Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Companies Not Allowed To Fitness-Track Their Employees (www.nu.nl)
An anonymous reader writes: The Dutch Privacy Authority made it known today that companies are not allowed to gather their employees' health data from wearable devices [original, in Dutch] such as the Fitbit. Of the two companies that were mentioned in this case, one of them had access to employee sleep patterns. In both cases the employees had given their employers permission to use this data. However, according to the Privacy Authority it is impossible to truly give 'free consent' when there is a 'financial dependency.'
why has it taken governments so long to realize that if someone you works for asks for something, saying "no" can hurt you and therefore it should be illegal to ask for an employee to do anything that is not directly job related. that bullshit with disney asking for "donations" is a perfect example. i wish our regulatory agencies would do something about this kind of bullshit.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
And if your employer were to say that you will "voluntarily" supply health information or you might not get pay rise, will you still think that? It's protection against coercion.
It should be some sort of middle-ground class. Overweight people generally know they will spend more on various things due to their obesity, and are willing to accept this as often being overweight is a choice (however, exiting that state is much less so, only some manage it). If you are able to do the work satisfactorily, the employer should be required to treat you as they would any other employee with similar performance, with the understanding that extra costs due to your weight would be born by you (For example, if you're 800 lbs and require a $10,000 office chair to hold your weight, the company pays $500 or whatever they would have for standard furniture, the employee pays the rest). This would be a deviation from "reasonable accommodations" as you'd have to make for disabled persons, but I think it's a fair deviation in that nobody chooses to lose their legs (or whatever) but people do, over time, choose to be overweight.
The overweight should be protected from harassment at work due to their condition. It's not helpful and it's just plain rude.
If you don't provide at least base protections for the overweight at work, enough that they can at least keep their job and progress in it as normal, here's the deal: You're just going to end up paying for them in your taxes when they lose their job and end up on welfare. Consider that before you say "Fatties deserve the insults and I shouldn't have to work beside one!"
And yes, you don't have to put up with certain other bad life decisions, such as someone who never washes. But you have to understand that while that guy can wash tonight and the problem "goes away", the fat guy can't just stop eating tonight and have the problem disappear for you tomorrow. A lasting solution takes well over a year and from years of medical study, still provably has a low chance of permanent success.
Now, I'm a libertarian, so obviously, in my la-la-land world I'd just say fuck it, no regulations at all one way or the other and no taxes, let the overweight build their own companies and compete on their own terms (or find companies that have a heart), but that's not how it is right now and if you want a "right now" solution that doesn't involve pressing a reset button on government, you need to fit it into what we've got. I believe this is a reasonable compromise.
FWIW, I'm an obese IT guy myself (about 295 lbs) and I have not experienced any issues at work regarding my weight, from colleagues or in any other fashion. However, I completely believe it is an issue elsewhere. As to how I ended up this way? Several decades of bad diet that started from bullies at school and a ridiculously difficult body and mind that really just doesn't want to lose weight. I'm sure if you tied me to a chair 24 hours a day and didn't feed me more than 800 calories a day I'd be thin in a few months. But think about that yourself---pretty sure that counts as torture! Other methods outside of surgery don't work because your brain just doesn't want to let it happen. Until you're overweight don't say "willpower" because you seriously don't get it. Those that were overweight and are now thin do get it and know it's easier to quit smoking.
If you go around suggesting what other people should do for their health I hope you are equally as willing to accept that people tell you what you should do for your health. See it works both ways.
When I was a kid that was called "being a nosy son of a bitch and butting into people's business". Live your life, and let other people live their lives. Now as a physician I only go around informing people of what they already know they should do for their health during office hours. These people don't listen to me - why the hell do you think they will bother listening to you?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
> balance of power
But what if I think it is a useful thing? The government has terminated my right based on a hypothetical. Better yet, an unelected bureaucrat has done so.
If you *personally* choose to wear a Fitbit (or similar device), you can give the data to whoever you want. There is nothing stopping you. So your rights are unaffected.
As the GP said, this is about preventing companies from coercing employees into intrusive monitoring; especially outside working hours. And BTW, in Europe the national Privacy (or Data Protection) Authorities are established by (and accountable to) the elected governments to enforce the privacy legislation enacted by the government.
Take a similar scenario. Some car insurance companies offer drivers a discount if they agree to have a device fitted to their car which records everywhere they go, when they go, and how they are driving. Drivers are free to voluntarily accept such a device if they choose. But the companies cannot penalise drivers like me who prefer to forego the discount rather than submit to such intrusive monitoring.
Because there's precedent for "voluntary" activities not actually being voluntary. Many years ago, there was a very large US automobile maker who had a secret hidden step in the hiring process. They'd hand the prospective employee a form to fill out for taking a "voluntary" charitable deduction from your paycheck. It turned out that if he filled out a zero, he was shown the door because they didn't want to hire anyone who wasn't charitable.
So, apply that kind of mentality here. "Welcome to EvilCorp, here's your Fitbit. You should know that EvilCorp has a Fitbit challenge to see which company division can get the most steps, and I'm proud to say that our division always beats the accounting department because everyone in our department participates. Of course you don't want to let us down, do you?"
Now ask yourself: Is that employee voluntarily providing his health data?
What difference could that data possibly make to an employer? What if the HR department is told to control the costs of providing long term disability benefits, so they decide to put out a sliding scale: healthy employees pay $5/week, non-healthy employees pay $10/week. And they assign your "healthy" status based on whether or not you get 10,000 steps a day, and whether or not you use tobacco. How much of that is voluntary? How much of that should be permitted?
John