>

The party of the people??
^

Workplace surveillance has been a growing area of concern for Democrats in the past few years, as the shift to remote work during the pandemic has prompted increased use of employee monitoring technologies. Since the onset of the pandemic, the percentage of large companies that digitally monitor their workers has doubled, to more than 60 percent. At a time when managers can no longer keep an eye on workers in the office, they’ve increasingly relied on technologies such as keylogger software, geolocation tools that track workers’ physical movements, and even software that monitors worker attentiveness with webcams, using biometric data to scrutinize minute body movements and facial expressions. 
Currently, federal law gives workers few protections from these kinds of surveillance practices. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 does have some safeguards against workplace monitoring, but it has wide-ranging exceptions that allow employers to keep tabs on virtually all communications for “legitimate business purposes.” Currently, no federal law requires employers to disclose that they are monitoring workers, though individual states are increasingly taking steps to protect workers’ rights. In May 2022, for example, New York passed a law requiring private companies to publicly disclose whether employees will be electronically monitored, following similar legislation in Delaware and Connecticut. In California, a bill introduced last year would eliminate tools like facial recognition and emotion recognition technologies from the workplace. 

....

n the memo, Abruzzo also acknowledged “abusive electronic monitoring” could interfere with employees’ right to organize a union or engage in other protected labor activities. As I’ve written before, unions around the country are currently in the middle of negotiating how data collected on workers can be used by employers. At companies like Amazon, unionization efforts are being driven partly by a culture of relentless workplace surveillance—and in some cases employers are responding to unionization efforts by doubling down on digital monitoring. Whole Foods, which is owned by Amazon, used heat maps to identify its stores at risk of unionization, according to Insider. 

Article continues.... >

This seems like a CORE issue that republicans would want to align with democrats on……let’s see, shall we? 
On the other hand there was a minor kerfuffle over some guys laptop dong shots that they invaded, sooooooooo……. >

When was the last time the Republicans sided with the worker over the employer? >

I’d be genuinely interested in hearing others thoughts on that. 
I can’t think of anything recently. Maybe the few that signed onto the infrastructure bill?  I know many right wing workers that are only temporarily not multi millionaires seemed to think the tax cut bill was for them? >

Didn't republicans support anti-vaxxers who tried to use religious belief to get around the workplace rules? (which was obviously not a good thing). >

Republicans should support this too right? But I can also see them siding with business on this one. Gotta keep the proletariat in line. >

Yeah, protections for them and obscenely rich donors, not for the plebs. >

My current employer measures everyone on tasks accomplished.
How long it takes you, and how you do it is irrelevant so long as the work gets done >

I can understand the need to keep people from misusing equipment, I can see that companies want to make sure their employees are doin the work.  Yet, you know I hear the story about the worker who could handle a days work in six hours then being called out for the other two becoming more common.  Really as long as the work is done, why does it matter?   Really your not paying for the hours anymore but the assurance the work is done to standard.  So it comes down to control.  These companies just want to maintain control over their employees that they would have in the office they can't have in the home.  They don't need this level of control unless the employee legit gives a reason.  As long as a working quota is met by the effort of the user companies should be content with that. >

If employers, as you state, are no longer paying for time, then we should go to a piece work standard. But as long as employees are paid hourly, if you do 8 hours work in 6 hours, you should report back that you are done, then the employer can make an informed decision as to whether or not to assign you more work. If the opposite were true, if it took 10 hours to do 8 hours work, you’d expect more pay, right? So in the interest of “equity”, the employer has a right to have you work for 8 hours if that’s how long you are paid for. >

I don't think you fully understand.  What does your daily value of pay come to.  We are very used to see the, an hour, method.  However if you think about it for many office folk, especially the ones who do the same level of work a day really your just being paid for your time to do the work.  
At home things really change.  If a person can do the same amount of work in 6  hours at home that it would take them 8 to do in a cubicle then by your logic you are putting out to advocate less pay.  
In reality this is a demonstration of efficiency.  More work in less time actually stands to promote profit for said company.  In this case I'm talking about all those office folk out there.  The types who work in an adaptable environment. 
I also noticed you never worked from home before. So really its like you have no clue on this situation.  You told someone else that because companies pay they should be allowed to see everything.  But I can bet if you were put in that spot you wouldn't like having your privacy violated so much.  
I know, how about we let them put a camera in your house so they can watch you and critique you live.   Just imagine if your boss had 24 access to your house and reprimanded you on your home life.  That's one major thing they are trying to prevent by doing this. 
In the end the job I'm talking about are folks who get paid for their efforts not just their time.  Because as we all know not everyone puts in the same effort, but instead of finding better ways to ensure the work gets done businesses are pushing to violate privacy to ensure. >

They'll pass something like this in concert with something even worse like an EARN-IT type bill. Everything is always a distraction for some really terrible thing that crushes our rights and siphons more power and money away to the top. There's never not some kind of backroom quid pro quo deal being made with political donors. Guess I'm cynical and shudder to think what kind of riders will quietly hide in the 2,000 page piece of legislation that finally increases the federal minimum wage above $7.25/hr. >

Let me guess... republicans will block it in the house because it's evil becasue democrats originated the idea? >

I've been extensively monitored at two jobs. It was a really shitty feeling and it made the environment miserable. Needless to say, I don't work at those jobs anymore. Workers need more rights. >


create a new division of the Department of Labor to regulate workplace surveillance.

Sorry, we don't need this. We need a law that allows complaints to Department of Labor, OSHA or NLRB about intrusive surveillance but not another bureaucracy. >

Senate Democrats ~~Are Taking Companies to Task~~ won't do anything except bluster Over Invasive Workplace Surveillance
Ftfy >


Senate Democrats ~~Are Taking Companies to Task~~ won't do anything except bluster Over Invasive Workplace Surveillance

*Today in blaming democrats for republican obstructionism... >

Sure. 
You really think dems would do anything about this even if they had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate?
Republican obstructionism is the best thing to happen to the neoliberals in the Dem party.
Now they can kowtow to their corporate masters and appear like they want to do something and in the end just blame republicans or Manchin.
Republicans are fascists. Dems are 1950s right wing conservatives who only look liberal by comparison to crazy.