How the use of employee data by companies is changing the labor market

What is my score as an employee?

Physical exercise by applications (Photo: Pexels)

We are all being evaluated every day. The expensive airline tickets I bought recently have already gone into my credit rating. The fact that I stopped running every morning was noticed by my exercise app - and if I was connected to an insurance company, that change could influence prices.

By my online activities, Facebook knows that I love beer and believes that my screen is a good place to put advertising on hipsters breweries. One site recently stated that I am the 1,410th most influential Twitter user in Colombia - something that could increase my credit score, apparently. And, yes, my efficiency as an employee can also be assessed and determined by a number.

And we're not just talking about loose services. A point system has been incorporated into the corporate world.

Human resource departments are dealing with ever-increasing volumes of information to evaluate employees in a more meticulous manner. From softwares that record every record on keyboards to technological coffee machines that will only give you coffee if you wear your badge. There are more opportunities than ever for bosses to follow behavior. Some analysts believe that this industry will cost more than one billion dollars (RS $ 3.68 billion) by 2022.

A major goal of data collection is to make "predictions about how long an employee will be in the job, which can influence hiring, firing, or retention of employees," says Phoebe Moore, Professor of Economic Policy and Technology, University of Leicester ) and author of The Quantified Self in Precarity: Work, Technology and What Counts (The Quantified Being in Precariousness: Work, Technology and What's Worth).

The data collection is "changing employability relationships, the way people work and expectations of how it could be," says Moore.

One problem with this strategy is that it is blind to some non-quantifiable aspects of the job. Some of the subtler things I do to write better, for example, are not quantifiable: having a drink with someone who tells me a great story, or imagining a text on the way to work. None of these things would appear in my "professional score." "Many of the qualitative aspects of the work are being discarded," says Moore, "because if you can not measure them, they do not exist."

Is a healthy and physically active person a better employee? Research indicates that physical activities decrease absences and increase productivity. This has led to the growth of the health and wellness industry with programs worth billions.

Officials value these health programs not only because their bosses may give them time to participate in them, but also because if they record their workouts through their cell phone or tracking wristbands, they can receive rewards.

"I use this device, I earn points and buy things for doing things that I would do without it," says Lauren Hoffman, a former saleswoman at one of these health programs in the United States who was also part of them.

There are several economic reasons for collecting employee data - from better risk management to assessing whether social behavior at the workplace can lead to gender discrimination. "Companies do not understand how people interact and collaborate at work," says Ben Waber, president and CEO of Humanyze, a US company that groups and analyzes data on the workplace.

Humanyze collects data from two sources. The first is the official communications metadata: email, telephone and corporate messaging service. The company says analyzing metadata does not include reading the content of those messages, nor the identities of the people involved, but it involves evaluating the most general information, such as duration, frequency, and overall location so that you know which department the employee is in.

The second area refers to data collected from gadgets such as infrared Bluetooth sensors that detect how many people are working in a particular part of the office and how they move. They also use 'supercharged' identity badges which, as Waber says, contain 'microphones that do not record what you say, but do voice processing in real time.' This allows you to measure the proportion of time you speak or how often you are interrupted.

After six weeks of research, the employer receives a general picture of the problem he wants to solve based on the assessed data. If the goal, for example, is to increase sales, they can analyze what the best seller does that others do not. Or, if they want to measure productivity, they may deduce that more efficient employees talk more often to their managers.

If you think surveillance is restricted to security cameras in your workplace, think twice; we are all being monitored and evaluated.

By BBC

If you worked at the Ford factory in 1914, at some point in your career a private detective would be hired to follow you home.

If you stopped to drink on the way, fought with your wife or did anything that would mark you as a troublesome employee, your boss would know about it the next day.

This investigation is due, in part, to the higher salary of Ford employees in relation to the competition.

The auto company raised its salary from $ 2.39 to $ 5 a day, the equivalent of $ 124 in today's numbers. But you needed to be a model citizen to live up to that pay.

His house had to be cleaned, his children had to go to school, his savings account had to be in order. If someone at the factory thought you were on the wrong track, you could not just miss a promotion, but your job would be on the line.

This operation 'Big Brother' was played by the Sociological Department of Ford, a team of inspectors who visited workers' homes without announcing their arrival. Its purpose was to promote "the health, safety and well-being of employees," as an internal document said. The department offered everything from medical plans to home maintenance courses.

The program lasted eight years. It was expensive, and many workers did not like its paternalistic tone and considered it intrusive. Today, most of us would consider it unacceptable - what does my job have to do with my washed clothes, my bank account, or my relationships?

Yet the idea of employers trying to control the lives of employees beyond the workplace has remained, and digital tools have facilitated this practice more than ever. You are likely to use various technologies that can create a detailed profile of your activities and habits, both in and out of the office. But what can employers (and can not) do with these data? And how can we impose limits on this practice?

What is my score as an employee?

If you think surveillance is restricted to security cameras in your workplace, think twice; we are all being monitored and evaluated.

By BBC

If you worked at the Ford factory in 1914, at some point in your career a private detective would be hired to follow you home.

If you stopped to drink on the way, fought with your wife or did anything that would mark you as a troublesome employee, your boss would know about it the next day.

This investigation is due, in part, to the higher salary of Ford employees in relation to the competition.

The auto company raised its salary from $ 2.39 to $ 5 a day, the equivalent of $ 124 in today's numbers. But you needed to be a model citizen to live up to that pay.

His house had to be cleaned, his children had to go to school, his savings account had to be in order. If someone at the factory thought you were on the wrong track, you could not just miss a promotion, but your job would be on the line.

The program lasted eight years. It was expensive, and many workers did not like its paternalistic tone and considered it intrusive. Today, most of us would consider it unacceptable - what does my job have to do with my washed clothes, my bank account, or my relationships?

What is my score as an employee?