level of intrusive monitoring would very clearly be hated by those it monitored, and make then feel very uncomfortable.

Seriously, in this day and age, how on earth did this get enough support at the management level to pilot it?

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Having listened to some of the conversations in my MBA class, I am genuinely not surprised.

The current consensus seems to be that cellphones spying on your every move is ok so logically it does make sense to just expand it. This had to be scaled back since people are not sufficiently conditioned yet.

Speaking from US perspective, Baxter has some ridiculous user monitoring tools in their call centers.

[banannaise]

Easy. The people at management level aren't the ones being monitored. There's no cost to them. Easy to trade someone else's happiness for your own profits.

"Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."

[nonbirithm]

> Seriously, in this day and age, how on earth did this get enough support at the management level to pilot it?

They valued maximizing the amount of profit one worker produces over privacy.

[GordonS]

I rather doubt that miserable, downtrodden employees are more productive than happy, motivated ones are.

[banannaise]

They don't teach that in MBA classes. They just teach that employees who aren't at their desks aren't being productive right now.