A recent survey conducted by Morning Consult revealed that about half of tech workers would rather resign than be subject to facial recognition or have their employer record audio or video of them.
That’s right—in a survey of 750 tech workers, half of these workers even indicated that they would not accept a new role in their field if the employer used a surveillance technique such as keystroke tracking, remotely accessing computers and taking screenshots, using facial recognition to monitor productivity, or capturing audio or video of them through their computers. The details are all in here.
Let’s take a look at a few of these findings:
- 56 percent of workers said that they would quit if their employers recorded audio or video of them through their computers
- 51 percent of workers said that they would quit if their employers used facial recognition to monitor their productivity
- 47 percent of workers said that they would quit if their employers tracked their keystrokes
- 46 percent of workers said that they would quit if their employers took screenshots of their computer screens
Clearly, many workers would view this type of surveillance as an invasion of privacy and an erosion of trust, and would terminate the employment relationship. Furthermore, the following was found in the survey:
- 59 percent of survey respondents stated that they would not take a job if their prospective employer recorded audio and/or video of them through their computers
- 57 percent of survey respondents stated that they would not take a job if their prospective employer used facial recognition to monitor their productivity
- 53 percent of survey respondents stated that they would not take a job if their prospective employer tracked their keystrokes
- 52 percent of survey respondents stated that they would not take a job if their prospective employer took screen shots of their computer screens
What does it all mean? As can be seen by the above findings, a considerable portion of workers are not comfortable with electronic surveillance in the workplace, whether it is in the form of keystroke tracking, remotely accessing computers and taking screenshots, using facial recognition to monitor productivity, or capturing audio or video of them through their computers.
As suggested by Morning Consult, there are potentially less invasive ways to monitor employees’ productivity without invading their privacy. In particular, employers who are interested in building and maintaining trust in the employment relationship and avoiding detrimental psychological effects of constant monitoring may strive to gain insights on how to help employees do their jobs more effectively and efficiently using alternative strategies.
What does the law say on this topic? As you may recall, I recently wrote about Ontario Bill 88, focusing on new electronic surveillance provisions set out in Schedule 2. Essentially, Bill 88 requires employers with 25 or more employees to have a written policy with respect to electronic monitoring of employees, provide copies of the policy to employees, and retain copies for three years.
And the question remains—does Bill 88 go far enough to protect the privacy of employees and allow employers to effectively manage the employment relationship, so that a healthy balance of interests can been achieved?
Some would argue that the answer to this question is no (perhaps the survey respondents mentioned above). First, Bill 88 does not define “electronic monitoring”, and thus fails to capture the various dimensions of electronic surveillance. Second, employers are not required to have a written policy unless there are 25 or more employees, effectively excluding many Ontarian small-to-medium sized businesses from the bill’s coverage. Third, as long as employers describe in a written policy how and in what circumstances the employer may electronically monitor employees, as well as the purposes for which information obtained through electronic monitoring may be used by the employer, the employers may conduct the electronic monitoring; this misses the point that employees are not in a position to consent, and without an assessment of proportionality that takes into account factors such as necessity and minimal intrusion (as in Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR), a healthy balance of rights between the parties cannot be achieved. Fourth, nothing affects or limits an employer’s ability to use information obtained through electronic monitoring of its employees, meaning that employers have the power to use all of the information gathered, without any checks and balances put in place.
For more information on this topic, take a look at my PhD dissertation regarding electronic surveillance technologies and privacy in the workplace:
And check out a new report with which I was involved as an Advisory Committee member, concerning intelligent building systems, surveillance, and workplace privacy:
- The problem with deepfakes, and British Columbia’s solution - February 23, 2024
- Bill 149: a focus on hiring employees and employers’ use of AI - January 19, 2024
- Music publishers are not happy with Anthropic: “In layman’s terms, it’s theft” - December 21, 2023