Workers under constant surveillance express exhaustion from striving to meet employers' productivity targets. Every 10 minutes, Mae's computer seizes a snapshot of her screen due to the monitoring software imposed by her employer on her laptop. Cast over her workday is a consequential figure: her activity score, a percentage computed through the arbitrary gauge of her typing and mouse activity. During our discussion, it maintains a level of approximately 62%. She remarks, 'That's actually quite good. Interestingly, despite actively participating in meetings via Zoom, it doesn't count towards the activity score,' while mentioning the frequent involvement in watching videos and attending calls as essential aspects of her professional responsibilities. Mae, a millennial in her 20s, joined the ranks of workers who reached out to the Guardian, compelled to divulge their personal experiences with workplace surveillance. As a marketing professional, she operates from a remote setting, navigating the landscape of a company where monitoring has emerged as an intrinsic part of her job. With the rise of remote work due to the Covid pandemic, companies have embraced a range of monitoring tools, including Hubstaff, which employees employ. Other tools like CleverControl and FlexiSPY go a step further, offering functionalities such as webcam monitoring and audio recording. At the end of the workday, Mae frequently experiences dry eyes and a throbbing headache. She explains that the constant tracking she endures doesn't leave room for moments of reflection or the ability to take breaks and return to work refreshed—it's an incredibly intense experience. There is a sense of liberation when the monitoring is deactivated, highlighting the need for a level of trust that extends beyond mere screenshots While Hubstaff acknowledges that the statistics should be interpreted in the context of each employee's role and cautions against setting unattainable activity targets, Mae reveals that her manager has discussed her scores with her and even compared them to those of her colleagues. "Having that conversation made me constantly aware of it – it reinforced the idea that they are closely monitoring these scores," she shares. At present, when she engages in tasks that might lower this figure – such as jotting down notes on paper – she pauses the tracker, resulting in occasions where she has to work extra hours to meet her contractual hour requirement. "I feel a certain level of disappointment in being evaluated by an automated system that suggests I am not as competent a worker as I believe myself to be." Additionally, she observes a detrimental impact on her productivity, to the extent that she has resorted to taking sick leave in order to complete tasks without being subjected to monitoring. She articulates a pervasive sense of surveillance, emphasizing her ability to perform more effectively when afforded the freedom to work independently and without

1. Workers under constant surveillance express exhaustion from striving to meet
employers' productivity targets.
Every 10 minutes, Mae's computer seizes a snapshot of her screen due to the
monitoring software imposed by her employer on her laptop. Cast over her workday
is a consequential figure: her activity score, a percentage computed through the
arbitrary gauge of her typing and mouse activity.
During our discussion, it maintains a level of approximately 62%. She remarks,
'That's actually quite good. Interestingly, despite actively participating in meetings
via Zoom, it doesn't count towards the activity score,' while mentioning the
frequent involvement in watching videos and attending calls as essential aspects of
her professional responsibilities.
Mae, a millennial in her 20s, joined the ranks of workers who reached out to the
Guardian, compelled to divulge their personal experiences with workplace
surveillance. As a marketing professional, she operates from a remote setting,
navigating the landscape of a company where monitoring has emerged as an
intrinsic part of her job.
With the rise of remote work due to the Covid pandemic, companies have embraced
a range of monitoring tools, including Hubstaff, which employees employ. Other
tools like CleverControl and FlexiSPY go a step further, offering functionalities such
as webcam monitoring and audio recording.
At the end of the workday, Mae frequently experiences dry eyes and a throbbing
headache. She explains that the constant tracking she endures doesn't leave room
for moments of reflection or the ability to take breaks and return to work
refreshed—it's an incredibly intense experience.
There is a sense of liberation when the monitoring is deactivated,
highlighting the need for a level of trust that extends beyond mere
screenshots

2. While Hubstaff acknowledges that the statistics should be interpreted in the context
of each employee's role and cautions against setting unattainable activity targets,
Mae reveals that her manager has discussed her scores with her and even
compared them to those of her colleagues. "Having that conversation made me
constantly aware of it – it reinforced the idea that they are closely monitoring these
scores," she shares.
At present, when she engages in tasks that might lower this figure – such as jotting
down notes on paper – she pauses the tracker, resulting in occasions where she has
to work extra hours to meet her contractual hour requirement.
"I feel a certain level of disappointment in being evaluated by an automated system
that suggests I am not as competent a worker as I believe myself to be."
Additionally, she observes a detrimental impact on her productivity, to the extent
that she has resorted to taking sick leave in order to complete tasks without being
subjected to monitoring. She articulates a pervasive sense of surveillance,
emphasizing her ability to perform more effectively when afforded the freedom to
work independently and without constant scrutiny. Disabling the monitoring system
brings about a sense of liberation, highlighting the importance of fostering a level of
trust that extends beyond mere screenshots.
According to the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), there was a notable
surge in online queries concerning workplace surveillance during the pandemic,
particularly regarding methods for monitoring employees while working remotely.
In a survey conducted by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) in 2022, it was revealed
that 60% of employees surveyed reported being subjected to tracking or monitoring
within the previous year. Henry Parkes, a senior economist at the IPPR and the
author of a recent report examining the proliferation of surveillance practices,
advocates for increased transparency and highlights the challenge of accurately
assessing the extent of workplace monitoring in the absence of accessible data.
He raises concerns about the multifaceted nature of surveillance, asserting that it
extends beyond mere data logging. He asserts, 'Its true significance lies in its
potential to be weaponized against employees.' He further underscores the ability of
this technology to exercise control over workers in previously unimaginable ways.
"There is a potential for scope creep, wherein software initially deployed with a
specific objective, such as verifying employees' availability, gradually encompasses

3. supplementary capabilities. These additional functionalities facilitate the analysis of
employees' work patterns and behaviors."
When employers utilize such data for workplace decision-making, there exists a
potential for algorithmic bias, as highlighted by Parkes. Notably, young, female, and
minority workers tend to face a higher likelihood of being subjected to surveillance
practices. It is worth noting that some employers employ AI-based systems in this
context. However, the opacity of these systems raises concerns, as they function as
black boxes that ingest data and produce outcomes. As our reliance on AI
increases, it becomes crucial to exercise caution to prevent discriminatory practices
based on gender or ethnicity. Otherwise, ostensibly neutral decisions could
perpetuate underlying biases.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of exclusively emphasizing the
accuracy of monitoring systems. Parkes asserts that the technological proficiency,
exemplified by Fujitsu's facial recognition AI model assessing workers'
concentration, "will undoubtedly progress". He notes that the rapid pace of
improvement is disconcerting. However, it is crucial to recognize that these systems
can be dehumanizing and do not align with the natural capacity of individuals to
function throughout the entire day.
According to Parkes, surveillance practices that have historically been present in
certain workplaces, such as call centres, may become increasingly prevalent across
various sectors. He suggests that "the normalization of surveillance raises concerns
as it resembles the hypothetical scenario of a boss physically monitoring and
analyzing an employee's every action throughout the day. Technology has made this
level of scrutiny possible."
Employers should recognize that an overemphasis on monitoring can backfire for
their organizations. It has been observed that extensive monitoring is linked to
higher rates of staff turnover. Moreover, evidence suggests that employees may
respond with resistance and engage in counterproductive actions, such as
implementing workarounds to artificially enhance performance metrics.
Parkes highlights that "While metrics can advance in sophistication, it is essential to
recognize their inherent limitations when considering them as definitive yardsticks.
Job excellence encompasses diverse dimensions, and an excessive concentration on
data alone may pose challenges. However, this does not negate the relevance of
data; rather, it emphasizes the importance of employing it judiciously in
decision-making processes. Ultimately, our focus should be on evaluating outputs
and measurable achievements."

4. Carlos*, an experienced customer service professional in his 40s employed by a
prominent high street bank in London, is well aware of the difficulties associated
with this situation. As his job transitions into a hybrid model in the post-pandemic
era, he finds himself subjected to relentless scrutiny while working remotely. "Our
productivity is meticulously measured down to the minute. I've even had to justify
extended restroom breaks," Carlos explains. The profound level of surveillance has
taken a toll on his overall well-being.
Carlos elucidates that, during performance evaluations, he is apprised of the extent
to which he deviates from the established time frame for resolving customer
queries. However, the opacity surrounding the calculation of this score is what
engenders significant stress in his professional capacity. "The lack of transparency
regarding this matter adds an additional layer of strain to my job," Carlos shares.
It instills a sense of fear, constantly evoking concerns about being under
surveillance
Workers are mobilizing against workplace surveillance by leveraging the collective
power of labor unions. Adam*, a seasoned employee in his 50s, engaged in social
housing for a local authority in the south of England, sheds light on the intrusive
implementation of vehicle tracking by management in recent years.
"Regular monitoring is an established practice, with immediate alerts triggered for
prolonged duration's or perceived discrepancies in our whereabouts, as assessed by
our manager. While trackers are commonly installed in council vehicles, their
utilization is typically limited to emergency scenarios."
According to Adam, surveillance practices have progressively shifted towards a
focus on identifying faults or shortcomings. This pervasive atmosphere of scrutiny
engenders fear and constant apprehension of being observed, even during
seemingly innocuous activities like enjoying a cup of coffee for a brief period. The
mounting pressure resulting from these monitoring measures exacerbates the
inherent stress of the job. In such circumstances, the concern is not unfounded
when the intention appears to be exposing vulnerabilities.
"The council's utilization of trackers for monitoring purposes is being perceived as
an invasive form of surveillance. Instances such as receiving calls to account for the
chosen route, despite the absence of predefined routes, can be seen as approaching
the threshold of harassment."

5. Upon filing a complaint with the union, Adam has observed a change in his
supervisor's approach. "I asserted my rights. They now acknowledge that those
who monitor are themselves under observation."
Dive Deeper