|
Fire him, obviously. But that's an interesting example. The guy is doing a poor job, so if you want to be impartial, you should fire him for not meeting your expectations. But it is natural to understand why he is doing a poor job. I mean, maybe it is just a temporary personal issue (ex: sick kids), or maybe just not his fault (ex: task more complex than expected, broken IT, etc...). Or maybe he needs training. It is fair to fire him without trying to understand? Unfortunately, one possibility is dishonesty, as it is the case for your employee. And that's when surveillance comes in. You can flip the argument of "accept monitoring or get fired" around in favor of the employee as in "you are doing a poor job, normally we would fire you for that, but it may not be your fault, so if you allow us to make sure of that (by monitoring), we will try to find another solution". Of course, it can and is often abused, but it is not black and white. |
An interesting parallel to ankle bracelets (also mentioned in the article). As a form of punishment, it's the justice system's way of saying, "you're doing a very poor job as a citizen, but we don't think it would be fair to put you in prison for it, so if you allow us, we'll impose some lesser restrictions and monitor your adherence, to make it easier for you to improve your behavior".
No country on the planet forces everyone to wear ankle bracelets by default.