
How Surveillance Changes Behavior: A Restaurant Workers Case Study - srivast
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/how-surveillance-changes-behavior-a-restaurant-workers-case-study/?src=me&_r=0
======
silencio
Some anecdotal evidence: I took over a restaurant a few months ago. Half the
surveillance cameras don't work. I don't have video for every incident I know
occurs there. But just having the cameras look like they're kind of working is
enough.

I had an employee that stole a bunch of cheese and pastrami (I know, right,
what's the point of stealing $50 worth of cheese and a block of pastrami?)
inside empty pickle buckets he was "taking to the garbage bin" but really took
to his car's trunk until said cameras were installed. A couple weeks after
camera installation and a couple weeks of my eyeing him suspiciously, he quit
saying that all the changes were annoying him and that the cameras were the
last straw.

Currently the employees don't even dare to shift the blame for things that go
wrong - not to mention I try to cultivate a culture of just being honest with
me and giving people a pass for most offenses. They really seem to believe
that I'm watching them when I'm really just occasionally checking the cameras
for activity at night when the restaurant is closed. I think it also helps
that I'll occasionally use the camera and the footage being recorded when a
customer is being an asshole - to support my employees.

While I hate the idea of surveillance especially en masse, it seems like
certain groups of people are willing to be a lot more honest and hard working
when they think someone is watching and when it helps them too.

~~~
nodata
What about the people who like their job less because you don't trust them?

~~~
saraid216
Trust, but verify.

Same reason contracts are written down.

~~~
Strilanc
Ah yes, the old "I want it both ways" statement.

Trust is the belief that you don't need to verify.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Actually, there's a fairly sensible way to view the statement "trust, but
verify" \-- think of it as a policy of entering agreements without doing the
necessary vetting / clearing / what have you in advance. You still do that,
but afterwards. As long as the people you're working with are trustworthy,
things will run much more smoothly, but if they're not, you'll still find out.
That "verify" step is important to maintaining trustworthiness all around.

~~~
Strilanc
That's a reasonable interpretation. "Trust now, verify later" would be a bit
clearer.

------
jka
I think the article in question spins a very positive light on surveillance -
in the given context, theft has been occurring and is curtailed by the change
in behaviour of staff, regardless of whether or not action is taken based on
the surveillance being present.

The larger problem with surveillance is that there is no global notion of what
is 'right' and 'wrong' \- theft is assumed wrong to almost everyone, but few
readers here will have been at the poverty line, where it might appear a
little more ambiguous whether taking a small cut from a very successful
business which pays minimum wage is so clearly immoral.

These changes in behaviour push us to comply and work 'in-line' with whatever
the watching power signals as being appropriate; and at least in the U.S.,
that largely appears to be increased revenue margins and employee efficiency -
which has a very dull and power-imbalanced end game. There is more to life
than work and producing value for someone else.

~~~
WalterBright
I don't agree with the notion that someone is entitled to steal just because
they make minimum wage.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
"When someone pays you minimum wage he is trying to say he would pay you less
if it wasn't against the law." \-- Chris Rock

I agree, but it is hard for me to find sympathy for businessmen who hold wages
so low. This behavior is widespread in the restaurant business, and it isn't
limited to the staff stealing from the restaurant.

~~~
WalterBright
Sympathy has nothing to do with it.

If you feel your wages are too low, negotiate for higher ones. If that doesn't
work, accept it or quit. If you've been wronged, you have access to redress
from the courts, and the courts are very sympathetic towards workers in
disputes with employers.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
I said I agree with you.

>If you feel your wages are too low, negotiate for higher ones. If that
doesn't work, accept it or quit.

I wish more people would do just that. It's what I did, after about a month of
working as a barback.

>If you've been wronged, you have access to redress from the courts, and the
courts are very sympathetic towards workers in disputes with employers.

No, you really don't, and the courts aren't. Where did you get that idea?

~~~
WalterBright
> Where did you get that idea?

Details of cases I am familiar with, and talking with lawyer friends who tell
me that, although it is not supposed to be that way, jurors and judges often
give the benefit of any doubt to the perceived underdog.

There's a reason why lawyers carefully dress their clients in certain ways,
select jurors based on socioeconomic status, etc.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
You think a person who makes minimum wage-ish + tips can hire one of your
friends to sue their manager / boss / restaurant owner over wage / tip
discrepancies? Do you think your coworkers who depend upon their waitstaff job
to support their family / college education will agree to testify or be
deposed in proceedings against their employer? Have you really thought about
this?

~~~
WalterBright
[http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/labor_standards_bureau/publicati...](http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/labor_standards_bureau/publication_erd_10721_p.htm)

States all have their mechanisms where a worker can file a complaint without
needing a lawyer.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
_The person assigned to investigate a labor standards complaint will mail the
employer a letter informing the employer of the complaint, who filed the
complaint and what will happen next._

 _Since unpaid wage complaints involving minimum wage or overtime issues may
affect other current /former employees who are not listed in the complaint,
the department may request the employer conduct a self-audit of its place of
employment if the complaint before the department proves to be valid. _

Yes that sounds like a fantastically powerful tool for workers to wield
against their employers. I bet it keeps everything above board. /sarcasm

------
eCa
> In the new study, the tracking software was NCR’s Restaurant Guard product,
> and NCR provided the data.

> Not surprisingly, NCR is delighted by the results.

I _really_ hope they had a neutral third party going over the data.

------
dnautics
there is a difference when a private entity, whom you patronize (or are
employed by) at your own choice, engages in surveillance and when a public
entity does so. If you find the private entity abusing its surveillance, you
can leave, or in egregious cases, take legal action. When the state does so,
you cannot easily leave, and more fundamentally you have a problem: Quis ipsos
custodiet custodies?

------
LloydPickering
If they went back and looked at business theory from the 20s and 30s they
might have come across a famous phenomenon called the Hawthorne/Observer
effect
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect)

Basically, when employees are being observed (which you could read as under
surveillance) their productivity improves.

Rather than suggest we turn into a panopticon loving society, it speaks to me
that restaurant owners should in fact be paying more attention to their staff,
and creating a workplace where they feel valued. This should improve
productivity, and reduce turnover - but maybe my perspective is skewed because
of the differences in being a restaurant waiter/ress vs a software dev.

In any case, if you want better profitability then why not incentivise staff?
If they have a share of profits, then you can be sure they will be trying to
maximise profits - including reducing wastage, up-selling and reporting other
members of staff not pulling their weight/stealing.

------
thex86
As a person who generally prefers to be private wherever possible, I am still
divided on a related topic: security cameras. I don't want them to be recorded
everywhere I go, but then on the other hand, I do realize that the world does
have a few bad people and in many cases, they are caught with the help of
cameras/CCTV footage.

I had always wondered if someone can shed some light on this debate from the
other side perhaps and this article comes close.

I have still not figured out where I stand on the CCTV cameras in public
places though.

------
malandrew
I don't dispute these findings, but the entire spin on this article made me
feel like I was reading a PR piece. Who were these researchers funded by? It
sounds like it was funded by a company selling a product that benefits from
these findings.. Besides referring to specific software products by brand
name, there was a conspicuous absent of any downsides from surveillance.

------
xpressyoo
Our current society really tends to mix up dangerously the notions of "trust"
and "surveillance"... at all the possible levels.

------
TausAmmer
Yes, you can beat man to submission, true that.

------
chaostheory
I wonder how surveillance changes creativity?

