Employers are increasingly using technology to monitor workers' productivity, communications, and locations, raising privacy concerns. Experts suggest employees should understand what data is being collected and how it is used, and consider collective action or cautious inquiry.
As workplace surveillance technologies become more sophisticated and widespread, employees face increasing risks to their privacy and well-being. Understanding these monitoring methods and advocating for clearer policies is crucial for protecting personal information and maintaining fair working conditions.
Thousands of employers are increasingly using technology to monitor the whereabouts, productivity, and communications of their workers, a trend that has accelerated since the coronavirus pandemic. These digital tools, which can track locations, collect data on task completion rates, and access work-issued device cameras, are raising significant concerns about employee privacy, even when working from home.
Experts note that while employers have always monitored staff, recent advancements in artificial intelligence and data science have enabled the creation of extensive data sets, or "dossiers," which can be used to penalize employees or predict their behavior. Wilneida Negrón, director of research and policy at Coworker, highlighted that workers with less power in the labor market often become the test subjects for more intrusive data collection methods.
An investigation by Vanderbilt University, Northeastern University, and the University of California at Berkeley revealed that some common workplace monitoring programs have shared personal worker data, such as names and email addresses, with hundreds of outside data brokers and technology companies without adequate disclosure. This practice has led data privacy experts and monitored workers to voice concerns about the risks involved.
Pharmacist Lannie Duong shared her experience of being monitored for the length of her phone calls and patient appointments, leading to performance evaluations questioning her efficiency. She described the "unrelenting pressure" as depressing and felt untrusted, eventually taking medical leave and later having her employment terminated. Duong is now volunteering with other pharmacists to organize a union.
While some employers transparently use surveillance tools and involve employee boards, others track and score employees in non-transparent ways. Negrón emphasized the need for workers to unite, as the pace of centralizing tracking technologies is rapid.
Hayley Tsukayama, director of state affairs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, advised that employees should expect monitoring on work-issued devices. She suggested researching industry surveillance trends and approaching managers cautiously with curious questions about data usage and its external sharing. Arianna Anaya, an adjunct professor, discovered an administrator reading her students' private essays and her comments, leading to her contract not being renewed.
Some states, including New York, Connecticut, Delaware, and Maine, mandate employer notification of monitoring. Maine's law specifically prohibits visual monitoring in employees' homes or personal vehicles unless job-related. Edward Halle, a privacy and AI compliance manager, noted that the definition of "duties of the job" for monitoring purposes will be a key point of legal interpretation.
For those in states without notification requirements, discovering monitoring can be difficult. Tsukayama suggests coordinating with a union or, if that's not feasible, approaching managers individually with a curious tone. Aiha Nguyen, director of the Labor Futures Initiative at Data & Society, recommends asking about specific data collection practices, potentially through the IT department. She also noted that common software like Microsoft Office and Zoom have tracking features that may not always be activated. Experts advise against using work devices for sensitive personal information to safeguard privacy.