She quit her high-paying job after learning this about her employer: Red flags to look out for in corporates
Even after several months of deliberations, the resignation did not come. It came quickly, almost suddenly, and despite what most would consider a dream proposal. His salary is twice as big as his previous salary. A role that promised growth. A company that, on paper, seemed progressive. And within a few days nothing felt right. It wasn’t workload. These were not people. These were not even expectations. This was something much more subtle and much more disturbing. Cameras.Not the usual security cameras placed on corners or entry points. These were different. These were designed to observe, measure and explain human behavior at a microscopic level. They monitored eye movements. They monitored blinking patterns. They quietly collected data on how attentive employees were at any given time. And that was enough for him. She left.When observation turns into monitoringThe story, shared by a career coach @Simon_Ingariquickly gained popularity online—not because people were surprised that someone quit, but because of why he did so. This raises many uncomfortable questions. Employers today have access to increasingly sophisticated technology. Tools that measure keystrokes, track screen time, analyze communication patterns, and now—even study biological signals like blinking. The rationale is often simple: better data leads to better performance management. But this incident reveals another aspect. When every movement is monitored, work stops feeling like work. It starts to feel like a test you didn’t agree to take. Experts argue that such systems don’t just monitor productivity – they reshape behavior. Employees begin to act not naturally, but strategically. They make a show of “being productive” rather than actually focusing on meaningful output.A decision that sparked debateWhat makes this matter more shocking is the response of the leadership. The company’s CEO reportedly did not see any problem in the system. If seen from the management perspective, it makes sense. In-depth analysis of employee behavior can play a role in increasing productivity. And needless to say, this will lead to better accountability.But not everyone liked that approach. Critics say the issue isn’t related to cameras — which are already in most offices anyway. But it’s about intention. If a company feels the need to measure how many times a person blinks, what does that say about how it views its employees? As the discussion spread, many professionals began to question whether such practices were the future of work – or a step too far. false illusion of dream jobOutwardly the employee’s decision may seem quite illogical, but in fact it says a lot about his attitude towards the company and its employees. But this story highlights a deeper truth: Compensation alone doesn’t define a good job.A role may provide financial rewards and yet fail to provide psychological security. In fact, high-paying jobs can sometimes hide deeper issues. The promise of money can delay difficult questions:Do I feel respected here?Am I confident in doing my job?Can I work without constant monitoring?In this case, the answers became clear very quickly. And when they did, the salary didn’t matter. psychology of seeingThis is why surveillance in the workplace leads to strong reactions. Humans behave differently when they know they are being monitored. This isn’t just anecdotal – it’s backed by decades of psychological research.Constant monitoring can lead to the following results:
- increased stress and anxiety
- lack of creativity
- low intrinsic motivation
- sense of loss of autonomy
Instead of promoting productivity, it often creates pressure to appear busy rather than actually be effective. In extreme cases, it can even drive people away—which is exactly what happened here. The irony is hard to ignore: A system designed to improve performance cost the company a valuable rent.trust vs controlEssentially, this story is not about the camera. It’s about philosophy. Some organizations work on trust. He believes that if employees are given autonomy and clarity they will deliver results. Others work on control. He believes that performance must be continuously measured to ensure performance. Technology has made the second approach easier than ever. But easier doesn’t always mean better.Career experts argue that excessive monitoring can be counterproductive. Many jobs that require creativity, knowledge-based roles, problem-solving abilities and deep thinking cannot be measured or controlled by ‘tools’. You can measure time. You can measure activity. But measuring thinking – the kind that leads to real breakthroughs – is far more complicated.Widespread changes in workplace expectationsThis incident is not alone. This reflects a broader change in the way people think about work. Today’s professionals—especially young ones—are increasingly prioritizing:
- Flexibility
- autonomy
- Objective
- mental well-being
Salary still matters, but it is no longer the only factor. In fact, stories like this show that people are willing to give up good job opportunities if the work environment is not in line with their values. The old adage that “money is everything” is slowly losing its power. This situation is a good example of a common mistake that modern businesses make: over-optimization. Companies sometimes use tools without thinking about how they will affect people in the pursuit of efficiency. What starts out as a harmless metric, like tracking attention, can turn into something much more intrusive. And when that happens, workers don’t feel as if they’re being monitored. They feel diminished—just data points, patterns, and metrics. The change may be small, but its impact is big. Because once people feel like they’re not supposed to be working people, they’ll likely stop caring about their job.Why he decided to leave and it’s a lesson for everyone The employee in this story had to make a decision that was based on one question: What kind of place do I want to work? She could have stayed there. She could change. She could bear the pain and focus on money. But he did not do so. Instead, she decided to put something less concrete, but arguably more important, at the top of her list: her sense of independence and dignity. And that choice is what influenced so many people. This story teaches us one thing: technology alone cannot make a great place to work. Tools can help you get more done, but they can’t replace trust. If companies rely too heavily on surveillance, they risk making their workplaces feel more like prisons than places where employees can live on their own. And it becomes difficult to keep people in these types of places.After all, skilled workers have choices. And this case shows that they are willing to walk away from even high-paying jobs if those jobs offer something that money can’t buy.more important questionsAs technology in the workplace continues to improve, things like this will likely happen more often. This makes me think about an important question: just because you can measure something doesn’t mean you should. At this time, there is no single answer. But for one employee, the answer was clear enough to leave a good job and start working elsewhere. And in doing so, he may have exposed a truth that many people are just beginning to see: A job that pays well just to watch you blink can be very expensive.
Panaji: The Mapusa court, in its order granting him bail, said that the crime of culpable homicide against Birch by Romeo Lane owners Gaurav Luthra, 44, and Saurabh Luthra, 40, does not fall in the category of the most heinous crimes like murder, where the punishment can extend to death or mandatory life imprisonment.Last December, 25 people had lost their lives in a fire that broke out at Birch in Romeo Lane, Arpora.The court observed that the Luthra brothers have been in custody for more than three months since December 16, and said that prolonged incarceration without the possibility of an early conclusion of the trial would amount to pre-trial punishment.It states that culpable homicide, where there is neither knowledge nor intention to cause death, is of a comparatively lesser degree than crimes involving intent to cause death. Additional Sessions Judge 1, North Goa, Mapusa, Dwijapal V Patkar, said Luthra “is not accused of a crime of a serious nature like murder, and the allegations, at the highest level, do not involve any intention to cause death.”The court said it had to balance the interest of society with Luthra’s fundamental right to personal liberty. It noted that a charge sheet has been filed, indicating the conclusion of the investigation and the case is in the preliminary stage.The trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, given the current “docket explosion, number of old cases, custody/undertrial prisoners’ cases, Disha cases and the nature of the proceedings, including the fact that the charge sheet runs into over 4,000 pages, contains numerous documents and cites 306 witnesses, including outside witnesses, and 13 accused persons have been convicted”, the court said. “Such continuous imprisonment would be punitive, which is legally unacceptable,” it said.The Luthra brothers, represented by lawyer Parag Rao, told the court that the charge sheet did not mention any specific role of theirs in committing any of the alleged crimes. Rao told the court that the allegations have been leveled against partners and managers in general.Anjuna Police objected to the bail considering the severity of the sentence, the scale of the incident and the gravity of the crime. The PI had said that granting bail would shake society’s faith in the criminal justice system.Government lawyer J Santamaria objected to his bail, saying he had disregarded the law and human life by fleeing the country, and said he was in a position of influence over his employees and witnesses. She argued that the crimes against them were serious, resulting in the deaths of 25 people, with all witnesses being Birch employees.________________________________________________Order reserved in NOC fraud case
