UK union pens letter to data watchdog on icky workplace monitoring systems like Microsoft's Productivity Score
(2020/12/10)
- Reference: 1607607033
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/12/10/ico_workplace_monitoring/
- Source link:
UK trade union Prospect has chimed in with the chorus of disapproval at technologies such as Microsoft's Productivity Score being used on the nation's workers.
The letter
"In many ways," the letter says, "this latest example is the mainstreaming of online monitoring tools which raises significant issues including privacy and the process for consultation with workers before such products are introduced."
Indeed it is. Prospect cited a recent YouGov survey commissioned by Skillcast that found that that a fifth of employers were either using or planning to use tools to monitor staff working from home. That monitoring could take the form of counting emails sent, meetings scheduled or length of time to respond to a message.
Brit bank Barclays probed amid claims bosses used high-tech to spy on staff, measure productivity [4]READ MORE
To be fair, tracking that kind of information (if properly anonymised) makes a lot of sense. Meeting overload is a notable productivity killer, for example. However, using such metrics to score an employee's performance leans more toward the darker side of Human Resources.
The letter, signed by such luminaries as shadow digital minister Chi Onwurah MP, calls on the ICO to update its Code of Employment Practices, stating that "the scale of these concerns has outpaced current guidance available." The union also contended that "any such use of personal data through surveillance should be subject to a Data Protection Impact Assessment before it is introduced."
Onwurah said: "In the Labour Party [the UK government's opposition] we believe technology should put people in control, not control them. Government needs to set out a clear legislative framework which supports individual digital rights at home and at work, including where home has become the workplace."
Certainly, the cold hand of the machines has been felt more and more within employment. The UK's Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (part of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) recently published a lengthy [5]set of blogs and a [6]report addressing the impact of algorithmic decision-making. The report highlighted both the potential positive and negative impacts of the vast datasets being collected and analysed.
While the pandemic-driven charge to remote working has left employers and employees alike somewhat breathless, monitoring is hardly a new phenomenon. Barclays Bank was reported to the ICO [7]earlier this year over allegations of workplace snooping. At the time, the ICO told The Register : "People expect that they can keep their personal lives private and that they are also entitled to a degree of privacy in the workplace."
The Register has asked the ICO for comment and will update with its response. ®
Get our [8]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/12/10/ico_surveillance_open_letter.pdf
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/01/productivity_score/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/26/productivity_score/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/10/barclays_employee_monitoring/
[5] https://cdei.blog.gov.uk/2020/12/03/using-data-to-combat-bias-against-ethnic-minorities/
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cdei-publishes-review-into-bias-in-algorithmic-decision-making
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/10/barclays_employee_monitoring/
[8] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
The letter
[1]PDF
, sent to data watchdog the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), makes clear the disquiet felt at the potential level of employee monitoring afforded even while acknowledging the [2]rapid back-pedalling undertaken by Redmond [3]amid the furore ."In many ways," the letter says, "this latest example is the mainstreaming of online monitoring tools which raises significant issues including privacy and the process for consultation with workers before such products are introduced."
Indeed it is. Prospect cited a recent YouGov survey commissioned by Skillcast that found that that a fifth of employers were either using or planning to use tools to monitor staff working from home. That monitoring could take the form of counting emails sent, meetings scheduled or length of time to respond to a message.
Brit bank Barclays probed amid claims bosses used high-tech to spy on staff, measure productivity [4]READ MORE
To be fair, tracking that kind of information (if properly anonymised) makes a lot of sense. Meeting overload is a notable productivity killer, for example. However, using such metrics to score an employee's performance leans more toward the darker side of Human Resources.
The letter, signed by such luminaries as shadow digital minister Chi Onwurah MP, calls on the ICO to update its Code of Employment Practices, stating that "the scale of these concerns has outpaced current guidance available." The union also contended that "any such use of personal data through surveillance should be subject to a Data Protection Impact Assessment before it is introduced."
Onwurah said: "In the Labour Party [the UK government's opposition] we believe technology should put people in control, not control them. Government needs to set out a clear legislative framework which supports individual digital rights at home and at work, including where home has become the workplace."
Certainly, the cold hand of the machines has been felt more and more within employment. The UK's Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (part of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) recently published a lengthy [5]set of blogs and a [6]report addressing the impact of algorithmic decision-making. The report highlighted both the potential positive and negative impacts of the vast datasets being collected and analysed.
While the pandemic-driven charge to remote working has left employers and employees alike somewhat breathless, monitoring is hardly a new phenomenon. Barclays Bank was reported to the ICO [7]earlier this year over allegations of workplace snooping. At the time, the ICO told The Register : "People expect that they can keep their personal lives private and that they are also entitled to a degree of privacy in the workplace."
The Register has asked the ICO for comment and will update with its response. ®
Get our [8]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/12/10/ico_surveillance_open_letter.pdf
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/01/productivity_score/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/26/productivity_score/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/10/barclays_employee_monitoring/
[5] https://cdei.blog.gov.uk/2020/12/03/using-data-to-combat-bias-against-ethnic-minorities/
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cdei-publishes-review-into-bias-in-algorithmic-decision-making
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/10/barclays_employee_monitoring/
[8] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Well...
TRT
Provided that it extends in all directions through the company... boardroom to cleaning cupboard... AND tracking ALL the emails sent and phone calls made in the banking sector... THAT could have been VERY helpful a little while back and stuff which is still probably going on...
Now, how many meetings has my director got scheduled this week and who with, of course, because you can't just stuff your calendar with fake meetings, can you? And in the interests of efficiency, how many rooms did they book when they took their PA on that trip last year? Privacy? At work? You think it's unreasonable have some form of expectation for that? OK then... I can work with that.
PFY... how much lime do we have in stock?
Of course it is going to be used only for good
I expect HR, when it was briefly activated in my company, were seeking to remove the burden of pointless meetings from my shoulders, and were hoping I would reduce my email traffic to allow me to do my work in an uninterrupted way.
Hahahahahahahaha nope
Thank goodness my contract ends soon, because although it 'seems' to have been turned off, it either hasn't been, or won't be for long.