Numerous private business monitors their staff to measure productivity, increase efficiency, decrease risk, and maximise revenue overall. Workplace surveillance is the monitoring of employees by the employer using any method (Ball, 2022, p.12). Workplace surveillance dates back to when workers shifted to cities and laboured in factories during the industrial revolution, where there were paid hourly, and the employer monitored them to boost productivity. Surveillance’s fundamental purpose in both offices and factories is to prevent labourers from impairing or slowing the production process. In contrast to antic supervision, modern-day monitoring is more accessible due to the new technology enabling pervasive monitoring exercises such as email monitoring and frequent drug testing (Ball, 2022, p. 16). However, workplace boundaries are becoming porous as most of our communication and work content is mediated by digital devices and technology. Electronic surveillance can take place both on the job and when employees are accessible to employers outside of the workplace via their gadgets. This report aims to look at the role surveillance plays in the workplace.
Surveillance also plays a crucial role in the workplace as it can aid increase productivity. Employers may be able to redirect time that employees spend on emailing and other non-work-related activities to more productive ones with the use of the computer usage information that has been gathered (Alge and Hansen, 2013, para. 4). Employers can implement policies that concentrate on the issue thanks to specific insights obtained from computer monitoring programs. Management may expressly impose restrictions on these behaviours with the help of technological filters that limit access to particular websites if monitoring indicates that employees are engaging in online shopping or engaging in social networking on Facebook while at work (Alge and Hansen, 2013, para. 4). The AMA poll found that 65% of employers employ filtering software to curb distractions during working hour.
Surveillance also plays a significant role in preventing loss in the working environment. Employers can safeguard their business resources by keeping an eye on the workplace. Modern surveillance methods improve management’s capacity to protect firm assets from relatively petty theft, like an employee sneaking paper clips in their purse, to more severe occurrences, like an employee selling sensitive company data to a rival (Ball, 2010, p. 34). Even incriminating documents or emails that a worker erased from the company computer can be recovered and used as proof of misconduct, thanks to modern forensics. Using a video monitoring system can significantly reduce the likelihood of rogue employees engaging in unlawful activity (Jahagirdar and Bankar, 2020, p. 23). With video monitoring, investigations are also made simple.
Monitoring plays a significant role in communicating to employees which work to prioritise and are advised to be innovative by the employers. Using new monitoring technology at work alters power dynamics in various ways, and overall, the significances of surveillance are not uniform (Ball, 2010, p. 34). Similar to how workplace surveillance technology might “predict conformity” or “normalise discipline,” bystanders do not always perceive CCTV cameras as panoptic machines. The role of surveillance, however, does not always meet an organisation’s intended goal through monitoring approaches (Ball, 2010, p. 45). For instance, in the 1970s, the British police fitted CCTV cameras in an area where prostitute murders were rampant to scare prostitutes away. Instead, the sex workers gathered where the CCTV cameras could capture them and the license number of vehicles they would leave in to record if something happened.
Employers frequently employ the use of surveillance to uphold control and order in the workplace. Whereas Nanny Cams are a notable exception, CCTV cameras are typically noticeable in workplaces as a warning to employees that they are being monitored so that they act appropriately. Similar to how they were designed to alert Yorkshire’s prostitutes to surveillance by documenting their whereabouts and actions, cameras serve as a warning that their operators may have a record of inappropriate behaviour (Alge and Hansen, 2013, para. 6). Additionally, Precise and aggressive electronic surveillance can result in strict technical control over standardised job routines (Alge and Hansen, 2013, para. 6). For instance, Amazon warehouse employees’ movements are monitored during loading and offloading of merchandise from docks as well as the minutes and distance covered in the warehouse is recorded.
Employers use surveillance technology such as time and activity tracking systems to curb inefficiency, referred to as time theft, especially for workers working in warehouses, cleaning industries, retail, and food service. According to the law, time stealing is a crime. For instance, felonies such as false business records result from fudging time sheets (Ball, 2022, p. 22). Moreover, employees also use this time and activity system when pursuing legal solutions from their employers when they find themselves victims of salary theft. This occurs when workers are made to work overtime or supervisors shear time from employees’ time cards, resulting in wage theft (Ball, 2022, p. 22). For example, Wal-Mart was held accountable for millions in stolen pay. Tracking time and tasks helps employees hold their employers responsible for wrongdoing.
In the current digital era, businesses utilise electronic monitoring essentially to identify productivity losses brought on by Internet abuse, avoid the disclosure of trade secrets, and avert legal responsibility for the actions of their personnel. Additionally, because it’s so simple to accomplish, digital monitoring is accepted for usage in disciplinary and pro-efficiency contexts. When it comes to minute-level surveillance, the service industry is the strictest, but the Web is recognised for enhancing monitoring on a massive level (Jahagirdar and Bankar, 2020, p. 36). A study conducted in 2010 showed that 75% of UK companies monitor the communication and activities of their employers on the task. A 2007 study of 294 UK businesses indicated that of companies with more than 1000 workers, more than a third hired individuals to read their workers’ emails. Of that, approximately three-quarters implemented electronic apparatuses to spontaneously monitor outgoing emails (Jahagirdar and Bankar, 2020, p. 56). The survey also revealed that 66% of companies kept an eye on their workers’ Internet usage, and approximately half of employers kept tabs on content and computer usage.
By using surveillance in the workplace, employers can evaluate the performance of their employees. Employers can easily keep track of their employees’ performance by utilising workplace surveillance devices like video monitoring (Ball, 2022, p. 45). A fair image of how employees have been performing throughout the year or a certain period is provided by employee monitoring using digital technology, like cameras. The company’s owners and supervisors can measure their employees’ performance in the most effective ways using video surveillance footage (Ball, 2022, p. 45). Thus, through surveillance, management can ensure that there is no injustice or lack of impartiality in evaluating employees’ performance.
The role of surveillance in the work environment also includes enhancing security and safety. In the workplace, safety is an essential concept (Ball, 2010, p. 56). Cameras in the workplace will aid in promoting safety and averting avoidable accidents. As a result, the feeling of safety among employees increases productivity. Additionally, the employer’s top priority is to keep trespassers out of the office. Wide-ranging video surveillance tools can assist in dissuading burglars and also give proof in the event of a break-in (Ball, 2010, pp.57-58). In a workplace with a constant stream of visitors, surveillance is a must since it can keep track of people at the entrance and exit spots. The benefits of good workplace surveillance are enormous for employers.
Workplace surveillance aids employers in monitoring remote workers, as the majority of the employees are currently working remotely. Supervisors can monitor remote workers via remote surveillance technologies (Ball, 2022, p. 56). These technologies carry out a variety of functions, including recording keystrokes and calculating how much time an employee spends actively using an application or website. However, using tracking technologies carries some risks. Employees’ rights to privacy and when they should be informed that they are being monitored are governed by several federal and formal regulations that apply to workplace monitoring. The best strategy from a legal standpoint is to reveal surveillance (Ball, 2022, p. 58). Building employee trust around privacy issues requires being open and honest about the usage of such monitoring methods.
Similarly, surveillance in the workplace also functions as a location monitor for workers within an organisation. Location monitoring implicates the location of the workers, and their movements are checked by the employer using GPS (Global Positioning System) (Ball, 2022, p. 59). The technology employs satellites to send signals to ground-based GPS receivers so they can provide precise location information. It is possible to locate employees within corporate premises and on city highways and roads (Ball, 2022, p. 62). Additionally, it is possible to gauge how fast staff drive company vehicles and their location. For instance, truck drivers are monitored using GPS to locate their location and speed. Employers use these technologies to improve workplace security and productivity.
The forms of surveillance used at work also create possibilities for discrimination and inclusion both during the hiring process and when someone is promoted or transferred to another job. A person’s ability to enter the workforce can be significantly impacted by having the appropriate forms of identification, such as a National Identification Card and, to a greater extent, by their willingness to submit to tests for drugs, personality, or Facebook monitoring (Ball, 2010, p 48). While some of these surveillance techniques, such as call monitoring, are often ongoing, others occur as a single incident or a series of unpredictable incidents (Alge and Hansen, 2013, p.). Additionally, monitoring technologies suddenly make junior employees visible to higher management since they recognise them as an essential link in the social networks that bind the organisation and are set for promotions.
Surveillance in the working environment also functions as a tool for superior office management by the employer or Supervisors. The ideal strategy to guarantee efficient management is to monitor employees (Jahagirdar and Bankar, 2020, p. 15). As a result, the administrative staff’s office workload is reduced. Video surveillance facilitates supervision and general administration, promoting workplace harmony. Disputes are inevitable in the workplace (Jahagirdar and Bankar, 2020, p. 40). These disagreements may be between management and staff or even just between individual employees. Typically, in these situations, you’ll need to identify the actual cause of the issue before things spiral out of control. Surveillance cameras can offer sufficient evidence to resolve disputes fairly in such cases.
Conclusion
Employers are becoming more concerned about problems involving workplace violence, identity and asset theft, decreased productivity, and workplace accidents and injuries ((Jahagirdar and Bankar, 2020, p. 55). Employers are looking for effective strategies to reduce these risks in the context of the ever-rising costs of lawsuits. As a result, businesses increasingly monitor their workers to avoid misbehaviour, injuries, and other sorts of loss (Jahagirdar and Bankar, 2020, p. 64). Moreover, using tracking technologies carries some risks. Employees’ rights to privacy and when they should be informed that they are being monitored are governed by several federal and formal regulations that apply to workplace monitoring.
References
Alge, B.J. and Hansen, S.D., 2013. Workplace monitoring and surveillance research since “1984”: A review and agenda. The psychology of workplace technology, pp.209-237.
Ball, K., 2022. Surveillance in the Workplace: Past, Present, and Future. Surveillance & Society, 20(4), pp.455-461.
Ball, K., 2010. Workplace surveillance: An overview. Labor History, 51(1), pp.87-106.
Jahagirdar, R. and Bankar, S., 2020. EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTION OF WORKPLACE MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1).
write