I hope noone in a management position reads this. As a commenter on the site says:

You run the risk of creating an atmosphere of paranoia, where everyone is afraid of causing even the slightest insult to their coworkers for fear of anonymous reprisal. Of course, that fear depends on whether or not management acts on the anonymous tips, but if they do not, what's the point of the system?

And that really is the crucial part, if it works, people get paranoid, if it doesnt work... there is no point.

Edit: spelling

I have a suspicion that my own boss is becoming less tolerant of people's crapola because of my presence. In spite of a serious medical handicap, I am almost never late (maybe once a year?) and I cash in leave every year. Although I am not a stellar performer, I usually make my numbers (and usually sweat bullets to do it, and my boss knows it). I think this is part of why some of the deadwood on my team has recently been cut. I think it has gotten harder for my boss to buy lame excuses and be sympathetic to reasons to fail to do your job. Yes, I require some minor accommodation for my handicap. No, this does not mean that I expect my boss to put up with me failing to do my job. That is not an "accommodation". That would be "charity", which I don't want, thanks.

There's some saying about a "good example being the best lecture"...or something like that. Whether my example subtly influenced my boss's decision or not, I'm pleased to no longer have to put up with some of these people, even though weeks later I am still cleaning up the messes left behind by one of them. But I wouldn't want to work somewhere with a ratting system. I think it would be a draconian environment and would sink to the lowest common denominator in the worst possible way.

So, the workplace has enough pitfalls without introducing all the ones from "social news?"

The problem with all such systems, is that they are all just approximations to something that exists in the real world. Almost by definition, they are imperfect. Reminds me of something someone said about RPG systems. There are the ones you can buy, which are all bad, and the ones you can make yourself, which are invariably worse.

I'm not really familiar with business jargon - what does it mean to cash in leave every year and why is it a good thing?

It means I don't use all my allotted off time and I take part of it as pay at the end of the year. In other words, I am reliably in the office. This is considered important where I work and taking more time off than you are entitled to can be grounds for being fired. Promptness and being on time are also valued by the company I work for and deemed indicators of reliability -- are you there when they need to ask you to do something above and beyond your normal daily duties?

As for other remarks made here:

I mention it first in part because a coworker likely was recently fired in part because they were routinely late and, after strolling in the office late, would then mosey down to the cafeteria and grab a bite to eat. I don't know for a fact, but remarks that were made suggest to me that this employee generally failed to do the quantity and quality of work they were expected to do. I think the experience at my company is that tardiness and abuse of time off usually correlate to poor work performance.

I am not actually sacrificing my health by working the hours I do. My health has steadily improved in the three years I have had this job. I don't really understand the whole idea of "taking a vacation" and I never have. But that's probably something I can't adequately explain to most people.

He means he doesn't take his allocation of days away from work but instead he sells those days back to the company.

Why is that good? Beats me. Unless he gets an above average holiday allowance it sounds terrible both for his long term health and for his productivity.

I'd guess he means not actually going on a holiday but "taking" your holiday in the form of additional pay instead.

It could be thought of as an indication that the employee in question is a dutiful little peon, which some bosses would probably like.

On the other hand, if someone tried to do this in Finland in July, when practically the whole country is on summer holiday and workplaces are very nearly totally empty, it might not work that well.

I used to work at a place that did this.

We had an online system that everyone was required to use twice a year to rank every other employee from best to worst. You could also provide comments. When everyone was done they showed you what your results were and how your average ranking compared to everyone else. The results were anonymous (except for one time when a glitch let everyone see what everyone else said about them).

The comments were generally not very helpful, but for those used it to give good feedback it was mildly beneficial. Some people took it seriously and gave feedback which was useful. Other people used it to vent and others merely went though and added things like "Good employee" to meet the required number of comments.

Most of us hated it, but I think the management liked it. You could instantly see what your employees thought of each other.

When it came time for evaluations and raises, the results always closely aligned with the results of your peer rankings. Here's a question to ponder: in general, would you rather your raises be based on your peer's assessment or on your boss's?

Whenever you come up with a system which is tied to advancement (even if just indirectly) you have to think what kind of person would most benefit from it, because given time and natural selection, that will be the only kind of person you have left. The kind of person I see most benefiting from an anonymous criticism system is one who makes believable shit up about his or her coworkers that is impossible to disprove. Because of the anonymity, no one would be able to challenge it. Because the other coworkers look bad, they fail to get promoted or actually get fired, leaving only backstabbers. Now, this system does have the benefit of promoting only believable, measured, devious backstabbing, which may in fact be of value in the corporate world, but good God would I not want to work at any place that promotes this sort of behavior, intentionally or otherwise.

A fun addition would be an anonymous karma system. Tips that the boss finds helpful will be upvoted, tips that seem petty or false can be downvoted, and future tips will appear with credibility ratings depending on the anonymous tipster's karma, but without revealing their name.

Also, indicate in a vague sense how many prior complaints the tipster has submitted without giving an exact number. This helps with the concerns about workplace paranoia, since you don't have to worry about running afoul of the few idiots that make up lies about everyone they don't like.

If management can't figure out what is going on without people deliberately reporting to them, they're not much good at their job.

It exists, it's called writing an e-mail to your boss, requesting a private meeting. Anonymity is out the window anyway, if the boss isn't completely worthless, he has an approximate idea of tensions between his employees and probably even their styles in writing. If he is worthless, no amount of technological shenanigans is going to make that magically disappear.

You could have anonymity without losing data. Assign everybody a random id. Do whatever data mining you need to, based on id number, to see how credible this person's opinion is.

I think this system can work ... if it's not abused. Intelligent analysis of the data will keep it from being abused.

You may actually be able to find inverse correlations among some of your more aggressive aspiring manipulators, where a down-vote from them actually ends up being a vote of support.

Let them do their worst. Statistics will out them, eventually.

As for the ethics of it. If the system is smart enough to avoid abuse, I think it has merit. When is ignorance ever the right answer? If there's data to be had as to whether you have, as an old boss of mine used to say "a leak in your payroll", why is it evil to attempt to determine that?

"I think this system can work ... if it's not abused."

Then by definition it can't work.

That's really horrible. It's not hyperbole to compare this to the Stasi, and what we're doing is adding more and more power to corporate management structures, precisely the last place that should be receiving more power to make judgment calls over people's lives.

Last week overstated ideas about intelligence when it's really power structures that helped the entrenched grow their fortunes, this week ratting systems. Hmmm, what's happening to Scott Adams? I guess he doesn't subscribe to ideas in The Lord Of The Flies.

My experience is that most workplace issue come from, or at least start with, the boss. I sincerely doubt a toxic boss would fire himself just because of anonymous complaints, and good bosses don't need this system.

Maybe in some sense it could be workable, but there so many implementation issues that it could collapse into worthlessness, or even create big problems within the company.

cut-throat environment? rather not.

if i want to complain over an incompetent coworker, i do that under my identity, openly.