[lkramer]

You don't think there are higher skilled people trying to exploit the system?

I suspect the real difference here is developers are in higher demand. If we feel the checks becomes to unfair, we can go look for a different job.

If a warehouse worker doesn't like his smoke breaks being monitored, there is little recourse, someone else can be hired who will accept these condition out of desperation for a job.

[adamc]

Your explanation seems off to me. Why would lower demand necessarily imply there was someone suitable who was desperate?

It seems like your explanation suggests that the pool of "suitable" would be larger, i.e., the job is less skilled. I think it is definitely true that less skilled workers have bad options, because, by definition, they are easily replaced.

More highly skilled workers can end up in this situation, too... it's just less automatic that they can be easily replaced. In a recession, or after structural changes that render many such workers redundant... sure.

[luckylion]

> More highly skilled workers can end up in this situation, too

And the moment that happens, all those nice benefits go flying out the window and the SWE find themselves having to clock out when going to the toilet. Demand (and therefore the easy of replacement) is what makes the difference.

[azernik]

Low or high demand are always relative to supply. So think "high supply" rather than "low demand".