By Natalie Apostolou

The spread of technology into every facet of life has brought with it increasing concerns about privacy, and the workplace is no exception. The advent of COVID and the work-from-home juggernaut have led to increased levels of employee monitoring. 

In recent months, the Commonwealth Bank has come under fire for accusations of alleged spying on its employees with staff claiming that data being collected on productivity monitoring is being used as an intimidation tool. The Finance Sector Union is investigating the matter and has stated that it is “unacceptable for an employer to set up a system to track an employee’s work activity without their knowledge and agreement”.

The CBA situation holds deeper significance as it is one of the loudest institutions railing against the work-from-home shift.

In the US, employee monitoring software is becoming standardised in WFH policies and is often embedded in the software platforms and tools that workers need to perform remotely and access company data.

Research from US-based ResumeBuilder.com found that 96% of remote companies are using some form of visual-based employee tracking with 37.4% of companies requiring employees to be on video as part of standard productivity monitoring.

Other highly used remote monitoring methods include web browsing and app use monitoring, tracking attention via biometric sensors, using random screenshot capture, and logging keystrokes.

While employee monitoring software was used commonly in service-based sectors such as call centres, government departments, and offshore customer service solutions companies, the wider business use of these tools boomed during the pandemic as a method of tracking workers and productivity. In many cases, the tools have been integrated as part of the WFH solution but often companies have fallen short of implementing adequate policies and employee protections around their usage, particularly in regard to privacy.

In Australia, states differ on the specific requirements for employers before workplace surveillance can be carried out. These include notifying employees of the type of surveillance which will be undertaken and when it will start.

Monitoring and surveillance

From an ethical and privacy perspective, Julian Arndt, lawyer and director at Australian Business Lawyers & Advisors, advises that regardless of the state of the law, employers need to think clearly about what they are trying to achieve through monitoring and surveillance.

“Some level of workplace monitoring is usually legitimate, particularly in the context where employees are working from home. This monitoring should obviously be limited to work-related conduct such as the use of company assets, work performance during work hours, etc,” he says.

Employee retention

Given that many sectors of Australian industry are suffering from a skills shortage, employee retention is a primary concern of business owners and HR departments.

Failing to adequately communicate these methods of productivity tracking is having a negative effect on employee retention. The ResumeBuilder report claimed that 73% of businesses had terminated staff due to adverse data found from the monitoring software. Many employees are choosing to leave as they refuse to comply with the monitoring policy, with the report stating that 69% of companies suffered employee walkouts.

Arndt says from this prism and from a company culture perspective, employers should consider the balance between protecting their interests and placing the requisite level of trust in their employees.

“If employers are conducting workplace surveillance in breach of the law, for example, conducting workplace surveillance in NSW without giving employees notice, etc, there is a problem,” he says.

In Australia, he says that aside from Zoom, video surveillance is not as commonly used as in the US, with computer system monitoring still being the most widely used.

“Keystroke monitoring, whereby employees can track whether their employees are actually using their computer throughout the working day from home is relatively common. Again, it really depends on the employer and what the job requires.”

Arndt advises that the goal should be for a balanced approach to technology and surveillance and employee comfort.

“The aim is to have a system in place whereby employers can rely on the monitoring where and when they need it – usually to manage a particular employee issue whether it be to review a serious incident or issue or to track a trend or pattern. The hope is that your workplace culture has created the necessary level of trust which means you don’t necessarily need to rely on surveillance to get the job done.”