Companies 'Can Sack Workers For Refusing To Use Fingerprint Scanners' (theguardian.com)

Businesses using fingerprint scanners to monitor their workforce can legally sack employees who refuse to hand over biometric information on privacy grounds, the Fair Work Commission has ruled. From a report: The ruling, which will be appealed, was made in the case of Jeremy Lee, a Queensland sawmill worker who refused to comply with a new fingerprint scanning policy introduced at his work in Imbil, north of the Sunshine Coast, late last year. Fingerprint scanning was used to monitor the clock-on and clock-off times of about 150 sawmill workers at two sites and was preferred to swipe cards because it prevented workers from fraudulently signing in on behalf of their colleagues to mask absences.

The company, Superior Woods, had no privacy policy covering workers and failed to comply with a requirement to properly notify individuals about how and why their data was being collected and used. The biometric data was stored on servers located off-site, in space leased from a third party. Lee argued the business had never sought its workers' consent to use fingerprint scanning, and feared his biometric data would be accessed by unknown groups and individuals.

Comments

article discusses Australian ruling

[disgruntledlurker]

Wasn't mentioned in the overview text (although it can be relatively easily ascertained) but this article discusses an Australian ruling. Just for the sake of clarity before folks from other countries go off the rails thinking it directly effects them.

Re:article discusses Australian ruling

[mysidia]

In other jurisdictions like the United States; it was never even a question, really.... Your employer can require you to use their biometric systems for access control or time and attendance; Time clocks with a finger scanner are common, and so are door control systems with hand scanners --- there's not in general a "Second option" for employees uncomfortable with the idea of sharing biometrics; If you don't cooperate, then you can't do your job or clock in properly, and if you can't do your job or you aren't recorded as present, then you're going to get terminated eventually..

Re:article discusses Australian ruling

[redlemming]

In other jurisdictions like the United States; it was never even a question, really.... Your employer can require you to use their biometric systems for access control or time and attendance;

That's false: such matters are ALWAYS open to question in the USA, because James Madison gave the USA an open-ended Bill of Rights, giving the people the ability to assert ANY rights they desire under the 9th Amendment (unspecified rights retained by the people) and 10th Amendment (unspecified rights to the people).

This was done in response to the criticism of the Anti-Federalists that the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution had no Bill of Rights, and that any finite (closed) Bill of Rights would always leave out critical rights.

Hence, an individual right to privacy can be asserted under the 9th Amendment, and it's ultimately up to be people to decide what that means: government action is only legitimate to the extent that it is consistent with the expectations of the people.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that limits the application of such rights to government: they can also be applied to private business.

Further, rights retained by the people are by definition retained by the people and can not be taken away by ANY entity of government.

As the Bill of Rights is the highest law in the land (superseding even the pre-Bill of Rights parts of the Constitution), such rights supersede the authority of government at all levels. The people have the ultimate power: they are the supposed to be the most important check-and-balance on government.

Further, under US federal law, the infringement of fundamental rights "under the colour of law" is both grounds for civil suit, and can be a basis for criminal charges. In theory, this prevents state and local government as well as the federal government from infringing rights the people decide are retained by them.

All Americans have to do is decide to assert their rights, and get them past a frequently unethical legal profession and a frequently corrupt government ...

In practice, that's difficult. Even obvious and really basic rights such as the right to ethical practice of law are routinely infringed in US law. There is a huge gap between the law as written and the law as practised.

But this problem might primarily be due to ignorance, and perhaps much can be accomplished if the public starts to care more about their rights. Further, appeal to the authority retained by the people 9th and 10th Amendments may end up being the only possible way to overcome the deeply entrenched corruption in the system without requiring a reboot (another American Revolution).