Oh this is just wow:

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3193223.ece

"WTF!",  was all I could think when I read it.

I don't know, sounds pretty much like the logical next step to me. I wonder if the whole "bosses spying on employees" angle is part of the patent though, or just made for a scary enough headline.

I kind of have a hard time imagining a future where my PDA does not know which kinds of TV shows I like, or when I'm hung over. Didn't expect anyone to score a patent on something so obvious though...

I Quote: 

“Our research into employees shows that where individuals feel they are under excessive monitoring or surveillance they tend to have a negative attitude towards their employer and are therefore less likely to be motivated and committed. Employers who consider introducing this need to think twice.”

To be honest, I would be looking for ways around it. If they are monitoring my freaken' heartrate via mouse or w/e I assure you I will have thick wool gloves on. If they ask "why do you have thick wool gloves on?" or "why are you so unproductive with those damn wool gloves?" well... I will let you decide what to say to that one :)

Companies already monitor everything you send... and scan emails and attachments. But hey, whoever said that a happy employee is a productive employee eh?
 

I just hope this won't give the more creative managers too many ideas. Imagine a world where Wal Mart employees are not just contractually required to smile but to be in a genuinely good mood all the time...

PSWorx:

I just hope this won't give the more creative managers too many ideas. Imagine a world where Wal Mart employees are not just contractually required to smile but to be in a genuinely good mood all the time...

 

Are they contractually required to smile? Jez. I guess I really don't want to imagine the latter. 

dlikhten:

PSWorx:

I just hope this won't give the more creative managers too many ideas. Imagine a world where Wal Mart employees are not just contractually required to smile but to be in a genuinely good mood all the time...

Are they contractually required to smile? Jez. I guess I really don't want to imagine the latter. 

They are required to do their jobs. Their job is to make the customer happy. I would say yes, they should be required to smile. It isn't like they are going to cut off their genitals if they fail to smile....

If I were managing a Walmart and had a miserable (looking) employee walking around my store (after warning of course) he would either be reassigned to behind the scenes activities, or fired. If you can't even be pleasant when you work with customers, then you are not much of an asset to the company.

Unavailable for comment.

dlikhten:

PSWorx:

I just hope this won't give the more creative managers too many ideas. Imagine a world where Wal Mart employees are not just contractually required to smile but to be in a genuinely good mood all the time...

 

Are they contractually required to smile? Jez. I guess I really don't want to imagine the latter. 

Safeway workers were, for about a month, until they got sued by the pretty cashiers that were getting constantly hit on for smiling.

 

-- 

It's a bloody Patent Application ... vaporware: does not exist.
 

 

filed under:  Yellow Journalism

PSWorx:

Imagine a world where Wal Mart employees are not just contractually required to smile but to be in a genuinely good mood all the time...

This world involves a great many drugs. It's probably in Amsterdam. 

asuffield:

PSWorx:

Imagine a world where Wal Mart employees are not just contractually required to smile but to be in a genuinely good mood all the time...

This world involves a great many drugs. It's probably in Amsterdam. 

Amsterdam is paradise.

Ice^^Heat:

Amsterdam is paradise.

 

 

Paradise is in California.