GPS technology is becoming more and more accessible and affordable, but do the benefits outweigh the need for employee privacy?
Imagine a lone snow-removal worker out on a highway in a remote location in the middle of a blizzard. It’s 2 a.m., the truck hits a patch of ice, and there’s a crash.
A decade ago, that scenario would have been much more alarming. Now, with the proliferation of affordable GPS tracking devices, odds are that worker’s employer could immediately and accurately pinpoint him and his vehicle, and send for help right away.
Knowing where employees are at all times is appealing to many employers; in many cases, there are clear safety upsides. Several high-profile legal cases over the past few years, however, suggest employers don’t always have safety in mind when implementing tracking technology. That might be why employees aren’t entirely sold on the technology. Independent research in the U.S., commissioned by GPS software firm TSheets, found privacy was a concern for employees surveyed: 52 per cent of those who had used the technology cited privacy as a concern, and 68 per cent of those who hadn’t used it said the same.
In addition, 15 per cent of those who had used GPS said their employer left the tracker running 24-7; a practice that raises serious concerns about privacy and legality.
What the law allows an employer to do
Under Canadian privacy laws, an employer can track workers under certain circumstances, says Kirsten Thompson, who leads law firm McCarthy Tétrault’s national cybersecurity, privacy and data protection group. “A company needs to have a good reason for using it, directly connected with its business dealings.”
Canada’s federal Privacy Commissioner found improving customer service and managing workforce productivity were acceptable reasons for GPS use. The ruling noted that the purpose of the data collection needed to be clearly communicated to staff, as well as the rules for monitoring, and that under most circumstances that surveillance wouldn’t include real-time tracking of an employee’s daily routine. In other words, in most cases an employer couldn’t track an employee simply to make sure his lunch break didn’t exceed 30 minutes.
“The courts have been pretty clear that the use of tracking for performance management is only going to be permitted in the rarest of circumstances and it would have to be justified,” says Thompson. “Even then, there would have to be an additional lead-up to that.” If, for example, an employer announced they were going to use GPS for safety, they couldn’t then decide to use it for performance management without informing staff.
Information gathered from GPS tracking can’t be used as the basis for dismissal, either, says Thompson, unless the employer has clearly stated that this information can be used to that end. “It would be challenging to use GPS in that way unless there was a solid rationale for it—if employees essentially signed on for it.”
How GPS is being used
Despite some employees’ concerns and some legal restrictions, use of GPS tracking is becoming more widespread as it becomes simpler and more affordable.
“I’ve certainly seen more employers using GPS, particularly those who have fleet vehicles,” says Kirsten Thompson, co-lead of law firm McCarthy Tétrault’s national cyber security, privacy and data protection group.
For drivers in remote areas, the use of GPS tracking provides clear safety advantages. “I would say having GPS tracking for employees who work remotely is almost critical when it comes to safety,” says Lance Kellough, president of Blackridge Solutions in Vancouver. A common practice when employers don’t use GPS, says Kellough, is to have workers in remote locations call in to a main office every two hours. “If the person doesn’t check in after two hours but they don’t have a GPS device with them, you have no idea where they are.” He adds, “If they’re in a vehicle, they could have traveled a long distance in two hours, which makes it extremely difficult to send a search party and rescue that individual.”
GPS can drop a pin on that person’s exact location, immediately, and that could mean all the difference in the case of an accident. “It’s not the injury that causes the severity of the situation, most of the time, it’s the length of time to get to that person to provide assistance,” says Kellough.
In more remote areas, GPS can mean cost savings and efficiencies for employers. “With a GPS device, you don’t need to use the buddy system,” says Kellough. If they’re being tracked, two workers can be sent to two different sites and still say safe.
When remote locations aren’t a factor, employers see compelling benefits — beyond safety — for using GPS to track employee vehicles. “There’s a real economic value for employers who use it and that seems to be what’s driving it,” says Thompson. Employers can use the technology to locate and send whichever vehicle is closest to a customer for a service call, for example. “Customer service is faster, which increases competitiveness,” says Thompson.
A pair of decisions in 2013 by Canada’s Privacy Commissioner found two B.C.-based elevator companies could continue to track their employees’ vehicles, despite workers’ complaints that the practice was an intrusion into their privacy. Notably, one of the companies was asked to temporarily suspend the tracking until it provided workers with appropriate notice about exactly what information was being collection and how it was being used.
Thompson advises employers have a clear plan if they intend to use GPS tracking of employees. “Do put together a use case for the technology and the scope of the information you’ll collect, because GPS information is generally considered to be personal information,” says Thompson. Employers should consider how they’re going to use the information, how they’re going to keep it secure, and what policies they’re going to have around it.
Addressing privacy concerns
To help ease worries about privacy, some devices, including Kellough’s Blackridge products, can be turned off by employees when they finish a shift. “As soon as the employee is finished their shift they can turn off the tracking and they’re no longer locatable,” says Kellough.
Kellough’s company also offers an option to monitor and maintain GPS information with a third party — an option that ensures data is used for exactly what employers have promised. “We have a service where a secure monitoring portal operated by a third party will locate the employee every five minutes,” says Kellough. “They will only alert the employer when someone needs assistance.”
In the TSheets survey, GPS introduction wasn’t always well received. Nearly half of employees spoke with their manager or union rep about the change. Another 45 per cent either did nothing or complained to coworkers. The remaining six per cent either threatened to quit or did quit. The data suggests most employees wanted to talk about GPS — either to a manager or someone else.
Setting up a Q&A session or just talking to employees before introducing GPS can help smooth the introduction of the technology, suggests Kellough.
“Obviously a heavy-handed introduction without consultation or notice will get people’s backs up. But employees themselves tend to benefit from GPS capabilities,” says Thompson.
The TSheets survey found employees who had used the technology before cited the following benefits: Ease of tracking mileage (76 per cent), greater accountability (75 per cent), ensuring they got paid what they were owed (75 per cent), more efficiency (63 per cent) and building trust with the employer (61 per cent).
The survey also found 64 per cent of employees felt safer when their employer knew where they were during working hours.
Based on what he’s seen in the industry — with his company’s focus on lone workers in remote locations, and fleet vehicles — Kellough thinks employee resistance to the idea of GPS tracking is on the decline, at least in those environments. “About two or three years ago, the ‘Big Brother’ implication of tracking was always the biggest stumbling block. Now I very rarely get that.”
