Surveillance techniques disproportionately affect young people, women and minority employees

The rise in remote work since the pandemic has meant a surge in workplace monitoring by employers – including record keystrokes or track computer activity by taking periodic screenshots. 

A report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) shows that these techniques disproportionately affect young people, women and ethnic minorities.

Workers in non-unionised, "low autonomy" and low-skilled jobs are more likely to be surveilled at work, the IPPR said, with people 16-29 most likely to be in these roles.

Read more: Outrage as P&O Ferries owner in major infrastructure project

According to the research, non-unionised women were 52% more likely to face surveillance. Black workers are also 52% more likely to face surveillance.

Henry Parkes, senior economist at IPPR and the report’s author, said: “Dystopian worker surveillance techniques have exploded in popularity since the pandemic, becoming normalised and seeping into an increasing number of industries. However, regulation to safeguard employees has not kept up with the pace of this.

“Young people, women and black workers are likely to be disproportionately affected negatively by worker surveillance and as it stands, the law is not keeping up with reality. This could have disastrous consequences for the mental and physical wellbeing of the workforce. The government must urgently review what is acceptable.”

Read more: Ikea signs legal agreement with EHRC after complaint

The data suggests that the spread of these practices could leave workers permanently worse off, with the most adverse outcomes likely to impact those with the least power in the labour market.

Evidence shows that excessive surveillance can harm workers’ wellbeing, increase staff turnover and lead to counter-productive work behaviours, such as company sabotage. 

Worker surveillance has the potential to increase power imbalances between workers and employers, the report said, and undermine unionisation efforts in the present, and the threat of future surveillance can be used to exert control over employees. 

When employees don’t have access to the data collected through monitoring, it gives employers an unfair advantage in negotiations and performance conversations.

It said this can be mitigated by being transparent on monitoring purposes and using less invasive monitoring techniques. There are, however, legitimate use cases around ensuring health and safety and training, alongside fulfilling some regulatory requirements.

Read more: 70% of employers struggling to ensure wellbeing communication is relevant 
 

There is substantive evidence collected since the 1980s which suggests that worker surveillance can have a negative effect on workers, including decreased job satisfaction and organisational trust and increased stress, increased risk of physical health conditions.

One focus group participant told the IPPR: “You feel guilty for the smallest things, like going to the toilet... taking a breather for like five minutes. 

"You just feel like someone’s watching you…someone probably thinks you’re doing something else
even though that’s not what you’re doing.

"So I find myself, when I’m working from home, I don’t stand up and I just stay in my seat the whole time, and yes you’re just really paranoid with it even though you’re not doing anything bad, you are getting things done – but it sort of puts the fear inside you and I don’t like that.”

Read more:  UK workers lose £11,000 a year after 15 years of ’unprecedented’ wage stagnation
 

A global survey of 7,600 businesses found between the start of the pandemic and August 2021, firms with "plans to monitor employee productivity" were more than 80% more likely to report increased turnover compared to those businesses with no such plans.

The IPPR recommends that policymakers that seek to prevent a damaging power shift from workers to employers, reduce the risks of algorithmic bias, and increase the collection of data on this new technology.

Here are some tips: 

• Employers should be more trasparent in their monitoring decisions, and employees empowered to challenge where appropriate – including through an easier right of redress through a single workers’ rights enforcement body.

• Employers should give workers access to the data which is collected on their activities – to empower workers and their representatives in negotiations.

• Government should consider whether some monitoring practices should be outlawed – for example keystroke monitoring which is unlikely to ever be acceptable.

• Give unions access to workplaces – to ensure fair monitoring practices on the ground and provide direct  challenge as required to those responsible for data protection.

• Government should champion algorithmic accreditation – to incentivise firms to develop algorithms which do not discriminate, and help employers do the right thing by only using algorithms which do not perpetuate bias.

• Government should strengthen protections against automated decision-making – including the right to a personalised explanation of how an algorithm reached a decision where the impact is significant, such as in pay or promotion decisions.

• We need better data collection from government to understand the scale and scope of worker surveillance – collected through the Labour Force Survey.