In a recent article, I looked at the often nefarious use of technology to spy on employees, including those working on-site as well as remotely. Such employee spyware can be extremely damaging to employee relations and significantly undermines the trust between workers and management.
Research from Cornell University highlights how worker representatives are helping employees fight back against such monitoring. The study explored examples in Germany and Norway, which showed how such representatives can help to mobilize workers and provide a more collective voice to help preserve worker privacy.
Protecting privacy
“Legal rights are crucial to make sure workers have a say in how technologies are used in the workplace,” the researchers explain. “And there are different ways to get there, depending on the country.”
The study examines how unions and worker councils have responded to the growth in so-called algorithmic management in a number of call centers operated by telecom companies in Norway and Germany.
Works councils are common in Germany and usually feature employees who are elected by their peers to represent them in conversations with management over aspects of working life. Codetermination rights are also a big part of German working life, with this requiring a degree of agreement between management and the works councils on key policies, including the introduction of technology to monitor how workers are performing.
Striking agreements
The works councils monitored in Germany were able to successfully strike an agreement with the management to ensure that the use of AI-based monitoring technologies followed an agreed upon framework.
This framework required managers to consult with the council before they acquired any new technology, while also clearly outlining any planned investments in technology over the next few years. The agreement also required managers to only use AI to ensure the working environment was improved and that worker privacy was maintained.
“Germany has strong legal consultation and codetermination rights on technology that now explicitly include AI,” the researchers explain. “This is a tool that worker representatives can use to improve working conditions. But it can also benefit companies through upgrading worker skills and encouraging smarter investments that improve efficiency and customer service.”
Mutual gains
The research highlights how important it is that workers have a voice in ensuring that any gains from the new technology are shared equally between employers and employees. The researchers explain that employees typically know a lot about any potential problems with the tech and how it can be used to make their work better.
There is a similarly strong environment for unions in Norway, with a robust set of data protection laws that can restrict how AI-based management tools can be deployed in the workplace.
In the Norwegian telecom company, a couple of incidents were observed where AI surveillance software was installed, with video technology used to monitor what employees were doing on their computers. Understandably, this failed to gain the support of the unions, who referred the case to the Norwegian Data Protection Authority, who declared that the system was illegal.
“The Norwegian case shows that data protection laws can be a useful backup when collective bargaining breaks down,” the researchers explain. “In this case, it gave the union leverage to bring management back to the negotiating table.”
A collective voice
In both the German and Norwegian companies, the work councils and trade unions were able to ensure the collective voice of employees was represented and heard by managers as new technologies were rolled out.
There were noticeable differences between the two countries, however, as in Germany, work councils have strong legal rights that enable them to negotiate solutions and ensure agreements are made with managers that respect the security of workers.
“In Norway, it doesn’t seem quite as efficient for the unions to have to go to the Data Protection Authority<” the researchers explain. “But the reality is that those laws in Norway cover all workers, while in Germany there are many more workers who are not covered by collective agreements or that have weaker worker councils.”
The study highlights the pivotal role of worker representatives in defending employee privacy and striking a fair balance between technology adoption and worker rights. Whether through Germany’s robust works councils and codetermination rights or Norway’s stringent data protection laws, these mechanisms provide a collective voice for employees.
In Germany, legal rights empower works councils to negotiate AI technology agreements that preserve worker privacy and drive efficiency, while in Norway, data protection laws serve as a powerful recourse when negotiations falter. Despite variations in efficiency, both countries demonstrate the significance of collective representation in shaping a workplace where technology benefits all and privacy remains a priority, fostering trust and cooperation between employees and management.
