Privacy at Work Survey
Summary
Introduction
Monitoring and surveillance of workers is not
new. However, new forms of technology and working methods means
that it is now easier for employers to undertake. UNISON Scotland
received a growing number of complaints from members, particularly
those in customer facing jobs in call centres and similar workplaces
that this surveillance was becoming more invasive. UNISON Scotland
utilities service groups (energy & water) therefore decided
to commission a survey on this issue.
Methodology
The survey involved 230 interviews with UNISON
members. The survey was random but not representative of UNISON
members as a whole. The sample was drawn from members in customer
facing posts mostly (70%) in the private sector. Whilst the survey
was commissioned by the energy and water service groups the sample
included members in other service groups. Interviews were undertaken
during the period October 2003 to January 2004 using email, telephone
and face to face contact.
Survey Results Summary
The questions and response rates are set out
in the annex.
The sample selected showed a high level of electronic
monitoring by e-mail, phone and other electronic measurement.
The latter mostly in contact centres using performance monitoring
software. For the majority of staff this included private communications.
Several respondents gave examples of calls from family members
being listened into even when they were clearly of a highly personal
nature. One respondent gave an example of her team manager printing
e-mail from a relative describing an urgent family crisis including
medical details.
The figure for hidden surveillance at 36% was
particularly high. Particularly when such a practice is generally
contrary to the approach set out in the Employment Practices Data
Protection Code (EPDPC). The fact that employees were aware of
the surveillance may indicate that the employer doesn't intend
it to be hidden but has failed to clearly communicate their policy.
This may be reflected in the response on employer
policies. The type of employer (generally large organisations)
covered by the survey is likely to have a policy and two thirds
of respondent knew one existed. However, little effort seems to
have been made to explain the policy. Very few employers appear
to have considered alternatives to electronic monitoring, or if
they have little effort has been made to explain why they were
not appropriate. Nearly three quarters of respondents felt that
the employer had not justified the monitoring. This would indicate
that work on impact assessments as set out in the EPDP Code has
been limited.
The most worrying results from the survey came
when respondents were asked what impact the monitoring had on
them. 'Demeaning' was the most common response with more than
half finding monitoring stressful. More than half suffered from
different levels of anxiety with 17% suffering from depression.
A number of staff explained that monitoring caused a loss of sleep
and extended sickness absence.
On performance measurement two thirds felt that
targets were unrealistic. A number of staff in call centres described
ways they sought to avoid unrealistic targets by dumping or transferring
customers. We asked only limited questions on this point and further
work is obviously necessary.
As call centres are still reporting recruitment
and retention problems the 52% of staff who have considered resigning
over monitoring is a significant figure.
Conclusion
The key points from the survey are:
- A high level of monitoring including private communications.
- Where polices exist they are poorly explained and have failed
to convince staff that monitoring is justified.
- Monitoring is generally regarded as demeaning and in many
cases is causing high levels of psychological distress.
- There is a significant negative impact on recruitment and
retention.
There is little evidence from this survey that
employers are adopting the principles set out in the EPDP Code
or that they understand the impact this level of concern from
staff must be having on morale and performance.
9 February 2004
Survey Questions
1. What methods are used to monitor your work?
- Phone recording 67%
- Email monitoring 82%
- CCTV 23%
- Electronic measurement 62%
2. Does this monitoring include private communications?
Yes 55%
No 41%
Don't know 4%
3. Are you aware of any hidden surveillance used by your employer?
Yes 36%
No 64%
4. Does your employer have a policy on electronic monitoring?
Yes 58%
No 21%
Don't know 21%
5. Has this policy and the reasons for it been explained to
you?
Yes 34%
No 66%
6. Has you employer considered alternatives to electronic
monitoring?
Yes 12%
No 34%
Don't Know 54%
7. Do you feel that your employer has justified electronic
monitoring?
Fully justified 6%
Partly justified 20%
Not at all 74%
8. How do you regard this monitoring?
No effect 16%
Oppressive 28%
Demeaning 82%
Stressful 52%
9. Has this monitoring caused you psychological distress?
None 29%
Anxiety 38%
Extreme anxiety 16%
Depression 17%
10. Where performance measures are used are the targets
Achievable 32%
Unrealistic 68%
- Have you considered resigning as a result of electronic monitoring?
Yes 52%
No 48%
12. Any other comments or examples to illustrate your concerns?
|
