Just a few decades ago, no one even thought of asking the question, “Is it legal for an employer to watch exactly what all his employees are doing the entire time they’re on the clock?” At that time, we knew that many employees—especially some of those who used company vehicles to travel to different work sites—conducted non-work activities while clocked in. But there was literally no way to check up on those employees, aside from physically following them around all day. GPS employee monitoring, of course, is now common practice, and the debate over it at the University of British Columbia illustrates the growing pains that the employer-employee relationship is suffering as a result.
Position 1: Employers Have the Right to Monitor Employees
Employers across the world are happy to finally have a way to catch cheating employees with a minimum of effort. According to this position, the employer is paying his employees to perform certain tasks and providing company resources for those purposes. Since the resources and the employees’ work time belong to the company, the company has the right to monitor how they are being used. If that monitoring reveals abuse of company resources and time, the company also has the right to take disciplinary action against the employee, even firing him if appropriate.
Position 2: Employees Have the Right to Privacy, Even While on the Clock
The problem that many employees have with GPS tracking is that it nearly always goes beyond the employer’s intentions. For example, it is difficult to ensure that tracking does not occur outside work hours or during breaks when a company car is involved. Also, GPS employee monitoring can make it look like inappropriate activity is happening when it is not. Here are some examples:
- An employee takes a detour due to road work, which could be misinterpreted as a non-work related side trip.
- Sitting in a traffic jam could show up on a GPS report as idling, which wastes company resources.
- Judgment calls in the field about how to best serve customers easily translate into questionable activity on GPS tracking reports.
An employee who responds to unexpected conditions on the roads might well find himself forced to answer questions from his supervisor about his activity. He may even see disciplinary action when he has done nothing wrong. Even worse, his employer might use tracking information collected outside of work hours when making decisions about promotions or work assignments.
Reaching a Consensus
At the University of British Columbia (UBC), school officials and union leaders recently came to an agreement concerning GPS employee monitoring. While the union has grave reservations about the use of GPS to track workers, it recognizes the school’s right to protect its property and supervise its employees with the tools that are available. The following table summarizes the main points of the agreement:
| Union’s Concern | UBC’s Agreement |
| Employees could face questions raised by GPS tracking info | GPS data will only be used to confirm or refute allegations of wrongdoing |
| Employees have the right to know who is watching them while on the job | UBC will notify employees if their vehicles are equipped with GPS trackers |
| Individual employees could be discriminated against, scrutinized for questionable activity | The GPS trackers only monitor vehicles, not the individuals driving them. |
When used responsibly, even union leaders recognize the great value that GPS employee monitoring provides. No one argues that UBC should protect its investment (company vehicles) and increase efficiency. Additionally, there is a great safety benefit for employees themselves. UBC employees sometimes venture into remote areas, where even radio signal is spotty. A breakdown in one of these areas, particularly in extreme weather, would be dangerous. GPS data allows a rescue team to respond quickly to stranded employees without organizing a search effort.
The UBC/employees’ union agreement should serve as a pattern for companies considering GPS monitoring or facing questions about their current GPS policies. Using GPS data as infrequently as possible is a safe move—to check up on complaints that an employee did something wrong with a vehicle, for example. Anonymous GPS data is also safer than employee-specific data, and can still help company officials increase efficiency and safety.
GPS Employee Monitoring: Here to Stay
Those who drive a company car should assume that a GPS monitoring device will appear on their vehicle before long. Numerous privacy issues have yet to make their way through the court systems in both the United States and Canada, but hardly anyone still believes that the practice will be struck down. The benefits, efficiency potential, and risk minimization offered by GPS tracking are huge—as long as it is used responsibly. That’s where unions come in, protecting the rights of their members while advising companies on the best way to use this powerful new tool.
Union and University Debate GPS Employee Monitoring
No comments:
Post a Comment