Employee privacy in the era of surveillance monitoring

Every 10 minutes, Mae's computer seizes a snapshot of her screen due to the monitoring software imposed by her employer on her laptop. Cast over her workday is a consequential figure: her activity score, a percentage computed through the arbitrary gauge of her typing and mouse activity.

 

During our discussion, it maintains a level of approximately 62%. She remarks, 'That's actually quite good. Interestingly, despite actively participating in meetings via Zoom, it doesn't count towards the activity score,' while mentioning the frequent involvement in watching videos and attending calls as essential aspects of her professional responsibilities. 

 

Mae, a millennial in her 20s, joined the ranks of workers who reached out to the Guardian, compelled to divulge their personal experiences with workplace surveillance. As a marketing professional, she operates from a remote setting, navigating the landscape of a company where monitoring has emerged as an intrinsic part of her job.

 

With the rise of remote work due to the Covid pandemic, companies have embraced a range of monitoring tools, including Hubstaff, which employees employ. Other tools like CleverControl and FlexiSPY go a step further, offering functionalities such as webcam monitoring and audio recording.

 

At the end of the workday, Mae frequently experiences dry eyes and a throbbing headache. She explains that the constant tracking she endures doesn't leave room for moments of reflection or the ability to take breaks and return to work refreshed—it's an incredibly intense experience. 

 

There is a sense of liberation when the monitoring is deactivated, highlighting the need for a level of trust that extends beyond mere screenshots

 

While Hubstaff acknowledges that the statistics should be interpreted in the context of each employee's role and cautions against setting unattainable activity targets, Mae reveals that her manager has discussed her scores with her and even compared them to those of her colleagues. "Having that conversation made me constantly aware of it – it reinforced the idea that they are closely monitoring these scores," she shares.

 

At present, when she engages in tasks that might lower this figure – such as jotting down notes on paper – she pauses the tracker, resulting in occasions where she has to work extra hours to meet her contractual hour requirement.

 

"I feel a certain level of disappointment in being evaluated by an automated system that suggests I am not as competent a worker as I believe myself to be." 

 

Additionally, she observes a detrimental impact on her productivity, to the extent that she has resorted to taking sick leave in order to complete tasks without being subjected to monitoring. She articulates a pervasive sense of surveillance, emphasizing her ability to perform more effectively when afforded the freedom to work independently and without constant scrutiny. Disabling the monitoring system brings about a sense of liberation, highlighting the importance of fostering a level of trust that extends beyond mere screenshots. 

 

According to the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), there was a notable surge in online queries concerning workplace surveillance during the pandemic, particularly regarding methods for monitoring employees while working remotely. 

 

In a survey conducted by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in 2022, it was revealed that 60% of employees surveyed reported being subjected to tracking or monitoring within the previous year. Henry Parkes, a senior economist at the IPPR and the author of a recent report examining the proliferation of surveillance practices, advocates for increased transparency and highlights the challenge of accurately assessing the extent of workplace monitoring in the absence of accessible data.

 

He raises concerns about the multifaceted nature of surveillance, asserting that it extends beyond mere data logging. He asserts, 'Its true significance lies in its potential to be weaponized against employees.' He further underscores the ability of this technology to exercise control over workers in previously unimaginable ways. 

 

"There is a potential for scope creep, wherein software initially deployed with a specific objective, such as verifying employees' availability, gradually encompasses supplementary capabilities. These additional functionalities facilitate the analysis of employees' work patterns and behaviors."

 

When employers utilize such data for workplace decision-making, there exists a potential for algorithmic bias, as highlighted by Parkes. Notably, young, female, and minority workers tend to face a higher likelihood of being subjected to surveillance practices. It is worth noting that some employers employ AI-based systems in this context. However, the opacity of these systems raises concerns, as they function as black boxes that ingest data and produce outcomes. As our reliance on AI increases, it becomes crucial to exercise caution to prevent discriminatory practices based on gender or ethnicity. Otherwise, ostensibly neutral decisions could perpetuate underlying biases. 

 

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of exclusively emphasizing the accuracy of monitoring systems. Parkes asserts that the technological proficiency, exemplified by Fujitsu's facial recognition AI model assessing workers' concentration, "will undoubtedly progress". He notes that the rapid pace of improvement is disconcerting. However, it is crucial to recognize that these systems can be dehumanizing and do not align with the natural capacity of individuals to function throughout the entire day. 

 

According to Parkes, surveillance practices that have historically been present in certain workplaces, such as call centres, may become increasingly prevalent across various sectors. He suggests that "the normalization of surveillance raises concerns as it resembles the hypothetical scenario of a boss physically monitoring and analyzing an employee's every action throughout the day. Technology has made this level of scrutiny possible."

 

Employers should recognize that an overemphasis on monitoring can backfire for their organizations. It has been observed that extensive monitoring is linked to higher rates of staff turnover. Moreover, evidence suggests that employees may respond with resistance and engage in counterproductive actions, such as implementing workarounds to artificially enhance performance metrics.

 

Parkes highlights that "While metrics can advance in sophistication, it is essential to recognize their inherent limitations when considering them as definitive yardsticks. Job excellence encompasses diverse dimensions, and an excessive concentration on data alone may pose challenges. However, this does not negate the relevance of data; rather, it emphasizes the importance of employing it judiciously in decision-making processes. Ultimately, our focus should be on evaluating outputs and measurable achievements."

 

Carlos*, an experienced customer service professional in his 40s employed by a prominent high street bank in London, is well aware of the difficulties associated with this situation. As his job transitions into a hybrid model in the post-pandemic era, he finds himself subjected to relentless scrutiny while working remotely. "Our productivity is meticulously measured down to the minute. I've even had to justify extended restroom breaks," Carlos explains. The profound level of surveillance has taken a toll on his overall well-being. 

 

Carlos elucidates that, during performance evaluations, he is apprised of the extent to which he deviates from the established time frame for resolving customer queries. However, the opacity surrounding the calculation of this score is what engenders significant stress in his professional capacity. "The lack of transparency regarding this matter adds an additional layer of strain to my job," Carlos shares. 

 

It instills a sense of fear, constantly evoking concerns about being under surveillance 

 

Workers are mobilizing against workplace surveillance by leveraging the collective power of labor unions. Adam*, a seasoned employee in his 50s, engaged in social housing for a local authority in the south of England, sheds light on the intrusive implementation of vehicle tracking by management in recent years.

 

"Regular monitoring is an established practice, with immediate alerts triggered for prolonged duration's or perceived discrepancies in our whereabouts, as assessed by our manager. While trackers are commonly installed in council vehicles, their utilization is typically limited to emergency scenarios." 

 

According to Adam, surveillance practices have progressively shifted towards a focus on identifying faults or shortcomings. This pervasive atmosphere of scrutiny engenders fear and constant apprehension of being observed, even during seemingly innocuous activities like enjoying a cup of coffee for a brief period. The mounting pressure resulting from these monitoring measures exacerbates the inherent stress of the job. In such circumstances, the concern is not unfounded when the intention appears to be exposing vulnerabilities. 

 

"The council's utilization of trackers for monitoring purposes is being perceived as an invasive form of surveillance. Instances such as receiving calls to account for the chosen route, despite the absence of predefined routes, can be seen as approaching the threshold of harassment." 

 

Upon filing a complaint with the union, Adam has observed a change in his supervisor's approach. "I asserted my rights. They now acknowledge that those who monitor are themselves under observation."

Original Article