Workplace Spying
Investment banking company Goldman Sachs flags employee e-mails that contain inappropriate “swear” words. Bank of America’s call centers track employee movements. Ikea trawls data on employee’s bank accounts and even tracks what kind of car they drive. Other companies check their employees’ browser histories, log their keystrokes for productivity checks, and pinpoint their locations. In fact, Boston-based Sociometric Solutions provides companies with employee ID badges fitted with microphones, location sensors, and accelerometers (to track the motions of employees). Amazon recently patented an electronic wristband to monitor employees’ tasks. And, during the COVID-19 pandemic, employers’ monitoring of remote workers became the norm, with one in five companies admitting to spying on their employees working from home. How is it that employers can track employees in this way? Moreover, what are the consequences of employee monitoring?
In general, it is legal for a company to monitor the usage of its own property, including equipment, computers, laptops, and cell phones. The two main federal restrictions on workplace monitoring are the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) and common-law protections against invasion of privacy. Only two states, Connecticut and Delaware, require employers to notify employees that their e-mail is being monitored, although California and Illinois require employers to get consent from third parties before accessing employee e-mails. Professional lawyers suggest a clear and reasonable monitoring policy that is linked to a firm’s mission and goals. However, regardless of the legality, many feel that workplace monitoring has gone too far.
Some say that this is the case at United Parcel Service (UPS). The company claims to save millions of dollars each year by using a computer analysis program that guides drivers to avoid time-and-fuel wasting left turns and even steers them to drive past a stop and come back later if it is more efficient. The “telematics” tracking system involves putting sensors on the trucks that report everything from an open door to a buckled (or unbuckled) seatbelt. With more than 200 sensors on each delivery truck, the data are fed in real time to a supervisor. At the end of each day, the data are sent to a central data center where computers crunch the data. However, reports abound of stressed UPS drivers being called to account for their every movement.
UPS drivers allege “metrics-based harassment,” including supervisors posting printouts of drivers’ data every day to keep the pressure on for better efficiency. The drivers also note potential safety hazards from such monitoring, such as when workers use tricks to keep up—like sitting on top of already-fastened seat belts to save time. Inevitably, drivers end up over their allotted times by at least an hour or two due to traffic or other holdups. The real concern for UPS safety, however, may be the handful of trainees who come in as much as two hours under. As one UPS supervisor stated in an interview with Harper’s Magazine,” there’s no way drivers could be beating their time quotes by that much without sprinting the entire day and recklessly cutting corners on safety.” She pointed to the telematics as the source of the pressure:” It’s like when they ship animals. But this is a mental whip.”
Many say that privacy laws are playing “catch up” with the newer technologies that allow for such monitoring. For companies monitoring remote-working employees, these technologies include keylogger software that gather data on keystrokes, video surveillance, attention tracking webcams, geolocation tracking, web browsing and app utilization software, e-mail and social media monitoring software, and collaboration tools such as Slack that track internal communications. Companies provide the justification for using such tools by noting the productivity benefits to the firm. But the question remains: How much is too much in the use of employee monitoring tools for better firm performance? And, might some of these tools actually hurt firm performance in the long run?
Questions for Discussion
1. What are the benefits of employee monitoring? What are the downside consequences?
2. Do you consider any of the company practices reported in this case to be ethically questionable? Which ones and why?
3. What is the correct balance of monitoring of, and discretion for, employees? When does workplace spying cross the line?
4. Should companies place this much stress on their employees?
5. Is this an example of dehumanizing employees?
6. Do you think workplace monitoring can be an effective part of an employee engagement program?
7. If workplaces adopt a more flexible work-at-home schedule post-COVID pandemic, is the privacy trade-off worth it, with businesses spying on employees at home?