During the late 1900s, the office where I was working introduced access cards, as one security measure, primarily used to enter the workplace. Everyone suspected, and rightly so, that such technology would allow an employer to keep track of the goings and comings of staff, all registered and maintained by management on an accessible data base. It would register one’s arrival and departure from the office, including during lunch and coffee breaks outside the office. Subsequently, word processing units replaced the more traditional typing pools, allowing supervisors the possibility of tracking the amount of and speed of input into the system. Not long after, personal desktop computers replaced the need for separate word processing units as employees were required to input their work individually at their work stations. With this technology, programs could be introduced to track one’s work remotely. Of course, the introduction of these new technologies, most often used to track productivity, also raised a number of privacy and human relations issues. Take the worst case scenario in call centres, where instantaneous tracking information is now available 24/7.
Employee monitoring software, sometimes called “spyware”, has now become a major issue, for employees and employers alike. According to a survey from 1E, an information-technology outsourcing firm, 73 percent of Informatics Technology (IT) managers are uncomfortable telling their staff to install it. Some managers have become fanatical about implementing surveillance technology, researchers referring to it as a symptom of “productivity paranoia”. However, the negative impacts on workers of constant surveillance at work can include reduced trust and loyalty, along with increased anxiety, stress and even resignations. The use of spyware, often employing key performance indicators, is increasingly seen as a major human relations issue, especially where employees may not be aware of its existence or have not given their approval to its restricted use under certain specified conditions.
With the introduction of more remote work during the pandemic, more businesses are using monitoring tools to track productivity in an increasingly remote-work world. The issue has risen to a level of concern that, as of Oct. 11, 2022, employers in the province of Ontario with 25 or more workers will need to have a written policy on electronic monitoring that outlines how and why staff are monitored, what the information will be used for and to disclose that policy to employees. The new rule is ingrained in the province’s labour standards legislation. However, while Ontario is the first province to enact a disclosure requirement on electronic monitoring, the rules don’t grant workers new privacy rights. Most Ontario employees still don’t have any such protections. The province of Quebec passed legislation in September 2022 that requires employers to have a specific purpose for the data they collect from employees. While it will continue to allow Quebec employers to use surveillance technologies, by Sept. 22, 2023, it will require them to have a serious and legitimate purpose for their use, as well as to disclose any monitoring to employees and allow them to opt out.
Joe Masoodi, a co-author of the report and a senior policy analyst at TMU’s Leadership Lab, reportedly said monitoring tools aren’t inherently bad and can be used for professional development. However, these tools fail to capture intangible elements of work like person-to-person interactions that require empathy and compassion. They can also have “serious consequences” for employees, such as being held back from a promotion or facing disciplinary measures for not meeting the company’s key performance indicators metrics. For some employees, such surveillance will add to work-related stress and possibly to physical or mental health issues.
The Ontario rule ultimately could be a positive change, because it will prompt employers to justify why they want to monitor employees, and the Quebec rule will then allow employees to opt out. It’s clear that employers have a right to monitor employees’ productivity, but not at the cost of their trust, health and morale. The more that an employer is open about such surveillance, the better it can be used in order to achieve its intended benefits without causing negative consequences when it comes to human relations matters.
FROLITICKS 