US workers concerned about employers’ digital snooping: GAO

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the research arm of the U.S. Congress, this week released a report on the kinds of digital surveillance tools that employers are using to monitor their employees, and how such surveillance affects these employees.

The study was requested by Sen. Robert Casey, Jr., chair of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, and Rep. Robert “Bobby” Scott, the Ranking Member on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Casey also is chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions’ Subcommittee on Children and Families, as well as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and has expressed increasing concern over the weaponization of information and data. So, too, has Scott, who has been an ardent defender of civil rights in Congress.

That both lawmakers are looking into the pervasiveness and effects of digital surveillance in the workforce may be a signal that they are leaning toward introducing legislation to address the issues GAO found in its analysis of the comments OSTP received to its RFI, which also sought to identify ways that federal agencies can work with employers, workers, and other stakeholders to ensure that these technologies do not undermine workers’ rights, opportunities, access, health, or safety.

The RFI itself was quite clear about the intentions behind it. It stated the input received “will be used to inform new policy responses, share relevant research, data, and findings with the public, and amplify best practices among employers, worker organizations, technology vendors, developers, and others in civil society.”

The RFI noted that “private-sector research suggests that the percentage of large employers using automated tools to track their workforce may have doubled since the beginning of the pandemic to some 60 percent.”

The GAO report is the first of two reports GAO said it will issue on digital surveillance of workers. The second report will incorporate interviews with employees and a literature search “to enhance the information related to the impacts and uses of digital surveillance,” GAO said. “Additionally, we will address how federal agencies oversee employers’ use of digital surveillance technology.”

To perform its analysis, GAO analyzed the 217 public comments that were submitted in response to the May 2023 Request for Information (RFI) from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) that sought input on how these technologies are designed, deployed, and how prevalent they are in the workplace.

GAO carried out its study from June 2024 to August 2024.

Of the identified 211 stakeholders who submitted comments, 91 were workers, 19 were advocacy organizations, 16 were researchers and research organizations, 12 were unions, and 10 were trade associations. Eight technology developers, one coalition comprised of advocacy organizations and a union, and 54 unspecified stakeholders made up the balance of those who commented on the RFI.

When they announced the RFI a year ago, White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Policy Deirdre Mulligan, and Jenny Yang, Deputy Assistant to the President for Racial Justice and Equity, Domestic Policy Council, said in a joint statement that “employers are increasingly investing in technologies that monitor and track workers, and making workplace decisions based on that information.”

Mulligan and Yang pointed to a New York Times investigation that found eight of the ten largest private US employers tracked individual workers to assess their productivity.

“The constant tracking of performance can push workers to move too fast on the job, posing risks to their safety and mental health,” said Mulligan and Yang, emphasizing that the “monitoring [of workers’] conversations can deter workers from exercising their rights to organize and collectively bargain with their employers. And, when paired with employer decisions about pay, discipline, and promotion, automated surveillance can lead to workers being treated differently or discriminated against.”

In 2022, OSTP had released its Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, which stated that individuals “should be free from unchecked surveillance.” The Blueprint noted that continuous surveillance can pose harm to workers, and used as an example the electronic monitoring that’s taken place “intended to stymie workers’ efforts to organize a labor union.”

GAO said its analysis of the comments to OSTP’s RFI found they “generally described privacy concerns regarding the information employers collect on workers’ digital activities (digital privacy) and bodies (bodily privacy),” and that “privacy was the most frequently raised concern by stakeholders, with 87 stakeholders commenting about this issue.”

GAO said, “the digital surveillance tools most frequently mentioned by [the commentors] that employers use includes cameras and microphones, computer monitoring software, geolocation, tracking applications, and devices worn by workers (wearables).”

GAO said the comments “matter” because employers across various industries are increasingly using digital surveillance tools to monitor their workers. “Although digital surveillance tools can provide employers with information to help improve their operations, some worker advocates are concerned that these tools can be used in ways that negatively affect workers.”

“Seventy-three stakeholders, including workers, researchers, and stakeholders from unions and advocacy organizations, commented that digital surveillance tools can monitor workers’ digital information through their personal or company-owned devices,” GAO found, adding that “stakeholders from a union federation described some employers requiring remote workers to download software that gave managers access to their computer cameras and microphones while they were at home.”

GAO said it found one worker “reported being fired from a large technology company after raising concerns about the company’s privacy policy, which empowered managers to access, search, monitor, archive, and delete data stored on any worker’s devices. Four stakeholders, including one researcher, two advocacy organizations, and a union, commented that employers may monitor workers’ social media posts to identify workers who may be involved in labor organizing activities.”

When it comes to bodily privacy, GAO said 33 stakeholders, including workers, unions, researchers, and advocacy organizations, commented that employers collect information related to workers’ bodies,” which includes “biometric measurements or recordings of voices.”

“For example,” GAO said, “some employers record videos, watch employees via cameras, access their microphones, or record their voices on personal devices. Others collect biometric and health data through wearable technology or phone applications, including those that can track menstruation. While some stakeholders from trade associations commented that biometric data collection can help improve workplace safety and employee well-being, unions, workers, and advocacy organizations commented that such surveillance violates workers’ privacy.”

“The potential for discrimination or bias was also among the most frequently raised concerns by stakeholders, GAO said, pointing that that 63 “stakeholders, including advocacy organizations, researchers, and unions, identified the potential for such discrimination or bias based on several characteristics including race, gender and pregnancy, or disability.”

Workers also expressed concern about what they said is a lack of transparency on the part of companies about how employers use the data they collect on workers through digital surveillance.

“Forty-five stakeholders, including workers, advocacy organizations, researchers, and unions, commented that there is a lack of transparency about employers’ use of digital surveillance,” GAO said. “For example, eight workers commented that their employers are not forthright about how they use workers’ data to evaluate them or make job-related decisions. Two workers and a research organization commented that even when they are required to download digital surveillance tools onto their personal devices, employers are not transparent about what information they collect or how they use the information.”

Noteworthy is GAO’s finding that the comments were “generally negative” regarding the effects of surreptitious digital monitoring on workplace safety. GAO reported that 49 “stakeholders, including workers and stakeholders from advocacy organizations, commented that digital surveillance tools can reduce safety. For example, some stakeholders commented that these tools increase the pace at which workers must complete tasks, and therefore can make tasks more dangerous.”

“Conversely,” GAO added, “fifteen stakeholders, including an advocacy organization and several trade associations, commented that digital surveillance tools can increase safety by reducing accidents and injuries. For instance, stakeholders from a trade association commented that employers may use digital surveillance tools, such as wearable technology, to detect ergonomic risks, toxic or combustible liquids or gases, and other hazards.”

Article Topics

biometric identifiers  |  biometrics  |  data privacy  |  data protection  |  digital identity  |  GAO (Government Accountability Office)  |  monitoring  |  surveillance