> Look at how much control and spying employers place on low wage workers compared to high wage workers.
Has it occurred to you that this is because low wage employees might actually commit more thefts and such?
I mean... I've been on a grand jury, and i've seen the lengths some companies go to prevent theft from what I presume are low wage employees. These systems costs lots of money. If low wage employees were actually not stealing, then why would they expend all this money on these systems? It would seem any actuary would be able to tell you you're throwing money away. And yet, they continue to have the systems.
I don't think low wage employees are 'bad'. I'm just pointing out that if the employer behavior is so irrational, then certainly some company would start that wouldn't do that. That every single one does I think indicates that this is a common enough problem.
Have you considered the time theft of high wage employees going to the restroom, eating snacks in the break room, or having untimed lunches? That’s time that could be spent being productive.
Surely the your team would be more productive if the LOCs were tracked per day and they had to get permission to use the restroom, or better yet use a piss jug. Did Jim really go to the doctor, or pick up his kids from school, or did he just go to the bar and get drunk? Better demand that note, and GPS track him.
Honestly, you're right. That's why low-wage employees working in non-goods occupations (like clerks and hospitality) don't get mistreated. It has to do with access to goods, which are easily quantifiable.
Certainly it’s easier to police physical theft, and that’s certainly part of it,
However low wage employees outside of property control are also monitored and controlled more than higher wage white collar jobs. For example, look at call center employees.[0]
I think it’s a combination of class (ie white collar workers are more similar to the management and owners), and low wage workers being considered more replaceable, thus managers feel freer to engage their baser impulses. Throw in a bit personal bias and stereotypes and voilà! You have a horrible situation.
Has it occurred to you that this is because low wage employees might actually commit more thefts and such?
I mean... I've been on a grand jury, and i've seen the lengths some companies go to prevent theft from what I presume are low wage employees. These systems costs lots of money. If low wage employees were actually not stealing, then why would they expend all this money on these systems? It would seem any actuary would be able to tell you you're throwing money away. And yet, they continue to have the systems.
I don't think low wage employees are 'bad'. I'm just pointing out that if the employer behavior is so irrational, then certainly some company would start that wouldn't do that. That every single one does I think indicates that this is a common enough problem.