The Boss Is Remotely Monitoring Blue-Collar Workers

McGruber writes "The Wall Street Journal reports on the new level of surveillance available to bosses of blue collar workers. Thanks to mobile devices and inexpensive monitoring software, managers can now know where workers are, eavesdrop on their phone calls, tell if a truck driver is wearing his seat belt and intervene if he is tailgating. 'Twenty-five years ago this was pipe dream stuff,' said Paul Sangster, CEO of JouBeh Technologies, a Canadian company that develops tracking, or 'telematics,' technology for businesses. 'Now it is commonly accepted that you are being tracked.' In the U.S., workplace tracking technology is largely unregulated, and courts have found that employees have few rights to privacy on the job. No federal statutes restrict the use of GPS by employers, nor force them to disclose whether they are using it. Only two states, Delaware and Connecticut, require employers to tell workers that their electronic communications — anything from emails to instant messages to texts — are being monitored."

Comments

Protip

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are using hardware or services provided by your employer, your data is not private and you should have no expectations of such privacy.

Re:Protip

[realityimpaired]

If you're on personal time, you can use personal equipment. But if you're using company-provided equipment, expect them to monitor it.

And if you're driving a company-provided vehicle, with the company logo on it, you are on company time. End of discussion -- Anything you do while in that vehicle can have repercussions for the company. If you're on personal time, park the vehicle and go for a walk.

Re:Protip

[mythosaz]

I'd moderate this some combination of informative/insightful if I weren't replying here.

While I don't *love* that my employer is reading this very post of mine, I respect that they're entitled to to do so. I'm using their computer, network, and time to do so. They allow me modest personal use of the internet, and in return, I know I'm getting watched.

I make a choice as an employee. I can choose to work for places that monitor my communications, or I can work elsewhere. I suppose the argument is that eventually I'll have no other option, but in the meantime, I'll just politely use their services and submit to minimal oversight of my activities. [e.g. this post being in a giant pile of other logs.]

The logical end of all this ....

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Well yeah

[Dunbal]

I should hope so. I mean it's not your truck, it's your boss'. It's not your computer and desk, it belongs to your boss. Etc etc. Of course the employer has the RIGHT. Now there's the ethical dilemma - how to use this information for more than just trying to "catch people" in impropriety, how to make the workplace better rather than make big deals about an accidental swear word or comment, etc. Misuse of this technology can and will affect employee morale rather sharply. Errare humanum est. The watchers are going to have to tolerate SOME degree of slack...

Re:Well yeah

[girlintraining]

I mean it's not your truck, it's your boss'. It's not your computer and desk, it belongs to your boss. Etc etc.

It's the companies laptop. In your home.
It's the company's truck. After hours.
It's the company's phone. On a private call.

Misuse of this technology can and will affect employee morale rather sharply.

Right. Because nobody who's morale dropped enough to complain was disciplined. Anywhere. Ever.

I'm sorry, but this is a classic example of where government regulation is needed. Companies have the privilege (not right!) of monitoring their employees. Just like your driver's license isn't a right to drive: It can be revoked. Employers need to be held accountable for overstepping boundaries of reasonableness.

Go ahead and record e-mails, but if it doesn't directly affect the business it should be deleted and no further comment made. Direct managers should be prevented from monitoring their employees electronically -- instead a separate department such as HR should do this, so as to prevent bias. Phone calls should not be monitored once the employee is off the clock. If they have a problem with this, remotely disable the phone at the appointed time. Same with computers with internet access, and other dual-use devices. Keep in mind many people use their personal phone for work-related calls, and likewise with laptops and other electronic devices. Remote evesdropping when you are not actively engaged in company business should be prohibited.

And to seal the deal, we need federal legislation to drop the ban-hammer on so-called "right to work" state legislation; The laws should be written so only conduct which directly impacts the company, while using company resources, can be subject to disciplinary action. In other words, if you don't like JP Morgan's shady business strategies (which led to the subprime mortgage crisis), you should be free to protest on your own time without fear of reprisal.

We need to draw a line that says only conduct that happens on company time or using company resources is subject to any disciplinary action. We need to prohibit employers from taking action against employers punitively on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identification, etc. And this is not just about protecting "the little guy"; This is about protecting the country as a whole.

Merit-based employment and strong non-discrimination policies provide a direct and immediate benefit to society by making as many jobs available to as many qualified candidates as possible. It increases labor supply, and rewards companies who hire on the basis of merit with a more competitive and efficient labor force.

Pervasive electronic monitoring is a strike against that goal. I will tell you, being on the other side of the IT version of the 'one-way' glass, that if you watch anyone long enough, you'll find a reason to hate them. You will become judgmental, and you will look at them differently. Which is precisely why managers should never under any circumstances be allowed to covertly monitor their employees. There is no "if" about morale suffering; It starts deteriorating the moment you start.

And managers are notoriously short-sighted, poor judges of character, and often blow things radically out of proportion when they do come across something hinky. Just like the general public did during the hunt for the boston bomber. People who are not trained and experienced in surveillance, who are not impartial to the people being watched, should never, ever, ever be given the reins. Disaster is most often the result.

Re:Well yeah

[Sarten-X]

Even without explicit "right-to-work" laws, that's already the case in any state that has at-will employment, which is a separate issue. As for reading the law, yes, I did actually read the law that as proposed for my state, which was just one of several dozen proposals over the last decade. It had no provision effecting at-will employment.

I'll also argue that enacting right-to-work laws is a major step along the way to merit-based employment, rather than basing job placement on who's been feeding the union coffers the longest.

I have only one thing to say about this

[nitehawk214]

This isnt remotely surprising.

UPS

[SJHillman]

We use software purchased from UPS to track our drivers. Their company cell phone has the UPS app, which relays data back to the server (including GPS). Of course, being on a phone and not built into the vehicle, it's dependent on the driver taking the phone with him or leaving it in the truck. However, it still managed to catch a driver "borrowing" the truck in the middle of the night to visit his girlfriend on the other side of the city, and then returning it a few hours later. He was let go the following day. The funny part is that he was one of the drivers who would always forget to take the phone or keep it charged.

Re:UPS

[SJHillman]

He took the company truck without permission for non-company use. In most places, that's called "stealing a fucking truck." It costs the company gas and wear and tear, as well as being a huge liability issue. Returning what you stole doesn't really make it ok.

Blue collar-workers?

[CurryCamel]

Lucky I am a white-collar. So none of this applies, right?

Re:Goverment coersion is wrong.

[TheCarp]

> If employees don't like being monitored, they should find companies to work for that dont monitor
> them. End of story.

Then why don't you support their right to be informed of the monitoring so they can make an informed decision as to whether to continue that employment or find another job? as a libertarian myself I fully support people's right to do many things but.... I tend to look dimly on any notion that its ok to not inform people who are subject to your decisions, especially when your decision may have a bearing as to whether they would continue to choose to do business with you.