新編大學(xué)英語第四冊unit9 Text C: Workplace of the 90's: High-Tech

00:00

00:00

MP3下載

https://online2.tingclass.net/lesson/shi0529/0001/1707/83.mp3

https://image.tingclass.net/statics/js/2012

UNIT 9 AFTER-CLASS READING 2; New College English (IV)

Workplace of the 90's: High-Tech Sweatshop?

Last month, in my position as a customer service representative for a large telecommunications company, I received 862 calls from customers (but I should have taken 900), my average "talk time" on those calls was 394 seconds (though it should have been only 300 seconds), and I was "idle" 6.7 percent of the time. I know this because like millions of workers in a variety of professions, my actions on the job are continuously tracked by a computerized monitoring system.

Over the last decade, computerized monitoring has become a pervasive, intrusive, and often invisible presence in the workplace. According to the Office of Technology Assessment, six million American workers were being monitored daily in the performance of their jobs in 1986, and that figure jumped to more than eight million by 1990. A study found monitoring systems in 98 percent of the clerical and customer service divisions of such industries as banking, insurance, airline reservations, telemarketing, and telecommunications.

Three general categories of information are usually collected by monitoring systems: (1) job performance characteristics, such as the number of keystrokes entered, (2) job behaviors, like the amount of time between calls, and (3) service performance, in which an employer actually listens in on employee phone calls.

Managers defend and promote the use of monitoring technology, claiming that computers provide objective measures of performance and increase productivity. With regard to performance evaluation, the data provided are certainly objective; however, quantifiable measures the length of a call as measured in seconds, the number of calls taken are not indicative of the quality of performance. Furthermore, research does not support management's contentions of increased productivity from the use of surveillance technology. Studies reported over the last five years have failed to prove that even the most well-managed systems increase productivity.

Despite this lack of evidence, the use of monitoring systems is increasing rapidly. The Gartner Group, a data analysis firm, estimates that sales of computerized spying equipment topped $ 175 million last year. That figure is projected over the next five years to soar to more than a quarter of a billion dollars.

With the increasing popularity of monitoring technology there have, unfortunately, come abuses to both workers and customers. Evidence indicates that computerized monitoring can be detrimental to employees. A 1990 study conducted at the University of Wisconsin found significantly higher rates of stress-related illness among monitored workers than among those who were not monitored. When surveyed, employees of AT & T, TWA, Bell Canada, and Federal Express identified computerized monitoring or surveillance as the chief source of stress in the workplace.

As a person who works in a monitored environment, I certainly know the stress of feeling tied to a computer; seemingly, my every action is observed and recorded by unseen eyes. It is no wonder that the term "electronic sweatshop" is used to describe such conditions, where information and customers are processed in an assembly line fashion.

But the stressful working conditions are not the only problem created by monitoring technology, the customers of the businesses employing such devices can also experience negative effects. What happens when the needs of customers conflict with the desire of workers to meet productivity standards set by computers? This question was answered in part by a disturbing circumstance at Bell Canada. A sophisticated monitoring system was installed to record information about everyone from managers to operators. The monitoring system continuously collected information about the operators as they worked: the length of calls, the number of calls taken, and the number of seconds between calls were tracked. Operators felt so pressured by the computerized presence of the monitoring system that when they were having trouble finding a number, they began giving incorrect information in order to get the customer off the phone so they could receive the next call. Certainly, that is not customer service and it is not productive. Bell Canada was forced to change its practices.

Federal Express, a company internationally known for excellent service to its customers, also abandoned individual monitoring of workers in response to service representatives' complaints of stress and the deterioration of customer satisfaction rating. In a personal interview I conducted with Mr. MacPherson, founder of Incoming Calls Management Institute, he stated that mismanagement of technology in the workplace shifts employee focus from quality to quantity. What emerges is a picture of an environment where the emphasis is on managing the technology as it spies on people doing their jobs, rather than promoting quality service to customers and providing a fair workplace.

Evidence does not support a correlation between computerized monitoring and greater productivity; on the contrary, it is detrimental to workers and impedes quality service. Therefore I contend that national legislation and individual action are required to ensure the ethical use of such technology.

Our role in stemming the tide of monitoring technology is three-fold: As voters, as employees, and as consumers we must act. First, as voters, we must support national legislation regulating monitoring. Secondly, as employees, we must ask the questions: What technology is being used in my workplace to record my activities? What data is being collected about me and how is it being used? Finally, as consumers, we must make business accountable for the level of service for which we pay.

If we do not purposefully exercise our rights as voters, employees, and consumers, we will increasingly work under the watchful eyes of surveillance technology. By not acting, we perpetuate a world where an employer may legally eavesdrop on our phone calls to businesses, clients, and friends. B And when you call your phone company, you may just speak to me; and, of course, my employer may secretly be on that call with us. While you're expressing your concern, question, or complaint, and as we approach 300 seconds of conversation, I'll be thinking about how to get off the line so the next call can come in and the next and the next call. Because, frankly, a customer is just one of a thousand "widgets" to be processed at your phone company's electronic sweatshop.