More than 90 per cent of respondents to The Logic’s October survey said employers should disclose if they are monitoring staff electronically, while about half also said they wouldn’t want to work for an organization that surveilled its employees. 

About three-quarters said they would be very or somewhat concerned about their personal privacy if their employer were tracking productivity, while almost a quarter were not at all concerned (three per cent said they didn’t know or were unsure). 

As of Oct. 11, employers in Ontario with 25 or more workers are required to disclose how and why they are monitoring staff—a rule that experts say could lead to unintended consequences, including a potential wave of investigations and employee complaints. Quebec introduced similar disclosure rules last year, and B.C. and Alberta are also reviewing their private-sector privacy laws.

The new regulations come after employers in Canada increased their use of  employee-surveillance technologies to adapt to remote work during the pandemic.

Not all subscribers who responded to the survey were aware of their workplace’s monitoring policies. More than a third, or 35 per cent, said they knew they weren’t being monitored, and about 17 per cent said they knew they were being monitored and how it was done. 

“Our system tracks when you are online, and when you haven’t moved or typed for a certain amount of time it goes to ‘inactive,’” one subscriber wrote. “We also log into a network every day and almost every internal site involves a log-in ping being sent to a company-supplied iPhone.” 

But 28 per cent of respondents said they didn’t know if they were being monitored, and around 10 per cent knew they were being monitored, but not how. One wrote, “I know there is some monitoring and a vague email was sent out about some legislation, but I couldn’t tell you what is actually happening.” 

Others said their employers weren’t tracking productivity, but that they used software that managers could use to do so anyway.

Subscribers who said they wouldn’t work for an organization that monitors employees argued it would damage trust. “E-stalking shows a lack of trust in the employees,” one subscriber who selected “no” wrote. “If you, boss, can’t trust me, why should I trust you?” 

About 20 per cent said “maybe” to working for such an employer, while 13 per cent said they would. Another 18 per cent said either that they were unsure or had conditions for what would make them comfortable with employee tracking.

“It depends on why and how they’re using it,” another subscriber said. “[If] it’s to ensure people are working when they say they are, I’m OK with it. 

“If they are using it to visually record sentiment, or track internal communications, I think it is invasive and inappropriate. Monitoring employees through video or sound when they are working from home is a gross violation of privacy and should not be done for any reason.”

Several companies offer employee-monitoring tools, including time-tracking software, desktop live-streaming, or products that take photos on a webcam at regular intervals. Subscribers, however, were split on which methods crossed a line. 

A majority of respondents said several monitoring methods were unacceptable. Keystroke tracking—recording the keys typed on a keyboard—was the top concern, followed by webcam footage and tracking computer use, such as monitoring websites or taking screenshots.

Tracking log-on and -off times received the least amount of votes as being inappropriate, but 38 per cent of respondents still called it unacceptable. About 13 per cent said all of the methods included in the survey were acceptable. 

Some respondents said some methods could be warranted if they were disclosed beforehand or used for safety reasons, while others said workplaces should only track outcomes and avoid micromanaging employees. 

“Depending upon where the webcams are, they might be appropriate, if they were placed for safety reasons,” one subscriber wrote. “I think workplaces have the right to ensure that no inappropriate emails, websites or conversation is happening on company servers or time.”

But another disagreed, saying, “Anything that could capture private communications that were part of reasonable and occasional personal use would be unacceptable to me.”

While the vast majority of respondents said employers should reveal monitoring efforts to employees, the few who selected “depends on the circumstances” pointed to investigations of fraud or theft of intellectual property where an employer needs to gather evidence discreetly. No subscribers said employers shouldn’t be required to disclose at all. 

“Employees should be informed and companies should be transparent—both to prospective and current employees,” one said. 

Another subscriber said supervision is a norm in modern workplaces but must be handled well. “I think the word ‘monitored’ inflames the conversation,” they wrote. “If a business handles this poorly, they will pay the price of losing talented people.”

---

Methodology

The Logic emailed subscribers a private link to an online survey on Oct. 15 and the survey closed Oct. 17. Respondents’ identities were kept anonymous and duplicates were removed as needed. Subscribers were asked, “Do you know if your workplace uses technology to track employees throughout their workday?” and could select: “I know there is monitoring and how it is done, “I know my employer monitors productivity, but don’t know how,” “I know there is no monitoring at my workplace,” “No, I don’t know,” or “Other.” Next, respondents were asked, “How concerned would you be about your personal privacy if your employer was tracking productivity?” and they could select: “Very concerned,” “Somewhat concerned,” “Not at all concerned,” or “Don’t know/unsure.”

The third question was “Would you want to work for an organization that monitors its employees?” with the following options: “Yes,” “Maybe,” “No,” Unsure,” and “Other.” Fourth, subscribers were asked, “What monitoring methods are unacceptable in your view? Select all that apply.” They could select the following options: “Tracking log on/off times,” “Monitoring content of emails and internal messages,” “Tracking computer use (i.e., taking screenshots and tracking websites),” “Tracking keystrokes,” “Recording phone/video calls,” “Webcam footage of employees,” “Tracking GPS locations,” and “Other (note them below).” They could also select “All are acceptable” as their only choice. Finally, respondents were asked, “Do you believe employers should be required to disclose how and why workers are being monitored?” and could select: “Yes,” “No,” “Depends on the circumstances (explain more below),” or “Other.”