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.
At least the Google Translate of the article was more readable than most Slashdot summaries...
Also voluntarily sell your kids' organs.
Freedom for all! I am stupid and over-simplify models of human behaviour! ALL HAIL THE INVISIBLE HAND!
Because saying "no, you may not monitor my health" to your employer may have negative consequences and puts the employee in a difficult position. It's the same reason why we have maximum working hours and minimum wage. In theory each individual could freely decide to agree to more hours or less money, but in practice the balance of power between employer and employee favours the former and so we want the law to compensate.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
A small consulting company I worked for asked me after about two years to sign a non-compete agreement. I talked to an employment attorney who reviewed the agreement. He said it was a generic boilerplate with no obvious negatives, but then he asked me what I was given in consideration for signing the agreement -- raise, new title, any material benefits?
I said no, should I ask for any? He said no, that might cause problems -- your best bet is to just sign it, but knowing that its not enforceable, as signing a non-compete when you already are employed without being given consideration has generally rendered non-compete agreements unenforceable in our state under the assumption that the relationship is coercive.
I'm wondering if the coercive nature of employment could be used to block fitness tracker use in the US under a similar kind of logic.
I think the entire concept is bogus. What I do away from work is my own business, and if that includes sitting like statue for the 16 hours I'm off work, so be it. I also think there's good reason to question what and how much exercise is ultimately beneficial. I'd also think companies would want to be cautious about implying penalties or career limitations from not meeting arbitrary fitness goals -- those in the worst physical shape may be coerced into levels of activity that are unhealthy for them, believing if they don't post numbers that meet some arbitrary employer standards they could lose their jobs, benefits or compensation.
Ultimately I view these fitness trackers as a kind of confessional for the fitness religion, either affirming one's adherence to fitness dogma or one's place as a fitness heretic.
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.
>I think it already IS pretty much a protected class as you put it.
It isn't.
>If you merely suggest that people, need to lose weight, for their health and yes, even for a better appearance, you catch hell for "fat shaming" or whatever the SJW term for it is today.
If it's your own family or friend, go for it. If it's a stranger, you're being rude.
>Don't get me wrong, no one should be taunted or teased, but these days, you can't even give advice that used to be noted as common sense anymore without offending someone or hurting little Suzy's self esteem.
Unsolicited advice of almost any kind has always been a socially inept move.
> We are actually going out of our way to tell fat kids that they "look ok" and should be proud of looking obese, out of shape and generally unhealthy.
Who is we? Food companies? Fat parents to fat children? Health agencies and gyms? Everyone except for you? Using the word "we" is just you couching your whining in non-specifics.
> Common sense has gone out the window, with everyone dancing on eggshells to try not to offend anyone.
WFT did we get so afraid to offend anyone?
That could be a line straight out of a post from 1950, because people have been thinking the society is collapsing in a puddle of weakness around them since the dawn of time.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Which is why it makes a certain amount of sense to just put healthcare completely on the government. Companies don't have to care about it or assume that risk so they can hire the candidate they want regardless of potential health issues as it doesn't cost them anything extra. It especially makes sense for small businesses who don't have the employment numbers to negotiate for less costly premiums. If employers really want to compete on health care they can always offer additional coverage or benefits beyond what the government does.
There are arguments to be made againts government-run health care, but from an employer's perspective there aren't as many. Let someone else handle it so your company doesn't have to and it then removes the reason for the employer to want any access to health data.
Also, there are some jobs where you probably wouldn't want a person who's at risk for certain conditions, but there are tests for those. I suppose if you really wanted to be racist you could try to do something like you've suggested, but most companies wouldn't.
> 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.
Just keeping the health data outside the company solves the root problem. Hiring an outside insurance company does that now; there are plenty of laws (HIPAA/Privacy) that ensure they don't share the health data back with the employer. It certainly doesn't have to be the government.
So if the Dutch company wants to help their employees become healthier while still complying with the laws, all they have to do is reimburse the price of a Fitbit to any employee who provides a valid receipt. They certainly don't need access to the employees' accounts on fitbit.com. According to their laws, they also shouldn't provide an EvilCorp Fitness Challenge group. That's what the company I work for did; although since we're in the US, there are no similar privacy restrictions on employers sponsoring their own challenge groups.
And Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQs) are always the allowed exception. You can't be forced to hire a blind truck driver. But there is no BFOQ that requires someone to wear a fitness tracker.
John
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