Fastening, Joining & Assembly

What's not to be happy about?? And I don't want to hear the "It's just another example of taking our privacy away." drivel. What about the right of the employer to be able to minimize his expenses by streamlining the operation of keeping track of his employees' time? Does he not have the right to use whatever methods are available to him for this purpose? Another benefit of a palm reading system for this purpose would be elimination of fraudulent activities such as en employee having someone else "punch in" for him. I believe that this is another example of applied technology helping to enhance the company's bottom line and make record keeping easier and safer.

It's not so much a matter of privacy that concerns me, but it may be a knee-jerk reaction to call concerns over one's privacy "drivel" - there are legitimate privacy concerns and implications for everyone any time new ID technology comes to the market, for employers and employees. Yes, it's common knowledge that employees practice unethical "vicarious" clock-in/clock out's, but it is no less common for employers to engage in unethical practices or randomly ignore their own written policies when it benefits them (I suppose that's also their "right"). Eliminating fraudulent activities in and of itself is not a worthy goal for implementing such a system because human nature ALWAYS finds a way around such human-made systems, no matter how "fool-proof" they are. I am occasionally late for work for any number of legitimate reasons, and I have been ineligible for quarterly attendance incentive bonuses because of tardiness, but I always clock in for myself. I have to - the C-TPAT regulations would be enforced if someone else obtained my ID card that allows me into the building and is used to clock in. So, even if I'm late, at least I'm honest about it! I watched a fellow employee receive the quarterly attendance incentive bonus for 8 consecutive quarters, knowing full well he had been tardy. His secret - he told me himself, "On days I'm late, I just don't clock in, then I tell the supervisor that I just forgot to do it." Great system, but he found an unguarded loophole - one management just doesn't take time to run a check on by reviewing video footage of that (clock in) zone. I personally think fair incentives, positive reinforcement (i.e., rewarding ethical behavior), consistency in management, and attention to system maintenance should be considered before implementing a new technology like palm scanning. The employer (and it sounds like you are one) isn't going to share the savings with his suddenly "ethical" employees who can no longer pull off substitutionary clock-in's. No! Of course not - he's in business to MAKE money and leverage the efforts of his team, not increase their pay by switching to a long-term cost-effective ID technology. I'm only saying that ALL the incentives are stacked on the side of the employer for using this technology; but, at some point, consideration of employees general perceptions of and contributions to workplace morale could be just as useful for eliminating fraudulent practices. It's not just about "easier" - that's obvious; but I think we would agree that "safer" is definitely a plus. I just can't see how it would make it ultimately "safer", as you suggest. It's not just the "bottom line", it's also how you get there. If your concern is ethical practice, which you intend to coerce by implementing a tighter control mechanism, a better solution might well be to just BE the best ethical example with complete transparency in front of your team. No employer can expect to engender loyalty by constantly looking for new ways to police his team. That attitude is a vestigal component of out-dated management styles (rule with an iron fist, big I, little you, etc.). Palm scanning my very well be the next greatest tool of its kind, but there are implications that may not be so obvious to those who ONLY pursue the bottom line.

Hand scans, retina scans both have been used for years in nuclear plants for positive ID.

I can't see how it would have any bearing on privacy issues.

I have a finger print scanner on my laptop - love it.

The only people that don't want positive ID would be those that have something to hide or trying to get away with something that they know is wrong!

I certainly do not see any problem with it, but it is just another blight on our decadent society, that cannot be trusted, even in the work place.

As said before stuff the privacy issues, I have nothing to hide, but those that consider it an affront to their privacy.........may be do have something to hide.

Then there are those who go to some "soothsayer" to have their palms read, or fortunes told.............well each to his own.

Anything that reduces a cost of doing business is a good thing. When the cost of doing business increases, it generally does not hit the bottom line, because the astute businessman increases the prices he charges to compensate. While a cost savings may have an immediate impact on the bottom line (i.e., a reward for innovation), such impact will be short-lived as one's competitors adopt similar practices, reducing one's temporary cost advantage.

Well, that's how it is SUPPOSED to work, anyway...

the last time I was on a punch clock, It proved I was late about 16 minutes a month.

I didn't get a raise.

I drove about 40 miles to get there.. underpaid and overworked.

I quit a short time later. They have been letting me know I was a good and valuable employee and could return any time.. no hard feelings.. That was 20 years ago.. They can kiss my ass.

I would say that's what I get, but EXACT time is trivial in most positions.. Especially for guys willing to put in 80 hour weeks at the drop of a hat.

____________________ PS.. unless you're into prestidigitation, you should always refer to it as biometrics..

This would be a boon to my workshop. Our company has a policy of testing tardy workers for drugs and alcohol. I currently run the pre-shift safety and production meetings and have to rely on my memory to detect latecomers.

This system would allow me to check attendance say, 3/4 of an hour into the shift and manage the testing regime accordingly.

i'd prefer that to the usual card scanning system (whereby if i forgot to bring it to work one day, i risked getting my pay docked, refused entrance to certain parts of the company that require an access card etc.)

the chances that i forget (or accidentally losing) my fingers are a hell lot lesser compared to leaving the card behind.

During an interruption in my engineering career I took a job as an hourly maintenance electrician/mechanic. The employer adopted the scanner that measures the outline (not fingerprint as stated by the employer) of the index finger or other preferred finger. Yes, you can guess which one that some chose to render to the timekeeper!

I did not consider it as an invasion of my privacy, as my fingerprints are filed with the F.B.I. and the U.S. Department of State. And, it is my understanding that the scanner measured the outline of the finger rather than the fingerprint.

It was quick and easy, and there were no cards to maintain. All who used time clocks remember the occassional request for "help"; you know, "hey, punch my card this week and I'll punch your's next week" so people could cover for planned and habitual lateness. For a certain long-time employer everything was on the honour system, and it worked for a manager like me because I insisted on greeting all who worked for me every day, and if someone was late I immediately knew it. And yes, a minute late was an occurrence!

But, I also see the use of such devices in a different light, as I personally feel it is important to take an extra moment and greet people as they arrive, and wish them well as they leave. Perhaps these foolproof timekeepers are another method for lazy bosses to continue to screw around? I think so-in many cases.

And I have worked with "professionals" who did not put in their "honest eight" for the majority of the workdays. Late arrivals, long lunches, shopping trips, supervisor's pets, etc. were all reasons to cut short a work day or look the other way. And these people did not take work home with them either. If there is one (1) empirical rule by that a management type must abide, it is "set and maintain the example". Okay-I'll get off my rant here.

Best Regards,

Ing. Robert Forbus