The growing use of electronic tagging raises serious questions about employees' privacy and well-being
People Management, 30 Jun 2005
The word "tagging" might conjure up images of the system used to control the size of the prison population. Its association with the workplace is less obvious, but there is a growing use of electronic tagging in the retail and distribution sectors – both highly competitive areas where technological advantage could make a significant difference in the short term. This may be a short-lived innovation or a development that will have an impact on the jobs and well-being of many employees in the future.
The tagging devices, known as "wearables", are worn on wrists, waists or fingers and deliver instructions to employees on how to carry out their work. The advantages for the employer are obvious. The employee issuing the instructions need not be located in the same place as the employee receiving them. With computers logging customers' requirements, sending instructions, tracking the location of deliveries and assessing what stock requires replenishing, it is easy to see the cost savings involved. Reducing the number of people involved in the process could also avoid the potentially expensive errors that occur with a manual system, such as incorrectly completed pick-lists, transcription errors and delays in communication.
The GMB union has expressed its concern about the use of wearables and the potential they offer for monitoring employees. In the US, further software developments are being made to monitor employees' productivity, including an application to measure the number of keystrokes made by secretaries on their word processors.
CCTV cameras and the electronic monitoring of employees have been in the workplace for some time. In the past there have also been forays into using software programmes to monitor salespeople out in the field. But monitoring brings with it legitimate concerns for employees' privacy.
The Information Commissioner's guidance on monitoring recommends that it should only be carried out for good business reasons, and that employers should consider other options for achieving their business objectives before automatically opting for general monitoring.
The use of tagging devices involves repetitive action that could result in sickness absence, disabilities and personal injury claims. Manufacturing production lines have experienced problems with injuries caused by repetitive strain injury. One successful solution involves dividing the workforce into teams with allocated tasks, and then rotating the employees between them. This may be appropriate for production lines, but it is unlikely to be an effective solution for tagged employees given the type of work they undertake. For example, in a large distribution centre, employees are likely to be carrying out the same tasks with little variation.
Stress could also be an issue. With detailed instructions being given, there is less scope for employees to use their initiative and knowledge, and more pressure if the machines malfunction and leave employees to produce a solution.
Employers need to consider whether their insurance policy covers the use of these devices. For example, the insurance cover may be quite narrowly defined and extend only to functions that are carried out manually. Any claims arising from the use of wearables may not be covered by the insurance policy.
Employers also need to decide how they will react if employees object to the devices. If the terms and conditions of employment do not prevent employees being required to carry out their work using the devices, the employer can argue that a refusal to carry out a request to use the wearables amounts to failure to follow a lawful instruction. Disciplinary action could then legitimately be taken against the employees concerned.
You wear it well
There are good business reasons for using monitoring in distribution companies, and it is unlikely that any form of technology other than tagging could achieve similar results. It is claimed these devices have a positive impact, especially on team morale. Apparently they are comfortable to wear, make the work easier to do, and increase efficiency. If this connects to team bonuses, it's hardly surprising that employees may not, in the short term, protest too loudly. But using tagging could store up potential problems in the future for employees, employers and their insurers. Employers should know where they stand legally in case wearing them is resisted in the long term.
Measured response By dramatically reducing the time and money spent on managing human capital, the latest HR software systems are freeing up more time for strategic thinking
