DOCUMENT RESUME ED 299 406 TITLE Tensions. INSTITUTION · DOCUMENT RESUME. CE 051 015. The Electronic Supervisor: New Technology, New. ... David Alexander George Meany Center for

ED 299 406

TITLE

INSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

CE 051 015

The Electronic Supervisor: New Technology, NewTensions.

Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. Office ofTechnology Assessment.OTA-CIT-333Sep 87152p.

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC 20402 (GPO Stock No.052 - 003 - 01082 -B: $6.50).

Reports - Research/Technical (143)

MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.*Civil Liberties; *Computer Oriented Programs;*Electronic Equipment; Employer EmployeeRelationship; *Employment Practices; EquipmentUtilization; Foreign Countries; *Job Performance;Legal Problems; Legal Responsibility; *Privacy;Public Policy; Supervisory Methods; TelephoneCommunications Systems*Computer Work Monitoring

Computer technology has made it possible foremployers to collect and analyze management information aboutemployees' work performance and equipment use. There are three maintools for supervising office activities. Computer-based (electronic)monitoring systems automatically record statistics about the work ofemployees using computer or telecommunications equipment in theirjobs. Service observation refers to the practice of listening in onan employee's conversation with a customer. Automatic serviceobservation refers to computer tracking of calls' durations anddestinations. Telephone accounting refers to automatic,computer-generated records of the times, durations, and destinationsof telephone calls. The use of these technologies is surrounded bycontroversy. Some praise this new technology as a way of helpingemployers manage resources, plan workloads, reduce costs, and provideemployees with timely feedback. Others fear the potential civilliberties and privacy abuses of these new technologies. Anotherimportant concern is that there are, at present, no requirements inUnited States law that monitoring be fair or that employees beconsulted about work standards. (Appendixes include notes on computerwork monitoring in other countries and the privacy and civilliberties implications of testing employees in the workplace.)(MN)

***************************** ***** ************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

AA*****************************************************************-***

2(7\%1 lbec4ronic

\r)

0

Supervisor

New Technology

New Tensions

U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATI01.Office of Educational Research and improvement

EDUCATIONA L RESOURCESERIC)

INFORMATIONCENTE (

o /Ms document has bun reproduced asreceived from the person or organization

originating itC Minor changes have been made to HTIPrO,0

reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated th IS docu-

ment do not necesvinly represent officialOERI positron or policy

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Office of Technology Assessment

Congressional Board of the 100th Congress

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona, Chairman

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman

Senate

ORRIN G. HATCHUtah

CHARLES E. GRASSLEYIowa

EDWARD M. KL-NNEDYMassachusetts

ERNEST F. HOLLINGSSouth Carolina

"LAIBORNE PELLRhode Island

WILLIAM J. PERRY, ChairmanH&Q Technology Partners

DAVID S. POTTER, Vice ChairmanGeneral Motors Corp. (Ret.)

EARL BEISTLINEConsultant

CHARLES A. BOWSHERGeneral Accounting Office

House

GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.California

JOHN D. DINGELLMichigan

CLARENCE E. MILLEROhio

DON SUNDQUISTTennessee

AMO HOUGHTONNew York

JOHN H. GIBBONS(Non voting)

Advisory Council

CLAIRE T. DEDRICKCalifornia Land Commission

S. DAVID FREEMANLower Colorado River Authority

MICHEL T. HALBOUTYMichel T. Ila Monty Energy Co.

CARL N. HODGESUniversity of Arizona

Director

JOHN H. GIBBONS

RACHEL McCULLOCHBrandeis University

CHASE N. PETERSONUniversity of Utah

JOSEPH E. ROSSCongressional Research Service

The Technology Assessment Board approves the release of this report The views expressed in this report are notnecessarily those of the Board. OTA Advisory Council, or individual members thereof

1

I

Er 4liC

Supervisor

New Technology

New Tensions

1 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE Or I EQHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT%....., Washington. 0 C 20510-8025

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Electronic Supervisor. NewTechnology, New Tensions, OTA-CIT-333 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office, September 1987).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619855

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)

" Foreword

The Electronic Supervisor. New Technology, New Tensions, deals with theuse of computer-based technologies to measure how fast or how accurately em-ployees work. New computer-based office systems are giving employers new waysto supervise job performance and control employees' use of telephones, but suchsystems are also controversial because they generate such detailed informationabout the employees they monitor. This assessment explores a broad range ofquestions related to the use of new technology in the workplaceand its effectson privacy, civil liberties, and quality of working life.

This study was requested by the House Committee on Government Opera-tions and the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Com-mittee on the Judiciary. A second report resulting from the same request,Defending Secrets, Sharing Data: New Locks and Keys for Electronic Informa-tion, will discuss how important developments in computer security are converg-ing with technologies and policies for communications security. It also exploresthe past and future role of government policies in the evolution of informationsecurity technologyparticulary cryptographyfor safeguarding communicationin government and the private sector.

OTA wishes to thank the many people and organizations that contributedto this assessment through advisory panels, interviews, reviews, and othermeansof sharing their information and experience with us. The final responsibility forthe study, however, rests with OTA.

JOHN H. GIBBONSDirector

b iii

rAdvisory PanelThe Electronic Supervisor: New Technology, New Tensions

Granger Morgan, Ph.D., ChairmanCarnegie Mellon University

Gary T. Marx, Ph.D.Professor of SociologyMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Robert Morris, Ph.D.*Chief Scientist, NCSC-CNational Security Agency

Susan L. Quinones, Esq.Conde llo, Ryan, Piscitelli

Virginia du RivageResearch Director9 to 5 National Association of Working

Women

Forrest SmokerDirectorCorporate TelecommunicationsNorth American Phillips Corp.

Willis H. Ware, Ph.D.Corporate Research StaffThe Rand Corp.

Fred H. WynbrandtAssistant DirectorCriminal Identification and Information

BranchState of California

Peter ArmentDivision of TelecommunicationsState of New York

Robert R. Be lair, Esq.Kirkpatrick & Lockhart

Jerry J. BermanChief Legislative CounselAmerican Civil Liberties Union

H. W. William Caming, Esq.ConsultantRobert H. Courtney, Jr.PresidentRCI

Harry B. De MaioDirector, Data Security ProgramIBM Corp.

John HarrisSpecial Assistant to the PresidentAmerican Federation of Government

Employees (AFL-CIO)

James M. KassonVice President, R&DRolm Corp.

Steven LipnerDigital Equipment Corp.

*Ex officio

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advi-sory panel members. The panel does not, howover, necessarily approve, disapprove. or endorse this report.OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

Project StaffThe Electronic Supervisor: New Technology, New Tensions

Until Ape 1986.**After April 1986.

4

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTAScience, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Fred W. Weingarten, ManagerCommunication and Information Technologies Program

Project StaffCharles K. Wilk, Project Director

Karen G. Bandy, Principal Author

Jim Dray, Research AnalystRobert Kost, Legal Analyst

Mary Ann Madison, Analyst

Joan Winston, Analyst**

Administrative StaffElizabeth A. Emanuel, Administrative Assistant

Audrey D. Newman, Administrative Secretary

Sandra Serbinoff, Secretary

Contractors

Sandra Albrecht, University of Kansas

Emanuel Donchin, University of Illinois

Steven Deutsch, University of Oregon

Paul Faerstein, Hay Group, Inc.Gary T. Marx and Sandford Sherizen

Data Security Systems, Inc.

Michael J Smith, University of Wisconsin

Sharon H. Strom

Alan F. Westin, Russell Pipe, and Elaine J. EisenmanEducational Fund for Individual Rights

S

Reviewers and Other Contributors

David AlexanderGeorge Meany Center for

Labor StudiesRobert ArndtUniversity of WisconsinNicholas A %fordMassachusetts Institute of

TechnologyJordon BarobAmerican Federation of State,

County and MunicipalEmployees

Joe BlandingUnited Auto WorkersBobbette BondUnited Food and Commercial

WorkersAndrew ClementYork UniversityBill CunninghamAFL-CIOWilliam DaddioMarvin DainoffMiami UniversityBen Di SylvesterRobert E. Nolan Co.Richard DwyerGeorge Meany Center for

Labor StudiesDavid EisenNewspaper GuildDonna Euben9 to 5 National Association of

Working WomenLouis FeldnerFederal Communications

CommissionBenjamin IL FriedmanGeneral Services AdministrationLisa GallatinOffice Technology Education

ProjectH. Stephen GordonNational Federation of Federal

EmployeesJudy GregoryAFL-CIO

vi

Dick GreenwoodInternational Association of

Machinists and AerospaceWorkers

Henry GuzdaU.S. Department of LaborChris HigginsUniversity of Western OntarioGeorge KohlCommunications Workers of

AmericaJack LandersGeneral Services AdministrationCharlotte Le GatesComputer and Business

Equipment ManufacturersAssociation

David Le GrandeCommunications Workers of

AmericaJenny LurayOffice Technology Education

ProjectWalter LypkaGraphic Communications

International UnionCharles MilkAT&TRobert E. NolanRobert E. Nolan Co.Leslie NultyUnited Food and Commercial

WorkersKaren NussbaumService Employees

International UnionDorothy PaleologoaAetna Life & CasualtyConnie PondAmerican Federation of

Government EmployeesChar la RathAmerican Society for

Information ScienceBarton ReppertCBR InternationalKaren RingenAmerican Civil Liberties Union

Diana Wickes RooseOberlin CollegeJacquelin RuffService Employees International

UnionJames RuleState University of New YorkHedva SarfatiInternational Labor OrganizationDavid ShamanskiPhilip She MaasIBM Corp.Donald SheridanGeneral Services AdministrationDonald E. SoekenAssociation of Mental Health

SpecialtiesJay SpechlerAmerican Express Co.Ken StavenjordU.S. Department of DefenseRonnie StrawCommunications Workers of

AmericaPaul TrauseGeneral Services AdministrationGwen WellsOffice and Professional

Employees UnionJames WoodfordNayyar ZaidiC&P Telephone Co.

OTA Reviewers

Lawrence Miike, SeniorAssociate

Neil Holtzman, Detailee,Johns Hopkins

Priscilla Regan, AnalystDenise Dougherty, AnalystBenjamin C Amick, Analyst

Contents

PageSummary1

Chapter 1. Introduction 5Chapter 2. Using Computers To Monitor Office Work 27Chapter 3. Telephone Call Accounting 61Chapter 4. Electronic Work Monitoring Law and Policy Considerations 85

Appendix A. Notes on Computer Work Monitoring in Other Countries 121Appendix B. Privacy and Civil Liberties Implications of

Testing Employees in the Workplace 128

10vil

SummaryIntroduction

Computer technology makes possible thecontinuous collection and analysis of manage-ment information about work performance andequipment use. This information can be use-ful to managers in managing resources, plan-ning workloads, and reducing costs. It can beadvantageous to employees as well, by provid-ing timely feedback on performance and an ob-jective basis for evaluation. Despite these pos-sible advantages, however, there is controversyabout computer-based monitoring on groundsthat it invades employees' privacy, causesstress, and can be used unfairly by some em-ployers.

Tools for Supervising Office Activities

"Computer-based monitoring" or "electronicmonitoring" systems automatically record sta-tistics about the work of employees using com-puter or telecommunication equipment in theirjobs. Such statistics might include number ofkeystrokes made, types of transactions com-pleted, or time spent for each transaction, forexample.

"Service observation" refers to the practiceof listening in on an employee's conversationwith a customer to check on courtesy, correct.ness of information, or other factors. Serviceobservation is not automatic; it requires a hu-man supervisor. However, it is often used inconjunction with computer-based systems thatcollect information about the duration of thetelephone call or the types of transactions theemployee performs during the call. New tech-nology has made service observation com-pletely silent, so neither the employee nor thecustomer may know a supervisor is on the line.

"Telephone call accounting" refers to auto-matic, computer-generated reccrds of the time,duration, and destination of telephone calls.It is generally used to manage telephone costsrather than to supervise the work procf ss.Some employers use telephone call accountingto help reduce their employees' personal useof office telephones.

Computer-Based Work Monitoring

Computer work monitoring is affecting asmall but growing segment of the office workforce. It is estimated that around 6 million of-fice workers have part or all of their work evalu-ation based on computer-generated statistics;for many others, such statistics may be col-lected but are not currently used for evalua-tion. The number of monitored workers can beexpected to grow as computers begin to be usedin more office jobs. In addition, computer workmonitoring is also affecting people in non-officejobs, for example retail sales, as computers areintroduced in a greater variety of workplaces.

Privacy.Although many workers have ex-pressed a feeling of privacy invasion when theyare "constantly watched" by a machine, com-puter-based monitoring usually does not raiseissues of privacy infringement in the strict le-gal sense. The workplace activities that aremonitored by computer are primarily inher-ently public activities, many of which were sub-ject to counting or supervision in other waysbefore computers became available. Privacyand access questions may arise, however, re-lated to employees' ability to see or challengerecords concerning their wori..

Fairness.The central workplace issuesraised by monitoring are labor relations ques-tions of fairness, dignity, autonomy, and con-trol, and are greatly influenced by the labor-management relations climate of a given firmor industry. The effects of computer-basedmonitoring depend on how it is used. Allega-tions of "unfair" or "abusive" monitoring usu-ally focus on questions like high or increasingquotas, inappropriate work standards or puni-tive use of monitoring information by super-visors. Computer-based monitoring appearsmost likely to be opposed or resented by em-ployees when they perceive that it is used un-fairly o when it is imposed without their un-derstanding or participation. Conversely, insome workplaces employees accept electronicmonitoring as a tool that helps them get con-trol of their own work and ensures that theirsupervisos evaluate them on the basis of faircriteria.

I

Stress. An additional issue is the possibil-ity that monitoring contributes to employeestress by creating a feeling of being watchedo; by creating pressure to work at high speed.There is some research on effects of computer-based monitoring, but it generally fails to sep-arate the effects of monitoring from those ofjob design, equipment design, lighting, work-load, machine pacing, and other potentiallystressful aspects of work in offices where com-puterized equipment is used. This area de-serves further research.

Service Observation

Monitoring the content of messages raisesa related set of issues. Some employers say thatservice observation (listening to or recordingthe content of employees' telephone conver-sations with customers) helps assure qualityand correctness of information and protectsall parties in case of dispute. However, serv-ice observation also impacts the privacy of thecustomer, and workers and labor organizationshave argued that it contributes to stress of theemployee, and creates an atmosphere of dis-trust. Service observation is legal when partof a formally established program of evalua-tion. In the Federal Government, employeesmust be informed that such a program is ineffect, but do not need to be informed preciselywhen a supervisor is listening.

Telephone Call Accounting

Telephone call accounting (computer-gener-ated records of the time, duration, destination,and cost of calls) gives employers a powerfultool for allocating costs to different projects,settling billing disputes with telephone com-panies, and discouraging nonbusiness use oftelephones. Other technologies, including callblocking, authorization cxies, and levels ofservice, can be used to limit nonbusiness usesof telephones, either instead of or in conjunc-tion with call accounting.

The Federal Government has collected de-tailed call accounting data on long-distancecalls for at least 10 years, but new technologywould make this information easier for agen-cies to use on a regular basis. Privacy ques-tions are raised when accounting records,

2

which are not required to be protected, are usedto track the calling habits of individuals. If callaccounting is going to be used by the FederalGovernment, development of better guidelineson acceptable levels of personal use of tele-phones, procedures for tracing patterns of ma-jor abuse, and guidelines for protecting callrecords from unauthorized use are necessaryto minimize intrusions on Federal workers.

Privacy and Fairness in the Workplace

The uses of technology discussed so far arecontroversial because they point out a basictension between an employer's right to con-trol or manage the work process and an em-ployee's right to autonomy, dignity, andprivacy. This same tension is also evident inthe use of other technologies for surveillanceand testing in the workplace. For example,Controversy over polygraph testing, drug test-ing, genetic screening, and emerging brainwave testing illustrates the tension betweenemployers' rights to manage their enterprise,reduce costs and reduce liability, and ate em-ployees' rights to preserve individual privacyand dignity. Fairness questions relate to theaccuracy of the tests themselves as well as tothe criteria for deciding who is to be tested.Privacy issues include employers' acquisitionof personal inforr ation not related to work,and the protection of records generated bytesting.

Legal and Policy Implications

There are no legal requirements in U.S. lawthat monitoring be "fair," that jobs be welldesigned, or that employees be consulted aboutwork standards, except insofar as these pointsare addressed in union contracts. Less than20 percent of the office work force is unionized,and even where unions are involved, their ef-fectiveness has been limited because technol-ogy choice and productivity measurement areoften considered "management rights" underthe contract. Similarly, workers are not cur-rently protected by law against stressful work-ing conditions, although stress can be a com-pensable injury under Worker Compensationstatutes.

4-1

Chapter 1

Introduction

CONTENTS

PageBackground 5

Monitoring and the Legal Context 5

Monitoring and the Labor Relations Context 6Findings of the Report 7

Historical Background 15Monitoring in History 15Privacy in the Workplace 18

Policy Options 20Sources of Information for This Report 23Organization of the Report 24

FigureFigure No.1. Categories of Behavior Subject to Monitoring, Measurement,

or Testing

Ii

Page

13

Chapter 1

Introduction

BACKGROUNDThis study addresses the capabilities of new

computer and communication technologies formonitoring employees' activities in the work-place. New communication technologies suchas digital private branch exchanges (PBXs),local area networks (LANs), and digital tele-phony in the switched network provide morecapability to monitor calling patterns as wellas content of telephone calls. Equipment andsoftware for telephone call accounting (track-ing the time, destination, and cost of calls)make up the fastest growing segment of thetelecommunication industry.

The networking of computers, either throughLANs or sometimes through the telephone sys-tem, provides a broad capacity to monitor workthat is performed at a computer terminal. Com-puter-generated statistics provide the basis ofpart or all of the work performance evaluationfor about 4 to 6 million office workers. Formany millions more, computer statistics ofsome sort are collected every time they usetheir terminals, even though these records arenot currently used for performance evaluation.Most of the employees subject to computer-based work measurement are in clerical occu-pations, or in other jobs where work is largelyrepetitive. Ultimately, as electronic mail andother computer-based technology become morepervasive in the office, it is likely that com-puter-based monitoring will affect a large num-ber of workers at all organizational levels.

Managers say that computer-based monitor-ing is very useful to employers. Computer mon-itoring of productivity can help them enhanceproductivity, maintain production standards,spot bottlenecks, and plan personnel and equip-ment needs. "Service observation," the capa-bility to listen in on telephone conversationsbetween employees and customers, helps themmake sure that customers receive correct in-formation and courteous service. Telephone

15

call accounting can be a powerful managementtool fur allocating telephone costs, checkingthe correctness of telephone bills, and reduc-ing personal use of employers' telephones. TheFederal Government, through a recent auditof call accounting records, found that about33 percent of off-network long-distance callson the Federal Telecommunications Systemwere personal calls.

On the other hand, there are concerns aboutthese practices as well. There are strong argu-ments that computer-based monitoring can beabused and that monitoring has potential forinvasions of employee privacy, as well as as-saults on their autonomy, personal dignity, andhealth. Computer monitoring of performanceprovides continuous minute-by-minute recordsof employee performance and could be used tospeed up the pace of work or enforce unfairwork standards. Service observation, whendone without notice or warning -an contrib-ute to a feelng of being spied up and mayhave implicat'ons for the privacy of customersas well as employees. Telephone call account-ing could cot ceivably be used to build a "pro-file" of an employee's personal or professionaltelephone contacts which might be used to har-rass him or her. In general, the concern is thatthese new information technology tools mightgive employers powers of surveillance and con-trol in the workplace that might be abusedused simply for the sake of control, beyondwhat is necessary to organize the work process.

Monitoring and the Legal Context

In general, the law has recognized the em-ployers' interests in organizing work, select-ing technology, setting production standards,and managing the use of facilities and re-sources. Although some aspects of workingconditions may be subject to collective bar-

6 The Electronic Supervisor. New Technology, New Tensions

gaining, the vast majority of office workers inthe United States ere not represented by un-ions. Thus, employers have had considerablelatitude in making use of new monitoring tech-nologies; they have generally been consideredmerely extensions of traditional managementprerogatives.

On the other hand, the law also provides cer-tain protections to employees, such as the rightto join unions, to bargain collectively, or towork in a safe and healthy workplace. Onequestion that may appear before Congress iswhether employee health, or the quality ofworking life, or employees' rights to privacyor personal dignity need protection againstpossible abuses of work monitoring.

It is possible that the present extent of com-puter-based monitoring is only a preview ofgrowing technological capabilities for monitor-ing, surveillance, and worker testing in theworkplace. If this is the case, then there may

Photo: Cowboy of CAP Telephone

Computerization Is transforming jobs like oustcmerservice and order processing.

be need for a new balance between workers'rights to privacy or autonomy in the workplaceand management's requirements for informa-tion to efficiently control their resources. A ma-jor decision for Congress is whether the presentbalance between worker rights and manage-ment requirements is reasonable, and, if not,if it can be satisfactorily accommodatedthrough stakeholder agreement, e.g., negotia-tion between labor and management in gov-ernment and the private sector. If the use ofnew technology is seen as weakening the voiceof employees in such negotiations, Congressmay choose to take action to ensure a reason-able balance.

Monitoring and the LaborRelations Context'

Monitoring is an integral part of a larger sys-tem of management, labor relations, industrialcompetitiveness, and ethical and legal systems.Much is undergoing rapid change in the UnitedStates and the issues of who is working, wherewe work, what jobs we do, and how we do themtoday may markedly differ even from the im-mediate past. Technology is a significant fac-tor in these changes; so are international de-velopments, changing labor-managementrelationships, and cultural values. Some spe-cific changes follow:

The American labor force has changed dra-matically in recent decades, primarily dueto the najor influx of women, wbo nowconstitute close to one-half of all workingAmericans. It is a labor force that is bet-ter educated and includes more non-whiteworkers.The shifts away from goods- to service -producing industries has accelerated inthe past two decades. The United Statesis predominantly a white-collar, servicev. goods-producing society.

'This section summarizes work In Steven Deutsch, "TheContext for Exploring Workplace Monitoring," contract paperprepared for OTA, September 1986.

.16

Ch. 1Introduction 7

Early automation in the 1950s &'id 1960swas largely restricted to manufacturing,but there has been an enormous growthof office automation in the past decade andinvestment per employee by 1990 may becomparable in office and factory settings.Computers are commonplace in office, andin retail sales.There has been a large growth of clericalemployees: from 5 million in 1940 to 20million in 1980, from 1 out of 10 to 1 outof 5 employees in the United States. Only6.3 percent of males are in clerical jobswhile over one-third of all women work-ers in this country are clericals. Since cler-ical work is increasingly being done oncomputer terminals, women are dispropor-tionately affected by the microelectronictechnology in the office environment.The growth of office employment and therisP in office automation makes for agreater proportion of the American workforce in settings where computerized workmonitoring is possible.Collective bargaining affects only about20 percent of U.S. workers, and most of-

fice workers in the private sector are notunionized. A higher proportion of Federal,State, and local government employeesare unionized. For union workers, therehave been efforts to address the new tech-nology, including workplace monitoring,in collective bargaining agreements andthrough quality of work-life committees.A parallel activity has included efforts topass State legislation protecting workerson visual-display terminals (VDTs) and ad-dressing worker privacy issues. Such re-forms at the State and local level may wellaccelerate in the near future.The challenge for meeting internationalcompetition has pushed many in govern-ment, management, and unions to adopta more cooperative labor-managementstance and to work towards cooperativeapproaches for making best use of newtechnology. While this trend does not af-fect all firms, where greater labor manage-ment cooperation does exist it has allowedbetter resolution of many issues relatedto technology, job protection, training andretraining, and quality of working life.

FINDINGS OF THE REPORTFinding #1

Computer technology makes possible thecontinuous collection and analysis of man-agement information about work perform-ance and equipment use. This informationis useful to managers in managing re-sources, planning workloads, and reducingcosts. When it is applied to individual em-ployees, however, the intensity and continu-ousness of computer-based monitoringraises questions about privacy, fairness, andquality of work life.

Information about the progress and statusof work is vital to managers of most organiza-tions. Whether their output consists of manu-factured goods, services, or information-basedproducts, managers want reliable knowledgeabout what has been done, how long it took,

17

what remains to be done, what people and re-sources are available to work with, the statusof partially completed products, and so forth.This type of management information helpsthem to decide if staffing levels are appropri-ate, if more equipment is needed, if bottlenecksneed to be relieved, etc.

In an office, the computer is often now thechief tool for carrying out the work process.The transformation of the original input datato a final product may require many steps per-formed by the computer system, a humanworker, or an interaction between the two. Forexample, between the time a credit card com-pany receives a sal 3 record, and the time itmails out a payment to the merchant, and abill to the cardholder, literally dozens of proc-essing steps are required. The credit card com-


pany processes hundreds of thousands of salerecords each week, so meticulous recordkeep-ing is necessary at each step to keep the proc-ess from going awry: most of the recordkeep-ing is done by the computer software itself,because so many transactions go on inside thecomputer where they are invisible to the nakedeye. Monitoring software does this by keepingtrack of the time, type, and duration of everyrelevant transaction. Such meticulous record-keeping generates a great deal of informationthat must be processed to produce reportsusable to human managers. The particular in-formation and amount of detail wanted will de-pend on the purpose of the report and the levelof management. The president of the firm maywant to total only transactions and revenuesfor the day, but line managers will want moredetailed information on which to base day-to-day decisions.

Concern about electronic monitoring be-comes most intense when it centers on evalu-ating the work performance of individual em-ployees. A growing number of firms rely oncomputer-based monitoring to measure thework of at least some employees. The infor-mation can be quite detailed: How many trans-actions were performed? Of what type? Withhow many errors? When were transactions per-formed? How long did they take? What werethe longest or the shortest? How many breaksdid the employees take? When and for howlong?

Although people object to monitoring be-cause it "invades the privacy" of employees,the objections to electronic monitoring appliedto individual employees cannot be phrased interms of privacy alone. This discussion sum-marizes them in terms of three headings:privacy, fairness, and quality of work life. Theeffects in these areas are reviewed in greaterdetail in chapters 2 and 4.

Privacy.Privacy encompasses the right tobe left alone and to not be intruded upon. Someworkers complain that electronic monitoringis intrusive because it is making a constantminute-by-minute record, crating a feeling of"being watched" all the time. This, they say,is quite different from having a human super-

18

visor occasionally checking their work. Privacycan also refer to exercising one's own auton-omy, even in routine work, there is some per-sonal variation in work style. Some peoplework fast for short periods but take lots ofbreaks, others work fast in the morning andslow in the afternoon. These individual workstyles may not matter when the basic unit ofevaluation is longsay a day or a week. Peoplewith widely differing styles might accomplishthe same amount of work in a day. However,continuous monitoring offers managementmore detailed information. If the employer usesthe information gathered through monitoringto change the pace or style of workregulatingthe number of breaks or requiring people toaccomplish as much in the afternoon as in themorningthen the employee loses a certainamount of control over his or her own job.

Fairness.Fairness is related to the waymonitoring is implemented in the workplace.At some locations, employers and workersalike note that electronic monitoring can bea fairer basis for performance evaluation thanother more subjective moans On the otherhand, at other locations monitoring was viewedby employees as an unfair practice. Chapter2 outlines some of the factors that might beconsidered in assessing the fairness of a workmeasurement program and also reviews the in-terviews done by and for OTA that suggestthere is a range of opinion among workersabout the fairness of the way monitoring isused in their organizations. Among the factorsincluded in fairness are: reasonable standards,understanding by workers of the extent anduse of the monitoring system, ability of work-ers to contest or correct records, and partici-pation by workers in the design of the system.

Quality of Work Life.Quality of work lifeis a complex area that is affected by many fac-tors in the workplace. Two major objectionsto electronic monitoring of individual perform-ance are allegations that it contributes to em-ployee stress and stress-related illnesses andthat it contributes to an atmosphere of distrustin the workplace. While there has been onlylimited direct research on the stress effects ofelectronic monitoring, there does seem to be

Ch. 1Introduction 9

some evidence that it can contribute to stress,as will be discussed below and in chapter 2.

Finding #2Computer-based systems offer opportu-

nities for organizing work in new ways, aswell as means of monitoring it more inten-sively. Electronic monitoring is most likelyto raise opposition among workers when itis imposed without worker participation,when standards are perceived as unfair,orwhen performance records are used puni-tively. Worker involvement in design andimplementation of monitoring programs canresult in greater acceptance by workers, butdespite activities of labor unions in someindustries and recent progress in labor -man-agement cooperation in others, most firmsdo not have mechanisms to do this.

OTA's report Automation of America'sOffices discussed in detail the ways in whichcomputer systems can change the organizationof office work. The introduction of large main-frame computers in the 1950s and 1960s prob-ably reinforced the tendency toward central-ized control, routinization of tasks, andassembly line organization of office work. How-ever newer trends in office automation, allow-ing "end-user computing" and communicationnetworks that give remote access to centraldatabases, allow more flexibility in work orga-nization. While many firms still use the assem-bly line model, others have discovered that newinformation technology is allowing them to"reintegrate" work. This means that jobs aremade more interesting, and more effective, bygiving the individual (or sometimes a team ofindividuals) a variety of tasks.

No matter how work is organized in the of-fice, electronic monitoring can be applied tothe computers and their users. Whether thework in question is that of a directory assis-tance operator, performing a very few tasksin a repetitive cycle, or an insurance company'slegal case analyst whose work encompassesdozens of different activities, each transactioncan still be computer monitored. In interviewswith supervisors and workers, OTA found arange of opinion about the fairness and suita-

Pima Cowboy or can TftPhon

Computerization of directory assistance helps operatorsperform their jobs more efficiently and also provides

means to supervise work electronically.

bility of the performance evaluation systemsin their firms.

Employee Participation.Only a small pro-portion (about 20 percent) of U.S. workers areunionized. Among office workers this percent-age is even lower. About 12 percent of techni-cal, sales, and administrative support work-ers are represented by unions and 17 percentof managerial and professional specialty work-ers.2 In most workplaces, therefore, labororganizations do not play a role in represent-ing employee views about monitoring systems.Even when unions are involved, technologicalchoice, such as the decision to introduce com-puter equipment with monitoring capability,may be considered a management right thatis not subject to bargaining, although someunion contracts do require employers to bar-gain over changes in work technology or per-formance standards. The monitoring issue hassczved as a spur to union organizing in somepreviously unorganized firms.

'Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table No. 713"Union Membership of All Workers and Median Usual WeeklyEarnings," 1986, p. 424. The category of managerial and proles-sional specialty includes school teachers, many of whom areun-ionised.

19

10 The Electronic Supervisor. New Technoicpy, New Tensions

On the other hand, there is a growing trendin the United States, according to some ana-lysts, toward greater labor -managentent coop-eration in making dada= about new technol-ogy and haw it is used. This trend is affectingboth unionized and nommionized organizations.While the actual number of firms involved issmall, observers are encouraged that some ofthem are very large firms and leaders in theirparticular industries'

Work Monitoring in Other IndustrializedCountries. Ina number of other industrial-ized countries, where the power of employeesand their representatives in making workplacedecisions 'a greeter than in the United States,there appears to be greater use of the collec-tive bargaining process to limit the use of elec-tronic monitoring of individuals. In some coun-tries, legislation ensuring employees a goodquality of work life has been interpreted to pre-clude individual monitoring as an insult to in-dividual dignity. In Norway, Sweden, andWest Germany for example, electronic moni-toring is generally used to measure the per-formance of groups rather than individuals. InSweden, individual monitoring is sometimesused in cases where the union and managementagree there is an overwhelming need, or occa-sionally for nonunionized temporary workers.In addition, in some countries, electronic mon-itoring runs counter to other norms for enforc-ing work discipline. In Japan, for example, elec-tronic monitoring of individuals goes againstthe tradition of teamwork and peer pressureas a means of encouraging good work and istherefore not used. One Japanese executivestated that introducing it would offend bothmanagers and workers. Many Western Euro-pean countries also have strong data privacylaws governing the use of computer-based filesabout individuals, but OTA did not find thatthese laws were a major factor in limiting elec-

See, for example, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau ofLabor-Manepment Relations and Cooperative Programs, U.S.Labor Law widths Mame I LaborWanagement Cooperation,BLMR 104, Waeldngten, DC, 1986; and Nicolas Ashford andChristine Ayers, "Champs and Opportunities in the Environ-ment for Technology Bargaining," Ilassechusetta Institute ofTechnology, prepared for the Assistant Secretary for Policy,U.S. Department of Labor, no data.

tronic monitoring. In general, electronic mon-itoring practices were covered by quality ofwork life legislation and by labor-managementnegotiations. Monitoring in other countries isdiscussed in more detail in appendix A.

Finding itllThere is reason to believe that electroni-

cally monitoring the quantity or speed ofwork centributes to stress and streeerelatedillness, although there is still little researchseparating the effects of monitoring fromjob design, equipment design, lighting, ma-chine pacing, and other potentially stress-ful aspects of computer-based office work.

Some research suggests that there are anumber of possible health problems related tothe use of computer terminals or VDTs in gen-eral, including vision, muscular-skeletal, psy-chosocial, and possible reproductive healthproblems! Many of these problems can beameliorated or eliminated through good equip-ment design, proper job training (e.g., allow-ing frequent breaks or scheduling duties awayfrom the terminal for part of the day), andproper training (instructing workers in properadjustment of screens, lights, and furniture).In the United States, the way that office auto-mation systems are implemented and used isalmost entirely at the discretion of employers,and there is a wide variation in their adher-ence to good practice in these areas.

Review of the psychological and physiolog-ical literature suggests a number of reasonswhy monitoring could be stressful, and a num-ber of studies have shown a higher level ofstress experienced by monitored workers.These studies are discussed in more detail inchapter 2. The particular stress problemsraised by electronic monitoring are very diffi-cult to separate from other job design or equipment design factors. For example the job of

'For a summary, see, Jeanne Stellman and Mary SueMedlin, Office War* Can Be Hasercious to Your Health (NewYork, NY: Pantheon, 1988); Bob DeMatteo, ilormisal ShockThe Health Hazards of Video Display Terminal. (Toronto: NCPress, 1986); and U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Automation of Amwica's Offices, OTA-C1T-287 (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1906).

2

Ch. 1introduction 11

the directory assistance operator is often usedas an example of a job where monitoring leadsto stress. However, this job is often both mon-itored and paced by the computer; that is thecomputer not only measures the amount oftime it takes an operator to handle a call, butit also automatically sends the next call as soonas the line is free. In determining why this isa high-stress job, it is difficult to separate theeffects of lack of control from the effects ofmonitoring, and for this reason it is also hardto generalize the experiences of these opera-tors to other types of work.

Finding *4Monitorbg the contest of messages raisesMenet set of issues. Some employers

say that service observed°. (listening to orrecording the content of employees' tele-phone conversatis with customers) helpsassure quality and correctness of informa-tion and by protecting all parties in case ofdispute. However, service observation alsoimpacts the privacy of the customer, andworkers and labor organizations have ar-good that it andramtes to stress of the em-ployee, and creates an atmosphere of dis-trust. Monitoring the content of electronicmail messages or personal computer (PC)diskettes also raises privacy issues.

Many telephone systems are designed sothat certain users, usually supervisors or qual-ity control workers, can listen in on telephoneconversations. Service observation is consid-ered an important aspect of quality control inmany firms and public agencies that have alot of telephone contact with the public. Insome cases, employers may be liable for mis-information given out by their employees; theytherefore want to make sure that all employ-ees follow guidelines. Service observation,when part of a formally established programof evaluation, is legal. There is currently norequirement that employees know preciselywhen they are being monitored, although, atleast in the Federal Government, they mustbe informed such a program is in effect. Someworkers and unions have objected to "secret"service observation. They argue that the prac-tice is sometimes used for control or intimida-

el

Roar Owes, of AT&T

Supervisors regularly check courtesy and accuracy oftelephone operators like these through "service

observation," that Is, listening in on callswith customers.

tion of workers rather than to protect the cus-tomer or the firm. The "secrecy" is removedif the employee and the customer can hear a"beep" tone or other cue when a supervisoris on the line.

Listening in on or recording employees' per-sonal calls or calls outside of a regular serviceobservation program have been consideredeavesdropping by the courts. Service observa-tion is discussed in more detail in chapters 2and 4.

OTA interviewed several employers abouttheir policies regarding the privacy of PC dis-kettes used by employees. All believed theyhad a right to search employee diskettes forpersonal material or unauthorized company in-formation and would do so if they had causeto believe inappropriate material was beingstored on the diskettes. Such audits of PC dis-kettes have taken place in the Federal Gov-eimnent to ensure that computers were usedfor official business and to check security pro-cedures related to confidential information.

Finding .5Telephone call accounting (computer-gen-

erated records of the time, duration, desti-nation, and cost of calls) gives employersa powerful tool for managing the costs oftelephone systems. However, it raises pri-vacy questions when accounting records are


used to track calling habits of individuals.Other cost control technologies can be usedto limit nonbusiness uses of telephones, ei-ther instead et or in addition to call account-lag. Establishing a policy for use of thesetechnologies will be especlidly important forthe Government as it builds a new FederalTelephone System.

Call - accounting equipment and software rep-resent the fastest growing segment of the tele-communication industry in the past few years.Divestiture and deregulation of the telephoneindustry, along with the falling costa of com-puter equipment, have made it possible formany firms to take closer control of their tele-phone costs. Call-accounting software can gen-erate not only a listing of all calls, but canproduce reports that highlight calls made onparticular pb.mes, to particular destinations,charged to particular accounts or for a certainlength of time. All of this information can beuseful for telephone systems managers in al-locating costs and planning new facilities, butas discussed in chapter 3, they raise questionsof privacy and fairness. Many employees usethe it employers' telephones for some personalcalls, and some firms have used call account-ing to track and prevent unauthorized tele-phone use, especially for long-distance calls.

Call accounting has become an issue particu-larly in the Federal Government, where per-sonal use of long-distance lines is illegal. A re-cent audit performed by the General ServicesAdministration, under the auspices of the Pres-ident's Council on Integrity and Efficiency,found that personal use represents 33 percentof the off -network long-distance calls sampled.

Privacy concerns are also raised by telephonecall ar"ounting. A great deal of informationabout a person's personal and professionalactivities can be derived from analysis of acomplete record of his or her telephone calls,even though gathering of such information wasnot the objective of the call-accounting sys-tem. Thus, what happens to those records andwho has access to than are important consider-ations. Some observers :lave expressed fearsthat call records could be used to identify orharass whistleblowers, union organizers, orother dissidents within a firm or agency.

There are a variety of technological andadministrative techniques that can help busi-nesses and government agencies cut down onwaste calls. Some of these can be implementedwithout using cail accounting while others aremore effective if used in conjunction with callaccounting. These are discussed further inchapter 3.

The Federal Government is preparing to m-ate a new long-distance telecommunicationsnetwork, and many individual agencies are nowplanning the purchase of new telephone equip-ment, including switching equipment with call-accounting capability. Now, as these new sys-tems are coming into place, is a good time forthe government to assess the effectiveness ofits current policies and determine if more work-able guidelines on personal use of telephonesmight be developed. These options are dis-cussed further in chapter 3.

Finding 4Electronic monitoring is only one of a

range of technologies used in today's work-place to gather information about the workprocess or to predict work quality based onpersonal characteristics of the worlms.Many applications of technology, tacluti:mgpolygraph testing, drug testing, geneticscreening, and, possibly, brain wave testiag,illustrate the tension between employers'rights to manage their enterprise, reducecosts, and reduce liability, and the employ-ees' rights to preserve individual privacyand autonomy. Recent concerns of employ-ers, labor unions, civil liberties groups, thecourts, and individual workers suggest thata range of workplace privacy issues are inneed of resolution.

Interest in the privacy and stress effects ofelectronic monitoring, while of long standingin some industries such as the telephone in-dustry, are only now reaching the awarenessof the general public. At the same time, someother hotly contested issues related to work-place privacy are also receiving public at-tention.

Figure 1 shows a range of types of monitor-ing and testing that raise questions of privacyand civil liberties in the workplace. Some types

22

Ch. 1Introduction 13

Figure 1.Some Categories of Behavior Subject To Monitoring, Measurement, or Testing

SOURCE- °Mu of TochoologY Assfisoment 11047-

of monitoring seem primarily directed towardmeasuring work performance or work-relatedactivities in the workplace. OTA has calledthese "work monitoring" or "work measure-ment." Other types of monitoring and testingseem to focus more on measuring the workerhimself or herselfinvestigating activities out-side the workplace or personal characteristicsthat might or might not have a bearing on workperformance. OTA has called these "workermonitoring" or "worker testing."

Counting the number of keystrokes some-one performs in a day seems on its face to bean example of work monitoring. It is an objec-tive measure of how much work is being done(leaving aside, for the moment the fquestion of

,2 ,3

whether keystrokes are an appropriate meas-ure for a given job). On the other hand, per-forming a blood or urine test to determinewhether an employee has been using cocaineseems clearly to be a measurement of personal,individual characteristicsa case of workertesting. The test reveals the presence or ab-sence of certain chemicals in the bodyit doesnot show current impairment or measure jobperformance. This type of testing could be con-sidered predictiveit is used to determinewhether a person has potential for poor job per-formance as a result of drug-induced im-pairments.

While the terms "work monitoring" and"worker testing" may have some value as


terms of analysis, it appears that all theseinformation-gathering techniques are on a con-tinuum with no clear boundaries. It is not al-ways possible to make a distinction betweenwork monitoring and worker testing. Even themost extreme examples seem to have at leastsome elements of both. For example, even akeystroke-monitoring system impinges on theworker as an individual if it reveals when orfor how long he or she takes breaks, or if theway the monitoring information is used causesstress-related illness. By the same token, if aworker's job requires a high degree of coordi-nation, good judgment, or trustworthinesse.g., law enforcement or air traffic controlevidence of drug use could be said to be an ob-jective measure of unfitness to do that job.There is a huge gray area between the ex-tremes. Service observation, the practice oflistening in on employee's telephone calls withcustomers, has elements of monitoring boththe work process and the worker. It appears,however, that the intensity of the privacy de-bate increases as we move from techniques thatfocus on the work to those that focus on theworker.

Although this report is about electronic mon-itoring technologies, most of which appear tobe on the "work performance" end of the con-tinuum in figure 1, OTA looked briefly at sev-eral technologies from the "worker testing"end to see the sorts of questions raised throughtheir use. These technologies are discussed inmore detail in chapter 4 and appendix B. They

Polygraphs.The polygraph is not a newtechnology. It has had limited use in lawenforcement for 60 years. Now, however,its dominant use is in personnel screening;of 2 million polygraph tests given annually,about 98 percent are given by employersto job applicants Slid employees.'Substance Abuse Testa.Medical screen-ing for drug or alcohol use, formerly usedprimarily as a diagnostic tool in clinical

Harrison Donnelly, "Privacy in the Workplace," EditorialResearch Reports, Mar. 21, 1986, p. 214, citing figures fromthe American Polygraph Aseodation.

settings, was used by the Department ofDefense in the 1970s to identify return-ing Vietnam soldiers with drug problems.Now nearly all military personnel, millionsof private employees, and a growing num-ber of government employees find thattheir jobs depend on passing such tests.Genetic Screening. This is still an emerg-ing technology for predicting a person'shielihood of developing diseases. It is nowused only in a few workplaces, usually toidentify workers who may be hypersuscep-tible to chemicals found in those work-places. However, researchers expect thattests for many common diseases will even.tually be commercially available; employ-re or insurers may want to include themin preemployment physicals.Brain Wave Testing.Still in the researchstage are a number of tests based on brainwaves. Currently under study is the pos-sible use of brain wave analysis in monitor-ing the level of concentration, detectinglies or "guilty knowledge," and predict-ing certain illnesses. A computer-basedsystem to detect drug use by measuringbrain waves is already on the market.

In addition, OTA looked at brain wave re-search, which in the view of some experts prom-ises improved systems for testing for drug use,honesty, and susceptibility to disease. (See ch.4 and app. B for a more detailed discussion.)

Serious questions have been raised about theaccuracy and reliability of all these tests, asis discussed in more detail in appendix B. Poly-graph tests have not been shown to have anyvalidity in employment screening situations,and research shows that they give a high rateof false positive results (innocent people iden-tified as deceptive.) Nor has there been researchindicating that use of polygraphs reduces pil-ferage and other crimes in the workplace. Drugtests can be unreliable due to poor handlingof urine specimens, sloppy lab work, or poorlycalibrated test equipment. Regulation of com-mercial labs is spotty, and there are few mech-anisms available to enforce high-quality work

Employers who use polygraphs or drugtests, the types of testing now common, as-

24


sert that testing is necessary to protect theirbusinesses and to maintain a safe environmentfor employees and customers. On the otherhand, civil libertarians and others argue thatthese gains, to the extent they are actuallyachieved by testing, have a heavy cost: undueintrusion into private lives of employees; cre-ation of an atmosphere of fear and intimida-tion in the workplace and false accusation anddenial of job opportunities for many innocentPeople-

Privacy.Drug testing by urinalysis isclearly intrusive in that it requires the subjectto produce a urine specimen under observation.Genetic tests require removal of a blood speci-men. Both the polygraph and brain wave test-ing require the subject to wear electrodes at-tached to the skin. Beyond these physicalintrusions, however, is another privacy prob-lem. Privacy also encompasses the ability towithhold certain information about oneself,and some of these tests reveal information thatis not only personal but is arguably not rele-vant to the employment situation. Drug test-ing by urinalysis cannot determine when thedrugs were used or whether drug use actuallyimpairs job performance. Polygraph testingespecially has raised controversy because someemployers' tests include personal questionsparticular questions on religion, sex life, po-litical beliefs, or union affiliation. A furtherprivacy question relates to the privacy of therecords generated by the tests, both within thefirm and outside. Such records, once releasedto insurance companies, employment clearing-houses, or others, might follow a personthroughout his or her career.

Fairness. In this context, the concept offairness encompasses both the accuracy of thetests and the concept of "due process" withinthe testing program. Serious doubts have beenraised about the accuracy and validity of allthe tests discussed above. There is also con-troversy about how testing programs are tobe constructed: should tests be given on a regu-lar basis to all employees or randomly selectedemployees, or should they only be given tothose who have shown by their behavior thatthere is reason to think they have been usingdrugs. A number of court decisions have struckdown testing programs that have not reliedon probable cause, or at least a reasonable sus-picion, that the person to be tested is using-Irugs. However these cases have all involvedState, local, and Federal Government employ-ees who are protected by the fourth amend-ment against unreasonable searches. Employ-ees do not have this protection from privateemployers.

Work or performance monitoring tends gen-erally to raise debate about stress, fairness,and the quality of work life, including ques-tions of privacy and autonomy. Worker test-ing, which tends to be more intrusive and ex-tensive, very clearly raises controversy overindividual rights of privacy (i.e., employer andemployee rights to know and control certainpersonal information) and also questions aboutthe accuracy and reliability of the test results.In all cases there seems to be some questionof balancing the need of employers to gatherinformation and the desire of employees tokeep personal control over some aspects oftheir work and/or private lives.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDMonitoring in History

Work monitoring is not new. Employershave tried, since the earliest days of organizedhuman endeavor, to keep track of how welltheir employees were working or how muchthey produced. The organization and supervi-sion of work have changed over time, but it

ImIlm.

seems clear that work monitoring has been anintegral part of industrial development; inmany ways work monitoring seems to have in-tensified as industrialization has progressed"

°This section draws on Sandra L. Albrecht, "Historical P ack-ground to the Electronic Monitoring of Office Work." contractpaper prepared for OTA, August 1986.

25


Industrialization in the United States haslargely been characterized by a separation ofplanning or organizing the work process fromthe actual work itself. Organizational struc-tures have evolved that rely on division of laborand place primary knowledge about theproductioL process in the hands of managersrather than individual workers. This gives riseto a ne,...d for coordination, control, and stan-dardization of work. The search for greater control leads to a need for more intense monitor-ing, whether of processes, or work groups, orindividual workers, in order to give manage-ment feedback to make future decisions.

At the same time, new technologies havebeen adopted which incorporate certain skillsin the equipment, with a corresponding " de-slolling" of work and workers over time.' Aless skilled work force is one which is easierto manage through intensified monitoring.This is not to say that deskilling is always theinevitable outcome of technological change. Itis important to look at this long-term trend,which may be obscured by unevenness in in-dustrial development. As certain occupationsundergo de-skilling others newly created mayrequire skills heretofore unknown. Case histo-ries of individual occupations, however, showthat over time these new occupations can alsoundergo a &mauling process .° This trendmay underlie growth in the use and intensive-ness of monitoring over time. These trends areillustrated by the history of work organizationin the United States dating from colonial times.

The Early Factoey.Although the AmericanIndustrial Revolution dates from the mid-1800s, a pre-industrial system of home-basedproduction, known as the "putting-out sys-tem," already employed home workers for piecerate wages by the late 1700s. Such diverseproducts as shoes, furniture, lace, and textiles

'See Andrew Zimbelist led.), Case Studies on the Labor Proc-sm (New York, NY: Monthly Review Pews, 1979), both his dis-cussion of Bravirmen's thesis in the Introduction and subs*oat chapters on case studies of the de-sldlling process.

'Sandra L. Albrecht, "Historic al Background to the Elec-tronic Monitoring of Office Work," contract paper prepared forOTA, August 1988.

were produced under this system.9 Textileproduction employed the largest number ofhome v. orkers, primarily women and children,to do spinning, weaving, and production ofhand cards for combing cotton and we

Putting-out is a transition stage betweencraft production and factory labor, the precur-sor to mass production. It coexisted for sometime with the early mills and factories, but itdisappeared by the mid-19th century exceptin the the garment industry where hom: wor-kers continued to be employed. This industryis currently seeing a resurgence in what hastypically been seen as a pre - industrial workform."

For the most part, deficiencies in the putting -out system gave rise to the factory system.One factor in the development of the factorywas the issue of work monitoring. With theputting-out system, workers set the pace oftheir work day and control of the work processwas in their hands. The factory system can beseen as a social control mechanism, whereworkers were collected together and could bemonitored (watched) by supervisors or over-seers, both to increase work discipline and todiscourage theft.

Some view the social control of workers byemployers as the primary reason for the de-velopment of the factory. Others focus on theinability of the putting-out system to effec-tively utilize newly developed machinery thatrequired a central power source.i2 This inte-gral interconnection of social control, organiza-tional structure, and technology is a definingcharacteristic of industrial development.

'Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., The 'risible Hand: The ManagerialRevolution in American Business (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1977), pp. 19 and 53.

"Edith Abbott, Women in Industry (New York, NY: D. Ap-pleton, 1913), ch. 2; and Victor S. Clark, History of Manufac-turers in the United Stater 1607.1860 (New York, NY: McGraw-BM Book Co., 1929), pp. 183 and 539.

"Sandra L. Albrecht, "Industrial Home Work in the UnitedStates: Historical Dimension', and Contemporary Perspective,"Economic and Industrial Democracy, voL 8,1982, pp. 413-430.

"See discussion in Dan Clawson, Bureaucracy and the La-bor Process: The Transformation ofU.S Industry, 1860-1920(New York, NY: Monthly Review Press, 1980), ch. 2.

20

The factory system collected works s to-gether under one roof and joined them througha cash nexus; labor power was a commoditysold by workers and bought by employers.Monitoring increased, in that overseers couldcount the output and enforce working hoursof each individual or group, but the early fac-tory maintained a mixture of traditional andnew worl. fame. New patterns of work hours,work pace, and discipline were instituted; butsupervirion, though often despotic, was pri-marily indirect. Management was small in sizecompared to contemporary standards and lessknowledgeable about the actual nature of thework process. "Inside contractors," skilledworkers who understood how bo produce theproduct, were often responsible for hiring em-ployees and overseeing the process." In cer-tain ways, inside contracting carried on the tra-ditions of craft production and brought oldstyles of personal relations into the factory.But, as industry expanded and employerslooked to greater rationalization, efficiency,and intensity of labor, this indirect monitor-ing of work was seen as an obstacle to increasedproductivity. Managerial philosophies soon un-derwent change.

Scientific Management and the Ass mblyLine.Frederick W. Taylor, known as the fa-ther of scientific management, began what hedefined as the scientific study of work in the1880s, but it was not until the 1'.;16s and laterthat his work began to be adopted. Taylor wasnot the first prson to scientifically study work;craft workers had historically valued theknowledge of the labor process as well as itsproduction. Taylor's work, rather, was the sci-entific study of the management of work, andrepresented the culmination of managerialideas developing in Great Britain and theUnited States throng: rout the 19th century."

"Ibid., ch. 3; and Graeme Sideman, Class and the Corpora-tion (Great Britain: Fontana Paperbacks, 1981), pp. 37-41.

"For this discussion, see Harry Braverman, Labor and Mon-opoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Cen-tury (New York, NY: Monthly Review P113111, 1974), chs. 4 and5. Frederick W. Tsylor describes nis ideas in The Principles ofScientific Management (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.,1911).


The significance of scientific managementis its extension of the control of work by man-agement. Prior to scientific management, theoverall setting of the workplace and workerswere monitored: they were concentrated to-gether and supervised, work hours were deter-mined, and discipline used to ensure produc-tion quotas. But, the actual performance ofwork was left in the hands of workers. The cen-tral core of Taylor's management philosophywas the idea of the "separation of conceptionfrom execution?"16 Decisions about the every-day performance of work were removed fromworkers, and centralized in the hands of wan-agement, who in turn would determine themost rational and efficient method of per-formance. This brains/hands dichotomy makesmanagen_dnt the depository of all knowledgeabout the work process, capable of determin-ing in minute detail the tasks to be carried out.Workers, divested of this knowldge and con-trol over determining work, were responsibleonly for carrying out the designed tasks.

With this new managerial approach, workmonitoring intensified. Every task within a jobcame under scrutiny, and elaborate tally sheetsand production forms were developed to rec-ord each detail in the operation. M- isures ofhand and eye movements, spacing betweenworker, machine, and product, time per task,level of efficiency through the day, and the ef-fect of rest periods on production were someof the many new calculations performed in aneffort to monitor production more closely. Inaddition to the information collected on worktasks and worker performance, there was in-creased emphasis on developing new tools andmachinery that would conform to the grow-ing detailed division of labor tasks. This newtechnology bore a design influenced by em-ployers' interest in increasing control overwork and productivity. Jobs became more sub-divided and fragmented This detailed divisionof labor which separates various job aspectsinto distinct parts and assigns them to different workers diminishes both the skill and cost

"Harry Braverman, Labor and Mc-opoly Capital: The Degra-dation of Work in the Twentieth Century (New York, NY:Monthly Review Press, 1974), p. 114.

27


of labor.° Scientific manage: by separat-ing knowledge from performance, in 'eased theability of employers to monitor the workplace,not through overbearing surveillance, but byinvesting them with the knowledge and deter-mination of how work was performed.

The development of the assembly line pro-vides a good example of the changes that wereoccurring during this period." The Ford Mo-tor Co., established in 1903, began with theemployment of highly skilled workers, formerbicycle or carriage mechanics, who built entireattomobiles. As the demand for the Model Trose, Ford introduced full assembly lines.Rather than skilled mechanics, unskilled andsemi-skilled workers performed small opera-tions in stationary positions along the endless-chain conveyor. This system greatly increasedmanagement's ability to control and monitorboth the pace and intensity of work. Introduc-tion of the assembly line, with its skill reduc-tion and corresponding wage leveling, metworker resistance even at its earliest stages.In 1913, Ford had a labor turnover rate of 380percent, and a unionization drive began.18

Scientific Management in the Office.The ap-plication of scientific management greatly in-creased the volume of information to be trans-ferred from the plant level to the office. Theresult was a rapid growth in the number of of-fice workers, both managerial and clerical. Sci-entific management, originally conceived forfactory employment, was also introduced intothe office.

Many offices were restructured according toa more "industrial" style of organization: jobswere broken down into more detailed tasks,skilled aspects of the job were separated fromlesser skilled operations, and the tasks weredistributed among differentially paid employ-ees. Such firms as insurance companies, wherework was repetitive and easily measured, be-gan to incorporate an assembly-line approachto the flow of work through the office.

111bid., pp. 72-83."Ibid., pp. 146-161; and Melvin Kranzberg and Joseph Gies,

By the Sweat dale Brow(New York, NY: G.P. Putman's Sons,1978), ch. 13.

°Keith Sward, The Legend of Henry Ford (New York andToronto: Atheneum, 1948), p. 32, cited in Braverman, p. 149.

Most measures of work production dependedon paper and pencil tallies of items completed.However, there were also mechanical aids.Clock-driven "time stamps" were used to re-cord precisely when clerks received and re-turned measured batches of work. Devices at-tached to typewriters for counting keystrokesor lines of typing were first used in the early19008.19 The practice of posting charts or ta-bles with each clerk's performance statistics,"to excite the emulation of others," was con-sidered a useful tool for increasing produc-tivity.°

While scientific management as a basic ori-entation of management philosophy continuestoday, there have been other philosophies ofmanagement with impect on U.S. industry.One was the "human relations" approachfostered by E. Mayo and colleagues at Har-vard Business School in the 1930s and 1940s.This philosophy emphasized the social aspectsof work and the importance of social supportfrom fellow workers in helping determineworker productivity. Variations on this themecontinue to the present. The human relationsapproach did not replace scientific manage-ment, and by the 1950s, the iss43 of power andreal differences between managerial and em-ployee interests were accepted in many man-agerial theories. The challenge was to integratework organization goalsharmony, productiv-ity, profitswith those of the employees.

Privacy in the Workplace

The idea that a worker should have some ex-pectation of privacy in the workplace is a newone, one that is only beginning to develop inAmerican law. Only a little more than a cen-tury ago, the employer-employee relationshipwas viewed as analogous to the zr.aster-servantrelationship; the master had some paternalis-tic responsibility for the welfare or moral de-velopment of the servant; the servant owedobedience and good service. Owners of early

"See, for example, William H. Leffingwell, "This Plan MoreThan Doubled Our Typists' Output," System, voL 30, Novem-ber 1961; and William H. Leffingwell, "What 'Scientific Man-agement' Did for My Office," System, vol. 30, December 1961.

'')William H. Leffingwell, "What 'Scientific Management'Did for My Office," System, voL 30, December 1961.


factories believed they had the right, indeedthe responsibility, to strictly control manyaspects of their employees' lives, on and offthe job. In the factories of the 1800s, work rulesgoverning church attendance, place of resi-dence, and nightly curfews were not uncom-mon. Even as late as the 1910s, the Ford com-pany employed a group of 50 social workersto investigate employees' neighborhoods,home conditions, finances, and habits to de-termine if they were worthy of profit sharingbonuses."

Gradually over the course of the 1800s, U.S.courts began to view the employment relation-ship as analogous to a contract between equals,with the employer buying the labor that theemployee wished to sell. This view gave riseto the notion of "employment at will." Eachparty was free to enter or refuse the contractfor any reason; if either was later displeasedfor any reason, either was free to bleak it; theemployer could fire, or the employee could quit.The contract analogy does not recognize thevery large differences in bargaining power thatoften exist between a single individual and acorporation. The National Labor Relations Actof 1935, which obligated employers to bargainwith workers' representatives over hours,wages, and working conditions, marked oneearly action of the Federal Government to mod-ify the employment-at-will doctrine.

The concept that ar employee has a rightto privacyeither to be free from intrusion orto keep certain information privateis a rela-tively new one. Throughout the previous cen-tury and up through the 1950s, the right ofemployers to inquire into any aspect of an em-ployee's life was virtually undisputed. Em-ployers could choose their employees in anyway they wished, and were quite free to say"We want only this kind of person work-ing."22 Worker testing has gone through atleast two periods of popularity in the United

"Robert Ellis Smith, Workrights (New Yc-rk, NY: Dutton,1988), pp. 18-18. Also, Stephen Meyer III, The Five DollarDey:Labor Movement and Social Control in the Ford Motor Com-pany, 10064921 (Albany, NY: State University of New YorkPress, 1961), pp. 34-85.

"Citing Alan Westin in crime Donnelly, "Privacy in theWorkplace" Editorial Research Reports, Mar. 21, 1986.

1/4

States, once in the 1920s and again in the 1950swhen employers compiled psychological pro-files, employment histories, and other files ofpersonal data quite unrestrainedly."

During the changing social climate of the1960s and 1970s, court decisions and workerprotection legislation gave employees someprotections in how their employers could useinformation about them and placed a greaterburden on employers to demonstrate scientificvalidity of employment tests. Other legislation,like the Occupational Safety and Health Act,gave employees certain protections as well asrights to information about hazards in theworkplace. Antidiscrimination legislation be-gan to limit employers' right to discriminateon the basis of race, sex, religion, age, and (insome States) union activity. A number ofStates have passed "mini-privacy acts" to pro-vide some protection of workers records. Inaddition, a number of court decisions in thepast two decades have further eroded the doc-trine of employment at will, limiting em-ployers' freedom in firing employees.

The changes in legislation and in social val-ues in the 1960s and 1970s gave some measureof additional power to the individual in an em-ployment relationship, and led people to theexpectation that they had certain rights. in-cluding the right to privacy. Workplace pri-vacy is a new right, however, and probably atenuous one. It will be tested on two fronts:by the drive toward higher productivity, whichencourages employers to use electronic moni-toring, and current social concerns, such asdrug abuse, that encourage employers togather more and better information about thepeople they hire. Although employees are nowbeginning to feel a right to privacy in the work-place, these pressures to gather information,along with availability of the technologicalmeans to collect that information, may weakenthe development of this emerging right.

The field of players involved in labor rela-tions questions is broadening. Traditionallythe parties involved were the employer, em-

""Can You Pass The Job Test," Newsweek, May 5, 1988.

20

;

PY


ployees, and, if it existed, a union. Governmentinvolvement has been limited to establishmentof guidelines for union contracts. Governmenthas also become involved through laws thatcover all workers and workplaces regardlessof the union or the collective bargaining agree-ment. These include laws on child labor; mini-mum wage; nondiscrimination on the basis ofrace, religion, sex, and age; and finally protec-tion of health and safety on tha job. In addi-tion, a number of laws have been passed in thepast decade at the State level governing theprivacy of employment and medical recordsand the use of polygraphs in employment.

Such laws were enacted because of heavy lob-bying by a range of groups including unions,civil rights advocates, women, environmen-talists, community-citizen alliances, health pro-fessionals, and others. This move to the legis-lative area to deal with workplace issues hasaccelerated in recent years, particularly at theState and local level. The coalition among la-

bor, women, and environmental organizationshas strengthened around the introduction ofVDTs into the workplace, and on related is-sues such as computer monitoring. Workingtogether, these groups are largely responsiblefor the generation of legislative efforts in atleast 22 States to explore VDT standards.While most of these have not passed, somehave resulted in advisory guidelines, as in NewMexico. In a few States these same coalitionshave pushed for laws concerning electronicmonitoring and service observation.

The declining proportion of the labor forcerepresented by unions is one of the factors in-fluencing the move toward legislative solutionsto worker and workplace problems. There ispersuasive evidence that efforts to establishexpanded employee rights through State andlocal legislation will continue, both in the areasof electronic monitoring and in worker testing.Legal and policy questions are summarized be-low and discussed in greater detail in chapter 4.

POLICY OPTIONS

Before addressing the problem of how Con-gress might act, it is first necessary to con-sider whether and when action may be appro-priate. Some factors suggest that a "wait andSPA" posture may be appropriate; uncertaintyabout whether monitoring causes stress, thelack of judicial precedent, the possibility of pri-vet aly negotiated restraints on monitoring,and marketplace checks on monitoring areamong these. Other factors indicate that Con-gress may want to act now to alleviate grow-ing concern about monitoring in the workplace.These include the lack of union representationin the bulk of the monitored work force, theinadequacy of current law to address concernsover health, privacy, and dignity, the difficul-ties of legislating against powerful economicinterests at the state level, and the increasingsophistication of the technology itself. Severalpossible directions of Federal policy are de-scribed below.

Option 1:Take no Federal action concerning work

monitoring at this time.

Questions of the fairness of work monitor-ing practices would be left, as they are atpresent, in the hands of stakeholders, em-ployers and employees. In industries where la-bor unions are active, collective bargainingwith regard to technology change, monitoring,and methods of evaluation would continue un-der the current practices.

Although many unions have adopted posi-tions opposing electronic work monitoring,their bargaining strength with respect to it,whether by .nformal negotiations or by formalcollective bargaining or arbitration, is prob-ably not great. However, the monitoring thatdoes take place varies between industries andcompanies. An argument can therefore bemade that, pending the development of a


longer history of negotiations between laborand management on this issue, monitoring isbest addressed at the company or union level.The parties concerned are most familiar withthe specific problems, and contracts, ratherthan national policy, may be the best way ofapproaching what appears to be situation-specific problems (see ch. 4). Under these cir-cumstances, Ccagress may want to avoid legis-lating on the issue of monitoring per se, andinstead make monitoring an item for compul-sory arbitration or collective bargaining underFederal labor law.

This, of course, does not necessarily ensurean outcome that is satisfactory for the majorityof monitored workers, who are not unionizedand are therefore powerless to negotiate fairmonitoring practices, or any other aspects ofthe quality of work life, through the collectivebargaining process. Furthermore, an increas-ingly large segment of the work force is madeup of temporary workers, who, since they comeand go on a weekly or monthly basis, have littleability to improve the quality of work life.

There is the argument that natural "mar-ket forces" may tend to limit unfair monitor-ing and preclude the need for congressional ac-tion even on behalf of nonunionized workers:employee backlash, low morale, and high turn-over should dissuade employers from monitor-ing practices that their workers find onerous.If monitoring is indeed stress-producing, thenemployers who use it will inevitably see theeffects of stress on diminished quality and ou t-put of its product or service. The response tothis is that many monitored jobs are routinework that is subject to and indifferent to a highturnover rate, and in many instances, high at-trition works to the employer's benefit (bylowering the costs of pension, salary increases,etc.). Thus it is not clear that "natural" checkswill be sufficient to ensure that monitoring isnot abused.

If natural checks are not sufficient, politi-cal action is still available. Unions and otherinterest groups have worked to pass State-levellegislation on monitoring, service observation,or VDT health and safety. These activities willprobably continue. Some of these attempts

may be successful, giving rise to a variety oflegislative or regulatory approaches to deal-ing with the issues related to electronic moni-toring. Some may serve as models for Federalaction at some later time, should the need forthe harmonizing effect of national legislationbe seen more clearly in the future.Option 2:

Establish whether stress effects of elec-tronic monitoring are an occupational healthhazard; if they are, consider creating Fed-eral legislation or regulations governing theuse of electronic monitoring.

The effect of monitoring on stress andhealthissues which might provide the pol-icymaker with the most direct and least value-laden approach to acting on monitoringis ina state of scientific uncertainty. There existfew authoritative studies on the effects of elec-tronic monitoring on health. Some studies andinformal polls of workers have suggested thatmonitoring has stressful effects, and there isa certain common sense appeal to the idea thatworking in fast paced, highly monitored envi-ronments may be highly stressful. However,there is no research separating the effects ofmonitoring from other office stressors, nor ismuch known about the types of monitoringthat are stressful, how stress might be reduced,or how stress due to monitoring manifests it-self (if at all) in physiological symptoms. Un-til more is known about the effects of moni-toring on health, policy action under a "stress"rationale may be premature. The policymakermay consider it appropriate, therefore, to ini-tiate studies on stress in the workplace, andon the role that monitoring plays in such stress.

The National Institute of OccupationalSafety and Health would seem to be the logi-cal agency to supervise or carry out studiesof stress as a workplace hazard. Specificstudies of monitored workers would have tobe done with an eye to separating the effectsof monitoring from those of other workplacestressors, a major deficiency in existing stud-ies. In addition, however, it would be usefulto understand more about the phenomenon ofworkplace stress in general, given the risingnumber of worker compensation claims and

3 i

Z3 The Electronic Supervisor: New Technology, New Tensions

other evidence of the growing importance ofstress in occupational health. Research mayreveal that other factors in the workplace are

rix as important as or more important than mon-&ging in contributing to stress-related illness,and that these should also be covered by pro-tective legislation or regulation.

0Pdo &Consider Federal legislation aimed at

gaps in current law. This could be in twopossible direcdona general legislation aimedat establiddig certain rights for employeeswithin the workplace, or surgical legislationaimed at specific monitoring practices.

There have been few, if any, court cases chal-lenging the types of monitoring considered inthis report. Two differing conclusions can bedrawn from this. The first is that, until the ju-diciary acts, Congress has no way of knowing

kj- the type of legal inadequacies it should address,and ought therefore wait to legislate on workmonitoring. The second is that current law isinadequate even to form the basis for a law-

v. suit, and that Congress must take the lead inproviding rights to monitored employees,

cit- should it decide that certain forms of monitor-: big are unreasonable.

Current worker protection legislation givesworkers a variety of rights, such as the rightto a minimum wage, to organize, to bargain

L collectively, and increasingly, the right to knowabout health and safety hazards that form partof the working environment. However, U.S.law has not heretofore involved itself deeply

P- in quality of work life issues nor in issues of

1=neno legal right to be treated with dig-!. privacy or dignity in the workplace.

sky or as an autonomous person. There is nolegal right to a well-designed, interesting job,nor is there law that compels employers to con-sider employee input in decisims about newtechnology or new monitoring procedures. Tothe extent the law treats privacy in the work-place, it looks to a standard of what an em-ployee might reasonably expect to remain pri-vete; as discussed in chapter 4, this standardmay fail as a guide for action in the face ofployer's increasing use of monitoring, surveil-boos, or testing technologies.

11.1111rat--

That these issues are not currently addressedin law does not mean they could not be. Asis discussed in appendix A, a number of othercountries have quality of work life legislation.Such legislation could give guidelines on therights to health, safety, privacy, constitutionalprotections, or information that employees canexpect to enjoy in the workplace. As indicatedearlier in this chapter, the erosion of the doc-trine of "employment at will" through anti-discrimination, health and safety legislation,and public interest concerns, has alreadymarked some invohement of the U.S. Govern-ment in regulating the work environment. Theissue of electronic monitoring in offices is prob--bly too narrow to serve as a basis for com-prehensive work environment legislation. Itshould be just one factor of many to be con-sidered in determining what rights U.2. citi-zens have in the workplace, both as employersand employees.

However, if blanket legislation on work lifequality is neither wise nor desirable, Congressmight address concerns over specific issuesthrough the use of specific amendatory legis-lation. If, for example, telephone call account-ing is an area of particular concern, Congressmight cddress the problem specifically byamending the Electronic Communications Pri-vacy Act to comport with what it considers"fair" monitoring practice. The guidelines de-veloped for the audit conducted by the Gen-eral Services Administration for the Presi-dent's Council on Integrity and Efficiencymight form a template for such legislation, orinstead, Congress may mandate alternativesto telephone call accounting discussed in chap-ter 3 of this report.

Another example of an area of the law notcurrently addressed, and on which Congressmay wish to act, is what might be called trans-actional privacy, or the collection of "informa-tion about information." For example, thenumber of keystrokes, the number of visits tothe restroom, the destination of calls, etc., allprovide information about transactions, ratherthan about the content of communications or

3 2


activities (see part II of ch. 4).24 Althoughpresent law, such as the Privacy Act and theFair Credit Reporting Act, regulates whatcanbe done with transactional information oncecollected, it does not forbid its collection assuch. As discussed in chapter 4, however, thecollection of transactional information, particu-larly if done on an intensive basis, can arousefeelings of having one's privacy, dignity, andautonomy invaded. Moreover, because of thepower of computers to generate profiles andcroesmatch many transactions, transactionalinformation can yield informed estimates ofthe substantive content of communicationsorpatterns of behaviorit can be, in other words,a "back door" for getting at personal informa-tion that existing law regulates.

Certainly, to forbid or regulatf, the collectionof all transactional information would be un-reasonable. Much transactional data collectedby electronic monitoring software is used tomonitor equipment utilization, to track totalsof transactions made, and to determine

"Transactional information, it will be recalled, differs fromsubstantive information, in that the latter reveals the contentor meaning of communications or documents. Transactional in-formation, in contrast, reveals facts about communications ordocuments.

whether security systems are working prop-erly. The collection of transactional data be-comes most subject to controversy when it iscollected about the performance of an individ-ual worker. It may be that Congress wouldchoose to treat electronic monitoring as a"right to know" issue for workers; that is, em-ployers could have the right to collect what-ever kind of transactional data they wish aboutemployee performance, but would be requiredto give employees access to, and if need be,correct, this information.

As this report indicates throughout, how-ever, the issue of work monitoring cannot beadequately understood, nor appropriately ad-dressed, in isolation from larger labor-management, privacy, and health and safetycontexts in which it is embedded. Nor will spe-cific policy actions taken with respect to par-ticular forms of monitoring necessarily end thecontroversies arising out of the application ofnew forms of technology to the workplace. Thepolicymaker -,noukl therefore be aware that anexclusive f )cus on the forms of monitoring con-sidered in tnis report will at best form the ba-sis for a series of patchwork solutions to whathas been a perennial issue between workers andemployers.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR THIS REPORTIn compiling this report, OTA used a num-

ber of major sources of information in addi-tion to published literature cited in the foot-notes throughout the report.

One major OTA contract, completed by AlanF. Westin of the Education Fund for Individ-ual Rights, includes the results of site visitsand interviews of 110 public and private officesin 1983 and 1985-86 to examine their use ofoffice automation including electronic workmonitoring." The Westin report also summa-rizes some of the legal implication:- of work

"Alan F. Westin, "Privacy and Quality of Life Issues in Em-ployee Monitoring," contractor report for OTA, 1986.

monitoring and telephone call accounting. Asubcontractor to the Westin project, Dr. ElaineJ. Eisenman, provided a paper summarizingher 1984-85 research on employee perceptionsof monitoring at six private sector sites (threeunionized and three nonunionized). Her find-ings are based on questionnaires and groupworkshops conducted with 365 employees and27 supervisors.°

OTA also participated in a survey on officeautomation equipment use that was conducted

"Elaine J. Eiseman, "Employee Perceptions and Supervi-sory Behaviors in Clerical VDT Work Performed on Systemsthat Allow Electronic Monitoring," prepared as part of contrac-tor report for OTA, April 1986.

3


by Hay Management Group in 1986.2' Inthat survey of 45 large New York area firmsOTA inserted several questions to determinehow many of the firms make use of electronicmonitoring for purposes of planning or indi-vidual evaluation.

OTA staff conducted semi-structured inter-views that encompassed 35 work locations inprivate industry and in the Federal Govern-ment to discuss the use of work monitoringand the reactions of managers and workers toit.

In addition to the staff interviews, OTA con-tractor Dr. Michael J. Smith, of the Univer-sity of Wisconsin, conducted semi-structuredinterviows of 41 monitored workers at 5 worksites." These interviews were in support ofhis report to OTA on behavioral and psycho-logical implications of monitoring.

An ad hoc group of representatives from anumber of labor organizations working underthe auspices of the AFL-CIO provided a setof 34 case examples highlighting employee re-action to the use of monitoring at a variety

"Hay Group Inc., "1986 Office Systc me Survey," Septem-ber 1986.

"Michael J. Smith, Pascale Carayon, and Kathleen Miezio."Motivational, Behavioral, and Psychological Implications ofElectronic Monitoring of Worker Performance," contractor re-port prepared for OTA. July 1986.

of unionized and nonunionized workplaces inthe United States."

Information about the use of electronic mon-itoring in other countries came from a reportby Russell Pipe and Alan F. Westin of the Edu-cation Fund for Individual Rights, and one byDr. Steven Deutsch, of The Center for Workand Society, University of Oregon. Dr. Deutschalso provided a paper on the context of labormanagement relations in the United States."

Information on historical evolution of workmonitoring came from a paper by Dr. SandraAlbrecht, University of Kansas" and contri-butions of Dr. Sharon Strom.

Information on telephone call accounting, inaddition to published sources, came from OTAstaff interviews of approximately 12 commu-nications managers and 3 telecommunicationsconsultants. Staff also used a mini case study-4 the State of New York telephone system,based on interviews and documents providedby the State telecommunication office. Staffalso interviewed officials of the GencPal Serv-ices Administration and a number of Federalagencies. In addition, staff interviewed two ex-perts on whistleblowing.

"Cited in this report as "AFL-CIO Case Examples," Novem-ber 1986.

"Steven Deutsch, "The Context for Exploring WorkplaceMonitoring," contract paper prepared far OTA, September 1986.

"Sandra L. Albrecht, "Historical Background to the Elec-tronic Monitoring of Office Work," contract paper prepared forOTA, August 1986.

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORTChapter 2 of this report discusses the tech-

nology of computerized work measurement,some of the jobs in which it is used, and theworkplace issues raised by its use. Chapter 3focuses on the use of telephone call account-ing in both government and private firms,along with the use of other technologies tomanage telephone costs. Chapter 4 presentsa discussion of the legal aspects of privacy and

quality of work life issues as well as a discus-sion of policy alternatives related to work mon-itoring and telephone call accounting.

In addition, this report has tw- appendixes:appendix A discusses policies toward monitor-ing in some foreign countries while appendixB summarizes the issues raised by workertesting.

34

Chapter 2

Using Computers ToMonitor Office Work

CONTENTS

PageIntroduction 27

What Kind of Work Gets Monitored? 28How Widespread Is Electronic Work Monitoring? 30

Work Monitoring in the Private Sector 30Work Monitoring in the Federal Government 33

How Technology Assists Selected Business Applications 34Workplace Issues Related to Work Monitoring 36

What Is Fair 38Standards of Performance 40Quality of Work 45Job Design and Work Process 47

Supervision and Evaluation 48Personal Computer Monitoring 49Monitoring and Stress 50Computer Pacing and Stress 55Feedback and Motivation 55

The Future of Work Monitoring 57

FiguresFigure No. Page2. Example of a System Status Report for an Automatic Call Distribution

System 35

3. Example of a Supervisor's Display in an Automatic Call DistributionSystem 36

4. Example of Agent Statistics From an Automatic Call DistributionSystem 36

5. Two Models for Electronic Work Monitoring 37

6. Example of Individual Work Monitoring Report (PerformanceSummary) 41

7. Example of a Work Monitoring Report for a Group (Volume of WorkAccomplished by Group in One Week) 42

8. Example of Individual Work Monitoring Report (Hours Summary) . . . 43

TablesTable No. Page1. Some Office Jobs Currently Subject to Electronic Work Monitoring . . . 292. Conditiors Most Favorable to Electronic Work Measurement 293. Workplace Issues Related to Work Monitoring 384. Key Issues and ProPem Areas in Monitoring Worker Performance . . . 395. Com?arison of Mowcored and Nonmonitored Workers 496. Rateo of Frequent Health Problems Related to Computerized

Monitoring of Work Performance 52

7. Rates of Frequent Health Problems Related to Production Quotas orProductivity Standards 52

8. Review of Oregon Worker Compensation Claims Involving MentalStress 53

3 6

Chapter 2

Using Computers To Monitor Office Work

INTRODUCTION

Electronic work monitoring is the computer-ized collection, storage, analysis, and report-ing of information about employees' produc-tive activities. Within this broad definition, theprimary focus of this report will be on obtain-ing data about employees directly throughtheir use of computer and telecommunicationequipments This type of information gather-ing has been called "electronic monitoring,""electronic work meastuement," or "telephonemonitoring?* This chapter will also include adiscussion of "servic s observation," the prac-tice of listening in on conversations betweenemployees and customers to evaluate the em-ployees' courtesy or competence. Service ob-servation is often used in conjunction withelectronic work measurement for telephoneoperators and customer service workers.

Some people have warned that use of elec-tronic monitoring leads to creation of electronicsweatshops. "Electronic sweatshop"the termconjures up images that combine the worst fea-tures of both the factory and the office: bor-ing, repetitive, fast-paced work that requiresconstant alertness and attention to detail, alldone under the pressure of constant supervi-sion and demands for faster work. Worst ofall, the supervisor isn't even human. Employ-ees must labor at top speed under the view ofunwinking computer taskmasters that recordevery item of work completed, along with everymistake, rest break, and deviation from stand-ard practice. A person's job depends on thecomputer's comparison of performance to thestandard. Interaction with fellow workers is

'This definition is very simP or to one found m: Andrew Clem-ent, "Electronic Management.: The New Technology of WorkPlace Stuveillance," Canadian Informatics' Processing SocietySession 84 Proceedings. Calgary, Alberta, May 911,1984, pp.259-288.

'In this chaptar, "work measurement" is used to include thewhole process of developing procedures and standards for jobperformance, collecting data on actual performance and com-paring actual performance to standards. "Work monitoring"mars only to collection of information about actual performance.

3 7

impossible because of the pace of work; jobsatisfaction is low, and stress and stress-relatedhealth problems are the inevitable result ofhaving to work under such conditions.

Electronic work monitoring is already a dailyreality for millions of U.S. workers. They seemto be having varied experiences with it. Someview electronic monitoring as a useful tool thathelps them get better control of their work,ensures that their supervisors give objectiveevaluations, and helps their company be moreproductive. Others believe they indeed do workin electronic sweatshops as described above,and that monitoring is an unfair surveillanceused to control them. Still others have mixedfeelings: they may not mind monitoring perse, but they feel it isn't being used in the fairestor most effective way.

Electronic monitoring is usually used in con-juction with a work measurement system. Workmeasurement systems usually do four things.First, they set standards for the time it shouldtake to produce certain units of work. Second,they monitor the actual time it takes to pro-duce each unit of work. Third, they analyze thevariance of the actual time from the standard.And finally, they provide data for use in plan-ning, cost estimates, and productivity improve-ment.' As more employees use computers intheir jobs, computer software is increasinglyused to monitor actual performauce, compareperformance to standards, and provide plan-ning data.

As more capabilities of the computer andtelephone are being explored for office work,it is probably natural that some of the samecapabilities are found useful in supervisingwork as well. Both work and supervision arebecoming automated. Work done on a com-

'See U.S. Department of Defense, Office of The InspectorGeneral, Work Measurement Systems and Engineered LaborStandards (Washington, DC: October 198(.

27

fro Electronic Supervisor. New Technology, New Tensions

puter is very abstract. Many information work-ers no longer handle concrete items like docu-ments, file folders, paper clips, orders, invoices,rubber stamps, or checks. Those physical ob-jects have disappeared into the computer andhave become abstract analogs of their formerselves. The various stages of work that trans-form raw materials into final products takeplace inside the computer, too. A supervisorwho could only observe the physical activityof people at their computer terminals, with-out knowing what was going on inside the com-puter, would know little about the work beingdone.

The tool that gives a picture of what is hap-pening inside the computer is the computer it-self. Computers' capacities for recording andstoring information make it possible to keepdetailed records about all aspects of the pro-duction process. And their ability to sort thatinformation in different ways means that theinformation can be put to many uses.

Computer records can give a picture of thetotal performance of a work group, or a depart-ment. Statistics on historical patterns of pro-

duction can be used to estimate future work-loads, to plan for new personnel, or to justifynew equipment. Performance statistics mayalso be compared with budgeted costs to de-termine the cost-effectiveness of an operation.Such complete and up-to-date information isnecessary in a cybernetic model of manage-ment that requires immediate feedback tomanagers about current activities to be usedas the basis of future decisions.

Computer work monitoring can also give in-formation on individual performance. The fo-cus of this chapter is computer monitoring ofindividual performance. Computer-generatedstatistics can be used as a tool to increase ormaintain levels of employee performance. Theymay be used in individual personnel decisionspay, promotion, retraining, and discharge.They can be a feedback tool to help employeesgain more control of their own work; conversely,they can be used to limit employee decisionsabout the work process. Like most technologi-cal tools, work monitoring per se is neither badnor good. Its effects depend on how it is used.

WHAT KIND OF WORK GETS MONITORED?Most of the electronic monitoring found by

OTA and other researchers affects office work-ers with short-cycle "production" jobs, thatis, jobs where a limited number of standard-ized tasks are performed repeatedly to producesome information-based end-product. Mostsuch jobs are considered clerical, for exampledata entry or insurance claims processing.However, monitoring can also be applied toprofessional jobs with a quantifiable output,for example computer programmers or insur-ance underwriters.

Data-entry jobs are perhaps the epitome ofroutine, standardized information-processingwork. The operator reads information from a

source and enters it on a keyboard orto be recorded on computer tape or

disk. Most key-to-disk and key-to-tape data-entry systems are equipped to count operator

keystrokes, and in these high-production jobs,counting keystrokes is an obvious way tomeasure performance.

However, key entry is not the only job whereproduction can be monitored electronicallyusing computer counts. Table 1 lists some ofthe office jobs that are often subject to workmeasurement from production data gatheredthrough electronic monitoring. The list is byno means exhaustive. The table summarizesa few of the aspects of work that can be elec-tronically monitored for each job.

What do all the jobs in table 1 have in com-mon? Why is it that they lend themselves tocomputer monitoring? Jobs that are subjectto electronic monitoring are generally thosethat are subject to work measurement tech-niques. In work measurement systems, man-

38

Ch. 2Using Computers To Monitor Office Work 29

Table 1.Some Office Jobs Currently Subject to Electronic Work Monitoring

Job What is measured Hcw obtainedWord processorsData-entry clerksTelephone operatorsCustomer service workers

Telemarketingiother sales ..

Insurance claims clerks ....Mail clerksBank proof clerks

speed, errors, time workingspeed, errors, time workingaverage time per calliime per customernumber and type c I transactiontime per customer, sales volume

number of cases per unit timeletters or packages per unit timechecks processed per unit of

timeSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1967.

keystrokes counted by computerkeystrokes counted by computereach call timed by call distribution systemeach call timed by call distribution system;

transactions counted by computereach call or transaction timed; sales tabulated by

computertime spent on each form tabulated by computercollected by letter of package sorting machinescollected by proof machine

agement sets standards of production and thenmakes records of actual performance in orderto compare them to the standard. For manykinds of work, manual recordkeeping systemsor physical counts of completed work are usedto gather performance information, but thegrowing availability of computer-based sys-tems in offices has led many employers to col-lect this information electronically.

Table 2 identifies some of the work condi-tions most favorable to the application of workmeasurement The first set of conditions is thatthe work be routine and require the repetitiveperformance of a small range of tasks. Whenthis is the case it is possible to time those tasksand establish a standard amount of time inwhich a competent worker can be expected to

Table 2Conditions Most Favorable to ElectronicWork Measurement

Routinlad worksmall number of tasks performed by each employeelarge volume of workrelatively continuous supply of work

Interchangeable workers:relatively low training requirementrelatively small difference In the productivity of experi-enced and Inexperienced workers, or short time neededto bring inexperienced workers to full capabilitytolerance for turnoverample labor supply

simple dais oollectlowemployees use information technology as part of their workInformation about transactions is already being collectedfor other purposesdata collection is transparent to the users, and making useof It Is simple for supervisors

SOURCES: Adapted from Robert E. Nolan, "Work Measurement," In Robed N.Lewer, wore cally PluduciftflY Pow Yolk Nye McGraw mix, ismkalso personal ctwnmunlcsllon from James Rule, August 1956.

perform them (more about work measurementstandard setting below). Measurement is alsoeasier and more meaningful when there is alarge volume of work from which to draw, ora relatively continuous flow of work.

Routine tasks can be performed by inter-changeable workers. Individual employeesmay come and go (turnover) but the work stillgets done. These jobs do not require a workerto have rare personal qualities, extensiveprofessional training, or highly specializedskills. The training required for most routinejobs is minimal, and the amount of time neededfor a newly trained worker to reach full com-petence is usually short. Training for sometypes of data-entry jobs, or for such jobs asproof machine operators in banks, can be ac-complished in as little as a few days. Other rou-tine jobs, however, require more skills andlonger training. For example, training for tele-phone customer service representatives atfirms interviewed by OTA ranged from a fewdays to 6 week q, depending on the firm andthe complexity of the services offered.

Although work measurement is most easilyapplied to less skilled jobs, it is increasinglybeing directed to higher level, more skilled tech-nical, professional, and managerial positions.Even the most complex work has its routineelements, and given sufficient analysis, thoseelements can be identified, grouped together,and counted. The jobs of commodities broker,computer programmer, and bank loan officer,for example, could lend themselves to moni-toring. They all have a high proportion of rou-tine elements. But these jobs also require

SO The Electronic Supervisor. New Technology, New Tensions

higher levels of training and experience. Workmeasurement and electronic monitoring canbe used in jobs like these, but if workers re-sent them, the costs of resistance might be un-acceptably high for the employer. A firm's per-ception of the interchangeability of certaintypes of workers, the ampleness of replacementlabor, or their own tolerance for turnover areall relative. They can change over time withvariations in corporate goals, job markets,managers' personalities, or internal corporatepolitics.

As was pointed out in OTA's earlier reporton office automation, the change in work proc-ess that takes place when certain types ofprofessional or technical workers start mak-ing use of computers, sometimes leads togreater standardization or routinization oftheir work. Some researchers hold that theincreased use of computers to assist profes-sional and managerial work will lead inevita-blybly to the de-skilling of mental work and the

* creation of "intellectual assembly lines. "6Many employers are greatly concerned withgetting higher performance from highly paidprofessional and managerial workersthe"last great frontier" of productivity improvement. Computer monitoring can offer a wayto make them more accountable and to meas-ure their performance against performancegoals. There will be further discussion on elec-tronic monitoring of professional, managerial,and technical workers later.

In table 2 the final group of characteristicstypical of monitored jobs is "simple data col-lection." As noted below, performance statis-

'U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Automa-don sf Amwica's Offices, OTA-CIT-287 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, December 1985), p. 106.

`Judith A. Perrone, "Intellectual Assembly Lines: The Ra-*mitigation of Managerial, Professional, and Tecimical Work,"paper presented to the American Sodological Association, Wash-bran, DC, August 1985.

tics can be collected about many routine of-fice jobs that are not computerized, usually byhaving the employee or supervisor keep paperrecords. Care must be taken to design a meansof data collection which does not unduly bur-den workers or supervisorsotherwise themeasurement system may decrease produc-tivity because it takes too much time or re-duces morale. Further, a work-measurementsystem that requires people to take an extrastep to keep performance records may be sub-ject to error or fraud. With electronic moni-toring, manual recordkeeping can often be re-duced or eliminated, even vitae much moredetailed measurements are being made.

Jobs involving telephone contact with thepublic are often subject to "service observa-tion," that is, having a supervisor or qualitycontrol specialist listen in on employee tele-phone calls to evaluate courtesy, accuracy, orcompliance with company guidelines. Serviceobservation is a common practice in telemar-keting firms, direct sales outlets, market re-search firms, companies with large customerservice departments, and of course telephonecompanies. Service observation is not new; tele-phone companies have been practicing it forover 80 years, as have many other firms. Serv-ice observation is also not automatic. It requires a human listener to make judgmentson the content of a call.

However, new information technology hasbeen transforming service observation by de-veloping systems that integrate service obser-vation with other, more automatic, monitor-ing techniques and also by improving thequality of new equipment. In older telephonesystems, for example, a drop in volume or aclick might be heard when an observer cameon the line. Most modern service-observationequipment is perfectly silent and does not in-terfere with the operation of lines.

HOW WIDESPREAD IS ELECTRONIC WORK MONITORING?Work Monitoring in the Private Sector

It should be noted that many computers re-cord information about individual workers' com-

puter use as part of computer security programs,audit trails, or cost allocation programs. Thus,in nearly every organization that has a main-frame, minicomputer, or integrated word proc-

40


easing system, computer-generated records aremade when a terminal logs on or off; when adatabase is accessed; when a file is created, revised, or deleted; or when a remote computeris accessed through telecommunication lines.Some privacy implications of computer secu-rity systems will be addressed separately ina companion report.' However, for the pur-poses of the present report, such records arenot considered to be work monitoring.

There are no reliable figures on how exten-sivr:y employers are applying computer-basedsoftware to monitor individual employee per-formance, or to what extent they are using itto make judgments on individual pay, promo-tion, or discipline. No one has such figures, andno available basis for calculating them is athand.

Before trying to estimate how many officeworkers are subject to work monitoring bycomputer, it is important to clearly define workmonitoring. In this report, work monitoringwill refer to the computerized collectio: oftransactions on performance statistics used inindividual work evaluations. Based on this def-inition it appears, as will be discussed in this.ection, that only a minority of office workersare monitored.

According to one work-measurement expertin the health insurance industry, some sort ofstatistics are collected about the computertransactions of nearly everyone who uses acomputerabout 80 percent of the people inthe industry. However, he estimated that onlyfor about 20 percent of the people were thesestatistics actually used to measure individualperformance.' This 20 percent representedprimarily the low-skill end of the clerical workforce.

Some information on monitoring was col-lected in the 1984 National Survey on Womenand Stress, conducted by 9 to b National Asso-ciation of Working Women. This survey re-

'See Office of Technology Assessment, "Federal Policy onElectronic Information Security: Emerging Issues and Tech-nological Trends," forthciming, 1987.

"Fred Friedman, Director of Operations Strategy, Blue CrossAssociation, interview, May 29, 1988.

ceived responses from 40,000 readers of fourmajor women's magazines Working Woman,Ms., Glamour, and Essence. Of the 4,500 re-sponses randomly selected for analysis, 43 per-cent reported that they used visual-display ter-minals (VDTs), cathode-ray tubes (CRTs), orpersonal computers (PCs). Of these users, 25percent were in managerial jobs, 30 percentwere professional and technical workers, and44 percent were in clerical jobs. The clericalcategory comNned secretarial, customer serv-ice, data entry, and similar job titles.

One question on the survey asked:

Is your work measured, monitored, "con-stantly watched" or controlled by machine orcomputer system.

Seventeen percent of all office automationusers answered "yes" to this question. Whenbroken down by occupation, 20 percent of cler-icals answered "yes," compared with 15 per-cent of managers and professionals and and13 percent of technical workers.

Some critics have noted that the sample inthis survey is self-selected, and that the resultsmay not be representative of all women in theU.S. work force. On the other hand, the posi-tive replies to the question on monitoring maybe lower than the actual incidence of electronicmonitoring in the United States. In the courseof doing this study, OTA staff and contrac-tors often found it difficult to ask about workmonitoring with a simple yes or no question.Some people simply did not understand thequestion without further explanation. Work-ers in some locations did not know that theywere being monitored. In other firms, computeruse information was collectel but not used forbut individual evaluation.

One small survey of office automation useat 45 large New York firms, conducted forOTA, suggests that electronic monitoring isstill not widespread at those firms. Only eightfirms s :8 percent) reported using informationcollected through electronic monitoring as abasis for individual performance evaluations,and six firms (13 percent) used it for team orwork group appraisal. Fourteen firms (31 per


cent) used automatically collected data forplanning work force requirements .°

On the other hand, another survey of 110mganizations in 1982-84 found that the greatmajority of firms (80 to 90 percent) collectedindividual performance statistics for at leastsome of their workers .° Most of the jobs af-fected were the clerical jobs, but some wereprofessional or technical. About one-quarterof the firms collecting performance statisticssaid they did so only for assessing group per-formance, to plan for peaks and valleys of workdemand, and to cost-justify their use of the of-fice systems. The remaining Lhree- quarterswere using individual operator statistics tomake some sort of individual evaluationwhether for base pay, incentive pay, promo-tion, or trainingfor some of their work force.In some cases, machine statistics were "almostthe entire basis" for such judgements, and inothers it was "one factor in five or six factorsused to evaluate performance."

A survey of the sac-9 110 organizations in1985-86 revealed no increase in the percent-age of employers using computer measurementfor personal evaluation. However, a majorityof the firms now reported that they had cre-ated a "more formal system" for setting workstandards and letting employees see the resultsof monitoring if they wished.'

Those organizations not collecting statisticsat all were usually either:

1. organizations using older word processorsor microc3mputers that did not have soft-ware for measurement;

2. organizations with new applications inearly implementation;

3. non-profit organizations or universitieswho "just don't do that"; or

4. State and local government agencies which"saw no need to compile those records. "

'Hay Group, Inc., "Analy% of Customized Items for the Of-fice of Technology A mumps 1986 Hay Office Systems Sur-vey, September 1986.

'Alan Westin, "Privacy and Quality of Work Life Issues inEmployee Monitoring," contractor report prepared for OTA,1086.

"Ibid.

Service observation, which is usually donefor jobs where employees have a great deal oftelephone contact with customers, is oftencombined with electronic measurements cfproductivity as well As mentioned above, serv-ice observation is a standard practice in thetelephone industry, and most of the Nation's226,000 operators and service representativesare evaluated in this way. in addition, the greatgrowth of telemarketing and telephone cus--nraar service in the past decade means thatan increasing number of employees are affectedby service observation. A few firms inter-viewed by OTA reported that they had service-

observing capabilities in their telephone sys-tems but did not use them.

Westin estimates that the great majority ofclerical employees working on computer ter-minalsin the 65 to 80 percent rangeare notcurrently being monitored by computer andevaluated for pay, promotion, or discipline onthat basis." Further, most professional, tech-nical, and managerial workers-95 percent ormoreare not currently evaluated based oncomputer statistics. However, if 20 to 35 per-cent of clerical employees are being monitored,this means that 4 to 6 million employees arebeing evaluated in this manner. The additionof professional, technical, and managerialworkers could add another million or two tothe total, and this number could grow stead-ily larger over the next 5 to 10 years. To thistotal also should be added retail sales workersand grocery clerks, whose speed and sales vol-ume are sometimes monitored via electroniccash registers.

The clerical work force is predominantly fe-male, and the low-skill end of the clerical workforce has a disproportionate number of minor-ity women." Similarly, women are morelikely to be employed in the lower levels ofprofessional work, such as routine computerprogramming or routine insurance underwrit-ing, rather than in higher levels of those profes-sions. Because monitoring is most likely to be

"Ibid."U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Automa-

tion of Americas Offices, OTA-CIT-287 (Washington, DC: U.S.Governmert Printing Office, December 1986), pp. 300-304.

Ch. 2 Using Computers To Monitor Office Work 33

applied to precisely these lower level jobs, workmonitoring is a topic that especially affectswomen and minorities.

Work Monitoring in the FederalGovernment"

The work-monitoring practices in the Fed-eral Government tend to follow some of thesame patterns as the private sector. There areno reliable statistics re how many Federal em-ployees have their work monitored by computer.

In general, Westin's survey, combined withinterviews by OTA, found the same sort of dis-tribution in the use of work monitoring in thegovernment as in the private sector. Someagencies, or specific work groups within agen-cies, used performance statistics only at theaggregate level and only for planning or bud-geting purposes. Some used monitoring sta-tistics as part of individual evaluation of someworkers, usually clerical workers. Some, espe-cially small agencies and those with olderequipment, did no monitoring at all.

The following are a few specific examples ofapplications of work monitoring in the FederalGovernment. For example, performance sta-tistics are automatically collected for data tran-scribers at the Department of Agriculture'sNational Finance Center. Statistics include atotal time on machine, keystrokes per hour,and errors. Supervisors get daily, weekly, andmonthly reports; operators get feedbackmonthly and some also maintain manualrecords of their own performance." Similarperformance criteria are used for data tran-scribers at the Bureau of the Census, but be-cause of the design of the computer system,keyers must record the time manually. Whena new system is installed in 1988, all informa-tion will be collected automatically."

"This section is based on a survey performed by Westin in1984 of 44 Federal agencies. See Alan Westin, "Privacy andQuality of Work Life Issues in Employee Monitoring," contrac-tor report prepared for OTA, 1986, pp. 3963. In addition, OTAstaff interviewed a number of Federal agency managers andunion officials.

"Based on OTA interviews."Based on OTA interviews.

The Department of Labor's Office of Work-ers Compensation monitors the work of claimsexaminers and bill examiners For claims ex-aminers the statistics include time elapsedfrom case creation to case adjudication, num-ber of adjudications, number of wage lossclaims processed, and elapsed time from receiptof claim to decision. Bill examiners' statisticsinclude number of bills paid per day, timeelapsed from receipt of bill to payment. Claimsexaminers are in the GS 5-11 range; bill ex-aminers are typically GS 4-6.18

The Internal Revenue Service, which has re-cently implemented its Automated CollectionService, employs about 2,300 contact repre-sentatives who speak with delinquent tax-payers by telephone, negotiate payment sched-ules, and update taxpayer files. Performancedata is collected by computer (time per trans-action, time logged on and available for work);in addition supervisors are required to listenin on calls to monitor for courtesy and correct-ness of information. Employees know thatservice observation is performed, but do notknow specifically when they are being listenedto. According to IRS sources, service obser-vation is fairly infrequent and used primarilyfor training of new employees.

At the Social Security Administration's Tele-service Centers, service observation capabil-ity of the new telephone system has becomea matter of dispute between SSA and the unionrepresenting 1,500 teleservice workers (Amer-ican Federation of Government Employees).The union is attempting to negotiate specifictime periods during which service observationwill be used. At present it can be applied atanytime and employees do not know whetherthey are being monitored.

Given similar levels of computerization inthe Federal Government and the private sec-tor," it seems likely that the number of mon-itored office workers in the Federal work forceis similar to the private sector-20 to 35percent.

"Based on OTA interviews."See OTA, Automation of America's Offices, op. cit.

4J

34 The Electronic Supervisor: New Technology, New Tensions

HOW TECHNOLOGY ASSISTS SELECTEDBUSINESS APPLICATIONS

The technology used in computerized workmeasurement is not especially esoteric. Mostpeople whose work is electronically measuredare working on mainframe or minicomputersor are using telephone systems controlled byminicomputers. Stand-alone personal com-puters generally do not have the power to main-tain sophisticated work-measurement softwarewhile also carrying out the desired application.[See later section on "Personal Computer Mon-itoring'1 Office systems that interlink a num-ber of computers may sometimes have onecomputer dedicated to monitoring and meas-uring workflow.

Some work-monitoring software systems areavailable commercially, but in many cases,firms with large data processing departmentsdevelop their own work-monitoring softwarein-house, or with the help of work-measurementconsulting firms. Commercially available sys-tems in common use include those associatedwith key-to-disk data-entry systems, auto-matic call distributors, and "back office com-puters" for travel agents, which will be dis-cussed later.

Individual work-measurement statistics canbe developed using information that is alreadybeing collected for some other purpose. Devel-oping work-measurement statistics from thisinformation is simply a matter of being alleto retrieve some or all of this information, storeit in a separate file, and perform statisticalanalyses.

Because it is based on analysis of eadevavailable information, work monitoring ..lazeven begin "accidentally," without a specificmanagement plan to introduce it. For exam-ple, in one Midwestern bank, the data proc-essing department installed a "black box" torecord the time, type, duration, originating ter-minal, and user for every inquiry or transactionin on-line databases. The purpose was to mon-itor the speed of computer response time andto make sure other departments were gettingthe level of service promised by the data proc-

easing department. Itemized reports were sentto managers, who found that these reportswere useful for other purposes, such as plan-ning personnel schedules, justifying requestsfor new staff or equipment, and measuring thetime it took individual employees to completetransactions." They are now being used aswork-monitoring tools in at least some of theparticipating departments.

In most locatioaa, work-measurement toolswere developed explicitly for the purpose, butthe idea is still the same. They collect and re-analyze information that is already beingrecordeu about computer utilization or busi-ness transactions. For example, travel agentsat some large agenciek: work on terminals con-nected to a network that includes a nearbyminicomputer and a mainframe computer atsome central location. The applications soft-gal e in the mainframe allows them to checkschedules and make or cancel reservations. Themkicomputer, called in some organizations the"back office computer," records details aboutcomput _r utilization. It notes who logged onto whit terminal at which time, and it alsomakes records of the time, type, and amountof each transaction that the agents performon the mainframe. Thus the back office com-puter provides a local audit trail and sales rec-ord for the whole office. This information canbe used in a numbs of ways, for example, itallows the local printing of tickets and itiner-aries for customers. It also can be used to de-velop individual performance histories, sinceit has a complete record of all the computeractivities of each agent."

In other firms interviewed by OTA, workmonitoring software was an integral part ofthe application software. That is, the samecomputer software package that helps an in-surance claims examiner to key in client infor-mation and calculate the amount of a payment,

"OTA interview with Senior Vice President for Operations,a midwestern bank, May 1986.

"OTA interview with three travel agency managers, June1986.

also automatically tallies the number of claimsof each type that each examiner completes ina day. In several cases these tallies were thentransferred to another computer program, per-haps in a personal computer, which does sta-tistical analyses, compares performance toestablished standards, and prints reports forsupervisors.

Collection a data about employee perform-ance can in m^ny eases be made transparentto the user, that is, information can be collectedwithout interfering with the work that is be-ing done. From the viewpoint of the user, anautomatic call distributor (ACD) simply routesincoming calls to individual telephones. In ac-tual fact, however, the distributor is also auto-matically recording the type of call (inside oroutside line), the time the call arrived, the iden-tity of the employee to whom it was routed,the number of seconds before the employeepicked up, the time the call started, the timethe call ended, the number of times the callerwas put on hold and for how long, the exten-sion to which the call is transferred, the num-ber of seconds before that person picked up,and so on. In addition, it can show the super-visor at any moment which operators are busy,which are waiting for work, which are on break.At the end of the day it can provide summariesof individual and group activities.

Properly organized, this can be very usefulmanagement information. For example, anACD can report th number of seconds cus-tomers were "delayed" before someone wasavailable to help them or the number of cus-tomers that "abandoned" callshung up with-out speaking to anyone. If these figures gettoo high it may indicate the need for more tele-phone lines and more customer agents. Anal-


ysis of daily or monthly work volumes can helpmanagers better understand cycles in theirbusiness so they can predict busy periods whenthey must hire temporary workers or offerovertime.

The example in figure 2 shows such a statusreport. Service level ("sery level") is the per-centage of incoming calls that were answeredwithin the specified time (typically 20 seconds).Calls offered is the total number of calls, in-cluding those that were lost, delayed, ordiverted as shown in the following columns.Positions manned ( "poi manned") means thenumber of agents jacked in and ready to work;the following columns indicate whether theagents are on incoming or outgoing calls. Aver-age delay is the average time in seconds fora call to be processed, whether answered, de-layed, or lost. The next columns show the num-ber of calls waiting (CW), the maximum num-ber of calls that were waiting at any time inthis period, and the number of seconds thatthe current longest call waking has waited.

Here again, reports about individual per-formance are fairly simple to develop based oninformation that must be collected in any case.In order to route calls, the computer control-ling an automatic call distributor must keeptrack of which telephones are busy, which areavailable, and which are unattended at anygiven time. However, this information mustbe sorted and averaged in order to be of use.A supervisor could make no sense of all thedetailed information that a computer collectsabout each call. The work-monitoring softwaresorts, totals, averages, and summarizes the in-formation so that a supervisor can see activi-ties of the entire work group, or totals and aver-ages of each individual's activities for a given

Figure 2.Example of a System Status Report for an AutomaticCall Distribution System

SeryGate level

Callsoffrd.

Callsdlyd.

CallsLost

Callsdiv.

Pos.manned

Callsin

Callsout

Avg.delay CW

MaxCW

Odlytime

1 47 15 8 7 1 6 0 2 1 0 1 02 43 7 4 4 0 3 1 2 2 3 3 914 67 6 2 1 1 6 0 0 7 0 1 0

52 28 14 12 2 15 1 4 3SOURCE: Adapted from Solid State Systems Inc , The Smart Telephone System ACD Supervisor User's Guioe," Marietta

Georgia, 1962.


timed period, or exception reports, that showparticular calls or particular employees thatare far out of the average range.

Figure 3 shows the type of information typi-cally available on the VDT screen of the super-visor of a group of telephone customer serviceworkers using an automatic call distributionsystem. Status options here include vacant("vcnt") or on break, talking ("talk") or avail-able for calls ( "avlb "). "Work" means the agentis doing other work related to a previous call,perhaps updating the database or preparinga letter to the customer, and is not acceptingcalls. The agent named Joe is talking and hassignaled for "help," requesting the supervisor

to come on the line. The time column showshow long (in minutes) the individual has beenin the current status. The last column showsthat three agents have calls waiting for themon other lines.

The example in figure 4 shows the sort ofinformation that might be included in produc-tivity reports summarizing periods of a fewhours, or a day, or a week. This example reportsthe number of calls, the total handle time("hndl") in minutes (the sum of "talk time"and "work time"), and the total time availableand waiting for calls, in minutes. In additionthe report shows the average handle time, talktime, and work time per call in seconds.

Figure 3.Example of a Supervisor's Display in an Automate Call Distribution System

SUPERVISOR GATEAGENT

NO.AGENTNAME

STATUS TIME 10:32 5110187

SUPVS 1

1 513 SAM VCNT 6 3 CW = 41 512 JANE TALK 0 31 514 JOE HELP 1.21 560 BILL WORK 4.72 570 FRED AVLB 6.32 510 SUE TALK 122 513 SAM VCNT 6.33 512 JANE TALK 0.3 CW = 1

SOURCE Adapted from Solid State Systems Inc The Smart Telephone System ACD Supervisor User's Guide,' MariettaGeorgia 1982

Figure 4. Example of Agent Statistics From an Automatic Call Distribution System

14:32 10114182 AGENT STATISTICS

AGENT NO. HNDL TALK WORK AVLB AVG AVGGROUP 4 GATE CALLS TIME TIME TIME TIME HNDL TALK WORK

GEORGE 454 1 0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0HARRY 455 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0JERRY 582 1 6 84 8.4 0.0 6.9 84 84 0SUPV1 580 1 5 3.5 3.5 0.0 5.7 53 53 0SUSANNAH 501 1 5 10.0 10.0 00 5.3 120 120 0BILL 503 1 4 3.6 3.6 0.0 3.2 54 54 0

SOURCE Adapted from Solid State Systems Inc The Smart Telephone System ACD Supervisor user's Guide." MariettaGeorgia, 1982

WORKPLACE ISSUES RELATED TO WORK MONITORING

People in some organizations perceive workmeasurement and service observation to beuseful tools that help employees and manage-

ment at all levels to put out a good product.At other organizations, use of the same tech-nologies is resented and feared as "Big Brother

46

Figure 5.Two Models for Electronic Work Monitoring

UNION Individual All data Known pro- Employee can Group produc- l Quality/Problem Standard pay Individual short-MODEL performance available to cedure for pace work tion quotas factors fall leads to

sampling employee challenging"record"

recognized training or groupdiscussion

"TAYLOR" Constant Data not No procedure Machine paces Individual Quantitylspeed Piecework pay Individual short-PRODUCTION

MODELmachine

monitoringreadily

availablefor challenge viork quotas standard or bonus fall leads to

discipline

PRIVACY-RELATED ISSUES'"Intrusiveness" and "Subject Access"

LABOR RELATIONS/EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ISSUES"Fair Work," "Fair Pay," "Fair Performance Evaluation"

SOURCE Alan F Westin Privacy and Quality of Life Issues in Employee Monitoring contractor report for OTA 19%

4746


Table 3.Workplace Issues Related to Work Monitoring

Is monitoring constant or Intermittent?Can employees see their own records?Can the employee challenge, explain, or correct records?Does the employee or the machine pace the work?Do employees understand performance criteria and use of information?Are quotas set on an Individual or group basis?Are quotas fair, allowing work at a reasonable pace?Is pay standard or based on performance?What happens to employees falling short of quota?

Privacy andaccess related

XXX

Labor relations Health/qualityor "fairness" of life

SOURCE: Office of Technology Aeseeement.

surveillance." The difference seems not to beso much in the specific measurement technol-ogy, but in the politics of. how it is introduced,how it is used, and what is done with the in-formation collected.

Although many workers' complaints aboutmonitoring focus on its intrusiveness, a closerlook shows that privacy is only one of a com-plex of issues raised by electronic work moni-toring. Table 3 outlines some possible charac-teristics of a work-monitoring program andindicates the kinds of issues that are raisedby them. Privacy and access issues cover suchquestions as whether employees know they arebeing monitored and whether the employeeshave access to records about their own per-formance. The second set of issues relates tothe perceived fairness of the monitoring sys-tem and the way the employer uses it in evalu-ating and rewarding employees; these are ques-tions of employee relations. The final set ofissues, overlapping the other two, relate tostress, health, and the quality of working life.

Whether the effect of monitoring is perceivedas intrusive, unfair, dehumanizing, or un-healthy often depends on how managementstructures the work-monitoring program, whatit does with the late it collects, and how thoseactions are perceived by employees.

What Is FairWestin used some of the same elements dis-

cussed in table 3 to construct two models ofwork monitoring shown in figure 5.9' Westin

"This section draws heavily on Alan Westin, "Privacy andQuality of Work Lib Issues in Employee Monitoring, " contrac-tor report proposed for OTA, pp. 10312 (draft).

chose to call the first model the "union" model,since it represents a blend of features includedin model contract language suggested by someU.S. and international unions. The second hecalled the "Taylor production" model; it isbased on an extreme form of an industrial engi-neering approach to work measurement, onewhich places virtually all information andpower in the hands of management. In apply-ing these models to the organizations inter-viewed for OTA, no pure examples of the "unionmodel" were observed. The "Taylor produc-tion model" in its pure form was observed inaction in a few government and private sectororganizations. Most organizations used meth-ods representing a blend of the features of thetwo models, with about two-thirds of the orga-nizations interviewed by Westin tending towarda modified version of the "Taylor" model.

In most cases, employers introduce electronicmonitoring unilaterally, only informing em-ployees of the change after all decisions havebeen made. Often, too, monitoring is only oneof a number of changes in work process or jobdesign that take place when new office equip-ment is purchased. As was discussed in detailin OTA's report, Automation of America's Of-fices, employee participation in design end im-plementation is often a key to successful im-plementation of new office systems.

Ensuring employee participation can requireeffort on the part of managers, as few U.S.workplaces have mechanisms for employee in-put in areas of technological change or evalu-ation procedures. Nevertheless, Westin foundthat the difference between employees pretest-ing over "Big Brother surveillance" and em-ployees perceiving work measurement as rea-

tiO


sonable, often depends on whether they agreeon: 1) the fairness of the standards set; 2) thefairness of the monitoring process employed;and 3) the fairness of the way measurementsare used in employee evaluation. This agree-ment was usually made through worker-man-agement discussions before monitoring wasimplemented. Such agreements are possiblewhere there is genuine involvement of employ-eeseither through joint labor-managementcommittees in unionized organizations, orthrough employee involvement techniques innatation settings. Where management startedwith the trusting assumption that almost allemployees were ready to put in a fair day'swork for a ink day's pay, and where topics suchas work standards, work measurement, andproductivity recognition were matters for opendiscussion, introduction of monitoring wasusually relatively painless.

One impression that emerged from OTA'sinterviews is that the way managers and em-ployees deal with monitoring often closelyparallels the way they deal with other work-place issues. Firms whose "corporate culture"tends toward authoritarianism tend to usemonitoring in an authoritarian way. In orga-nizations where relations between employeesand managers are antagonistic, the monitor-ing system is a source of antagonism, but onlyone of many. In organizations where coopera-tion is the norm, people worked together to de-velop a fair system.

Recognizing that employee involvement inthe design, testing, implementation, and con-tinuing adjustment of work monitoring is cru-cial to a successful process, it is alsonecessaryto deal with the substantive issues, to be con-sidered in designing such a program. Table 4shows some of the issues to be considered. Themain categories, and the specific questions inthis chart represent recurring themes in a num-ber of interviews with monitored workers andtheir managers.

Westin's sample found that only about one-third of the firms in his sample using electronicwork monitoring for individual evaluationswere following what he called "fair work evalu-

Table 4.Key Issues and Problem Areas InMonitoring Worker Performance

Key issues/problem aspectsFairness of work standmds:

Do standards fairly reflect the average capacities of theparticular work force?Will they create unhealthy stress for many employees?Do they take into account recurring system difficulties andother workplace problems?Do they Include quality as well as quantity goals?Do they represent a "fair day's pay" for a "fair day's work?"Do employees share in any productivity gains achievedthrough introduction of new technology?

Fairness of the measurement proms:Do employees know and understand how the measure-ments are being done?Can the measurement system be defeated easily, therebyImpairing the morale of those willing to "follow the rules?"Do employees receive the statistics on their performancedirectly, and in time to help them manage their work rate?is the relation between quality, service measures, and workquantity communicated by supervisors when they discussproblems of performance- levels with employees?Do supervisors communicate clearly that they are takingsystem and workplace problems Into account?Are group rather than individual rates used when particu-lar tasks make such an approach more equitable?is there a formal complaint process by which an operatorcan contest the way work data has been used by the su-ps:visor?

Fairness in applyIng measurements to employee evaluation:Are there meaningful recognition programs for these em-ployees?Is work quantity only one of a well-rounded and objectiveset of performance criteria used for employee appraisals?Does the employee get to see and participate in the per-fonnance appraisal?is there an appeal process from the supervisor's perfor-mance appraisal?is there a performance - planning system that identifies em-ployee weaknesses in performance and identifies ways toremedy such problems?

SOURCE: Alan R. Westin, "Privacy and Quality of Life issues In EmployeeMonitoring," contractor report for OTA, 19110.

ation policies" along the lines of a positive an-swer to most of the questions in table 4.

Of the 34 case examples submitted to OTAby unions, 28 dealt with electronic monitor-ing of office workers (unionized and nonunion-ized) like the ones studied by Westin. In nearlyall the case examples, employees had little in-put concerning the monitoring system, and inonly a few cases was it clew. that they had ac-cess to information about their own perform-ance or the ability to contest wrong informa-tion. In nearly all these cases the workers were


described as considering the monitoring sys-tem unfair."

Standards of Performance

Work measurement systems are usually ap-plied to jobs for which standard end products,or surrogates for end products, can be clearlyidentified. That end product might be "cus-tomers served," "claims paid," "programswritten," "interviews completed." Generallyspeaking, electronic work monitoring primar-ily measures the quantity of work performed.Other methods, discussed in the next section,measure quality.

An important element in measurement ofalmost all kinds of work is time. In almostevery case in table 2, the purpose of measure-ment is to measure the time it takes the em-ployee to do something, and then to comparethe result to a standard. Robert Nolan, an ex-pert in developing work-measurement systems,defines a work-measurement system in thisway:

In the most simple terms, it is a means ofestablishing what a fair day's work should be.it has two main components, a measure of thevolume of work, avid a measure of the employeetime used up. These two factors can be ex-pressed in their only common denominator:the time required to produce one unit of work,or what we call a standard."

Thus, measurement alone is often of little useas a management tool, unless its purpose isto compare the individual or group perform-ance to a standard.

Standards may be established in a numberof ways. Many are arrived at rather informallyor arbitrarily, perhaps based on supervisors'or managers' estimates of how long it oughtto take to complete certain tasks. In some casesstandards are set based on historical perform-ance levels; managers may take an average ofsome past period, and expect that it be main-tained as an average in the future.

si"AFIrCIO Case Examples," November 1987."Robert E. Nolan, "Work Measurement," in Robert N. Le-

barer, White Collar Productivity (New York, NY: McGraw Hill,1988), p. 111.

Sometimes "standards" are really goals orideals. In one firm interviewed by OTA thestandard of 50 completed transactions peragent per week had recently been establishedby the national office. The standard was de-veloped by dividing the average revenue pertransaction into the total revenue the firmhoped to generate at each branch office." Thenew standard was not related to past perform-ance levels or analysis of the best way to dothe job, but rather the amount that mustbe sold in order to meet revenue projections.In this cab% 50 transactions per week was farabove past performance; office managershoped that introducing incentive programswould inspire agents to achieve the new goals.

A more formal method of standard settingis the "engineered standard." The Methods-Time Measurement (MTM) system or the Ad-vanced Office Controls (AOC) system havebeen used in many office settings. In thesemethods, a trained analyst, usually an indus-trial engineer, observes a work task, selectsthe most efficient method of performing thetask, and then will time the actions of aver agepeople performing the task under averageworking conditions. General MTM and AOCstandards have been developed for nearly everyimaginable motion in an office workplace. Forexample, the MTM standard for fasteningsheets of paper with a table model stapler is41 time measurement units (TMU), or about2.9 seconds. Opening an envelope and remov-ing the contents takes 198 TMU or 14.2 seronds. A trained analyst can combine a num-ber of these general standards, develop newones, and adapt them to the special circum-stances of spacial arrangement, work process,or equipment use in a given office."

A well-designed standard, according to ex-perts, is not one that makes people work asfast as possible, but one that encourages goodaverage work. It should include time for per-sonal breaks and allow for personal variabil-

230TA interviews, assistant manager, Washington office, na-tional travel firm, June 1988.

"Examples from Robert E. Nolan, "Work Measurement,"in Robert N. Leherer, White Collar Productivity (New York,NY: McGraw Hill, 1983), pp. 142-148.

5i


ityworking a little faster at some times andslower at others. Fair standards must be real-istic, taking into account system downtime,slow response time, varying levels of complex-ity of different tasks, and so on. When stand-ards are not realistic, or when they are not per-ceived as fair by employees andmanagers, theycan easily lead to declines in morale, increasedturnover rate, and ultimately a decrease in pro-ductivity.

Since AOC, MTM, and other "predeterminedtime" systems provide a standard time for thecompletion of each task, an employee's actualperformance can be compared to that stand-ard. If the standard time for examining a cer-tain type of insurance claim is 10 minutes, thenan employee who completes 6 of them will havedone 60 standard minutes or 1 standard hour'sworth of work An employee who completed48 such cases in an 8-hour day would be saidto be working at 100 percent of the standard,that is, his or her paid hours would exactlyequal standard hours. Faster employees mightwork at 110 or 120 percent of standard, whileslower ones work at 80 or 90 percent of stand-

ard. The determination of an "acceptable" pacedepends on the firm, but a well-designed stand-ard is one where most trained, experiencedem-ployees will work in the range of 85 to 100 per-cent of standard most of the time.26

Figure 6 shows part of a weekly work moni-toring report for an insurance employee work-ing under a "predetermined time" work-meas-urement system. The report lists the types oftasks done, the standard time to do the taskonce, the number of times the employee actu-ally completed the tasks, and a calculation ofthe "earned" hours. Figure 7 summarizes workof a group of insurance employees. Figure 8integrates the work monitoring system witha time and attendance report. It shows thenumber of hours each employee was availablefor work ("avail work"). The time available formeasured work ("avail meal " employeesmayhave other duties that are not captured by thesystem) and the number of earned hours ("earnhrs") worth of work completed. Note that there

"See Robert E. Nolan, "Work Measurement," in Robert N.Leherer, White Collar Productivity (New York, NY: McGrawHill, 1983), P. 121.

Figure 6. Example of Individual Work Monitoring Report (Performance Summary)

RUN NUMBER - ARM1B140DAT' OF RUN - 10/09/84TIM OF RUN - 18:00

WORK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMINDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

WEEK ENDING 10/6/84

E" PLOYEE:DIVISION'DEPARTMENT:

GGB

EMPLOYEE DCLAIMS AND SERVICECLMS PROC

CALCULATION OF EARNED HOURS

UKVI AVERAGE TIMEFLAG TO DO ONE ITEM

ITEMSx COMPLETED

EARNED= HOURSDV DP

KVI DESCRIPTIONCODE NAME

G GB 0040 EOB STUFF 00 MIN 16 SEC 148 0.6G GB 0050 SUBSCRIBER PREP 01 MIN 48 SEC 2 0.0G GB 0070 SUBSCRIBER CODING 03 MIN 54 SEC 2 0.1G GB 0080 PROVIDER CODING 01 MIN 03 SEC 8 0.1G GB 0140 MEP ADJUDICATION 02 MIN 47 SEC 482 22.4G GB 0150 VISION ADJUDICATION 02 MIN 33 SEC 68 2.9G GB 0175 PRIMARY GSCR ROSTER 00 MIN 10 SEC 621 1 8G GB 0176 GSCR CHK-ADJUDICATOR 00 MIN 08 SEC 454 1.0G GB 0190 COB PROCESSING 04 MIN 57 SEC 20 1.6G GB 0210 COB RETURN LETTERS 00 MIN 49 SEC 50 0.6G GB 0185 PULLING CLAIMS 03 MIN 00 SEC 8 0.4

TOTAL EARNED 32.0

SOURCE Adapted from James S Hogg, Manager, Professional Productivity, Blue Cross & Slue Snistd of Maryland

563-982 0 - 87 - QL: 3 -- 2

42 The Electronic Supervisor. New Technology, Now Tensions

Figure 7.Example of a Work Monitoring Report for a Group(Volume of Work Accomplished by Group in One Week)

RUN NUMBER - ARM1B130DATE OF RUN - 10/09/84TIME OF RUN - 18:13

WORK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMVOLUME SUMMARY FOR WEEK ENDING 10/06/84

DIVISION: G CLAIMS AND SERVICEDEPARTMENT: GB CLMS PROCUNIT: XXXSECTION: YYY

KVICODE

001000200040005000510060007000800090

KVIDESCRIPTION

MAIL SORTPROCESS INCOMPLETESEOB STUFFSUBSCRIBER PREPPROVIDER PREPMEDICARE CLAIMS PROCSUBSCRIBER CODINGPROVIDER CODINGSUBSCBR DATA ENTRY

VOLUME

1938219

2105216425391457

1496293

PERFORMANCEREFERENCE

0.00680.00850.00460.02800.00450.03850 06570.01790.0224

EARNEDHOURS

13 21 99 76 019

15.130.026 86 6

0100 PROVIDER DATA ENTRY 1072 0 0185 19.80110 VISION PREP & CODE 164 0 0246 4 00120 VISION DATA ENTRY 168 0 0236 4.00130 PAF REPORT UPDATE 232 0 0100 2 30140 MEP ADJUDICATION 846 0.0466 39 40150 VISION ADJUDICATION 70 0.0426 3 00160 PHONE INQUIRY 382 0.1015 38 80175 PRIMARY GSCR ROSTER 1740 0.0030 5 20176 GSCR CHK-ADJUDICATOR 926 0.0023 210180 ADJUSTMENT CODING 15 0.0927 1 4

0181 PROC. CODED ADJUSTMTS 14 0 0454 0 60182 HND.PROC.ADJ/NO FILE 14 0 0102 0 1

0183 ART COMP-HANDLG REFD 15 0.1284 1 90185 PULLING CLAIMS 8 0.0496 0 40190 COB PROCESSING 36 0.0823 3 00195 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE 21 0 3801 800200 PROC OCC DELETES 43 0 1054 4 50210 COB RETURN LETTERS 55 0 0135 0 7

SOURCE Adapted from James S Hogg Manager Professional Productooty Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Maryland

is a wide variation in effectiveness ("eff % "),which calculates the earned hours as a percent-age of measured hours. This particular firmdoes not use an incentive system so all employ-ees are paid for their regular hours despitethese differences. The report also shows totalsfor the whole group.

The work processthe set of procedures thatgovern what tasks are done and how tasksinterrelatealso has a major impact on manypredetermined-time work-measurement sys-tems. Because the "standard" for each taskor set of tasks depends on a close study of thework performed, any changes in the work re-quire a change in the standard, if the stand-

and is to be fair. Changes in the work mightarise when a new product is introduced (say,in an insurance company, a new kind of pol-icy), or when regulations change (e.g., requir-ing a change in the kind of information banksmust supply to customers), or when the tech-nology changes. Work-management specialistsat firms using predetermined-time systemsnote that "maintenance" is a major need ifwork measurement is to be applied conscien-tiously. Work must be periodically re-analyzedand standards must be adjusted.

Standard setting is often combined with jobdesign, work simplification, or proceduralchanges, because it is difficult to establish a

53

Figure 8.Example of Individual Work Monitoring Raport (Hours Summary)

RUN NUMBER - ARM1B140DATE OF RUN - 10/09/84TIME OF RUN - 18.08

DIVISION: G CLAIMS AND SERVICEDEPARTMENT: GB CLMS PROC

WORK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMHOURS REPORT

WEEK ENDING 10/06/84

EMPLOYEE

NUM NAME STREGTIME

TIME SPENT AT WORK

OVER TIME NOT+ TIME WORKED =

AVAILWORK

TIME NOT MEASURED

A 'AILPROD RFW UKVI OTH = IvMEAS

EARNHRS

EFF0/0

1518 EMPLOYEE A 03 37 5 0 0 23 2 14 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 30 11 6 81

4529 EMPLOYEE B 03 375 00 02 37 30 00 00 00 49 32 40 26 4 81

4669 EMPLOYEE C 03 37 5 0 0 0 2 37 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 36 90 18 1 49

5206 EMPLOYEE D 03 375 00 02 37 30 00 00 00 19 35 40 32 0 90

5210 EMPLOYEE E 03 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 000 00 0

5244 EMPLOYEE F 03 375 00 02 37 30 00 00 00 10 :5630 15 1 41

5245 EMPLOYEE G 03 375 00 02 37 40 00 00 00 24 35 00 23 4 66

524E EMPLOYEE H (i3 37.5 0 0 0 2 37 30 C 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 31 60 22 0 69

524/ EMPLOYEE I 03 375 ;) 0 02 37 30 00 00 00 00 37 30 24 7 66

5255 EMPLOYEE J 03 37 5 0 u 0 2 37 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 7 19 60 29 1 148

5256 EMPLOYEE K 03 37 5 0 0 0 9 36 60 0 C, 0 0 0 0 0 8 35 80 35 0 97

5257 EMPLOYEE L 0) 00 00 00 000 00 00 00 00 000 00 0

5258 EMPLOYEE M 03 37 5 00 36 9 0 60 00 00 00 05 0 00 00 0

5435 EMPLOYEE N 03 37 5 0 0 1' 2 22 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 20 50 12 9 62

SECTION TOTALS 450 0 0 0 77 7 372 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 2 335 10 250 3 74

COST CENTER TOTALS 450 0 0 0 77 7 372 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 2 335 10 250 3 74

PERSONNEL EMPLOYED 14

EQUIVALENT PERSONNEL AVAILABLE FOR WORK 99

SOURCE Adapted from James S Hogg Manag.r Profess.onal Productivty Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Maryland

54


set time for performing a task if everyone isfree to do it in a different way. Some ways arebetter than others, whether faster, less fatig-uing, or more reliable. Experts in productivityand work measurement usually counsel thatemployees should be included in the processof changing procedures and establishing stand-ards. TThhey argue that employee involvementnot only short-circuits resentment to stand-ards that are imposed from outside, but usu-ally leads to the creation of better proceduresand fairer standards, since employees under-stand the work that needs to be done betterthan anyone, including their managers.

An example of employee involvement instandards development is the case of legal caseanalysts at an insurance firm." These highlyskilled workers handle correspondence and trackthe progress of legal cases on a computer-basedlegal diary system (LDS). Although the LDSsoftware created some internal statistics onthe transactions done, they had not been pre-viously used for individual evaluation becauseno standards had been developed for the caseanalyst's work. The work-measurement spe-cialist assigned to develop standards found thework very complex and also saw that the le-gal diary software was very flexible, allowinganalysts to use several different procedures forcertain tasks. Instead of trying to prescribeprocedures and standards, the work-measurement specialist held a series of 24 tv, o-hourseminars in which the analysts talked abouttheir work. They discussed different tasks,compared their approaches, and decided amongthemselves the simplest and most effectiveprocedures for each task. They also helped toset the standard times for the tasks. Interest-ingly, the productivity of this department, interms of dollars recovered through legal ac-tions, began to increase before the final workmeasurement program was in place, presum-ably because the case analysts voluntarily be-gan using the improved procedures as soon asthey were developed in the sem;!...rs.

"James Hogg, "The Results of Technical and ProfessionalMeasurement in Insurance," in Proceedings, 1988 AOC UsersConference, May 15-18, 1988, Robert E. Nolan Co.; also, per-sonal communication, May 29, 1988.

56

Within many organizations, introduction ofwork measurement and the process of settingstandards can become a hotly contested labor-management issue and a major source of em-ployee discontent. Where employees are notinvolved in standard setting, they may viewa new standard as an unfair "speed up," anattempt by management to make them workharder for the same pay. Similarly, work sim-plification or procedural changes that are im-posed from outside can be viewed as remov-ing variety and autonomy from the job, andmaking it less interesting and more me-chanical.

For example, the changes in work standards,evaluation, and pay that accompanied workmonitoring for claims examiners prompted aunionization drive at Equitable Life Assu.ante. With the introduction of the measure-ment system, pay was changed from a straightsalary to an incentive program that was basedon performance. Examiners complained thatthey had to work much faster in order to makethe equivalent of their old salaries. A few ac-cepted transfers to lower paying jobs becausethey could not keep up the pace. The contractbetween Equitable and District 925 of TheService Employees International Union(SE IU), addresses some of the issues discussedin the section on "What Is Fair." Under thecontract, employees now have access to theirown performance records and a procedure forchallenging records. Evaluations are based 80percent on computer-based statistics and 20percent on supervisors' judgments. In addi-tion, the contract changed several other work-ing conditions, such as leave policy, that hadbeen a subject of dispute.

When electronic monitoring allows a com-plete record of each worker's performance, itbecomes easier to pay workers based on theiroutput. Some call this a revival of the "piece-rate" system and decry it as a form of workerexploitation. Often, however, performance doesnot translate into pay directly on a per-piecebasis. For example, "incentive" plans pay abase rate for acceptable performance and bo-nuses for higher levels of performance.


Incentive programs appear to be fairly com-mon in data entry, where there is a wide rangeof performance." Operators who are very fastcan increase their income by 50 percent or moreabove the base rate, depending on how the in-centive plan is structured. In some firms wherestandards are based on a predetermined-timemethod (i.e., so many keystrokes equal onestandard hour of work), slower keyers can makebonuses if they are willing to work for a longertime. This also raises fairness questions andworker protection questions, for example, shouldemployees feel pressure to skip lunch or breaksin order to improve their performance?

Incentive programs have also been used byemployers to increase the performance of agroup of employees. In one bank, for example,industrial engineers studied the work of check-proof reading operators and found that theengineered standard was far above the currentlevel of achievement of the department. Ratherthan insist that operators begin to work to thenew standard, management began to pay regu-lar wages to those who met the old averageand bonuses to all whose work approached thenew standard. As departmental proficiency in-creases, the management expects to raise thestandard and adjust the bonus structure to en-courage even faster performance."

The practice of "rate busting" or increasingperformance standards over time is the basisfor many objections to monitoring. Ever-increas-ing standards do not have to be related to in-centive pay. Standards can rise due to newtechnology, revised productivity goals, or forother reasons that lead management to expectbetter performance from employees. In thewell-publicized case of one data-entry centeroperated by the Internal Revenue Service, em-ployees and their union were complaining aboutthe stress resulting from the increased paceof work. In this instance, workers were sea-sonal, and were invited back to work again each

"Data Entry Management Association, "Sixth AnnualMember Statistical-Compensation Survey," DEMA Newslet-ter, April 1985. The average rate for U.S. operators is 11,400keystrokes per hour, but the fastest operators can do around25,000.

"Interview with Work Measurement Manager of a southernbank.

year based on their previous year's perform-ance. Since the number of available jobs haddeclined, only above-average keyers were in-vited back. However, performance standardswere also raised yearly, presumably to dealwith the workload. Thus, each keyer was re-quired to make an increasingly greater effortto remain "above average."" An annual in-crease in standards has also been a cause ofcomplaint among key entry operators in DadeCounty, Florida."

Complaints about job stress in the U.S.Postal Service, which receiveda great deal ofpublicity in 1984 and 1985, were directed pri-marily at fast pace and high work standardsrather than at automated equipment or thepresence of monitoring per se." Industrialengineers have noted since the beginning ofthe century that there is a limit to how mucha pace can be increased, even if incentives areoffered. Beyond a certain point the employees,either individually or as a group, will not per-form any faster on a regular basis, no matterwhat the inducement. Tolerance for perceivedunfair standards may depend on many factors,including the availability of other jobs. Onecase example noted that at three Internal Rev-enue Service Centers (where standards havebeen increased over the years), the turnoverrates for key entry operators are very high;presumably workers left due to the heavyworkload and fast pace required. However, theWilkes Barre Service Center, located in an areaof high unemployment, has a low turnover rate,but a high incidence of absenteeism."

Quality of Work

One problem with computerized work mon-itoring is that it focuses mainly on quantityor speed of work. Although a well-designedwork standard should allow workers time todo a good job, some standards require such

"Alan Westin, "Privacy and Quality of Work Life Issues inEmployee Monitoring," contractor report prepared for OTA,1986; also John Harris, American Federation of GovernmentEmployees, personal communication, February 1986.

""AFL-CIO Case Examples," November 1987."For example, Peter Pert, "Monitoring by ComputerSparks

Employee Concerns," Washin,Von Post, Sept. 2, 1984.""AFL-CIO Case Examples," November 1987.


a fast pace that workers feel quality must besacrificed, or that the pressure to maintainboth speed and quality leads to excessivestress. In a number of cases, for example, tele-phone operators have objected that the pres-sure to complete calls within the standard timeprevents them from giving courteous, high-quality service. Some customers agree. On theother hand, because most operators are alsosubject to service observation (i.e., a supervi-sor sometimes listens in on calls to check foradherence to company procedures), they some-times feel stressed because of the conflict be-tween quantity and quality imperatives."

In one mail order firm employee moraledropped and turnover rose to 80 percent aftermonitoring was introduced for VDT operators."Everything was numbers," one executiverecalled, with "no attention to the downtimeand slow-response-time problems of the newsystem, or the changes in volumes operatorsfaced during peak periods, or of the differentlength and complexity of customer orders."In addition, the pressure operators felt to speedup their work led to mistakes and improperlyfilled orders. This productivity system wasscrapped after several years of operation, andreplaced with a new approach that still collectsindividual operator statistics, but has stand-ards geared to actual system operations andload cycles. In addition, as part of an overall"Quality First" campaign in this firm, the newperformance standards stress "order quality"over "sheer numbers." Several dozen long-termemployees interviewed for OTA said that thefirst productivity system was a "very badtime" at the company, but that the new ap-proach is "fair to both company and employ-ees," and they have no trouble in meeting boththe quantity and quality standards."

Quality evaluation often requires inspectionby a human supervisor, but even here computertechnology can be of assistance. Some officesystems allow the supervisor to view on hisor her screen whatever transactions are tak-

""AFL-CIO Cue Examples," November 1987."Alan Westin, "Privacy and Quality of Work Life Issues in

Employee Monitoring," contractor report prepared for OTA,1988, p. 72.

ing place on an employee's screen. Thus su-pervisors can view transactions as they aretaking place to check them for correctness.Computerized letter-sorting equipment usedby the U.S. Postal Service has similar capa-bility, so supervisors can periodically checkeach worker to be sure he or she is keying inproper zip codes.

For telephone service workers, qualitychecks are made by supervisors who listen inon calls to check that employees are courte-ous, are using proper procedures, and are giv-ing correct information. Correct informationis of interest to many firms whose representa-tives deal with the public, because employersmay be held liable for information their em-ployees give out over the telephone or for ac-tions taken as a result of telephone conversa-tions. In some cities "911" emergency calls orutility company "trouble" calls are recordedso that there will be a record of time, address,or other information for possible future use.

In some o.-ganizations employees know whentheir supervisor is listening, either becausethere is a drop in volume or because a beep toneis heard. In other cases, the monitoring equip-ment is completely silent. One organizationwas so concerned that employees not knowwhen the supervisor was listening that super-visors were required to wear their headsets allday so that employees would not be able toguess whether they were listening or attend-ing to other duties.

In some firms quality assurance is consid-ered such an important function that a sepa-rate department handles it. At American Ex-press, for example, customer service supervisorslisten in on calls on an regular basis and ratethe quality based on established criteria. Inaddition, a separate quality assurance workerlistens in on calls of employees in any unit. Re-sults are always discussed with the employeewithin a short time after the call.

Some workers object to service observationprecisely because it is not necessarily objec-tive. Some firms, in fact, do not have firmlyestablished criteria for how often to listen orhow to rate quality. At one government agency

58


there were even stories of service observationbeing used punitivelyi.e., a supervisor lis-tened to certain workers almost constantly, inorder to accumulate enough mistakes to dis-cipline them. This would clearly seem to be anabuse of service observation.

Service observation also invokes feelings ofinvasion of privacy, even though the conver-sation involved is not really a private one. Oneoperator interviewed for OTA said, "Whenthey are listening to me, I'm very upset be-cause you can't stop it."" The privacy aspectapplies more clearly to the customer's side ofthe conversation. Some people may object tothird parties overhearing their conversations.Two States, West Virginia and California, at-tempted to legislate restrictions on service ob-servation. The West Virginia law required abeep tone when the supervisor is on the lineas well as a published notice to customers thatcalls might be observed. This law was passedin 1983 but repealed in 1986. A similar law waspassed in the California legislature but was ve-toed by the Governor.

In the case of West Virginia there is evidencethat both operator productivity and customersatisfaction remained high during the periodwhen "secret" service observation was not per-mitted." However, several employers, par-ticularly AT&T objected to the legislation.AT&T's threat to build its new credit manage-ment center in another State was instrumen-tal in the repeal of the West Virginia monitor-ing law."

Job Design and Work Process

As discussed in greater detail in OTA 's re-port Automation of America's Offices, new in-formation technologies sometimes offer firmsmore flexibility in the way office work is de-

M-4-7chael J. Smith, Pascale Carayon, and Kathleen Miegio,"Motivational, Behavioral, and Psychological Implications ofElectronic Monitoring of Worker Performance," contract re-port prepared for OTA, July 1986.

""Resulta Summary, Key Service Indicators," C&P Tele-phone Co. of West Virginia as of Sept. 11, 1986, supplied toOTA by Communications Workers' of America.

"Teetimony of John D. Landers, AT&T, before the Judici-ary Committee, West Virginia House of Representatives, Feb.12, 1986.

signed. While many firms use computers tocontinue or intensify the assembly line work-ing conditions of the industrial style of workorganization, some others have experimentedwith new forms of organization that reinvestthe jobs of individual workers or teams withmore variety and responsibility."

Some of these experimental organizationsmake use of what is called a semi-autonomouswork groupa team of workers who are re-sponsible for not only doing the work, but man-aging some aspects of their own work as well.In these cases, work monitoring data may stillbe collected, but is used by the work group asa tool for assessing its own progress.

One well-publicized example is the HOBIS(Hotel Billing Information System) office atTempe, Arizona, in an experiment worked outjointly by AT&T and the CommunicationsWorkers of America (CWA) in 1982." Thisoffice of 100 operators was rsaganized accord-;ng to the autonomous work group principle.It had no first-line supervisors and only onesecond-line supervisor in the role of advisor.Operators assumed the responsibility of super-visors, rotating through administrative duties.

The employees changed the traditional workmonitoring practices. They eliminated individ-ual measurement and remote secret serviceobservation. Average work time (AWT) wasmeasured only for the whole group. Service ob-servation was performed by small groups ofpeers by the old-fashioned "jack-in" method,where the observer sits beside the person be-ing monitored, listens to a few calls and thendiscusses the results with the employee.

It was generally agreed by CWA and AT&Tthat the Tempe experiment was a success: to-tal office AWT was equal to or better than thatof traditionally supervised HOBIS offices;

S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Automa-tion of America's Offices, OTA -CI T -287 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, December 1985), ch. 4.

"This description is based on Ronnie Straw and GregoryNichlas, "Office Automation and Autonomy A Comparison ofChoices," Communications Workers of America, 1985; AlanWestin, "Privacy and Quality of Work Life Issues in EmployeeMonitoring," contractor report prepared for OTA, 1986; ThomasTaylor, Mountain Bell Telephone, telephone interview, Apr. 16,1986.

53


there were fewer customer complaints; the em-ployee grievance rate was lower and absentee-ism was lower. In addition, there were consid-erable savings in management salaries, andsome of the money was spent on training foremployees. The 'Tempe office was closedshortly after the AT&T divestiture for reasonscompletely unrelated to the experiment. Otherjoint labor-management experiments in alter-native methods of work organization are be-ing sponsored by CWA, AT&T, and some ofthe local telephone companies. For example,further experiments with semi-autonomouswork groups are being carried out amongAT&T operator groups in Columbus, Ohio, andsouth-central Florida°

In a financial services firm interviewed byOTA, autonomous work groups were also con-sidered successful. Workers were taken out of"functional" areas and organized into teamsservicing the needs of certain large clients orclient groups. Employees "cross-trained" oneanother in different jobs so that each could doa variety of work and understand the wholeprocess. The group met together to establishproductivity goals. Although this firm main-tained a more traditional management struc-ture within each group and still applied indi-vidual measurement to some jobs, officials andemployees believed that the reorganization,teamwork, and greater diversity of work greatlyimproved both productivity and quality ofworking life."

Supervision and Evaluation

A few researchers have attempted to com-pare how perceptions of closeness of supervi-sion, emphasis on performance measures, andjob satisfaction differ in monitored and non-monitored workers. This is a difficult t ask be-cause so many other cultural, i ob design, andenvironmental factors can overshadow the ef-fect of electronic monitoring.

"Communications Workers of America and AT&T Commu-nications, The Emergence of Second Generation Quality of WorkLife Models in AT&T Caamunications: A Pilot Study, Febru-ary 1986.

'IOTA interviews, November 1985.

One researcher who studied data-entry oper-ators, claims processors, and data collectors(telephone interviewers and collection agents)and their supervisors, found no significant pat-tern of differences between the monitored andnonmonitored sites.' The differences she didnotice were between unionized and non-union-ized locations. The workers in unionized loca-tions were better informed about VDT healthissues and more willing to ask questions andstate opinions during informal workshops heldafter their survey forms were complete. Shefound, however, their concerns encompasseda variety of VDT health issues, including vi-sion problems, workstation design, and repro-ductive hazards; monitoring did not emergeas the major focus of concern.

Another study found that in both monitoredand nonmonitored sites, roughly half the work-ers (47.8 and 46.3 percent respectively) ex-pressed satisfaction with the evaluation proc-ess.° Among the monitored workers, 17.3percent were not satisfied and 34.7 percentwere neutral. Among the nonmonitored work-ers, 28 percent were not satisfied and 25 per-cent were neutral (see table 5). In reviewingthe supplementary comments made by inter-view subjects, the authors found clear differ-ences in the causes of dissatisfaction. At themonitored sites, nearly all dissatisfaction wasdirected at the electronic monitoring system;at the nonmonitored sites it was directed ata number of causes, including supervisors, lackof standards, unfair evaluations, and the like.

This study also found that workers at moni-tored sites tended to believe that their evalua-tions overemphasized quantity and under-emphasized quality, tended to see their re-wards as closely tied to their evaluations, andthought that level of supervision was too close.The majority of workers in both groups feltthey had little participation in workplace de-

"Elaine J. Eisenman, "Employee Perceptions and Supervi-sory Behaviors in Clerical VDT Work Performed on SystemsThat Allow Electronic Monitoring," prepared for EducationalFund For Individual Rights and submitted as a contract re-port to OTA, 1986.

"R.H. Irving. C.A. Higgins, and F.R. Safayeri, "Computerized Performance Monitoring Systems: Use and Abuse," Com-munications of the ACM, August 1986.

60

Ch. 2-Using Computers To Monitor Office Work 49

Table 5.-Comparison of Monitored and Nonmonitored Workers

Dimension Monitored Percent Not monitored Percent Total ChiSq (df) (p)

Satisfaction:Not satisfied 8 17 3 23 28.0 31Neutral 16 34.7 21 25 6 37Satisfied 22 47.8 38 46.3 60

Total 46 82 128 2.25 2 p= 0.3247

Emphasis on performance measures:Quantity:

Underemphasized 0 16 20.2 16Appropriate 19 38.0 45 56.2 64Overemphasized 31 62.0 19 23.7 50

Total 50 80 130 23.79 2 p =0.001

Quality:Underemphasized 22 44.0 15 20.2 37Appropriate 19 38.0 45 56.2 64Overemphasized 5 8.3 1 1.4 6

Total 50 124 15.3 2 p= 0.0005

Characteristics of feedback:Amount of feedback:

Not enough 21 42.8 41 45.0 62Enough 22 44.8 41 45.0 63Too much 6 12 4 9 9.8 15

Total 49 91 140 0.20 2 p= 0.9048

Usefulness of feedback:Not useful 8 17 0 13 14.2 21Adequate 13 27 6 20 21.9 33Useful 26 55 3 58 63.7 84

Total 47 91 138 0.93 2 p =0.6281

Importance of evaluation for rewards:Not important 2 4.3 18 22.2 20Marginal importance 3 6 5 8 9.8 11

Important 41 89 1 55 67.9 96

Total 46 81 127 8 08 2 p= 0.0176

Closeness of supervision:Not close 16 32 6 38 41 7 54Acceptable 10 20 4 36 39 5 46Too close 23 46 9 17 18 6 40

Total 49 91 140 13.14 2 p= 0.0014

Participation in evaluation process:Low participation 30 65 2 50 62.5 80Average 8 17 3 11 13.7 19High participation .... .. 8 17 3 19 23.7 27

Total 46 80 126 084 2 p= 0.6570SOURCE R H Irving, C H HiggItiS, and F R Safayeni, "Computerized Performance Monitorng Systems Use and Abuse," Communications of the ACM, August 1986, 0 796

cisions. This study found little evidence thatworkers opposed computer monitoring in prin-ciple; their chief problems were not with thetechnology itself but with the way it was usedby management.

Personal ,omputer Monitoring

Most electronically monitored work is per-formed on workstations attached to main-

frames or minicomputers. Yet personal com-puter (PC) use is growing rapidly, especiallyamong professional and managerial workers.OTA did not find examples of production mon-itoring of workers using PCs, but there wasconsiderable interest and controversy overprivacy of an employee's PC files and the rightof employers to inspect them.

Three primary areas of employer interest inPC monitoring have already surfaced:

B A.


1. abuse of PCs (using company resourcesfor personal purposes),

2. confidentiality (security breaches), and3. violation of legal/regulatory duties in use

of client or employee data.

Of the 10 firms interviewed for OTA regarding PC monitoring, none were doing any in-spections or searches of PC-user disks or files.All of them, however, said they felt they hadthe legal right to do so, and would not hesi-tate to do so if a specific rule violation or com-promise were suspected. A typical commentby one information system director was:

We have issued a policy guide for privacyand security compliance in PC use, and havestated that the company reserves the right toinspect all PC files and materials bought bythe company and used here for our businesspurposes. But we haven't felt it wise or neces-sary to swoop down on people and demand tosee what they have on their disks.

On the other hand, representatives of all 10firms said their organizations audited trans-actions done by PCs interacting with data-bases on other computers. These were part ofthe regular, user-password-based security pro-cedures of mainframeidatabase management.The monitoring consisted of: 1) following upon any unusual use patterns indicated in regu-lar audit-trail records; or 2) ad hoc inspectionsof audit records to identify use levels and pat-terns. End users are informed (in all the orga-nizations) that such auditing is conducted.

As for assuring end-user compliance with le-gal and regulatory rules governing an organi-zation's handling of client or employee personaldata, 4 of the 10 organizations reported theyhad issued written policies to PC end-usersrestating such requirements (e.g., Fair CreditReporting Act; State employee access to per-sonnel records laws; confidentiality of medi-cal information laws; etc.). However, none ofthe 10 firms reported having done surprise orannounced inspections of disks or other desk-held file materials. Interviews with officials ofthe Inspector General's office of General Serv-ices Administration (GSA) indicate that inspec-

tors from GSA and other agencies' InspectorGenerals have inspected PC disks of govern-ment employees. These audits have been doneboth to determine that computers are beingused for official purposes and to ensure thatconfidential information is being properly usedand properly protected."

Monitoring and Stress*One area in which electronic monitoring may

have far-reaching implications is in the areaof health effects. A number of authors havenoted the likelihood of a link between electronicmonitoring and physical and psychologicalstress. Many of the published stories of oppres-sive, heavily monitored workplaces cite theoverwhelming fear, anxiety, hatred, and lossof self-image that workers suffer. Manyauthors have stated that there must be a linkbetween monitoring, stress and health prob-lems, absenteeism, and lowered produc-tivity."

Stress is now recognized as a major occupa-tional health problem. Stress-related symp-toms have been estimated to cost U.S. indus-try $50 to $75 billion per year in absenteeism,company medical expenses, and lost time.47Statistics indicate that claims for worker com-pensation, based on disability due to gradualaccumulation of stress, have been growing rap-idly during the 1980s." For workers under

"Interview with Don Sheridan, Office of Inspector General,General Services Administration, Dec. 16, 1986.

"This section draws heavily from Michael J. Smith, PascaleCarayon, and Kathleen Miezio, "Motivational, Behavioral, andPsychological Implications of Electronic Monitoring of WorkerPerformance," contractor report prepared for OTA, 1986.

'See, for example, Tim Healy and Peter Marshall, "BigBusiness is Watching You," In These Times, Feb. 26-Mar. I I,1986; Arlene Hershman, "Corporate Big Brother is WatchingYou," Dun's Business Month, January 1984; Robert Howard,Brave New Workplace (New York, NY: Elizabeth Sifton Books-

1985); Peter Perl, "Monitoring by Computers SparksEmployee Concerns," The Wiehington Poet, Sept 2,1984; PeterPerl, "Watching the Workplace: High Tech Methods BoostProductivity, But at a Cost," The Washington Poet, Sept. 3,1984.

'Robert Arndt and Larry Chapman, "Potential Office Haz-zards and Control," September 1984, report prepared for OTAproject on Preventing Illness and Injury in the Workplace, p. 30.

'National Council on Compensation Insurance, "EmotionalStress in the WorkplaceNew Legal Rights in the Eighties,"1985.


age 40, claims related to stress exceeded claimsrelated to other occupational disease in 1985."These claims are from workers of all kinds, in-cluding managers and supervisors, who are lesslikely than other workers to file claims forphysical injuries. To the extent that electronicmonitoring is associated with stress, then itmust be viewed as contributing to an impor-tant health hazard.

According to the view most frequently citedin the literature, the presence of stress can beinferred in an individual from a very general-ized physiological response pattern.50 Symp-toms include increases in adrenaline secretion.the dumping of sugar into the bloodstream,and other related physiological processes.These symptoms can be provoked by a vari-ety of environmental agents and situations,such as drugs, fear, and job ambiguity. Whilethere is nothing wrong with physiologicalarousal per se, it can, if chronic, produce seri-ous degenerative effects due to wear and tearon the body. Thus, stress provides a basis forthe development of various illnesses called"diseases of adaptation," since they are nota direct function of the agent or situation thatelicited the response pattern, but a conse-quence of the body's adaptive reaction.

A 1982 journal article suggests that job fac-tors can create stress and lead to chronic dis-orders." The author states that individualsmay perceive the demands imposed by theenvironment as either stressful or not stress-ful, depending on factors such as prior experi-ence, current emotional status, health status,and genetically predisposing features. If de-mands are perceived to be stressful, then acutebiological and emotional responses occur,which, if they continue to occur with some con-sistency over a prolonged period of time, caneventually lead to disease. Various interven-ing factors, which determine the potential fordisease to develop, include individual coping

"Ibid."Hans Selye, The Stress of Life (New York, NY: McGraw-

Hill, 1956).51L. Levi, "Methodology Considerations in Psychoendocrine

Research," Acta Medics Scandinavia, 1982, 191, Supplement528, pp. 28-54.

style, genetic predisposition to disease, andemotional support from others.

Although there has been some research onthe health effects of office automation, therehas been little research attempting to draw adirect link between electronic monitoring andstress. There are theoretical grounds forpostulating a link between monitoring andstress, and the few studies that have been donesuggest that monitoring may be stressful. Un-fortunately, none of these studies have success-fully separated the effects of computer-basedmonitoring from the combined effects of otherstressors.

Although there is no clear scientific valida-tion of a link between electronic monitoringand stress, several surveys have found higherincidence of stress among people in monitoredjobs. One survey that attempted to lookdirectly at stress and health outcomes of workmonitoring was the 1984 National Survey onWomen and Stress, conducted by the 9 to 5National Association of Working Women. Asnoted above, this survey includes one questiondirectly related to monitoring: "Is your workmeasured, monitored, 'constantly watched' or'controlled' by machine or computer system?"When the health problems experienced bywomen who answered "yes" to this questionare compared to those of all respondents, asshown in table 6, they show a consistentlyhigher experience of stress-related illnesses.Respondents whose work was subject to com-puterized monitoring were also more likely torate their jobs as "very stressful." Forty ninepercent of them rated their jobs as very stress-ful, compared to 33 percent of all respondents.Seventy-four percent of the monitored work-ers reported strain, stress, or pressure "oftenor always" in the previous month, comparedwith an overall rate of 63.5 percent for all re-spondents."

A related question in the 9 to 5 survey askedabout production quotas. Almost half (47.4 per-cent) of the women working under production

529 to 5 National Association of Working Women, "The 9 to5 National Survey on Women and StressOffice Automation:Addendum," 1984, pp. 4-5.

Table 6.Rates of Frequent Health Problems Related to Computerized Monitoring of Work Performance

Respondents answering the question' Is your work measured, monitored, constantly watched, or controlled by machine or comouter system?"_ .

Health problems experienced two to three times per week or more/daily

Yes (358 of all respondents)No (1,705 responses)

Rate for all respondents .

Chi square probability ratio ..

Nausea, Exhaustion, Digestive Chest Anxiety, MedicalHeada ies dizziness fatigue problems pain nerves Anger Depression problems

31 0% 9 83% 49 40% 2590/o 9.75% 4034% 39.20% 32 2% 40.5%24 7 554 38 33 17 8 5 40 31 15 28 44 20 0 32 024 2 6 '0 39 70 19 0 560 31.90 28 50 20 8 31.60 0201 0.0033 0 0001 0 0008 0.0333 0 0001 0 0001 0 0001 0 0019

SOURCE Nine to Five National Association of Working Women The Nine to rive National Survey on Women and Stress Office Automation Addendum 1984

Table 7.Rates of Frequent Health Problems Related to Production Quotas or Productivity Standards

Respondents answering the question "How often does the following statement describe your Job? I am required to complete a certain amountof work per hour or per day, e g , a certain number of keystrokes, forms, or items to process."

Health problem two to three timesper week or more/daily

Allrespondents

Never(3,135)

Sometimes(761)

Often(334)

Always(443)

If ever(1,531)

Eyestrain . . 20.2% 178% 23 3% 234% 274% 250%Headaches. . 24 0 22 3 25 3 28 0 28 7 27 14Nausea/dizziness 62 56 65 76 89 74Insomnia 176 154 21 5 20 9 24 2 22 1Muscle pain. 38 6 35 5 42 6 45 2 49 3 43.2Exhaustion/fatigue 39 7 35 7 44 4 47 6 56 0 48 4Digestive problems 188 16 7 20 8 22 8 26 8 23 0Chest pain . 57 44 70 78 109 83Nerves, tension, anxiety 31 2 28 0 34 3 39 1 41 8 37 7Anger/irritability 27 4 24 7 30 3 32 5 37 6 32 9Depression . 20 0 16 7 24 3 29 3 28 7 26 6Medical problems 31 6 29 9 34 7 34 4 36 3 35 1Lost work time 20 9 193 23 4 24 1 25 4 24 1Base is an currently employed respondents

SOURCE Nine to Five National Association of Working Women

0 1

The Nine to Five National Survey on Women and Stress Office Automation Addendu n 1984

16

G 2Using Computers To Monitor Office Work 53

standards reported that their work was meas-ured or monitored by a computer. For theothers, work is presumably counted by super-visors or by the workers themselves. Womenworking under production standards weremore likely to rate their jobs as very stressful(48.1 percent if always under standards, 41 per-cent if often, 29.2 percent if never). Their ex-perience of stress-related illness, as shown intable 7, was higher than the experience of allrespondents."

These results are consistent with other re-search suggesting that monitoring inducespressure to perform. Some managers may feelthat this is a desirable effect, since it implieshigh production. But occupational stress re-search indicates that excessive work pressureis not conducive to good long-term perform-ance and brings about adverse health conse-quences!' In fact, there are a range of stress-ful working conditions that may be related toelectronic monitoring of employee perform-ance. These include heavy workload, especiallyof repetitive or machine-paced tasks; routinizedwork activities; lack of control over timing,speed, and variety of tasks; and social isola-tion, including lack of peer social support, re-duced supervisory support, and fear of job loss.

There are many potential causes of stressin the workplace, and it is not clear from workercompensation claims that work monitoring isa dominant one. However, a review of mentalstress worker compensation claims from the

"Ibid.I4C.L. Cooper and J. Marshall, "Occupational Sources of

Stress: A Review of the Literature Relating to CoronaryHeartDisease and Mental Ill Health," Journal of Occupational Pay.chology 49, 1976, pp. 11-28.

State of Oregon shows that a little under one-fifth of the total claims were made by peoplein occupations where monitoring is common.Worker compensation records do not releasethe detailed cause of injury or the detailed jobdescription of the claimant, so it is impossibleto determine if electronic monitoring was ac-tually a factor. Of the 542 cases listed, about102 (18.8 percent) were in occupations whereelectronic monitoring is fairly common. Theseoccupations include clerks (of various kinds),insurance adjustors, bank tellers, telephoneoperators, dispatchers, and retail sales work-ers. The rate of acceptance and denial of claimsis shown in table 8. The acceptance rate forpotentially monitored office occupations wasroughly the same as for all jobs, 34.2 and 35.2percent respectively.

Other studies have found a high incidenceof stress-related illness among workers mostMaly to experience electronic monitoring, eventhough monitoring itself was not examined asa variable. For example, a study by the Na-tional Institute of Occupational Safety andHealth found that secretaries had the second-highest incidence of stress-related illnessamong 22,00C workers. The Framingham heartstudy, released in 1985, found that women cler-ical workers develop coronary heart disease atnearly twice the rate of other women work-ers." Researchers have commented that thestress-provoking factors in these jobs are rapidwork pacing, including machine pacing, monot-onous or repetitive work, and lack of discre-tionary control.

55Working Women Education Fund, "Health Hazards for Of-fice Workers," April 1981.

Table 8.Review of Oregon Worker Compensation Claims Involving Mental StressJanuary 1985 Through September 1988

OccupationsNumber of

claims AcceptedPercent

accepted DeniedAll occupations 542 191 35.2 351

Possibly monftored occupations:Office' (percent of total 13.4) 73 25 34.2 48Retail sales (percent of total 5.3) 29 11 37.9 18

&Occupations, In order of demising frequency, are. clerk (39), insurance adjustor (10), dispatcher (9), administrative support(5), computer operator (4), data army (2), bank teller (2), telephone operator (2)

SOURCE Oregon Worker's Compensation Department, Research and Statistics Section, "Accepted and Denied Claims In.volving Mental Stress, Ore900. 11.54188."

s 6


Time pressure, such as having to meet dead-lines, is another significant factor in stress.Studies have shown increases in stress levelas difficult deadlines draw near." The experi-ence of deadline pressure on a constant basis,as might be the case in a fast-paced monitoredjob, may be more damaging than deadline pres-sure experienced on an occasional basis.

Two organizational. 'actors have been shownto be of special significance for increased jobstress and decreased worker health. These are:1) job involvement or participation; and 2) or-ganizationa: support, as reflected by supervi-sory style, support from managers, and chancesfor career development. Lack of participationin work activities has been demonstrated toresult in increases in negative psychologicalmoods." In terms of organizational support,it has been shown that close supervision anda supervisory style characterized by constantnegative performance feedback are related tohigh levels of stress and poorer worker health."The implication of these findings is that ex-cessive, impersonal electronic monitoring ofemployee performance that produces close su-pervision and constant negative performancefeedback could promote worker stress.

It has also been demonstrated that workers'feelings of lack of involvement are related tostress and that prolonged stress can be relatedto health complaints." Electronic monitoring

"M. Friedman, R.H. Rosenman, and V. Carroll, "Changes inthe Serum Cholesterol and Blood Clotting Time in Men Sub-jected to Cyclic Variation of Occupational Stress," Circulation,1958, pp. 852-861.

"B. Margolis, W.M. Kroes, and R. Quinn, "Job Stress: AnUnlisted Occupational Hazard," Journal of Occupational Medi-dne 18,1974, pp. 854-661. R.D. Caplan, S. Cobb, J.R.P. French,R.V. Harrison, and S.R. Pinneau, Job Demands and WorkerHealth (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,1975). M.J. Smith, B.G. Cohen, and L.W. Stammerjohn, "AnInvestigation of Health Complaints and Job Stress in VideoDisplay Operations," Human Factors 23, 1981, pp. 387-400.

"R.D. Caplan, S. Cobb, J.R.P. French, R.V. Harrison, andS.R. Pinneau,Job Demands and Worker Health (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975). M.J. Smith, B.G.Cohen, and L.W. Stammerjohn, "An Investigation of HealthComplaints and Job Stress in Video Display Operations," Hu-man Factors 23, 1981, pp. 387-400.

"World Health Organization, Psychosocial Factors andHealth: Monitoring the Psychosodal Work Environment andWorkers' Health (Geneva: 1984). J. Rutenfranz, W. Colquhoun,P. Knauth, and J. Ghats, "Biomedial and Psychoeocial Aspectsof Shiftwork,' ' Scandinanvian Journal of Work Environment

has a propensity for reducing worker feelingsof job involvement and may in this way in-crease worker distress. The chances to partici-pate and be involved in the job process maybe diminished in work systems that are drivenby employee performance monitoring.

Reduced coworker support can also contrib-ute to stress. Monitored workers in severalstudies, and those interviewed by OTA statedthat, due to their production standards andthe electronic monitoring system, they had noopportunity to interact with coworkers 80

One study of work monitoring in the tele-communication industry suggests that the pos-sible connection between monitoring and job-related stress is through the changed struc-ture of the work. In this study, no direct cor-relation was found between electronic moni-toring and stress-related illness. However, acorrelation was found between monitoring andlow job control which hrs been found, in otherstudies, to be associated with stress-relatedillness. The conclusion reached by the research-ers is that when jobs are redesigned to facili-tate computerized monitoring of work perform-ance, they are also reshaped in ways thatincrease the degree to which managementdirects both the pace and the method of work.

and Health 3, 1977, pp. 165-182. R.A. Karasek, Jr., "Job Deci-sion Latidute, Job Design, and Coronary Heart Disease," inG. Salvendy and M.J. Smith (eds.), Machine Pacing and Oc-cupational Stress (London: Taylor & Francis, 1981), pp. 45-56.R.D. Caplan, S. Cobb, J.R.P. French; R.V. Harrison, and S.R.Pinneau,Job Demands and Worker Health (Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975). M.J. Smith, B.G. Co-hen, and L.W. Stammerjohn, "An Investigation of Health Com-plaints and Job Stress in Video Display Operations," HumanFactors 23,1981, pp. 3f.17-400. B. Gardell, "Technology Aliena-tion and Mental Health," Acta Sociologica 19, 1976, pp. 83-94.B. Margolis, W.M. Kroes, and R. Quinn, "Job Stress: An Un-listed Occupational Hazard," op. cit. S.G. Haynes and M. Fein-leib, "Women, Work and Coronary Heart Disease: ProspectiveFindings From the Framingham Heart Study," American Jour-nal of Public Health 70, 1980, pp. 133-141. M.J. Colligan, J.J.Smith, and J.J. Hurrell, "Occupational Incidents Rates of Men-tal Health Disorders," Journal of Human Stress 3, 1977, pp.34-39.

"For example see R.H. Irving, C.A. Higgins, and F.R.Safayeri, "Computerized Performance Monitoring Systeme: Useand Abuse," Communications of the ACM, August 1986. In-terviews in Michael J. Smith, Pascale Carayon, and KathleenMiegio, "Motivational, Behavioral and Psychological Implica-tions of Electronic Monitoring of Worker Performance" con-tract report prepared for OTA, July 1986.

67


This lack of personal control, in turn, placesworkers at significantly greater risk of illhealth."

Computer Pacing and Stress

Machine pacing is different from computermonitoring. The work of a directory assistanceoperator offers an example of a "low controljob," one that is both paced and monitored bycomputer. A compt.: m-controlled distributionsystem passes a call to an operator. He or shegreets the customer, hears the name to belooked up, and keys it into a cuiliputer termi-nal. Once the proper information appears onthe screen, the operator presses a key to re-lease the call. A voice synthesizer actuallyreads the telephone number to the customer.Once the cell is released, the distribution sys-tem presents another call U., the operator.

The job is monitored, L. that records are kepton the operator's performance within eachcallthe time to respond to the call, locate theproper information, and release the call (sum-marized as average work time or AWT). Inaddition, the job is also machine paced in thatthe cycle time betweer. ..alls is controlled bythe computer, not by the operator. Work pres-sure increases if that cycle time is very short.

It s been roted that new technology hasturned the job of directory assistance opera-tor into a literally thankless task. Not only isthe pace hectic, but because the operator re-leases the call before the customer receives theneet:ed information, the operator never hearscustomers say "thank you." Job design fac-tors, along with the fast pace, probably greatlycontribute to stress in this job.

Machine pacing has been implicated as a sig-nificant factor in ill-health among factory work-ers. Computerswhich c-n operate at highspeeds on a continuous basis--have increasedthe pacing impact c office workers. Recentresearch suggests that pacing produced bycomputer-driven video display systems may

"Steven P. Valles and William V. Calabro, "OccupationalC ditions and Worker Health in the Communications Indus-try," New York Institute of Technology, Human i"esources De-velopment Center, no date.

have an even greater stress effect than tradi-tional factory pacing."

Feedback and Motivation"

Perhaps the best use of information aboutan employee's performance is to give it backto the employee. One advantage that electronicmeasurement can offer to workers is accurateand timely information about their own per-formance. Studies of feedback, whether relatedto simple sensory feedback or to higher levelsof feedback related to knowledge of results, allindicate that ,eople want to know about theirperformance and will seek out such knowledgewhen it is absent."

Immediate sensory feedback helps employ-ees to exert better control over skilled actionsand to correct errors." For example, the feelof the keyboard and the display of the charac-ters on the video screen help a data entry orword processing operator to know that datais being 1, ...Jed properly. This type of feedbackis continuous throughout the task.

A higher level of feedback, knowledge of re-sults, occurs when a task is completed andevaluated against some external standard, andthe results are fed back to the employee; "Youhave produced 10 percent over the rraductiongoal today," or "Your output had 2 percenterrors.- This kind of feedback provides direc-tion to the worker about future output.

Feedback about one's own activities can be

"M.J. Smit'u, B.G. Cohen, and L.W. Stammerjohn, "An Investigation of Health Complaints and Job Stress in Video Dis-play ^aerations," Human Factors 23. 1981, pp. 387-400. A.Caki. .4. Reuter, L. Von Schmude, and A Armbruster, Inves-qgations f the Accommodations of Human Psychic and Phys-ical Pune:one to Data Display Screens in the Workplace (Ber-lin: Institute fur ArbeitswissensAtrft der TechnicianUniversitat Berlin, 1978).

63This sec on draws heavily from Michael J. Smith, PascaleCarayon, tu. Kathleen Miegio, "Motivational, Behavioral andPsychological Implications of Electronic Monitoring of WorkerPerformance" contract report prepared for OTA, ;July 1988.

S.J. Ashford and L.L. Cummings, "Feedback as an Indi-vidual Resource: Personal Strategies of Creating Information,"Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 32, 1983, pp.370-398.

K.U. Smith and M.R. Smith, Cybernetics Principles of.,earning and Education Design (New York, NY: Holt, Rine-hart & Wi iston, 1966).

Cj

56 The Emcfronic Supervisor. New Technology, New Tensions

a very powerful motivator and has been foundto have a strong influence on productivity, andin some cases on job satisfaction as well. Peo-ple like to do a good job, but without informa-tion they often don't know whether they aredoing one or not.

Because computer technology is adept atgathering and correlating information, it canbe very useful in giving timely feedback toworkers in a useful form. For example, officesystems can be designed to give performanceinformation to workers as well as to supervi-sors. In some firms, for example, customerservice representatives can get private accessto their own recent performance by keying theproper code into their workstations." Any in-formation that is available to their supervisoris available to the individual workers, as wellas comparisons with the gro average andthe standards.

A recent study reviewed lase historiesand found that without excel.: ple per-formed better when they were ip some ob-jective, quantitative feedback about their ownperformance or output. This study did not fo-cus on electronic work measurement, butrather on both manual and electronic methodsin a variety of work settings, including banks,payroll offices, reservation offices, manufac-turing facilities, and health care facilities. Theform in which feedback was given also variedfrom one setting to another. The three meth-ods most commonly used were private individ-ual feedback, public individual feedback, andpublic group feedback. In some cases, objec-tive feedback was combined with other inter-ventions such as praise, public recognition, oradditional training; but positive results werealso noted where feedback alone wasprovi ded.67

Feedback may serve as both a motivator andan instructional device. When people receivewhat they perceive as objective feedback, theycan compare what they actually did to: 1) what

"Interviews at Americt.n Express Southern Regional Over-ations Center.

"Richard E. Kopelmsn, Managing Productivity in Organi-zations: A Practical, People-Oriented Perspective (New York,NY: McGraw Hill, 1986), pp. 163-187.

they thought they did and 2) what they areexpected to do. In some cases it may correctmisconceptions or inaccurate perceptions aboutwhat they are doing. In one example, airlinereservation clerks were provided with profilesof their verbal behaviors based on samplerecordings of their telephone conversationswith customers. One clerk commented on see-ing the feedback:

When asked previously whether I used thecw,tomer's name I would have saidandbedeved "Of course, we were trained to dothat." I was really surprised when I saw ob-*live evidence on how little I was actuallydoing it."

As a result of the feedback, use of the custom-er's name by the clerk, rose by 87.5 percent,while the clerks' interrupting of customers (ahabit the employer wished to discourage)nearly disappeared.

Feedback is an effective modifier of behaviorif it is seen as a valueci commodity by the re-cipient and if it is timely. It t Rkes on value tothe individual when it is effective (relevant, un-derstandable, accurate, useful) and when itcomes from a trusted or highly regardedsource. Although feedback need not be imme-diaie or continuous, it should be given fre-quently. The longer the delay, the less effec-tive it is in affecting performance." Anumber of the workers interviewed for OTAexpressed a desire for more frequent feedbackabout their work. They also thought that feed-back information from the electronic monitor-ing system could be better designed to helpthem gain more control of their work.

If employees perceive that rewards and/orpunishments could ensue from an evaluationof their performance, they are especially inter-ested in feedback. They want to understandthe basis of rewards and punishments, andfeedback helps to resolve feelings of ambiguityor uncertainty.

p. 176, citing Stephen A. Allen, "Aer Lingua Irish(B)" me #9-477-640 (Boston, MA: Intercollegiate Case Clearing-house, 1976), p. 7.

"N.J. Smith, B.G. Cohen, and L.W. Stammerjohn, "An In-vestigation of Health Complaints and Job Stress in Video Dis-play Operations," Human Factors 23, 1981, pp. 387.400.


At the same time, feedback of performancecan create feelings of anxiety, frustration, andlowered self-esteem. Since feedback fulfills anerror-correction function as well as a perfor-mance-appraisal function, it can indicate to em-ployees that they are not doing their job aswell as they would like to, or as well as theemployer would like them to. This can createstress, even when it resolves the stress asso-ciated with uncertainty and ambiguity. Inshort, feedback is a two-edged sword insofaras stress is concerned.

Feedback is necessary to groups as well asindividuals, and computer monitoring systemscan also give workers immediate informationabout the work environment letting them knowhow their work group is doing right now, andhow they can best contribute.

To take telephone customer service again asan example, some offices have clearly visibledisplays on the wall that show the number ofincoming telephone calls waiting to be an-swered and the age, in seconds, of the oldestcall. Such displays could be used as weaponsof callous management to keep constantpres-sure on agents of understaffed offices. How-ever, in a properly staffed office, where peaksof incoming calls occur for a few minutes ata time, a few times a day, status displays be-come tools in the hands of the work group. Peo-

pie know how to pace their work. When thedisplay shows all zeros, agents feel freer to takea little extra time with a difficult caller, to catchup on paper work, or to take a break. Whenmany calls are backed up, they can make anextra effort to finish a call quickly, or perhapsto defer a break for a few minutes rather thanabandon their colleagues in a crunch.

Team spirit and friendly competition can bepowerful motivators, and both employers andemployees can benefit if they are not abused.However, workers can also perceive employers'use of feedback and social pressure to be un-fair and manipulative. A Pacific Western Air-lines (PWA) productivity campaign drew unionprotests when company posters urged reser-vation clerks to

Compare yourself with your friends. Com-pare yourself with ones who aren't yourfriends. Are you pulling your weight at the of-fice? When the monthly statistics are pub-lished, ensure you're not dragging down yourteam and your office.

The union newsletter charged PWA with set-ting workers against each other, and called thecampaign a "new low in . . . degradation.""

"Lawrence Archer, "I Saw What You Did and I Know WhoYou Are," Canadian Business, November 1985, p. 81.

THE FUTURE OF WORK MONITORINGThe OTA report on Automation of America's

Offices pointed out some trends in the growthof computer-based office automation equip-ment that have implications for the futt re ofwork monitoring.

One trend was the inevitable movementtoward direct machine-to-machine communi-cation. Increasingly, data will be captured inmachine-readable form at the point of origin,customers will enter their own data (as withautomatic teller machines) information will berecorded using optical scanning and voice rec-ognition, and different computer systems will

talk directly to each other, thus reducing theneed to keyboard data.

Another trend was the growth in the intro-duction and use of office automation equip-ment and its rapid adoption by all sectors ofthe economy. It is estimated that by theyear1990 t 'aere will be one computer terminal forevery three workers in the United States; bythe year 2000, terminals may be as commonin offices as telephones.

Both of these trends suggest possible cha: gesin the population of workers that will be af-

7 u


fected by computer-based work-monitoringtechnology. For example, the prime exampleof the monitored job today is that of the data-entry operator, but over the next 20 yeus thegrowth rate of data-entry workers is expectedto slow or perhaps decline. Those that remainwill probably still be monitored, but they willbe a smaller proportion of the office work force.

The other trendtowards wider use of com-puter-based office equipmentsuggests thatmore jobs will be at least partly automated ordependent on the use of a computer. As a re-sult, more types of jobs will be possible candi-dates for electronic monitoring. Although thecharacteristics of monitored jobs listed at thebeginni1ig of the chapter (repetitive tasks, highvolume of work, low training requirement, hightolerance for turnover, ample labor supply) de-scribe ideal conditions for monitoring, they arenot absolutes. It is already possible to applyelectronic monitoring to some highly skilledprofessional and management positions. Some-times monitoring has not worked well in high-level positions. Employee resistance may havecaused management to back down on imple-mentation plans, or, as in the case of bank loanofficers interviewed by Westin, employees mayhave found ways to "game" the system byfeeding it false information." The costs andimportance of employee resistance can change

"Alan Westin, "Privacy and Quality of Life Issues," AlanWestin, "Privacy and Quality of Work Life Issues in EmployeeMonitoring," contractor report prepared for OTA, 1986.

7

over time, however. If at some future time man-agement determines that the benefits to begenerated from monitoring a particular job cat-egory will outweigh possible costs in higherturnover, monitoring systems are likely be in-troduced. And while professionals may be ableto defeat their current monitoring system, asystem that automatically collects correct in-formation could be designed if their employerever decides it is worth the cost.

The growing use of computer-based manage-ment information systems also means thatmore managers will be subject to closer moni-toring, simply because more of their day-to-day decisions will be revealed to superiorsthrough the computer system, rather thanwaiting for monthly or quarterly reports.

If there is a growth in computer monitoring,or a spread to other types of work, it does notnecessarily mean a devaluation of office work.Computer-based monitoring can offer advan-tages to employees, for example, improvedfeedback and better control of their own work.Professional and managerial workers may beable to use their bargaining power with em-ployers to participate in decisions about theredesign of their jobs or the implementationof work measurement and monitoring, as toassure fair use of monitoring. As with otherexamples of technology in the workplace, manynontechnological factors, including manage-ment and employee attitudes, corporate cul-ture and relative power relationships, will gov-ern how the technology is used.

Chapter 3


CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 61Managing Telephone Costs . . . . 62

Telephone Call Accounting . . . . 63How Call Accounting Works ........ . . ..... . . . . 63Call Accounting and Telephone System Management . . . 64Call Accounting and Employees' Personal Use of Telephones 65

Active Cost Control Methods 68Least-Cost Routing 68Calling Restrictions 69Authorization Codes and Levels of Service 69Timed Signals 69

Studies of Unofficial Use of Government Telephones 70The PCIE Review of FTS Utilization 71

Results of PCIE Audit 73Future Directions for Government Telephone Management 75

Need for New Policies 75Establishing a Policy on Personal Use 75Exception Reports and Personal Use 76Future Use of Call Back Audits 77Local and Suburban Calls 78Calls to Press, Union, or Public Interest Groups ..... 78Eavesdropping and Service Observation 79Other Methods of Cost Control 80

FiguresFigure No Page

9. Sample Call Detail Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6410. Sample Summary of Calls ........... . . . . . . . . 6511. Sample Exception Report . . ..... . . ..... 67

TablesTable No Page

9. Results of FTS Intercity Off-Network Call Sample by Agency . . 7310. Results of Commercial Long-Distance Call Sample by Agency . . 74

7)

Chapter 3


INTRODUCTIONThe personal use of government telephones,

ai the controversy about what to do aboutit, was in the news throughout 1985 and 1986.News stories carried headlines like: "U.S.Agencies Use High Tech To Curb Workers'Phone Use: Savings Estimated at $300,000 aYear,'" '.U.S. Phones Raise Issue of Privacy:New Equipment Would Provide DetailedRecords of Calls?* "U.S. To Use Program ToAudit Federal Employees' Calls, "" "PlannedPhone Audit Brings Blast From SeveralGroups,'" "Toll Calls Abused by U.S. Em-ployees,"` and "Lieten Up GovernmentWorkers: You May Be Allowed One Call."'

Personal phone use in government was ex-amined in an audit conducted by the GeneralServices Administration (GSA) under thePresident's Council on Integrity and Efficiency(PCIE). That audit reported in the spring of1987 that an average of about 33 percent ofoff -network calls sampled on the Federtl Tele-communications System (FTS) were "unoffi-cial," i.e., made for personal reasons.'

Of course personal use of employers' tele-

phones is not a phenomenon limited to gov-ernment. Telephone use has been called a"phantom job benefit" because many employ-ees, in both public and private sectors, believethey have a right to make some calls from thetelephone on their desk. Reliable dataare notavailable for the private sector, but telecom-munications experts have given estimates of

'Interview with Edward Horrell, Mitchell & Hornell, Inc.,June 24, 1988.

'New York Ilssee. Mar. 17, 1986.Vomputorweeld, Mar. 25, 1985.'Federal Times, Mar. 25, 1985.Washington Poet, June 21, 1986.'Washington Poet, Sept. 11, 1988.'President's Carrel! on Integrity and Effie cy, "Consoli-

dated Report on Mind Talsoonimunications S. ern (FTS) Uti-lisation," prepared by the General Service. Adtmnistration, Of-fice of the Inspector General, Mar. 16, 1987.

personal use in the private sector that rangefrom 10 or 15 percent" to as high as 30 oreven 50 percent.'

Employees' personal use of telephones hasbeen going on for yearsa common practicethat many firms and agencies have ignored asbeing o: little importance. However, in the pastfew years new technological tools to measureand control telephone costs havecome on themarket and are being enthusiastically pro-moted by a growing segment of the telecom-munication industry. Deregulation of the tele-phone industry has forced many firms to paygreater attention to the costs and managementof their telephone systems. Although long-dis-tance rates have declined steadily for the pastdecade, telephone costs remain a major busi-ness expense. Many firms have adopted newtechnologies, such as telephone call-ac cotmtlivsoftware, in an effort to further control thesecosts.

Controversy arises because use of call-accounting software may impinge on theprivacy of people using the telephone system.Although its best and most common use is asa statistical tool to analyze patterns of tele-phone use for a firm or office, call-accountingrecords can also provide detailed informationabout each ;JO% -lewd call, whether official orpersonal. The software automatically can re-cord the information law enforcement officialssometimes gather using "pen registers"theexact time, date, originating extension, anddestination number of every calllocalor long

'Interview with Edward Horrell, Mitchell & Herren, Inc.,June 24, 1986.

'Judith Ilevemann. "Toil Calls Abused by U.S. Employees,"Washington Post, June 21, 1986.

7 81


distance. Such information, properly exam-ined, can sometimes provide considerable in-formation about the caller."

This chapter reviews the growing trend inuse of call-accounting software by employersin and out of government. It also attempts toplace call accounting in the context of othertelecommunication management tools. Callaccounting is only one of a number of technol-ogies gaining use in firms and governmentagencies to control telephone costs. This chap-ter also discusses other techniques that canbe used instead of or in addition to callaccounting.

Managing Telephone Costs

Controlling personal calling is not the onlyway to reduce the telephone bill. Industry ex-perts estimate that 35 to 40 percent or moreof all long-distance calls are "waste calls."These are sometimes characterized as a com-bination of four factors:

poor system design,fraud (unauthorized use by outsiders),abuse (personal use by authorized users),andmisuse (overuse or the use of a high-costservice when a low-cost alternative isavailable)."

The proportional importance of each categoryvaries from one organization to another, butabuse and misuse are often the largest, accord-ing to some experts. Several technological ap-proaches for combatting them are discussedin this chapter.

Poor system design means that telephoneequipment and service are not suitable to theparticular calling patterns of the firm. In thepast 10 years, a bewildering variety of alter-natives has developed for business telechcne

K'For a discussion of the use of pen registers in law enforcewent, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Fed-eral Governmem, Information Technology: Electronic Surveil-lance and Civil Liberties, OTA-CIT-293 (Washington. DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, October 1985).

"Interview with Edward Morrell, Mitchell & Morrell, Inc.,June 24, 1986.

subscribers. Good telecomm,Inications man-agement begins with underst anding the needsof the firm and making basic decisions aboutthe size of the system needed, what long-dis-tance carriers to use, whether to lease privatelines or to own private switches, and so on. Be-cause of the wide variety of services offeredand the different rate structures of the long-distance telephone companies (carriers), wrongdesign decisions can be costly. Telephone callaccounting, as discussed later in this chapter,can be useful in giving a clear picture of tele-phone use on which to base management de-cisions.

Telephone fraud perpetrated by outsiderscan be costly to an individual firm, but mostof its costs fall on the telephone industry andusers as a whole. Fraudulent activities rangefrom individual hackers using private systemsfor their own calls to multilevel marketingschemes that sell illegally obtained authoriza-tion codes to consumers. If the legitimate user(individual or corporate) notices charges forthese calls on the phone bill and denies makingthem, the cost is usually absorbed by the long-distance carrier. The cost of telephone fraudwas estimated at $500 million in 1985." Thetelephone industry is attempting to combatfraud by improving system software's abilityto detect and investigate illegal users. As willbe discussed later in this chapter, telephonecall accounting can help firms reduce costs dueto fraud by giving them an accurate listing oftelephone calls independent of their telephonebill.

There are two basic approaches to reducingunwanted calls The first is to keep carefultrack of all calls so that problems of misuseor personal use can be tracked and people whomake the calls can be identified. This is calleda passive approach to telephone management,and the principal tool is telephone call account-ing. The second approach is to design the tele-phone system so that unwanted calls are diffi-cult or impossible t^ make, and so that callsthat are mace are of reasonable length. This

'2Walter G. Frier, "Combating Long Dintance ServiceAbuse," Telephony, Aug. 11, 1986, pp. 69-70.

Ch. 3Telephone Call Accounting 63

active approach to telephone systemmanage-ment is aided by such technological tools asleast-cost routing, call blocking, and timedsignals.

As the Federal Government begins theproc-ess of revamping its telephone system, it willundoubtedly make use of several of these tech-niques. The one that has aroused the most con-troversy is call accounting, because of ques-

tions about the privacy of individuals whomake the calls. With the advent of improvedrecords on all long-distance calls, the govern-ment finds itself faced with the need to reviewand revise some outdated policies related tothe use of its telephone system. Before discuss-ing these policies in detail, however, it wouldbe good to look at how active and passive tele-phone management tools work and how theyare used in government and private industry.

TELEPHONE CALL ACCOUNTINGIn the past 3 years, telephone call account-

ing has become one of the fastest growing seg-ments of the telecommunications market, butcall accounting is nothing new. Every con-sumer engages in telephone call accounting athome by reviewing the monthly telephone billto make sure that all the long-distance callslisted were actually made by someone in thehousehold.

Telephone bills for businesses, while theyaresometimes more complex than residential bills,provide essentially the same information: thedate, time, duration, destination, and cost forcalls. Usually all this information is providedto business customers as a matter of coursefor direct-dial or operator-assisted long-dis-tance calls. However, long-distance calls madeon Wide-Area Telecommunications Service(WATS) lines (which are billed on an average-cost-per-call basis) and local calls usually arenot reported in detail to business customers,unless specially requested and paid for.

Businesses and government agenciesare be-coming more aware of the value ofan accuraterecord of calls in managing and reducing theirtelephone costs. Even if call detail is providedby the carrier (long-distance telephone com-pany), the firm may want an independent rec-ord of telephone calls in order to verify thecar-riers' bills or allocate telephone costs todifferent departmt is within the organization.Businesses can get such accurate, up-to-datecall accounts either from a "service bureau,"or through a call-accounting system on theirown premises.

It is estimated that about 19,600 stand-alonecall-accounting systems were sold in 1985,amounting to revenues of about $206 millionfor their manufacturers. This market is grow-ing at about 50 percent per year and there arecurrently about 130 firms that either manu-facture a call-accounting device, write call-accounting software, or provide call-account-ing services." In addition, many privatebranch exchanges (PBXs), the computerizedswitching systems that route telephone callsin many offices, have built in call accoundngcapability.

How Call Accounting Works

Raw data about callsthe time, duration,called number, originating extension, andestimated costcan all be collected by a de-vice called a station message detail recorder(SMDR) that can be attached to the telephonesystem. SMDRs can produce an enormous vol-ume of information that is of little use untilit is processed and analyzed.

Probably the oldest typc of call accountingis offered by computer service bureaus, whichcame into existence around 1970. The servicebureau uses mainframe computers to processthe magnetic tapes produced by SMDRs andprovides the customer with monthly or quar-terly reports. The cost for such a service varieswidely. Depending on the number of lines, thefee can range from $1 to $4 per telephone."

"Daniel I. Strusser, "Good News in the Call AccountingMarket," Telecoanect, March 1986, p. 62.

"Daniel I. Strusser, "The Six Kinds of Call Accounting,"Teleconnect, March 1986, pp. 66-71.

...-

7 0


Figure 9.Sample Call Detail Report

Date: 03107184Time: 11:56:20

Report Period: 2/24 - 2/29

Page. 1

Name: Dan Jones Division Telecommunications

Ext: 1551 Department: Engineering

Date Time Duration Charge Number called Facil (1) City ST (2) Acct. Code

2/24 08:01 00:12:15 0.06 616-429-2998 Local St. Joseph MI

2/24 11:35 00:25:00 5.86 703-620-0880 WATS Roanoke VA

2/25 08:46 00:00:30 0.06 616-429-4151 Local St Joseph Mi

2/25 08:52 01:12:30 25.90 212-829-4272 DDD New York NY

2/25 10:57 00:07:30 0.10 Incmg2/25 12:57 00:10:56 4.10 714-525-5252 MCI Anaheim CA

2/25 14:00 00:16:01 6.27 312-577-7901 FX Chicago IL

2/25 14:07 00:01:30 0.10 incmg2/27 09:43 01:05:03 35.12 714-525-5252 DDD Anaheim CA

2/27 12:55 00:01:00 .42 703-620-0880 WATS Roanoke VA

2/27 13:14 00:10:00 0.06 616-429-6241 Local St Joseph MI

Totals: 03:42:15 77.15Fixed: 5.00 Calls: 11 Cost/Min: .33

82.15

There are about 30 firms in the United Statesthat provide this service. Service bureaus havegenerally been used only by large firms withhigh volumes of calls and multiple sites."

Advances in computer technology are nowmaking call accounting more economical forsmaller firms. Call-accounting software is nowavailable for direct use by the customer, andit can be run on personal computers, minicom-puters, and mainframes. About half of the serv-ice bureaus, along with dozens of other com-panies, lease or sell call-accounting softwarefor customers to use. In addition, some PBXscome with built-in capability to record raw calldata with a SMDR and to process call-accounting reports. Prices for call-accountingsoftware vary widely, from as low as $800 upto $40,000, depending on the size of the tele-phone system and on the special features thatmight be desired." Many software packagesproduce not only a detailed listing of all calls,but also allow the development of a numberof standard and customized reports.

"MCI Education Center, Gaining the Competitive Edge:Network Design, p. L-6.

"Daniel I. Strusser, "The Six Kinds of Call Accounting,"Teleconnect, March 1986, pp. 66-71.

Call Accounting and Telephone SystemManagement

The report-generating capability of the sys-tem is important. While the call-accounting de-vice keeps track of all calls in the order theyare made, a simple printout of all call recordsmay be of little use, especially in a large firmwith thousands of telephones and dozens oflocations.

Figure 9 is a sample printout from a call-accounting system. This particular system isdesigned for small companieswith perhaps100 to 500 telephones ar d runs on a personalcomputer. Raw call data is transferred to thepersonal computer from the SMDR througha RS232 connection (like the modular phonejack on most telephones). Once the call recordsareiloaded on the computer, the call-accountingsoftware can produce a number of standard andcustomized reports. Figure 9 shows all the callsof a particular extension (1551), including thedate, time, duration, cost, number called, andcity and State of destination number. This in-formation is similar to that found on a tele-phone bill, except that there is somewhatgreater detail. To some extent the level of de-tail to be used in reports can be chosen by the

Ch. 3-Telephone Call Accounting 65

Figure 10.-Sample Summary of Calls

Date: 03/07/84Time: 11:43:37

Report Period: 2/24 - 2/29

Page: 1

Ext. NameTotalcost

Fixedcost

Localcost

L.D.cost

OutDurHR:MN

IncomCost

InDurHR:MN

101 Jackson, John 16.54 0.35 0.00 16.19 0:25 0.00 0:00102 Cheever, Chuck 4.48 0.27 0.00 0.75 0:05 0.40 10:32103 Berg, Wendy 9.36 0.42 5.61 3.33 0:11 0.00 0:00104 West, Ellen 4.00 4.00 000 0.00 0:00 0.00 0:00111 Cassidy, Mike 16.88 0.56 0.00 13.62 0.18 2.70 5:12125 Ryan, Pete 3.25 3.25 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0:00150 Potts, Karl 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0:00155 Jones, Dan 83.05 5.00 0.18 77.67 3:33 0.20 0:09

Totals: 138.76 15.05 5.79 111.56 4:32 3.30 15.53

system manager. For example, this particu-lar firm has chosen to list and assign a costto local calls as well as long-distance ones, andto include a listing and charge for incoming(Incmg) calls.

Figure 10 shows a summary report by ex-tension, summarizing the costs and activitiesof all telephones in a particular department.Similar detailed and summary reports couldbe generated by extension, by caller, or by ac-count code, for each department or division inthe firm.

More sophisticated cost-accounting reportsare also useful for equitably allocating telecom-munication costs. Based on reports generatedby the call-accounting system, costs can be al-located to the proper department, project, orcustlmer account. Law offices, for example,which must keep accurate records of each at-torney's expenditure of time and resources foreach client, can generate accurate reports oftelephone calls related to each case. This mightbe done either by having staff members diala cost code before dialing each number, or byhaving the call-accounting system store tele-phone numbers known to be frequently usedfor each client. Call accounting software forhotels and hospitals produces phone changesfor inclusion in client bills.

Another advantage of modern call-account-ing software is the ability to process mountainsof raw call data into useful information about

calling patterns and system utilization. For ex-ample, a summary of all calls by trunk (or typeof service) would enable a telecommunicationsmanager to compare the number of calls andrelative expenditures for direct dial and WATSlines to determine if the firm has the right fa-cilities to meet current needs. Or the systemcould produce a report of the 50 most fre-quently called numbers, in order of frequency.The telecommunications manager might usethis information to determine whether a pri-vate line connection would be a more economi-cal way to carry calls between the main officeand a frequently called branch office. A reporton trunk utilization, by day and hour, can alsobe useful in analyzing the level of use of thetelephone, and might also be useful evidencein case of disputes with airriers about theamount of the telephone bill.

Call Accounting and Employees'Personal Use of Telephones

At some firms and governmen t agencies,analysis of the most frequently called numbersturned up a large number of calls to off -trackbetting, "Dial-a-Porn," the weather report, andmany long-distance calls to locations that didnot do business with the organization.

Employees' personal use of employers' tele-phones has become a concern in the past fewyears and reference to the money being spenton personal calls is a major sales tool for ven-

76


dors of call-accounting equipment. Telecom-munications trade magazines (and advertise-ments of cost-accounting system vendors) arefull of anecdotes about abuses uncovered whenfirms first start keeping track of their tele-phone calls. Stories include, for example, thesecretary who placed a one-hour long-distancecall during lunch every day in order to listento a soap opera on her mother's television. Orthe man who ran his personal business fromthe office telephonea business that requiredhundreds of long.-distance calls weekly. Or thewoman who used the call-forwarding featureof her office telephone to receive many hoursof long-distance calls at home in the evening.

On the other hand, many other people areusing employers' telephones in much less ex-pensive, but still pervasive ways. Employeesare human beings with concerns beyonu theworkplace, and they sometimes have personalbusiness that must be somehow completed dur-ing work hours. People with toothaches haveto call the dentist. People with car trouble haveto call the mechanic to see if the work is done,and then call a neighbo: to ask for a ride home.Working parents need to know if their childrenhave arrived home from school; indeed, par-ents in windowless offices may need to con-sult the weather report first to know what in-structions to give their children.

One survey of Fortune 1000 firms estimatedthat employees spent an average of 14 9 min-utes per day on personal calls (about 3 percentof an 8-hour day), or the equivalent of 11/2 workweeks of personal telephone calling peryear." The numbers may be suspect, sincethey are based on estimates by personnel man-agers, but they show that perception of a prob-lem is widespread. As mentioned earlier, sometelecommunications experts have estimatedpersonal calling in the private sector to rangefrom 10 to 50 percent of calls.18

'Employees Spend Over One and A Half Weeks of JobTime on Personal Phone Calls Each Year, Nationwide SurveyReports," Sandford Teller Communications for Accountemps,New York, Aug. 30, 1984.

"Judith Havemann, "Toll Callr Abused by U.S. Employ-ees," Washington Post, June 21, 1986.

Despite the long-term decline in long-distance telephone rates, and the sharp declinesince divestiture,19 telephone costs remain amajor expenditure for many firms. Technologi-cal tools that promise to further control thesecosts are attractive to managers, and vendors'assurances of reduced telephone costs havefueled the sales of call-accounting equipmentand software.

Personal use of an employer's telephone hasbeen called a "phantom job benefit." Manypeople consider personal use of the telephoneon their desk to be a reasonable perquisite, andthe question of when this personal use becomes"abuse" is sometimes difficult to decide. Manypeople would agree that employees who placeseveral hours of personal long-distance callsper day are outrageously misusing their em-ployer's facilities. Many of the same peoplewould think that an employer that doesn't al-low parents to call home each day is insensi-tive to employees' needs. Reasonable behavioron both sides is somewhere between these ex-tremes, but where should the line of "reason-able use" be drawn? Two local calls per day?Ten? One local call and one short long- distancecall?

Often firms recognize a need to balance goodmanagement of the firm's resources with thebiblical injunction against "binding themouths of the kine that tread the grain." Theyare also aware of their own interestthere areother productivity factors to consider in addi-tion to the cost of the telephone call. People'sminds are clearer to focus on work if their per-sonal problems are settled. Some calls simplyhave to be made, one way or al Cher. It maybe better for the firm's total productivity tolet people take care of personal buenecs dur-ing a short break at their Ue1211.s than to requirethem to wait in line at the pay phone.

Organizations differ in their official policiesof employee use of telephones. OTA inter-viewed telecommunications managers of sev-eral large firms. Some say flatly that office tel-

"Tor example see "FCC Orders AT&T, Local Phone Farmsto Lower Long-Distance Rate of Return," Wall Street Journal,Aug. 8, 1986, p. 3.

Ch 3Telephone Call Accounting 67

ephones are for business use only. However,the view of one telecommunications managerwas common, "We say company phones arefor company business, but actually we don'tcare about local calls as long as they keep itreasonable. "2D A few organizations had noproblem with personal long-distance calls aslong as they were of reasonable length and theemployee reported the call and reimbursed theorganization.

And of course, regardless of official policy,there is a wide variation in the enforcementof the policy. Offices that do not keep trackof their telephone usage through call account-ing have little idea whether the policy is beingobserved or not.

Even firms using call-accounting systemsseldom find it cost-effective to evaluate everycall to see if it is official. The common practiceis to use the call-accounting system to gener-ate "exception reports," reports that indicateunusual call patterns that might result frommisuse. Here is where the ability of the call-accounting system to track all calls by timeand originating telephone, and then to corre-

2°Interview with telecommunications manager of a financialservices organization, December 1985.

Date: 03107184Time: 11.48:33

Report Period: 2/24 - 2/29Calls $5.00 or 30 min

Date

late and process that information, becomes par-ticularly important. For example, a number oflong-distance calls from a department that hasno out-of-state business might indicate thatpersonal long-distance calls are being made.Many calls after business hours might indicatethat the security or cleaning crews are mak-ing use of telephones. The call-accounting sys-tem may be programmed to produce a reportof calls to certain prefixes, for example, inmany cities, all 976 number are assigned to"audio text" services like "dial-a-prayer,""dial-a-joke," figure 11 shows a sample excep-tion report of all calls over $5.00 in cost or 30minutes in duration.

The use of exception reports to find majoroffenders is effective because most people ac-tually make few personal calls. Despite esti-mates of the "average" amount of time spenton the telephone, common sense and evidencefrom a few studies suggest that there isa widevariation in personal behavior. For example,an examination was made of 1,400 unofficiallong-distance calls (all to audio-text services)made from the U.S. Department of Educationin Washington. The Department has about5,000 telephones, but two-thirds of these audio-text calls came from just 41 telephones; 45 per-cent (650 calls) came from just 11 tele-

Figure 11.Sample Exception Report

Time Duration Charge Number called Facility City

Page: 1

State

Extension: 226 User: Tom Best2/24 09:44 00:31:30 S 9.45 714-964-6732 WATS Anaheim CA2/27 13:57 00:36:30 .10 Incmg

Extension: 1466 User Joseph Carr2/24 10:46 00:31:45 $17.00 616-983-5555 WATS St Joseph MI2/24 15:19 00:35:30 0.10 Incmg2/27 12:37 00:17:32 5.99 212.888-1357 C/O New Yorl: NY

Extension: 1533 User: Ellen2/25 09:54 00:22.26 S 8.12 312-685-7863 WATS Evanston IL2/27 15:33 01:34:12 0.00 616-429-8589 LOCAL St Joseph MI2129 13:42 00:45:01 4.89 702-734-4444 MCI Las Vegas NV

80

68 The Electronic Su, -visor: New Technology, New Tensions

phones." Similarly, a 1984 study by the De-partment of Energy found wide variation inthe level of unofficial calling in differentoffices.22 Telecommunications managers havefound that by relying on "exception reports"to seek out patterns of misuse, they are morelikely to find habitual major offenders. Thisis also considered fairer than closely scrutiniz-ing the telephoning habits of every employee.

Just the existence of a call-accounting sys-tem can have a deterrent effect on personal tele-phone use, even if management makes little

"U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Inspector Gen-eral, letter report ACN 11-40100, July 25,1984. The 1,400 callswere made over a 12-month period from November 1982 to Oc-tober 1983.

27U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Inspector Gen-eral, "Review of Abuse of Long Distance Telephone Service(FTS) in the Department of Energy," DOEIIG -0217, Mar. 22,1985.

use of the reports. When employees are madeawav that records are being kept, their per-sonal use of telephones tends to go down. Thereverse can also be true when they know thereare no records. One firm interviewed by OTAremoved its call-accounting capability for sev-eral months while making the transition fromone telephone system to another. The totalnumber of calls increased dramatically duringthat period, although it was impossible to tellfrom which phones the calls were made. Oncethe new system was running, each employeewas sent a memo containing a reminder of com-pany policy and a list of the previous weeks'calls from his or her telephone. Nothing fur-ther was necessary to cause the volume of call-ing to drop to its former levels."

"Interview with telecommunications manager, financialservices organization, December 1985.

ACTIVE COST CONTROL METHODS

Active methods of telephone cost control canmake use of technology to reduce the cost pertelephone call and also to prevent unnecessarycalling. Techniques include least-cost routing,calling restrictions or blocking, authorizationcodes and levels of service, and timed signals.

Least-Cost Routing

Least-cost routing automatically connectsa call with the least expensive line available.Many modern PBXs are equipped with thisfeature, which requires a computer programto "hunt" through the available lines to findone appropriate for the call being placed. Forleast-cost routing to be most effective, the firmshould first study its telecomunication needsto make sure that it has access to the properassortment of different carriers (AT&T, MCI,and Sprint, for example) and different typesof facilities (WATS lines, leased lines, and di-rect dial) to match its calling pattern.

There are at least 40 different ways to callfrom New York to Richmond, VAeach with

8

a different price." Decirting which is thecheapest method of calling a given destinationat a particular time of day can be a complicatedproblem, one which would be inconvenient foran employee to solve every time he or sheneeded to make a long-distance call. The least-cost routing feature makes choosing the rightroute "transparent" to the user. The employeemerely dials; a compnter prcgrani searchesthrough a table of available lines, times, andrates to pick the least costly route for each call.

At busy times of day, when the cheapest fa-cilities are all busy, several options are avail-able. The system may automatically queue thecall, and signal the user when a line is free, a,the system may signal the user to try againlater. Yet another option is to give the callera warning tone, indicating that the low-costlines are all busy. If the call is urgent, the usercan hang on, and the call will go through ata higher cost.

"Interview with Edward Horrell, Mitchell & Horrell, Inc.,June 24, 1986.

Calling Restrictions

The call-blocking feature allows MC* .2 tele-phone systems to be programmed to restrictthe type of calls made by certain telephone-,or certain callers. For example, the switch maybe programmed to block any calls to exchange"976" in order to restrict the use of "audiotext" (weather, time, dail-a-juke) calls. Tele-phones in departments that do not deal withthe public can be programmed to make onlyin-house calls. Telephones of workers with noout-of-town business can be programmed toprovide only local service. Certain telephonescan be authorized to make long-distance callsonly via the ..,vest cost service, where othermay be able to override the least-cost routingfeature nd make a long-distance call m'enwhen low-cost lines are busy.

Authorization Codes andLovels of Service

Telephone systems can also be programmedso that no telephone will put through long-dis-tance calls unless preceded by an authoriza-tion code that should be known only to peopleauthorized to make calls. The code also allowsthe system to chrzge the call to a particularperson or account, which is usef,i1 for cost al-location purposes.

Authorization codes can form the basis fordifferent levels of service. Workers witha needto make international calls can b assignedanauthorization code that permits such calls.Those who only need to make calls within oneState can be given a code that all ivis this morerestricted level of calling. Similarly, the tele-phone system can be programmed tc allowsome classes of users to make calls by thelowest cost service only, while other usersmayhave an "executive overriie" staus that al-lows calls on higher cost lines if low-cost linesare busy. The State of New York, for exam-ple, has 26 different levels of service to accom-modate needs of different classes of users.m

The advantage of authorization codes is thatthey are independent of the individualphone instrument. A person who is authorized

*Interview with Peter Arment. State of New York, DivisionelTulecommunications, September 1988. The 26 levels ofse v-

dude both voice 1114 data transmissions.

Ch. 3Telephone Cad Accounting 69

to make lc-ig-distance calls may do rio from anytelephone in tile system. The code is still validif the user moves to another office. On the otherhand, I .1 unauthorized person cannot makecalls on any phone, unless he or she discoversa code. In addition, authorization codes canbe easily en& ed. For example, if the user'sjob changes '.o require a different level of serv-ice, or if it is discovered that in unauthoriz-edperson is using a code, the old authorizationcode can be canceled and a new one issued inshort order.

A disadv-mtage of authorization codes isthat they require the user to dial five to sevenadditional digits at tre beginning of each long-distance _all. This is annoying to most usersand a real hardship for those who need to makemany calls in a day. The State of New Yorkhas overcome this problem by making use ofthe speed dialing feature of modem telephonesystems. Speed dialing allows the user to storeP "st of frequently called long-distance num-oers (in some systems up to 60 numbers peruser) in the telephone's memory. Each num-ber is then referred to by a two-digit code-When coffin::: any of these numbers the usermust still dial the authorization code in full,but only dials the U.) .figit code to reach thefrecp...mtly called r .oer. Thus the total num-ber of digits dialed per call is reduced to a man-ageable number.

Becaus a authorization codes are generallyused to allocate costs, they are usually usedin conjunction with a call-accounting program.

Timed rignals

Several firms and government organizationsuse timed signals to remind callers of the timethey are spending cm telephone calls. Telephonesystems can be programmed, for example, togive users a tone after some predeterminedreriodsay 4 or 5 minutes. While no penaltyaccrues to the user who continues to talk be-yond this point, the feedback is often usefulin reducing the average length of calls." Peo-ple sometimes have no idea how long they havebeen talking, and a 5- minute warning remindsthem that long-distance calling does coatmoney

82


STUDIES OF UNOFFICIAL USE OFGOVERNMENT TELEPHONES

Parsonal use of Federal Government tele-phones is not only ..ontrary to "companypolicy " it is illet, ae Federal InformationResources Management Regulation (41 CFR201-38.007) specifically forbids the use of FTSor other government-provided long-distanceservice for personal reasons, and provides forfines, suspension, or dismissal of offending em-ployees. Furthermore, & CFR 735.205 prohibitsthe use of government property generally forpersonal recsons. Some employees and contrac-tors have -' been indicted under Title 18, Sec-tion 641 -ublic Money, Property, or Records),which provides criminal penalties for the theftof a thing of value" from the government. Forexample, 4 employees and 25 contract employ-ees of the Department of Energy were indictedfor personal telephone use in 1981. Under a pre,t'ial diversion, the defendants repaid the gov-ernment $38,487.2"

Despite the illegality, government employ-ees use their employer's telephone for personalreasons just as much as private sector employ-ees do; some would say more so. A number ofatudies conducted by indivIdual departmentsin t' .e past few years ha. found that an esti-mated 30 to 60 percent of long-distance callsare of an unofficial nature. A more recentstudy, part of a coordinated multi-agency au-dit, - -carted personal calls made up an averageof X:, 4aercent of off-network calls sampled inthe Federal Telecommunications System (seebelow for a description of FTS off -networkcalls). About 20 percent of calls sampled onthe government's commercial lines w'.vepersonal."

"U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Inspector General, "Review of Abuse of Long Distance Telephone Service(FTS) in the Department of Energy," DOE/10-0217, Mar. 22,1985.

"Judith Havemann, "Listen Up Government Workers: YouMay Be Allowed One Peons Call," Washington Post, Sept. 11,1986. See allo President's Council on Integrity and Eft dency,"Consolidated Report on Federal Telecommunication- 'stem(FTS) Utilization," prepared by the General Services Magni&tration. Office of the Inspector General, Mar. 18, 1987.

Some agencies' studies have also tried toestimate the loss to the government in termsof wages paid for time spent in personal call-ing. The Department of Energy, in its studyof phone use, added to the $3 million per yearcost of personal calls, an additional $6 millionper year for lost wages. This was calculatedby multiplying the total minutes of (tans dur-ing work hours (8 a.m. to 12 r..mai and 1 p.m.to 5:30 p.m.) by the average wage rate for thedepartment." The figu"e is probably inflatedas the calculation does not consider that em-ployees could have made calls during theirbreaks or other slack periods when they hadno other work. However, in the ewe of majoroffenders, for example a person running aprivate business from a government phone,wages lost to the government could be signifi-cant. In the Richland, Washington case men-tioned above, the 29 defendants were requiredto repay lost wages along with other fines andthe cost of to calls themselves.

The Federal Government is a major user oftelephone wrvices. Its Federal Telecommuni-cations System (FTS), establish( ' in 1K-3, pro-vides voice and low-speed data telecommuni-cation services throughout the United States,the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Thesystem contains about 1.3 million telephones,1,60U Meal switchboards, 52 major switchingcenters, and 15,000 long-distance trunks.About 88 percent of the long-distance FTSservice is throurh let cod AT&T facilities, withthe rest provided by GTE/Sprint, MCI, andother carriers.

The General Service! htdminis' ration (GSAmane. oyes FTS and supplies telepl+one serviceto most Federal agencies as required by theFederal Property and Administrative ServicesAct of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481). Some of these are"full service agencies," in that they resewthan telephone service through GSA. Otheis,

"U.S. Jegartme- of Energy, Office of the Inspector Gen-eral, "Review of A.. .v of Long Distance T. '-rvhone Service(FTS) in the Department of Energy,' DOE/i. )217, Mar. 22,1985.


including Departments of Energy, Justice,Commerce, and the Veterans Administration,procure their own local telephone service in theWashington area, and rely on GSA only forlung-distance services. These are known as "ex-clusive use agencies. "

There are three types of "long-distance"calls:

A commercial call is made by dialing 9from a government phone and accessingthe local telephone system; intercity callsmade after dialing 9 are billed at the regu-lar commercial toll rate.FTS on-net calls are intercity calls be-tween two government telephones.In FTS off -net calls, the originating tele-phone is part of FM but the receiving tele-phone is not. In such a case, the call wouldtravel ..s far as possible on FTS, and thenwould go off-network and use commerciallines to reach its destination.

Off-net calls are generally more expensive thanFTS calls; commercial calls are most expen-sive. On many government telephones, a fra-ture called Automatic Route Selection (ARS)automatically transfers commerical calls to thelower cost FTS network whenever possible.This is similar to the "least cost routing" fea-ture discussed earlier.

FTS handled about 300 million calls in 1986ar 4 cost the government about $500 million.Off -network calls represent about 65 percentof the calls and 69 percent of the cost. In addi-tion, commercial toll calls cost about $15 mil-lion in 1986.

For FTS calls, GSA pays the long-distancecarriers, bills the participating agencies quar-terly, in advance, and then adjusts for actualusage. Usage figures for long-distance calls arecurrently collected by the telephone industry,using the Autom .cad Message Accounting(AMA) systems of local telephone companiesand long-distance carriers. The detailed call rec-ce' d includes the telephone number of th3 origi-nating user, a billing account code, the dateand time of the call, the telephone number ofthe called party, and the duration in minutes.Currently, car detail information is collected

on only a 20-percent sample of FTS calls onecall in five. GSA uses the information in thissample to calculate quarterly telephone billsfor each department, and also sends copies ofthe call records to agency telecommunicationsmanagers. Due to the large backlog of workin calculating telephone bills for all the agen-cies, AMA reports have been sent to the agen-cies 3 to 6 months after they are collected.w

Local calls are billed to each agency monthlythrough GSA's Telephone inventory Account-ing System (TIAS). Commercial toll calls arebilled to agencies directly by the long-distancetelephone companies.

The PCIE Review of FTS U, ation

The previously quoted figures on personause of FTS came from an audit recently con-ducted by GSA at the direction of the Presi-dent's Council on Integrity and Efficiency(PCIE). It is the most recent attempt by theFederal Government to study telephone use ona governmentwide scale. The study involved astatistical study of telephone use at 16 agencies(basically an analysis of exception reports). Inaddition, GS A conducted a call-back audit of asample of telephone calls from 14 agencies.'

For purposes of thi, auditing project, GSAprovided a sample of call detail listings of off-network and commercial long-distance calls tothe Inspector General of each participatingagency. These call records came from the regu-lar 20 percent sample of FTS calls and fromtelephone company billings for commericalcalls. Personnel from the Inspector General'soffice called back the numbers listed on thoserecords to determine whether anyone at thedestination telephone engages or has engagedin business with the department or agencymaking the call. Calls were then classified as"official," "unofficial," or "unresolved."

"U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Inspector Gen-eral, letter Report No. 11-40100, July 25, 1984.

"President's Council on Integrit,y and Efficiency, "Consoli-dated Report on Federal Telecommunications Systems (FTS)Utilization," prepared by the General Services Administration,Office of the Inspector General, Mar. 16, 1987.

72 The Electronic Sup ryisor. New Technology, New Tension

If the potential use of call accounting in gov-ernment raises questions of privacy, fairness,and enforcement, a call-back audit, like die oneconducted by PCIE, was even more controver-sial. Announcement of plans for the audit (inlate February 1985) was greeted with immedi-ate statements of concern by civil libertarians,-anion leaders, and others.

One concern was the potential for "selectivedisciplinary action against workers consideredundesirable by agency m anagers."" Whenthe PCIE study was announced, fear was ex-pressed that, if the personal use of telephoneswas as widespread as GSA believed, thennearly every employee was to some degreeguilty. This being the case, telephone auditscould be used as a potential weapon againstwhistleblowers or other dissidents. One arti-cle noted that in 1982 "investigators in theEnvironmental Protection Agency secretly ex-amined the agency's long distance phonerecords to determine whether Hugh Kaufman,a government employee who had disclosed in-formation the ' lqd to the removal of most ofthe agency's top officials, had talked with newsorganizations. "'e

Union leaders also expressed the fear thatinformation from the audit could be used toharass union members." Nor were criticalcomments limited to labor groups. Bun Bray,president of the Federal Managers A880Citition, called the audit "another little deal to pun-lob Feder di employees," and asserted that thesavings from the program would prove "insig-nificant and minimal." "If they really want tosave money, they ought to take those resourcesand check out General Dynamics and some ofthose other defense contractors that are rip-ping off the taxpayer," Bray said.'"

These topics aiong with other civil libertiesquestions, also attracted congressional eaten-

"Bill Montague, "Planned Phone Audit Brings Blast FromSeveral Groups," Federal Times, Mar. 25, 1985.

"David Burnham, "U.S. Phones Raise Issue of Privacy: NewEquipment Would nevi& Detailed Records of Calls,"New YanaTimes, Mar. 17, 1985.

"Bill Montague, "Planned Phone Audit Brings Blast FromSeveral Groups," Federal 77nm Mar. 25, 1985.

"Ibid.

85

tion. For example, Representatives Don Ed-wards (Chair, House Subcommittee on Civiland Constitutional Rights) and PatriciaSchroeder (Chair, Subcommittee on Service)wrote to the Office of Management and Bud-get (OMB) requesting further information onthe audit:

1. What is the source of authority for the pro-posed monitoring scheme?

2. How would the monitoring program be con-ducted, who would conduct it, and whattypes of telephone calls would be examined?

3. How long would the program last?4. What types of data or analyses would the

program yield?5. How would the resulting data and analysis

be used and who would have access tothem?

6. What measure.° would be taken to limit dis-semination of the data and analyses?

7. What guarantee is there that the programwill not be used to discourage whistle-blowers, to stifle dissent, to limit news me-dia access to information, or for other po-litical purposes?

8. What would happen to the data and analy-ses after the initial analysis is completed?

Our Subcommittees would like to be assuredon these points, and any others that may beraised as additional information comes tolight, before any monitoring begins."

In his reply, Jose-h R. Wright, Jr., DeputyDirector of OMB, said the purposes of thePCIE review were "to reveal patterns of mis-use of the Federal long distance telephone sys-tems" and to develop "recommendations forsystemic improvmients in the management ofthese systems."

Wright also gave specific answers to ques-tions raised in the congressional letter. Porexample. with regard to limiting disseminationof the audit data he -aid:

. . . lit) will be limited to the staff of partici-pating Inspectors General. The bulk of thedata will be placed in audit workpapers andused to suppIrt audit findings which are sum-

"Mar. 13, 1988 letter from The Renewable Don Edwards andThe Honorable Patricia Schroeder to Joseph IL Wright, Jr., Dep-uty Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Ch. 3-Telephone Call Accounting 73

mary in nature. Any data which require ini-tiation of an investigation will be treated asevidence and will be accordingly protected.Data which may bring together names andnumbers will be filed as part of the IGs' Pri-vacy Act systems of records.

On the question of whistleblowers or the sti-fling of dissent, Wright reassured the commit-tees that:

. . . long distance calls to news media, congres-sional offices, public interest groups, etc., willbe considered business calls for the purposeof this review. . . .

The review is being performed by statutoryInspectors General who have, among otherduties, responsibility under their own ambl-ing legislation to protect whistleblowers. Inaddition, the Civil Service Reform Act clearlyprohibits the kinds of activities described inyour question . . . while there are no absoluteguarantees that ail persons will act properly,there are ample procedures to deal with thosewho are found to have committed such pro-hibited personnel practices.

Representatives Edwards and Schroeder re-plied to Wright. indicating their appreciationthat the PCIE "is sensitive to preventing un-warranted disclosures of information collectedin any audit and avoiding invasions of pri-vacy." Drawing on concepts in Wright's letter,and their own sense of proper elements to go

into guidelines for the audit, the two Membersof Congress suggested a number of principlesto be included in those guidelines.

A detailed memorandum of "Guidance onthe Privacy Act Implication of the PCIE Re-view of Federal Telecommunications Systems(FTS) Utilization" was completed in August1985. This document included many of theprinciples outlined in the Edwards-Schroederletter, as well as safeguards discussed byWright. These guidelines were adopted as thePCIE progressed through 1985 and 1986.

Results of PCIE Audit

The PCIE audit, conducted by the Inspec-tor General's office of ea :h participatingagency, made use of a sample of call detailrecords supplied by GSA. They included both"off-network" ITS calls and commercial tele-phone calls. Researchers called each 4estina-don number in `ate sample to detei minewhether anyone 1, that location ergageubusiness with the department or agency mak-ing the call. At the conclusion of a conversa-tion with the person or persons at the destina-tion, calls were then classified "official,""unofficial," or "unresolved."

Table 9 shows results of the STS off-networksample. The weighted average (based on the

Table 9.-Results of FTS Intercity Off-Network Call Sample by Agency

AgencyEstimatedcalls (%)

Unofficialminutes (%)

Trafficcost (%)

1. Department of Agriculture 30.5 26.5 23.82. Department of Commerce 25.5 40.0 37.93. Department of the Interior 29.5 40.4 35.84. Federal Bureau of Investigations 26.5 30.0 25.15. Department of Labor 45.5 45.1 44.86. Department of Treasury 42.0 45.3 41.17. Office of Personnel Management 36.5 41.1 38.98. General Services Administration 39.0 49.7 47.59. Environmental Protection Agency 29.0 23.3 22.2

10. Small Business Administration 27.5 39.8 34.911. Department of Health and Human Services 35.0 28.7 25.712. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 41.0 48.3 43.213. Department of Housing and 'lrban Development 27.0 36.5 33.214. Department of Education 28.5 41.0 36.8

Simple average 33.6 36.4 33.3Weig;:ted average 33.6 36.4 33.3

SOURCE: President's tAtuncil on blowfly and Efficiency, "Consolideled Report on Federal Telecommunications System (FTS)Utilization," prepared by the General SSMC'S Administration, Mar 16, 1987.

63-982 0 - 87 - QL: 3 -- 3 'se

z.


Table 10.-Results of Commercial Long-Distance Call Sample by Agency

Agency'Estimatedcalls (%)

Unofficialminutes (%)

Trafficcost (%)

1. Department of Agriculture 10 3.3 2.32. Department of Commerce 26 31.1 25.53. Department of the Interior 6 1.0 .64. Department of Labor 40 49.3 40.25. Department of Treasury 14 11.3 8.38. Office of Personnel Management 34 17.2 15.37. General Services Administration 26 14.4 3.68. Environmental Protection Agency 18 6.2 2.69. Small Business Administration 46 40.6 42.5

10. Department of Health and Human Services 22 15.8 15.111. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14 18.5 12.412. Department of Housing and Urban Development 36 36.8 35.813. Department of Education 44 28.6 25.3

Simple average 25.8 21.8 14.6

Weighted average 19.9 15.8 11.0Federal Bureau of Investigation cid not participate In the audit of com-ercial telephone calls.

SOURCE: President's Council on integrity and Efficiency, "Consolidated Report on Federal 'Telecommunications System (FTS)Utilization," prepared by the General Services Administration, Mr 16, 1957.

size of agencies) of the number of unofficialcalls found was 33.6 percent. These calls madeup 36.4 percent of the total telephone tir.e sam-pled, and 33.3 percent of the total cost of thecalls sampled.

Table 10 shows that use of commercial lineswas quite different. The number of calls v.-. assmaller, with a weighted average of 19.9 per-cent of the sample being classified as unoffi-cial. In addition, these calls made up only 15.8percent of the total time of commercial callssampled and only 11.0 percent of the cost. Thiswould suggest that many of the personal com-mercial calls were short duration or low-costcalls.

An estimate of the cost of personal callingto the government could be developed by com-paring the cost of the personal calls in the sam-ple to the relevant portion of the governmenttelephone. For example, 33.6 percent of the$345 million spent for FTS off-network callsis $116 million, 11.0 pereent of the $15 millionspent on commercial calls is $1.6 million. Thus,

87

simple extrapolation. from the audit would sug-gest that personal calling cost the governmentaround $118 million in 1985.

While this extrapolation a rough esti-mate, there are a number of reasons why it mayoffer a distorted picture of personal telephoneuse in the government. For example, callingpatterns in Washington may be quite differ-ent than those in other areas of the country,so that personal use stab: Aire found in the au-dit should not be applied to the entire Federaltelephone bill. Locations outside the Washing-ton area were not included in the PCIE audit.However, two agencies, the Departments ofDefense and Energy, sampled some areas out-side Washington at the same time as the PCIEaudit. These agencies found unofficial use rang-ing from 40 to 50 percent, suggesting that per-sonal use in Washington may be the same ora little lower than elsewhere in the country.However, the results are Lot strictly compara-ble because the sampling technique and studymethodology were different.

Ch. 3Telephone Call Accrunting 75

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR GOVERNMENTTELEPHONE MANAGEMENT

Need for New Policies

Most of the questions raised by the auditstill remain open. The exchange of letters be-tween Congress and the Office of Managementand Budget resulted in modified guidelines forthe PCIE audit conducted in 1985-86. In addi-tion, OMB issued guidelines related to han-dling of call detail recur `Ji under the PrivacyAct. However, the question of the basis for fu-ture permanent guidelines on the managementof the government's telephone must still be re-solved.

The government has been collecting call de-tail information for long-distance calls for along time. The recent audit relied on no newtechnology. A similar audit could have beenconducted at anytime in the past 10 years. Asmentioned above, GSA provides its 20 percentsample record tt, all government agencies. al-though the agencies do not always use thisdetailed call information on a regular basis. Thegovernment has used this information whenthere is sufficient need or motivation. For ex-ample, examination of long-distance telephonerecords was an important element in the in-vestigation of Department of Commerce em-ployees suspected of using "inside inform*tion" stock trading deals. A number ofemployees were required to reimburse the gov-ernment for long-distance calls as a result ofthat investigation."

The opportunity to create a usable govern-ment policy on telephone use is especially im-portant in the light of the development of anew long-distance system to replace FTS, andin the light of plans of a number of agenciesto take control of their own telephone manage-ment. Several, Mu) the Departments of Trans-portation and State, have sirezdy begun pro-curing their own local service for theirheadquarters offices. In most cases, theseagencies have also purchased or leased newtelephone equipment, including switching

"Join II. Bony, "Than Cowman Employon Find forFronting From Data," Mahington Post, Jun 13, 1966, p. 1.

equipment with call accounting, call blocking,and other modern features. Developing andimplementing a governmentwide policy maybecome increasingly difficult as the system be-comes more fragmented. GSA, as the govern-mentwide telecommunications manager, is cur-rently trying to revise policies related tolong-distance telephone use.

A number of major questions need to bedecided on a long-term basis. How will personaluse be defined, and what level of personal usewill be tolerated? Will there be a continuingrole for audits, such as the one recently com-pleted? Will local calls be included in futureaudits? What will be the policy toward long-distance calls to suburban areas? What can bedone to ensure employees prop& access to thepress, to union representatives? Can a suffi-cient level of protection be given to call-accounting records to prevent their misuse?What role, if any, will service observation orother types of "listening in" play in civern-ment telephone management? What alterna-tive kinds of management technic des are ap-propriate for use on government telephones?These questions are addressed in the follow-ing sections.

Establishing a Policy on Personal Use

GSA has been struggling to develop a suc-cessor to the current policy of "no personalcalls." A number of alternatives might be con-sidered. This section will discuss only long-dis-tance cads, which are the main focus of con-cern. Local calls will be considered later.

One approach would be to allow personallong-distance calls at the government's ex-pense under certain circumstances, for exam-ple in case of accident or illness, to check onbabysitters or transportation arrangements.The prthlem here is to create a list that elimi-nates frivolous calling, but still covers all rea-sonable drcmostances, including some as yetunforeseen.

8 S


Another approach would be to allow work-ers to make private long-distance calls on FTSon a cost - reimbursement basis, as is the pol-icy in some private firms, universities, andState agencies. The problem with this ap-proach is the possible bookkeeping burden thatcould be created for an organization as largeas the Federal Government. It would be nec-essary to establish a method for identifyingpersonal calls, billing employees, and collect-ing money. Organizations that allow reim-bursement tend to be small offices with a col-legial atmosphere; identification of personalcalls is basically an "honor system," reinforcedby supervisory review of monthly call records.Usually, a printout of calls is circulated amongthe staff each month so that each person caninitial his or her pc sonal calls. While this ap-proach makes it possible for employees to usethe telephone freely, and provides reimburse-ment to the employer, it does not protect pri-vacy. Not only supervisors, but everyone inthe office typically sees the printout and could,if they were interested, make note of who calledwhom.

Using a call - accounting system, it would bepossible to develop a private printout or "tele-phone bill" for each worker's telephone. How-ever, identifying personal calls might still bea problem. Workers would be "on their honor"to claim personal calls; those with a poor mem-ory or an underdeveloped sense of honor wouldstill make calls at the government's expense,unless some sort of regular audit were made.

Collecting payment for calls would requirethe creation of an administrative structure andwould generate costs that would have to bepassed on to the users, thus re' sing the costof the calls. Presumably this would be littledifferent from other instances (bookstores,cafeterias) where government employees paycash for a service; however, in most cases thesei re usually provided by contractors rather thandirectly by the government. It is not likely,in any case, that agencies will want to go intothe "telephone business" on a regular basisfor their employees.

Another approach would be to allow govern-ment workers to make personal long-distance

calls from the telephones on their desks as longas the calls are bill to a home number or per-sonal calling card. This approach is quite fea-sible now, given the near universality of call-ing cards. However, it may be considered"legal, since current regulations prohibit thepersonal use of the government's telephone aswell as FTS. Billing calls to a home numberis technically possible from many governmentphones and could be made possible from theothers. The costs to government of such a pol-icy would be primarily in terms of employeetime (for calls not made during lunch periodor break).

Because many personal calls may be callshome made by Federal workers traveling itof town, GSA has advanced a proposal tc al-low each Federal worker one call home per dayof travel. This practice is held to be typical ofpersonnel policies in private businesses. GSAhas estimated that the cost of such a policycould be as high as $100 million per year, basedon the total travel days of Federal workers.It is not possible to tell how many personalcalls are currently made by traveling workers,thus it is not known how much moving thisparticular type of call from the "prohibited"to the "permitted" category would affect thelevel of personal use of the system.

Exception Reports and Personal Use

Telecommunications managers in many pri-vate and State government telephone systemshave found that the use of "exception reports"is the most effective way to discover patternsof personal use. The computer software is usedto select and report on calls that have a highlikelihood of being unofficial, for example, callsto audio text numbers, calls at unusual timesor to unusual destination areas, long or reoc-curring calls. The ability to use comput Jr soft-ware to identify only larger instances of pos-sible personal use would Cleo seem the mostcost-effective approach. Call-back audits, if itis decided they are appropziate, could than beconducted in those specific cases where a pat-tern of prohibited personal use was suspected,rather than as a general approach to telephonemanagement.


Use of exception reports requires decisionsabout the thresholds below which possible per-sonal use can be tolerated or at least dis-regarded. This is generally not a problem inthe private sector, where it is a managementdecision, tempered perhaps by the "corporateculture." But in the Federal Government, thereis at least the philosophical difficulty causedby the fact that any personal use is not onlycontrary to policy, but illegal. Even if sometacit threshold of "reasonable personal use"were implemented, questions of equity mightshill be raised. People who were caught exceed-ing the threshold could claim they are beingtreated unfairly because "everyone else" is alsoguilty to some lesser degree.

Many agencies are not currently equipped) manage their telephone systems using ex-

eption reports. While some agencies may bemaking regular use of the call detail recordsprovided by GSA, others are not. One Depart-ment of Education study noted that the print-out exceeds 1,000 pages per month; there isinsufficient staff to study the printout on aregular basis; in some cases the reports haveremained in unopened boxes for months."Similar complaints have been voiced by De-partment of Energy and the General Account-ing Office. A envie listing of detailed callrecords is generally of little help as a telephonemanagement tool. The information requiresfurther computer sortingby extension, fru-quently called numbers, long calls, etc., in or-der to be of much use. Several agencies aremaking use of call detail information fromGSA, from their own telephone systems, ordirectly from telephone companies to developtheir own exception reports.

C SA is currently planning to make call de-tail information from its 20-percent samplemore useful to agencies by providing excep-tion reports to agencies using FTS service.GSA is also investigating ways to make calldetail data available to some agencies in ma-chine-readable form so they can more easilyuse their own computers to sort the informa-tion and develop management reports.

°U.& Deportment of Education, Office of the Inspector Gen-eral, little report ACN 11.40100, July 25, 1986.

Of greater importance for the governmentwill be establishment of clear guidelines for thehandling of exception reports and other com-puter-based call records to protect the privacyof employees and to prevent any possible mis-use of these records by supervisors or otherswithin the government.

Future Use of Call-Back Audits

One major question in the future of the gov-ernment's continuing telephone managementis how or whether call-back audits will be usedon an ongoing basis. One major purpose of therecent PCIE pilot study was to provide abenchmark of current telephone system usage.The primary reason, however, was to developmethods for detecting personal use in the fu-ture. There will likely be strong arguments tomake call-back auditing a regular feature inFederal telephone management.

The PCIE pilot study was coordinated byGSA, but the actual audit was done by the In-spector General of each participating agency.Each of these agencies is issued its own reportand is developing its own action steps to im-prove management of its telephone system.While GSA is the governmentwide managerof FTS, agencies have considerable discretionin correcting their own problems.

It is possible that within a few years, PCIEwill want to conduct another multi-agencystudy in order to compare the results to therecently completed study. Even if this is notdone, a number of individual agencies may de-cide to undertnke studies on their own, usingthe techniques developed in the PCIE pilotstudy.

Even more likely is that agencies will wantto use a modified version of the call-back au-dit on a regular basis to complement their ex-ception reports. Agencies that create exceptionreports to identify patterns of "suspicious"calls (e.g., unusually high number of calls, un-usually long calls, calls to unusual area codes)could use the call-back method to determinewhether or not they are legitimate.

9t)


This use of the method still raises some ques-tions concerning the privacy of telephoneusers. However, it has the advantage of affect-ing a smaller populationonly those whosecalls are "suspicious," rather than the entirework force. This approach has some appeal,since it targets investigation at specific casesof suspected misuse rather than placing theentire work force under suspicion. As men-tioned in an earlier section, it would be neces-sary for the agencies or for GSA to establishguidelines for determining when a calling pat-tern warrants investigation.

Local and Suburban Calls

An additional question arises about the on-going policy with regard to local calls. The re-cent PCIE audit did not cover local calls, andGSA does not collect detailed information onlocal calls on a regular basis and has no plansto do so (such information could be obtainedfrom local telephone companies if especiallyrequested and paid for. In their second letterto OMB, Reps. Edwards and Schroeder ex-pressed the opinion that the government"should not procure or install any aervice, fea-ture, equipment or system that would permitit to obtain call-accounting data on individuallocal calls." New equipment being purchasedby some departments will have the capabilityto record detailed information on local as wellas long-distance calls. In some agencies, it isprogrammed only to report time and du:litionof local calls, not the destination telephonenumber. At the present time there is no govern-mentwicie policy on this topic, and individualdepartments have to choose how to make useof this feature of the equipment. A govern-mentwide policy on this topic would be useful

Local calls generally make up a much smallerproportion of telephone costs than long-dis-tance calls, but they are not completely costfree. Besides the "message unit" charge by thelocal telephone companies 17.5 cents per callin Washington, there is the cost for additionaltelephone lines if the volume of personal callsgets too high. In addition, :here is the ques-tion of employee time.

91

The private sector telecommunications man-agers interviewed by OTA, however, expressedno interest in accounting for local calls. Theysaw excessive local phone use as a managementproblem, but not a telephone managementproblem. One said, "That's up to the managersand supervisors. If their people are on thephone all day, incoming calls can't come in,so they tell them to keep it short. "39

Calls to nearby suburbs will require separateconsideration. These calls may be functionallythe same as local ones, but are long-distancecalls due to the arbitrary boundaries of localservice areas. In the Washington area, for ex-ample, employees who telephone from down-town Washington to their homes in Bethesda,MD, are making a local call, but those who callhome to Herndon, VA, are making a commer-cial toll call. A large number ( the personalcommercial calls discovered by the PCIE au-dit probably fit into this category. This wouldaccount for the relatively short duration andlow cost of calls shown in table 10many ofthem were brief personal business calls of the"checking on the babysitter" variety. The gov-ernment might decide to allow these employ-ees one call or a reasonable number of calls perday, as discussed above. On the other hand,the goverr .gent might take the position thatthe cost of calling the suburbs, like the costof daily transportation to the suburbs, is theemployee's responsibility, and might provideresonable means (pay phones or the use of call-ing cards) for employees to make these callsat their own expense.

Calls to Press, Union, or PublicInterest Groups

The policy of the PCIE pilot study was totreat any call to a press organization, publicinterest group, congressional office, or laborunion as "official business" without further

*Interview, May 1986, with the telecommunications man-ager of an insurance firm.


examination. However, as Reps. Schroeder andEdwards point out,

. . . deeming such calls "official" does not ad-dress . . . the fact that the Government willbe able to determine who has called whom. Theavailability of such information and the readymeans to analyze it remain in our minds themost troublingand as yet unresolvedaspects of the PCIE proposal.

The question of how these calls will be treatedon an ongoing basis remains open, and givesrise to the further question of who will haveaccess to call-accounting records.

There seems to be little doubt that the in-formation in telephone call detail records couldbe used to identify and possibly harass whistleblowers, people who speak with the press,union organizers, and dissidents. While harass-ment of such people is a violation of the CivilService Reform Act, use of time and atten-dance records, for example, to harass whistleblowers does take place.° New technologycall-accounting software makes it much easierthan in the past to isolate the calls made fromparticular telephones.

If call accounting and use of audits must beused to protect the government investment inits telephone system, it may also be necessaryto take positive action to protect the civil lib-erties of telephone users. This protection mighttake the form of clear and enforceable regula-tions to protect the privacy of call-accountingrecords. This kind of transactional data abouttelephone calls, while probably not as personalas the content of the calls themselves, doeswarrant protection." Regulations may beneeded to ensure that information remains un-der control of telephone system managers, andpert' -9 inspector generals, who need it toman-age the telephone system, and that data is notavailable to supervisors or othermanagers whodeal (Erectly with employees.

1°Myrcm Peretz Glazer andd Penina Migdal Glazer. "Whistle-blowing," Psychology Today, August 1986; Donald E. Soeken,"J'accuse," Psychology Today, August 1986. Also, interviewswith Donald E. Seeks% February 1986.

"U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, FederalGovernment Information Technology: Electronic Surveillanceand aril Liberties, OTA-CIT-293, (Wermngton, DC: U.S. (iov-ernmant Printing Office, December If A).

In the absence of clear policies and proce-dures regarding who has access to this infor-mation and what they do with it, the possibil-ity for misuse of the information is great. Thechallenge is to develop procedures that willpretect the privacy and first amendment rightsof Federal employees, without unduly hamper-ing investigation into cases of wrongdoing.

Eavesdropping and ServiceObservation

The PCIE study did not in any way involvethe content of telephone calls. "Serviceobservation"listening in to employees' deal-ings with the publicis practiced in FederalGovernment offices such as the VeteransAdministration, Internal Revenue Service, So-cial Security, and other agencies withcustomerservice responsibilities. Federal InformationResources Management regulations requireFederal agencies to notify both employees andthe public that service observation may takeplace, although there is no requirement to sig-nal that an observer is on the line.

Eavesdropping on other types of calls as astrategy to reduce personal use of telephonesis of questionable value and legality. The in-stances where Federal managers have beenfound recording or eavesdropping on conver-sations for any purpose have caused public in-dignation. One recent incident prompted theintroduction of legislation to specifically pro-hibit listening in on or recording conversationson the Federal telephone system, except inspecified instances such as service observationprograms (H.R. 502, 99th Cong., Federal Tele-communications Privacy Act of 1985).

Further, as is discussed in chapter 4, in atleast one case in the private sector, a court hasruled that an employer's listening inon an em-ployee's private telephone conversation iseavesdropping and a violation of Title III ofthe Omnibus Crime Control and Safe StreetsAct (le U.S.C. Sec. 2510), even though the em-ployee was using a telephone normally includedin a service observation program.

Aside from the privacy and legal questions,eavesdropping would also be a costly and im-

92


practical means of managing a telephone sys-tem. It would probably be unfair, as well, sinceonly a few workers' calls would be affected.

Other Methods of Cost Control

Finally, given that government agencies willbe procuring new telephone equipment andservices over the next few years, it would beprudent to consider the use of other methodsof telephone cost control that may supplement,or even replace, call accounting as a means ofcontrolling the costs of personal calls. It shouldbe possible, given the right technological andadministrative tools, to greatly reduce thenumber of unwanted or unauthorized calls

One approach is education. Many employeesactually believe that calls on FTS (or an em-ployer's WATS lines in the private sector) arefree. The belief has developed over years inwhich no accounting was made, where wide-spread personal use was tacitly tolerated, andwhere employers and agencies themselves havetreated telephone service as a free good. ThePCIE audit has been a first step in demonstrat-ing that the government's policy is changing.

A first step in changing the calling habitsof government workers might be a nonpuni-tive educational campaign to inform employ-ees of the new policy on personal calls once thatpolicy is developed. This campaign shouldinclude information on the methods of callaccounting that are being used As mentionedearlier, the mere knowledge that an effectiverecordkeeping system is in place has a damp-ening effect on personal calling. Educationalefforts should also fully inform governmentworkers of the kinds of calls that are permitted,and inform them of alternative means of mak-ing necessary calls not permitted on the gov-ernment telephone system.

Education programs with respect to tele-phone use can be effective. Agancies havefound that they reduced their employee's levof misuse (use of an expensive facility whei..a cheaper one is available) through educational

programs aimed at increasing use of FTS andreducing use of commercial lines."

The other strategy is to make use of activecost control measures discussed earlier in thischapter, for example "blocking" and "level ofservice access" features. Designing a telephonesystem that is best suited for doing the gov-ernment's business might be preferable toscrutinizing call records to catch governmentworkers who misuse a poorly designed system.As mentioned earlier, modern telephone sys-tems do allow for the programming of differ-ent levels of service, depending on the tele-phone needs of the end user.

The government currently has some capa-bility in this regard, but it is not used to a greatextent. There are five levels of FTS telephoneservice available; these affect only the enduser's ability to make outgoing calls, not theability to receive incoming ones. The levels are:

1. Standard Service: Can call only governmenttelephone in local area.

2. Jommercial Service: Can call governmentlocal telephones and commercial lines (dial9). This includes the ability to access com-mercial long-distance lines after dialing 9.

3. Government Service: Can call local and in-tercity government telephones, but no com-mercial lines.

4. National Service: Full access to both gov-ernment and commercial telephone net-works, but no international dialing.

5. International Service: Full access to Gov-ernment and commercial networks and inter-national dialing.

42Sse for example, U.S. Department of Education, Office ofthe Inspector General, "Report on Review of TelephoneChanges," Sept. 11, 1981.


According to GSA, the distribution of theselevels of service among government full-serviceagencies was as follows:

Level of service Main lines1. Standard . .. ......... 881 ( 0.6%)2. C o m m e r c i a l service . . . 532 ( 0.4%)3. Government service . . 242 ( 0.2%)4. National service . . . . 36,267 ( 25.6%)5. International service . . . . . 82,955 ( 58 7%)

No level ........ . . . .. . 20,443 ( 14.5%)Total 141,320 (100.0%)

The "no level" category refers to lines thatcould not be classified or were installed beforethe classification went into effect."

As shown above, 84 percent of the lines arein the two highest levels of service. While itis possible that such a large number of Fed-eral workers need access to the full range ofnational or international telephone service, itis likely ': hat the actual number with a busi-ness need to make extensive long-distance call-ing is lower than 84 percent. In the past, therelative difficulty of changing the level of serv-ice on a given line once it was installed madeit difficult to assign specific levels of serviceto specific types of users. To ensure that tele-phone service would be at least adequate tothe needs of any group of workers stationedin a particular office, lines have usually beenassigned a fairly high level of service.

However, new digital telephone systems willhave greater flexibility and could allow moreextensive use of programmed levels of servicethat can be changed as needed. Meaningfullevels of service that reflect the calling patternsof government workers would have to be de-veloped, and !ndividual agencies would needto determine which of their employees need ac-cess to commercial lines, which to FTS lines,which to off-network destinations via FTSlines, and so on.

Restrictions might also be assigned to thetelephones themselves, or to their users, basedon authorization codes. Both approaches have

"Information taken from President's Council on Integrityand Efficiency, "Consolidated Report on Federal Telecommu-nications System (FPS) Utilisation," prepared by the GeneralServices Administration. Office of the Inspector General, Mar.16, 1987.

their advantages and disadvantages. Author-ization codes are more flexible, since they de-pend on user needs rather than the locationof a particular telephone he or she is using atthe moment. On the other hand, authorizationcodes require users to dial additional digits,which can be a burden on those who makemany calls unless speed dialing is available.Assigning restrictions to specific telephoneswould require that levels of service be changedevery time offices are changed; this is possi-ble with new digital telephone systems.

It may be that the government will want topursue both options on an agency-by-agencybasis. In some agencies, the telephones mayrestrict long-distance calling except for holdersof authorization codes. In other areas whereauthorization codes are unworkable, such asteleservice centers where employees makemany calls all day, telephones can be pro-grammed so that codes would not be needed.Other agencies may decide to assign levels ofservice to telephones rather than to an indi-vidual via authorization codes. Some possiblelevels of service might in ude:

Local Government Service: Can call onlygovernment phones in local area.Local Service: Can call local governmentphones and commercial (dial 9) lines. PBXor local telephone company Centres blockslong-distance access.Government Long Distance Allowed: Allabove plus access to FTS.Off-Net Long Distance Allowed: All aboveplus ability to call nongovernment phonesvia FTS.Commercial Long Distance Allowed: Allabove plus access to commercial long-distance network.Range Authorization: Users in the previ-ous three categories could be limited tocalls in certain area codes or zones withinthe country.International Calling: All above plus in-ternational direct dialing."

"List developed by OTA based on categories in "DetailedDescription" manual of State of New York, Office of GeneralServices, Division of Telecommunication.


Clearly, establishing better levels of servicewill not eliminate personal calling. It is stillpossible for the holders of authorization codesto make personal calls, to the extent allowedby their assigned level of service. Similarly,should levels of service be assigned to specifictelephones, it is possible that the people sit-ting near telephones capable of making long-distance calls will use them for personal call-ing. However, a call restricting approach couldreduce the number of unofficial calls made onthe government's telephones. The State of NewYork found that many employees do not needto make long-distance calls in the course oftheir work and therefore do not need authori-zation codes. Only 60,000 codes are in effect(there are 200,000 employees at locationsserved by the State telephone system). Whilecodes are sometimes shared among membersof a small workgroup, it is still clear that notevery employee needs access to long-distanceservice at work. Only about 20 percent of codesassigned have a level of service that permitsfull national or international dialing privileges.The other 80 percent are restricted ti, govern-ment calls, off -network calls within the State,or commercial calls within selected area codes.Determinations about employees telephone

9j

needs are made by the individual agencies, notby the Division of Telecommunication."

The Federal Government's telephone systemmust be nationwide and must serve manydifferent agency and program needs. However,it appears that the principle of reducing thegovernment's exposure to risk of unauthorizedcalls by reducing the number of employees withaccess to full-service telephones is a valid one.

GSA, as the governmentwide manager of thetelecommunication system could greatly aidagencies in making use of new informationtechnologies in two ways. First, it could con-tinue, through its own research, to developmodel methods for telephone system manage-ment and communicate these to the agencies.Second, it could serve as a clearinghouse forsharing innovative and useful approaches de-veloped by the agencies.

"Interviews with Peter Arment, State of New York, Divi-sion of Telecommunication, September 1986. It should be notedthat the State of New York does use call accounting. Authori-zation codes are the backbone not only of the service levels,but also of the billing system. Long-distance calls are chargedto the authorization code, so the call is billed to the proper de-pertinent, even if the call is made from another office, or evenfrom a State office building in another city.

Chapter 4

Electronic Work Monitoring Lawand Policy Considerations

9,3

CONTENTS

PagePart I: Why Is Monitoring an Issue? . 85Part II: Framing the Debate 89

Purpose 91Manner and Method ...... . 92Effects 96Where Is the Future of Monitoring Headed? 97

Part III: An Overview of Applicable Law 101The Framework for the Legal Analysis 101The Concept of Employment at Will 101The Legal Status of Public v. Private Sector Employees .102Purpose 102Manner and Method 107Effects 110

Part IV: Concerns Not Addressed by Law 112

Purpose 113Manner and Method 113Effects . 113What Does the Future Hold? 114

Part V: Policy Options 115

TablesTable Ala Page11. Unions With Positions Against Computer-Based Work Monitoring . . . 8612. Key Issues and Problem Areas in Monitoring Clerical and Customer

Service Workers 8713. A Framework for Addressing Electronic Work Monitoring 9014. Factors Affecting Electronic Monitoring 9715. A Framework for Addressing Electronic Work Monitoring 10116. A Framework for Addressing Electronic Work Monitoring 112

9 ,'

Chapter 4

Electronic Work Monitoring Lawand Po likly Considerations

With perhaps the exception of marriage, noother institution in society is so pervasive asthe employment relationship.' Roughly halfof an adult's waking hours are spent at work.Societal attitudes regarding personal dignity,autonomy, and privacy, and the individual'ssense of self are tied to the workplace. Elec-tronic monitoringthe computerized collec-tion, storage, analysis, and reporting of infor-mation about employees' productive activity'may be an increasingly important elementin the relationship between employer and em-ployee, and in the overall context in which workgets done. Decisions about monitoring may af-fect the setting in which citizens work, and maytherefore have a broader social significance.

'"We have become a nation of employees. . . .For our genektion, the substance of life is in another man's hands." F. Tan-nenbaum, A Philosophy of Labor 9 (1951) (as quoted in Blades,"Employment at Will vs. Individual Freedom: On Limiting theAbusive Exercise of Employer Power," 67 Columbia Law Re-view1404 (1967). Although the employment relationship is freelyentered into, the need to earn a living, together with limitationsthe individual's qualifications and the ease with which he orshe can be substituted, often place the worker at a disadvan-tage in determining the conditions under which he o: she shallwork

'"Electronic work monitoring," "electronic monitoring," orjust "work monitoring" are terms used interchangeably in thischapter and elsewhere in this report to include computer -basedwork monitoring and telephone service observation. Telephoneservice observation, although not typically computerized, is in-cluded because it is often used in conjunction with electronicwork measurement techniques.

Between 4 and 6 million office workers havetheir work measured by computers, and manymillions more are affected by telephone callaccounting.' Proponenth of electronic moni-toring, principally the vendors of monitoringequipment and software and some companiesthat have installed monitoring systems, saythat monitoring provides employers with newtools for managing resources, allocating costs,improving productivity, controlling quality,and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse of em-ployer property. At the same time, however,critics of work monitoring, principally somelabor unions and civil liberties organizations,suggest that electronic work monitoring is de-structive to the quality of work life and hasdamaging effects on workers' privacy, civil lib-erties, sense of dignity, and health.

This chapter ie an attempt to provide thepolicymaker with a conceptual framework foraddressing concerns over electronic monitor-ing, now and in the future. It begins by ask-ing why monitoring has become a policy issue,and what is different about electronic moni-toring that causes these concerns. It then ex-amines which of these concerns are currentlyaddressed by existing law and which are not.Finally, it provides the policymaker with arange of options from which to choose.

'See ch. 2.

PART I: WHY IS MONITORING AN ISSUE?Neither work monitoring, nor the applica-

tion of technology to measure work, is new.As chapter 1 of this report illustrates, thedetailed observation and recording of employeeperformance has been an integral part of Amer-ican ind,41:rialization from the mid-1800sonward. During the early 1900s, work moni-toring culminated in Frederick W. Taylor's

"scientific management." While early workmonitoring techniques were confined to pen-cil and paper tallies of performance, technol-ogies such as the time dock, time stamps, andcyclometers were applied pervasively to themeasurement of work.'

'For a more complete discussion of early forms of work mon-itoring, see ch. 1 of this report.

8

85

N The Electronic Supervisor. New Technology, New Tensions

Given this long history of work monitoring,two questions arise:

1. why is concern about work monitoringamong management, labor, and public in-terest groups only now surfacing? and

2. why is the application of electronics to anold technique unique or different enoughto cause this concern?

Simply put, the questions are "why now?" and"what's new?" The first question is addressedpresently, while the second forms the discus-sion in the remainder of this chapter.

Although the question of "why now?" hasno simple answer, it is posealle to point to threebroad trends that have contributed to theemergence of monitoring as a policy issue: thecomputerization of office work, the computeri-zation of communications, and the rise of work-ers' expectations and rights in the workplace.The three types of monitoring considered inthis report computer -based monitoring, tele-phone call accounting, and telephone serviceobservation--illustrate the way in which thesetrends have propelled work monitoring into thenational policy arena.

The computerization of office work is lessthan 15 years oldless than half of the work-ing lifetime of a white-collar worker.6 Com-puterization has lead to rapid, fundamentalchanges in the quantity, quality, and organiza-tion of office work. As a result, conflicts areemerging between management and labor overhow work will be designed; who will have a sayin that design; and what the expectations ofemployee performance, flexibility, and privacyshould be. The literature on the impact of auto-mation on work is voluminous, and the readerseeking more information is referred to anotherOTA report., Automation of America's Offices.

Computer-based monitoring is one exampleof how the computerization of office work haslead to the recent emergence of work monitor-ing as a salient issue. Since 1982, computer-based monitoring has been the subject of na-

U.S. Canvass, Office of Tedmology Assessment, Automa-tise of America's Offices, OTACIT-287 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, December 1985), p. 8.

nba

Table 11.-20 Unions With Positions AgainstComputer -Based Work Monitoring

UnionEstimated

membership

Automobile, aerospace, and agriculturalworkers (UAW) 1,350,000

Communications workers (CWA) 550,000Electrical workers 1,000,000Electronic, electrical, technical, salaried, and

machine workers (WE) 160,000Federal employees (NFFE) 150,000Government employees (AFGE) 265,000Government employees (NAGE) 300,000Machinists (1AM) 940,000Newspaper guild (TNG) 40,000Office and professional employees (OPEU) 125,000Postal workers (AMU) 320,000Railway, airlines, and steamship clerics

(13RC) 200,000Service employees (SEW) 650,000State, county, and municipal employees

(AFSCME) 1,100,000Steelworkers (USWA) 1,230,000Teamsters (IBT) 2,000.000Telecommunications workers (TIU) 50,000Treasury employees (NTEU) 120,000Typographers (ni) 80,0004.4ility workers (UWUA) 56,000NOTE: Totals are rounded.

SOURCE: Westin, Privacy and Otolity of Wcwkilfit issua.: in Employ**Monitoring.contractor report prepared for OTA, May 1966. Bureau of LaborStatistics, IWO; AFL.CIO estimates, supplementary inquiries Mindividual unions, 19W.

tional TV news programs, a stream of news-paper and magazine stories, and several recentbooks. Although it has captured media atten-tion, unions were the first principal critics ofcomputer-based monitoring.' (Unions havingpositions against computer-based monitoringare listed in table 11). While the concerns ofeach union are not necessarily identical in de-tails, a broad consensus seems to be that workspeedups, enforced by close work monitoring,are bad because they create harmful stressamong employees and also compromise the

'During the comes of this study, OTA spoke with a varietyof union representatives having an interest in work monitor-ing, including the American Fedwation of Labor & Congressof Industrial Organisations (AFL-CIO), the CommunicationsWorkers of America (CWA), the Service Employees Interna-tional Union (SEIU), Nine to Five: The National Associationof Working Women (9 to 6), American Federation of State,County, and Munidpal Employees (AF9CME), the AmericanFederation of Government Employees (AFGE), and the GraphicArtists International Union (GAIU). In addition, 9 to 6 andAFGE were represented on this study's Advisory Panel. Theseunions, and many others, have taken a public stance againstcomputer-based monitoring.

q1/4J-411._

4

Ch. 4Electronic Work Monitoring Law and Policy Considerations 97

quality of work provided to the public. As anissue of job stress, unions see work monitor-ingand particularly computer-based monitor-ingas linked to quality of worklife issues,worker solidarity, job design, and health con-cerns. Worker privacy is also emphasized asa concern of the unions, particularly the rightsof workers to see what records are being col-lected about their work performance.

Unions represent only a fraction of the esti-mated 4 to 6 million monitored employees, butfrom a field study of 110 business, government,and nonprofit organizations conducted forOTA, it is also possible to offer some observa-tions on the attitudes of employees in generalwith respect to computer-based monitoring.The field study revealed that fairness in mon-itoring is a critical factor in clerical and cus-tomer service employee acceptance" The em-phasis on fairness highlights the fact that bothprocess and substance are involved in how em-ployees respond to electronic work monitor-ing. In addressing process, employees seek gen-uine involvement in the design, testing,application, and subsequent adjustment of newoffice systems technology. Substantively, theperceived reasonableness of monitoring de-pends on: 1) the fairness of the standards set,2) the fairness of the meastnement process em-ployed, and 3) the fairness of the way meas-urements are used in employee evaluation. Abreakdown of these key issues is given in ta-ble 12.

The computerization of communicationsrefers to the fact that the information movingwithin modern communication systems, suchas the telephone, is increasingly transmitted,routed, stored, and processed in digital formby electronic computers. Because of the com-puterization of communications, the use of em-ployers' telephone systems can be tracked withgreater precision and comprehensiveness thanwas possible previously. Computer softwarein some modern Private Branch Exchanges

'Alan Westin, and The Educational Fund for IndividualRights, Privacy and Quality of Work Life Imam in EmployeeMonitering, contractor paper praptied for OTA, May 1988; fieldstudy conducted during 1982-84, and updated at all 110 sitesduring 1985-88.

Table 12.Key Issues and Problem Areas inMonitoring Clerical and Customer Service Workers

Key issues/problem aspects1. Fakness of work standards

Do standards fairly reflect Me average capacities ofthe particular work force?

Will they create unhealthy stress for many employees?Do they account for recurring system difficulties and

other workplace problems?Do they include quality as well as quantity goals?Do they represent "fair day's pay for fair day's work?Do employees share in productivity gains achieved

through new technology?2. Fairness of measurement promise

Do employees know and understand how themeasurements are being done?

Can measurement system be defeated, impairingmorale of those willing to follow the rules?

Do employees receive statistics on performancedirectly and in time to manage work rate?

Is relationship between quality and quantitycommunicated by supervisors when discussingproblems with performance levels?

Do supervisors communicate clearly that they aretaking system/workplace problems into account?

Are group rather than individual rates used when suchan approach is more equitable?

Is there a formal complaint process for contesting theway work data is used?

3. Fairness In applying measurements to evaluationAre there meaningful recognition programs for superior

performance?Is work quantity only one of a well-rounded and

objective set of appraisal criteria?Does employee get to see and participate in

performance appraisal?Is there an appeal process from supervisor's

performance appraisal?Is ther a performance-planning system to identify and

help performance problems?SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment 1987

(PBXs), for example, permits station messagedetail recording (SMDR), a form of telephonecall accounting that records from which tele-phone a call was made, what access code wasused, where the call went, and how long itlasted. The call-accounting system can thengenerate detailed, comprehensive reports of allof the telecommunication activities of everyemployee in a firm.'

Telephone call accounting is an example ofhow the computerization of communicationshas placed work monitoring on the public pol-icy agenda. A pilot study of unofficial use of

'See ch. 3 for a more detailed discussion of telephone call-accounting systems.

100


Federal Government long-distance telephoneusage has been completed," and the implica-tions of this study for employee privacy causedconcern in both Congress and the press." Al-though most of these concerns were over themanner and method by which this study wouldbe carried out (and are therefore addressed be-low), at least some of the concerns are over thepurposes for which it might be used. One con-cern, in particular, is that call accounting mightbe used to discourage whistleblowers, to sti-fle dissent or union activity, or to limit newsmedia access to information." Plans are be-ing made to audit Federal employees' long-dietance calls on a regular basis, raising additionalconcerns about the vigilance with which pri-vacy concerns are addressed. The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) has issuedproposed guidelines on compliance with thePrivacy Act, in contemplation of a permanentcall-accounting capability in executive nee-cies." In the private sector, where about30,000 call-accounting systems have beensold," there are similar concerns over privacyand the potential for misuse. The issues sur-rounding the purposes of call accounting, inboth the public and private sector, are consid-ered in more detail below.

"The unofficial use of the Federal Telecommunications Sys-tem (F S) or other government-provided long-distance servicesis Mega 41 CFR 20148.007 and 5 CFR 735.206. For a detaileddiscussion of the "Telephone Call Reduction Initiative," con-ducted by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency(PCIE), General Services Administration, and the Office of Man-agement and Budget., see ch. 3.

"In March of 1985. Rep. Don Edwards (Chair, Subcommit-tee on Civil and Constitutional Rights) and Patricia Schroeder(Chair, tkibcommittee on Service) sent letters questioning OMBDeputy Director, Joseph R. Wright, on the privacy problemsinvolved with the study. The ACLU, The New York Times ("U.S.Phones Rakes Issue of Privacy: New Equipment Would Pro-vide Detailed Record of Calls," Burnham, Mar. 17, 1985), TheFederal Times ("Planned Phone Audit Brings Blast From Sev-eral Groups," Montague, Mar. 25,1965) and the WashingtonPost ("U.S. Agencies Use High Tech To Curb Workers," May9,1985) and considerable televisions coverage all brought pub-lic attention to the subject.

"Letter at Rep. Edwards to Joseph Wright, question No. 6.Mr. Wright's response was that the program would not be look-ing at local calls, and that long-distance calls to news media,congressional offices, public interest groups, etc., would be con-Wend business cells for purposes of the study.

l'Notice by the Office of Management and Budget, 51 Fed-end Register 18982 (Friday, May 23, 1986).

14See ch. 3.

10.k

Finally, heightened public and work m expec-tations regarding privacy, health, and work-life quality help to explain why monitoring hasemerged only recently as a public policy issue.The period from 1965 to 1986 saw the growthof concern over privacy in the public conscious-ness," in the courts and legislatures," and inthe scholarly literature." The concern overprivacy daring the past 20 years largely tracksthe introduction and proliferation of the com-puter as a basic tool for the emerging infor-mation economy. It is Da surprise, therefore,that privacy issues have made their way to theoffice environment, where computers have hadtheir most pervasive influence. As we will see,however, the concept of privacy may be inade-quate to address most of the issues involvedin work monitoring.

At the same time as privacy became an im-portant theme in public policy, there were ris-ing medical, media, and public concerns aboutthe health effects of stress at the office work-place. Studies showed that stress among of-fice workers was a contributing cause of ad-

"See e.g., The Dimensions of Privacy: A National OpinionResearch Survey of Attitudes Toward Privacy, conducted forSentry Insurance by Louis Harris & Associates and Dr. AlanF. Westin, 1979. The survey revealed, among other things, thatstrong majorities of full-time employees believed that it wasno longer proper for employers to ash job applicimts abcut manytopics that had once been traditional to collect (e.g., informa-tion on an applicant's spouse, neighborhood, membership inorganizations, residential status, arrest, and similar matters).A 1983 Survey, also by Harris & Associate., reaffirmed the im-portance of privacy in the public mind.

"Over 20 Acts of Congress have been passed since 1970 toaddress problems of individual privacy. See U.S Congress, Of-fice of Technology Assessment, Federal Government Informa-tion Technology: Electronic Record Systems and IndividualPrivacy, OTA-CTT-296 (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, June, 1986), p. 15. Most recent legislative ef-forts to protect privacy include the Counterfeit Access Fraudand Abuse Act of 1985 and the Electronic ConummwationsPrivacy Act of 1988. None of these statutes are addressed spe-cifically at employment, however. At the State level, 21 Stateshave passed legislation dealing specifically with the confiden-tiality of employee records, and 34 States have statutes con-awning the use of the polygraph in employment Compilationof State and Federal Privacy Laws (1984-85 ed.) (Washington.DC: Privacy Journal), and January 1906 supp.

"See, e.g., Robert Ellis Smith, Workrights, Westin, Com-puters. Personal Administration, and Citizen Rests. U.S. Na-tional Bureau of Standards Special Palladian 500-50 (1979),and the report of the U.S. Privacy Protection Study Commis-sion, Personal Privacy in an Information Society (1977). Seealso OTA, Electronic Record Systems, op. tit.

Ch. 4Electronic Work Monitoring Law and Policy conorderations 89

verse health impacts, such as heart disease,and that clerical workersbecause of their"high demand/low control" working situationswere among the occupations in office workmost "at risk.'" Although the studies didnot find harmful stress dependent on computeruse (high levels of stress did show up in high-production, closely monitored clerical workthat was not computer-based), the growingnumber of "machine paced" and "machinemonitored" computer-based clerical workersgenerated similar concerns over stress andhealth.

The workplace context in which privacy andhealth concerns fermented was also changing.Women comprise roughly half of the work forcein America today and are especially vulnerableto the impact of microelectronics on the work

"Of 130 common occupations, the following 12, ranked frommost to least stressful. were said to be most stressful:

1. Laborer 7. Managerladminitrator2. Secretary 8. Waitress/waiter3. Inspector 9. Machine operator4. Clinical lab technician 10. Farm owner5. Office manager 11. Miner8. Foreman 12. Painter

(as reported in Meeks, "Worker's Compensation and Stress,"37 CPCU J. 171, 174-75 (1984) [based m a 1977 NIOSH study.See ch. 2 of this report, which discusses the NIOSH study ingreater detail

environment." Accompanying shifts in thestructure of American industry, from heavyindustry to service and information sectors,was a growing recognition of workers' legalrightsquite apart from those obtained by col-lective bargaining. These new rights are be-ing introduced primarily at the State level, andinclude right-to-lmow, privacy, safety, and dis-crimination laws. What impact the increasingalarm over drug abuse and subsequent drugtesting will have on this trend toward greaterlegal protection for workers is uncertain.

Of course, understanding the factors thathave made monitoring into a public policy is-sue is of little help in understanding what thespecific issues are, and why electronic moni-toring raises problems that differ from conven-tional forms of work monitoring. Part II ad-dresses these questions.

"See: Hartmann, Kraut, Tilly Oda), Computer Chips and Pa-per Clips: Technology and Woman's Employment (Washing-ton, DC: National Academy Press, 1986).

"See, e.g., "Beyond Unions: A Revolution in EmployeeRights is in the Making," Business Weak, July 8,1986 (coverstory); ma '1'he New Industrial Relations," Business Week,May 11,1981; and more remedy, U.S. Labor Law and the Fu-ture of Labor-Management Cooperation, BLUR 104 (Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor-Manage-ment Relations and Cooperative Programs, 1986).

PART II: FRAMING THE DEBATEAs seen in the first section of this chapter

and elsewhere in this report, electronic moni-toring raises a variety of distinct concernsranging from worker participation in job de-sign, to worker solidarity, to privacy, to stressand health, to worker dignity, to quality ofworklife, and more. Yet not all of these con-cerns are of the same type; some relate to theway that electronic mg_mitoring is implementedin a given work environment, some to the useof mcnitoring to drive the worker, some to theuse of information gained in monitoring, andsome to the very fact that monitoring is con-ducted at all. Moreover, these concerns differ,depending on the type of monitoring being dis-cussed; computer-based monitoring raises theissue of stress, while telephone call account-

ing engenders concerns over privacy. Clearly,electronic monitoring is a multifaceted issue,with no simple term of analysis.

Furthermore, upon close scrutiny, objectionsto electronic monitoring resist categorizationin terms of traditional legal and normativeprinciples. As the legal analysis in part III ofthis chapter shows:

Except when monitoring is used for ille-gal ends, even some of its more onerousforms (e.g., machine pacing) are entirely

The concept of privacy, whether based onlaw or on ethical considerations, seems toonarrow to address many concerns over thetypes of employee monitoring considered


in this report. The performance of tasksat work is, for the most part, an inherentlypublic activity, which is done on behalfof the employer at the place of employ-ment. An employee would hiely find it dif-ficult to assert a right of privacy in hisor her performance at tasks such as com-puter claims processing.Although some legal doctrines may be im-plicitly aimed at 4-xlicating a person'sclaim to bodily or mental integrity, auton-omy, or dignity, the law recognizes no"right of dignity" or "right of autonomy"as such.n

Not only does monitoring escape the "net"of what is normally considered private infor-mation, its infusion into the workplace seemsso gradual an extension of past practices that,if there is no real basis in doctrines of privacyfor objecting to the proverbial supervisor witha clipboard, there seems to be none to using

i'Coneider, for wimple. the common law torts of(1) Battery, which is an intentional and wassented-to con-

tact, and in which "Mb, dement of personal indignity has al-ways been given considerable weight":

(2) Asserit, which stems from an interest in freedom froma p p n b s o r i o n of a harmful oroffsnehm contact (as distinguishedfrom costae* This individual is protadad against a purely men-tal distnebsoce of his personal integrity. Demagog are recordr-able for mental disturberice (fright, humiliation, etc.) as wellas any physical illness that flows from it, but an seam* mustcrate -n apprehension of immediate physical harm; and

U Indletiss of Mental Distress, an action in which the inflic-tion of mental injury itself became vindictable. It is most oftenfarad in cases of intentional. flagrant acts, where "Warne out-rage" of a defendant's act allows recovery ("your husband hasbeen in an accident" or situations in which there is repeatedhounding or threatening of the plaintiff). Mental distress mustexist and be severe, and no recovery can be obtained for moreprofanity, obscenity or abuse.

W.L. Prosser, Prosser on Torts, 4th ed. (St. Paul, MN: WestPublishing Co., 1971), pp. 802 at seq.

Some court opinions suggest a close correlation between com-mon law rights of privacy and individual dignity, autonomy,and personal freedom. For example, in (Realty, "RedefmingPrivacy," 12 Harvard Civil Rights and avil Mortise Law Jour-nal 288-296, the author reviews several minicar dealing withthe common law right of privacy, and concludes that

fir meson of deniagespearl or specineeas be ar-rived et mid we eelmewhdp that it wee sot the mezawed touch -* ar the emmereeted march as nth that ceased the Wary. Whetwas injured, rather, wee that maelisr aspect at MOO end tree-dem lemeted i _cress's espeetidiem et pelmey.It at 268 lemphesis added). Although it may be the case that

privacy rights entail interests hi dignity and freedom, the con-verse does not neoseserily follow: in dignity, freedom.and autonomy are not necessarily privacy interests. To vindi-cate inane*. in dignity and autonomy, in other words, requiresa separate and independent basis in law, such as privacy.

1 I) 3

Table 13.A Framework for Addressing ElectronicWork Monitoring

ConcernPurpose of monitoring Fairness

Criteria

RelevanceCompletenessTargeting

Manner and method ofmonitoring Autonomy Intensiveness

Dignity IntrusivenessPrivacy Visibility

TypeLeakinessPermanence

Effect of monitoring Health FrequencyStress Continuousness

RegularityControl

SOURCE: Office of Technology Aseeeement 1987.

a computer to do much the same thing. Aschapter 1 explained, some form of work moni-toring has always been a part of employment,and the fact that technology introduces newor more efficient ways to monitor work maynot be in itself an obvious incursion on privacy.Some reason must therefore be found whymonitoring work by means of microelectronicsis significantly different from past forms ofmonitoring, and what this difference means interms useful for formulating policy.

To that end, OTA has de -eloped an analyti-cal framework that draws on familiar conceptsand applies them to the new capabilities andcharacteristics of electronic monitoring. Table13 summarizes this framework. In general,most claims abc'it the deleterious effects ofelectronic monitraing can be understood asstatements about its purpose, its manner andmethod of implementation, or its effects. It isthis framework that guides the discussion inthe rest of this chapter. In this part of the chapter, the purpose/method/effect breakdown isexamined, in light of the characteristics of mon-itoring technologies, to show why electronicmonitoring may present unique problems forthe relationship between employee and em-ployer. Then, in part III, the variety of legalmechanisms for addressing problems in thepurpose, method, and effect of monitoring areexamined. Finally, the chapter looks at thetypes of claims the law does not address, andexplores the options Congress may wish topur-sue in light of these unresolved issues.

Ch. 4Electronic Work Monitoring Law and Policy Cona'derations 91

PurPoseConcerns about the purpose of monitoring

refer to the ends that the employer seeks tofurther through a given monitoring technique.Sy and large, electonic work monitoring maybe used to measure and document a varietyof employee transactions, for purposes of:

planning and scheduling personnel andequiPmentevaluating individual performance andpersonnel decisions (promotion, retrain-ing, discharge, etc.);increasing productivity by increasing in-dividual performance (feedback on speed,etc., and work pacing);providing security for employer property(including intellectual property) and per-sonnel records;investigating incidents of misconduct orcrime, or human error; andincreasing management control, discour-aging union organizing activities, identify-ing dissidents, etc.

Attacks on the purpose of a monitoring sys-tem can be understood as complaints aboutits fairness. While illegal monitoringpurposespresent little difficulty for finding the practiceunfair (see part III), its use for currently legalpurposes is more problematic. In general,employees and unions oppose the use of moni-toring for purposes which, while legal, they re-gard as unfair. For example, electronic evaluations of employee performance that reflectinadequately or arbitrarily the task the em-ployee is performing, or that place demande.on workers' time and energy that are unrealis-tic or unduly burdensome, are likely to raiseobjections by employees and unions.

Because electronic monitoring represents anunprecedented ability to measure job perform-ance exhaustively and in great detail (see chs.2 and 3), several monitoring system charac-teristics become key items in ensuring fairness;particularly the relevance, completeness, andtargeting of the monitoring.n

"Huse factors are illustrative of the types of concerns raisedbecause of new technologies; they are hardly exhaustive, andthe reader may have his or her own in mind.

Relevance.A work monitoring techniquethat is relevant is one that measures perform-ance related to the goal that the monitoringseeks to further. Thus, if billing customers ina timely fashion is the goal, a relevant meas-ure would be whether customers were billedon time. A less relevant measure would be thenumber of "fields" in a customer account data-base that are filled in per hour.

Completeness. A monitoring system is com-plete if it takes into account all, rather thansome, of the performance parameters relevantto a given goal or behavior. If, therefore, a jobentails both talking with as many customersas possible during a given time and handlingcustomer needs in a satisfactory way, a moni-toring system that measures only the numberof customers handled is incomplete.

Targeting.A monitoring system that gen-erates information on particular individualswithin an organization, rather than thegroupor wo-k process of which that individual is apart, is a targeted system. A monitoring sys-tem that reveals only aggregate organizationalperformance is "untargeted" or categorical.

Using these definitions as measures of thefairness of monitoring technologies, one canbegin to understand why new technologyraises issues of fairness of purpose. For exam-ple, in computer-based monitoring, where acomputer is used to tabulate total keystrokesduring a given period of time, the question ofthe relevance and completeness of keystrokemonitoring to the overall task can become apoint of contention. In contrast to nontechno-logical methods of measuring keystrokes, suchas a typing test (where typing speed may berelevant only to qualifying for a job), computer-based keystroke monitoring may make typingspeed an end in itself, without regard to thepurpose for which speed is valuedmeetinga deadline as part of an overall project goal,for example. An overreliance on typing speedmight also become an isolated, incompletemeasure of job performance.

In telephone call accounting, issues ofcom-pleteness and targeting become important toensuring fairness. If, for example, the purposeof the audit is to reveal excessive numbers oflong-distance calls, failure of the call- account-

It,


ing system to also reveal extenuating circum-stances may be deemed unfair. If the call-ac-counting audit targets specific individuals,rather than "cost centers," as abusers of long-distance service, failure to implement specialprocedures for giving notice to that individ-ual, hearing explanations, and allowing chal-lenges may give rise to charges of unfairness.

In service observation monitoring, fairnessmay require providing safeguards to subjec-tive supervisory judgments about the opera-tor's quality of customer service. In otherwords, if the purpose of the monitoring is toevaluate overall employee performance, it maybe claimed unfair unless a more completemethod of evaluation is used.

Many of the complaints reported to OTAabout electronic monitoring suggested thatmonitoring may itself change what counts asa relevant or complete measure of job perform-ance. If, for example, a job previously entailedfinishing a given batch of insurance claims bythe end of a week, a monitoring system thatonly measures the number of claims finishedper hour may change that job by changingwhat counts as a relevant measure of perform-ance, and by foreshortening the time in whicha goal is to be achieved. The means for assess-ing performance may often become an end initself.

Similarly, a monitoring system that is in-complete, or measures only one of several jobparameters, may unintentionally change thenature of the job itself. If, for example, onlyquantity is measured, quality may be sacrificed.

Manner and Method

Method refers to what information isgathered by monitoring, how it is gathered,and what is done with it once gathered. Assuch, issues about the manner and method ofelectronic monitoring reflect concerns aboutworker autonomy, dignity, and privacy. Careshould be taken in reading these words in atoo narrow or legalistic wayparticularly theword privacy. As we shall see, few of the con-earns electronic monitoring and privacy canbe vindicated in a court of law. Nevertheless,

1 ki

complaints about a loss of autonomy in jobdecisionmaking, about the indignity of being"watched" by a machine, or the invasive feel-ing of having one's every move at workrecorded, reflect deeply held societal values.In a work environment, we expect, and indeedhope, that our performance will be evaluatedby our superiors, yet we may balk at thethought that someone will be constantlywatching "over our shoulder."

The reason why concerns about autonomy,dignity, and privacy are raised in electronicmonitoring has to do with the fact that com-puters are ever-vigilant; unlike human super-visors, they do not tire of observing and record-ing the minutiae of employee performance. Insome cases, computers are also being used topace workers to speed their work rate.23 Inthe process of using computers as surrogatesfor immediate human supervision, employeesmay complain of "dehumanization" and iso-lation. They may perceive themselves as a com-ponent of a system. rather than as human ac-tors involved in and concerned with a largerenterprise. It is not difficult, under such cir-cumstances, to understanc: complaints abouta loss of autonomy and dignity:

The electronic monitoring is one of the mostoffensive and pernicious aspects of our jobs.1984 is nowhere more apparent than in theelectronically monitored Equitable office. We"dock in" at 7 a.m. and from then until theend of the day, the VDT is counting eviarykeystroke. At the end of the day, managershave a computer read-out from which produc-tivity is determined and then averaged withsubjective factors such as attitude to deter-mine our rate of pay. Being watched, counted,and paced by a machine makes it very diffi-cult to take pride in your work.'

It should be emphasized, however, that thepotential for creating an onerous work envi-ronment through electronic work monitoringis not always realized. Indeed, whether com-puter-based work monitoring becomes "offen-

"See ch . 2."From Alan Westin, and The Educational Fund for Individ-

ual Rights, Privacy and Quality of Work Life Issues in Em-ployeeMonitoring, contract paper prepared for OTA, May 1986,p. 76; taken from testimony before House Subcommittee (711984.


sive and pernicious" depends crucially on themanner and method by which the syr,tem isadministered, and what the overall work envi-ronment is like. For example, one of many in-terviews conducted for OTA, by Alan Westin,told of a suburban newspaper's circulation andclassified ad department that monitored recordsvia visual display terminal (VDT) in a way thatminimized complaints:

The management has a daily job chart thatrecords each operator's time on and off the ma-chine, errors made, and accounts handled. "Idon't mind that at all," Alice said. "They don'tjudge us an the numbers here; they take intoaccount changes in the business service we aremaking, and the way customerssome ofthemneed more service than others. Its nota Big Brother thing." She also noted thatmanagement's attitude led employees to co-operate informally to take heavy loads off oneanother when the calls piled up at one or twostations. Alice also said that the pay was"OK" by not "great" at this newspaper, butshe liked the job very much because "the ben-efits are excellent, you can take courses atnight and have the company pay for it, andpeople you work with are fun to be with."

Several characteristics of electronic monitor-ing systems seem to be key to preservingworker autonomy, dignity, and privacy:

Intrusiveness.Intrusiveness is concernedwith the degree to which monitoring in-volves probing the individual's body ormind. A monitoring technique that is in-trusive is one that requires an individualto reveal facts about his or her thoughts,beliefs, or states of mind; to submit sam-ples of body fluids or tissues, or to exposebody parts not ordinarily exposed. A mon-itoring technique is not intrusive if the in-formation collected thereby is obtainedwithout probing into the person's mindor body. Note that intrusiveness concernshow information is gathered, and not whatthat informatior. is.35 Techniques may be

*For example, pumping the stomach of a person suspectedof "possessing" illegal drugs :s intrusive. See, e.g., Rochin v.California, 342 U.S. 165 (1962) (The fourth amendment guaran-tee* physical security of one's person against procedures that"shock the consciseme.")

I 1

intrusive even if the information they yieldis information ordinarily observable.Intensiveness.Intensiveness is theamount of detail about a worker's per-formance that monitoring reveals. An em-ployee log of personal calls made on an em-ployer's phone reveals only the numberof personal calls. A telephone call-account-ing system reveals much more detail; i.e.,length of call, destination of call, the num-ber called, which phone was used, time ofday, etc.Visibility. Visibility refers to the degreeto which monitoring is apparent to the per-son being monitored. A computer-basedmonitoring system that reports back tothe employee information on the numberof keystrokes entered is more highly visi-ble than one that reports this informationonly to supervisors. In general, the morevisible the monitoring system, the morecontrol the employee has in matching hisor her performance to expectations. Visi-bility is important in part because of itsinfluence on the psychology of power rela-tionships at work. Whereas unaided mon-itoring by a supervisor may require a face-to-face confrontation with the employeewhich both Won= the employee that heor she is being monitored and "humanizes"the monitoring by allowing explanationsand personal interactionelectronic mon-itoring allows the supervisor to removehim or herself from the situation and usethe machine as intermediary, therebyavoiding the human relationships that actas a corrective to overly rigid work envi-ronments.Type.Type refers to the nature of the in-formation gathered through monitoring.Information can be either substantive ortransactional. Substantive informationconcerns the actual content or meaningof communications or documents. Trans-actional information is information aboutsubstantive information; the number ortype of messages sent, to whom, howoften, in what sequence, etc. Telephoneservice observation is an example of mon-itoring substantive information, since it


reveals the content of employees' phoneconversations. Telephone call accounting,by contrast, reveals only transactional in-formation, such as the destination called,length of call, cost of call, etc. The distinc-tion between substantive and transac-tional information can become blurred,especially where computers are used topiece together patterns of transactions,thus allowing inferences regarding thesubstantive content of those transactions.The distinction is important, since bothsocietal expectations and the law gener-ally endow substantive information withgreater importance and protection.Lealdness.Leakiness refers to the abil-ity of information gathered by monitor-ing for one reason to be used for another.Thus, information gathered through tele-phone call-accounting systems tends to beleaky, because the information gatheredcan be used to track individuals' extra-work activity, despite the fact that it wascollected for purposes of detecting abuse.Computer-based keystroke monitoring, onthe other hand, tends to be relatively"tight," since the information gatheredoften has little use outside of the contextof job performance. Like other criteria,leakiness is a factor in determining the le-gality of certain information practices."Permanence.Permanence refers towhether the information gathered by mon-itoring becomes a record, and how longthat record remains in an employee file.Some information obtained by monitor-ing is transient, and never becomes a rec-ord. A computer-based monitoring systemthat determines when the employee hasfinished a certain job and is ready to moveon to the next (i.e., machine pacing) maygenerate no records, and is thus transient.Telephone service observation, on theother hand, may entail writing commentson an evaluation sheet, which then be-comes part of the employee's permanentrecord.

'See part III of this chapter.

Permanence is important from a privacy stand-point, since privacy law very often regulateswhat may be done with records that are per-manent."

The way in which these factors interact withelectronic monitoring to give rise to problemsof autonomy, privacy, and dignity can be il-lustrated by a brief consideration of the tech-nologies considered in this report.

Computer-based monitoring may be imple-mented in an intensive and invisible manner.In other words, the computer can be used in-tensively to chart periods of peak performanceat a VDT, time spent away from the terminal,time spent idle, and other minutiae of job per-formance. The monitoring may be of extremelylow visibilitythe employee may not knowhow she is doing, but does know that she isbeing "watched." The knowledge that one'severy move is being watched, without an abil-ity to watch the watcher, can create feelingsthat one's privacy is being invaded and thatone is an object under close scrutiny. Beingsubject to close scrutiny without an ability toconfront the observer may mean the loss ofa feeling of autonomy. This may have subtleyet profound implications for interpersonalpower relationships at work. In French philos-opher Jr m Paul Sartre's analysis of relation-ships between persons, he observes that:

. . . [w]ith the Other's look the "situation" es-capes me. To use an everyday expression whichbetter expresses our thought, I am no longermaster of the situation."

Activities at work that cannot in fact be ob-served, measured, and thus controlled, are bydefault discretionary activities. In the past,the time an employee spent going to the bath-room, talking with his or her spouse, pausingbetween tasks, and so on, were largely discre-tionary. Obtaining detailed information onsuch activities was either impossible, imprac-tical, or not cost-effective. What constituted"acceptable" employee performance was in

"See the discussion of "system of records" under thePrivacy Act in part III.

Sartre, Being and Nothingness, as reprinted in The Philos-ophy of Jean-Paul Sartre (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1972),p. 203. Emphasis in original.

in?

Ch. 4Electronic Work Monitoring Law _I-, 1 Policy Considerations 95

part a function of the information a supervi-sor could collect. There was some domain ofbehavior which an employee could call his own,and for which he knew he was unaccountable.

But, because the computer dramatically en-hances the in isiveness of human observa-tion, the employee may feel powerless and ex-posed under the gaze of electronic monitoring.And, since face-to-face exchanges between em-ployee and supervisor often involved negotia-tions and room for human error and "slippage"in the performance of tasks, the employee'srelationship to a supervisor was on more evenfooting. But with systems of evaluation thatare invisible to the employee, the transactionsbetween people that allowed the employee toassert his autonomy may be minimized.

Different sorts of mcerns about privacy andautonomy are present in telephone callaccounting. Call accounting raises questionsabout thepermanence and leakiness of recordsgenerated. The legal implications of these fac-tors are dealt with below, but here we call at-tention to the effect of the existence of recordson employee behavior. If records of all callsare being kept, the employee knows he or shemay be required to justify those that are "ques-tionable." Under these circumstances, an em-ployee may be less inclined to make calls thatcannot be easily justified as business calls. Thismay have an impact on "whistleblowers "those seeking to disclose unethical or illegalcorporate or government activity. Althoughreprisals against the whistleblowing employeemay be forbidden by law or company policy,the knowledge that all of one's long-distanceor e n local calls are being accounted maynevertheless act to "chill" such activities. Evencalls that can be justified as "business" or"official" may be subject to supervisors' judg-ments regarding propriety or business sense.And, althoug' l the employer does have a rightto pr tect its property by ferreting out non-business calls, the process of identify' ' thedestination and identity of nonbusiness callsmay compromise an employee's desire to con-ceal the identity of persons he or she is calling.

In short, automated telephone call account-ing systems, if implemented in a pervasive

fashion throughout government and business,may go "wide of the mark," and have inciden-tal impacts on employees' calling decisions,and perhaps on the employer-employee rela-tionship, which were not anticipated. Whilethe past, employers had no choice but to treatemployees as if they were honest,* the abil-ity to store and process massive amounts ofdata may reverse this dP facto presumption.Implicit in the installation of call-accountingsystems is the proposition that at least someemployees cannot be trusted in their use of theemployer's property. While the propositionmay in fact be correct, the system neverthe-less audits the calling activity of all employ-ees, treating each as a potential abuser of fa-cilities. Moreover, as the ability to detect abuseis refined through technology, the standard ofwhat constitutes an abr..- may be loweredwhile previous technolc capabilities only al-lowed an employer to pay attention to extra-ordinary costs, new telephone call-accountingsystems may allow assessments of calls thatare "unnecessarily long" or "redundant."

Customer service observation shares manyof the same characteristics with other moni-toring systems. Visibility seems an importantfactor in assessing tne manner and method inwhich customer service observation is carriedout. The practice of listening in on employeetelephone conversations with customers is notnew, nor is it the result of recent technologi-cal innovations. It is also not essentially elec-tronic monitoring, but instead a variant on hu-man supervision and observation of employees.But, since today's technology permits a super-visor to listen in on an extension at a remotelocation with no audible "click" or diminutionin volume, service observation is also a rela-tively low visibility form of monitoring. Thesefactors have lead at least one organization, theNewspaper Guild, to complain that

. . the [employee's] inability to tell under thepresent equipment whether or not she is be-ing monitored has inevitably given rise to feel-

"The basic tool for measuring abusethe monthly telephonebillwas inefficient (requiring a human to scan and "flag" ex-pensive calls) and revealed only flagrant abuses.

6

r9c The Electronic Supervisor. New Technology, New Tensions

ings of concern, nervousness and insecurityand has made the job . . . additionally and un-necessarily burdensome."

In addition, telephone service differs fromother forms of monitoring in that it reveals asubstantive type of information; i.e., the con-tent of employee conversations. As is discussedin part III of this chapter, privacy concernsare most often present where the type of in-formation being gathered is substantive,rather than transactional. Because of this,courtS have held that employers can only lis-ten into business, and not personal, pbone calls.Recognizing employers' needs to monitor thequality of service its representatives offer, nocourt has held service observation to be un-lawful per se.

Effects

Unlike concerns over the purpose, manner,and method of monitoring, concerns over itseffects are more tangible, less valua laden, andare directed at the physical and psychologicalwell-being of the employee. Because of this,most parties opposing monitoring have couched0 sir arguments in terms of observable, objec-tive effects on employee health caused by thestress involved in working at a monitored job.As we saw in chapter 2, however, proving thatmonitoring causes stress can be very difficult,and reliable data hard to find.

Electronic monitoring may create new de-mands on employee time, attention, and speedthat give rise to concerns about stress. Amongthe factors that cause these concerns are thefrequency, continuousness, regularity, and con-trol involved in the monitoring. Each of theseis described and discussed below.

Frequency.Frequency refers to how oftenthe act of monitoring takes place. A call-accounting audit or computer-based key-stroke monitoring that is conducted once

"From proceedings of an arbitration of a grievance flied bythe Newspaper Guild against the Boston Herald Tra velar, Bos-ton Herald Traveler Corp., Case No. 1130-0291.88, arb. award,Nov. 12,1989; as cited in Alan Westin, and The EducationalFund for Individual Rights, Privacy and Quality of Work Lifelene3 in Employee Monitoring, cc tractor paper prepared forOTA, May 1988, p. A-18.

a year is obviously less frequent than onethat is conducted daily or weekly. Fre-quency is an important criterion becausein combination with other criteria, suchas continuousness and regularity, it maymake the difference between monitoringas sporadic "spot checks" for efficiencyand monitoring as a part of the daily jobenvironment.Continuousness.Continuousness is ameasure of how constant a monitoringtechnique is. It is closely related to fre-quency and regularity, but refers to theduration of and intervals between moni-toring. For example, a computer-basedmonitoring system that records everytransaction, including time spent awayfrom the keyboard, during an 8-hour work-day would be highly contim.Jus. A simi-lar system that recorded only when theemployee logged on and logged off wouldbe relatively noncontinuous.Regularity.Regularity refers to the pre-dictability of intervals between monitor-ing. Thus, a telephone call-accounting auditconducted every month is highly regular;a random audit is not. Regularity is an im-portant criterion, because it affects suchissues as actual or constructive knowledgeof being monitored, and it may play a fac-tor in chronic stress (if monitoring ishighly irregular, the employee may haveto stay constantly "on guard" to the pos-sibility of monitoring).Control.Control refers to the ability ofthe employee to set his or her own paceof work, and to use discretion in organiz-ing and executing a task. An employeewho can determine the pace at which dis-crete tasks, such as filling out claim for, ,

are completed has relatively greater con-trol than one who doesn't.

Electronic monitoring may involve changesin each of these factors, and may thereforecause greater stress than other forms of ob-serving or measuring employee performance.In computer-based monitoring, for example,an employee's control over the pace of workmay be given over to the machine; when oneclaim form is filled out, another pops up on the

11111...k.a.a......_.


screen, and delays in processing the second arebeing recorded. The machine sets the pace. Thismay conceivably cause stress. On the otherhand, in customer service observation, continu-ousness and regularity may be the factors caus-ing stress. Whether these, or any other, char-acteristics of electronic monitoring factors doin fact cause stress is the subject of some de-bate, as will be discussed in part III.

Where Is the Future of MonitoringHeaded?

The full extent of electronic monitoring tech-niques may have yet to be realized, and wemight see monitoring expand into more anddifferent jobs. The only limit, in principle, isthe technology itself. Advances in technologymay allow a greater range of less routinizedtasks to be monitored. Sophisticated softwaredesign, called expert systems, in combinationwith the computerization of most office activ-ity, may enable tracking the complex trans-actions of bank loan officers, sales and man-agement personnel, and stock brokers. Profitcenter accounting software, for example, cankeep accurate and timely information on suchitems as expense account and investment ac-tivity, interdepartmental funds transfer, andbusiness expense structure and account turn-over. Since many expert systems are appliedto assist physicians in diagnosing disease, itis conceivable that such systems could also beused to monitor diagnosis and method of treat-ment decisions. Depending on the reliabilityrecord of these expert systems, and their ac-ceptance in the medical community, compli-ance with expert systems' "decisions" may be-come prima facie evidence of a standard of duecare for purposes of determining liability fornegligence.

Advances in technology could change mon-itoring in the following ways:

More types of information, including in-formation about employees' behavior out ofwork, may become increasingly available.A greater amount of information aboutemployee performance is now availablethrough the use of technology. Sophisti-

Table 14.Factors Affecting Electronic Monitoring

Factors favoring increasad monitoring:Economics and increasing sophistication of the technologyLabor market trendsMacroeconomic trendsEmployer liabilityVendor bandwagonsTechnological Imperatives

Factors limiting increased monitoring:Employee backlash, morale, & turnoverDiminishing returnsJob deskilling or upgradingInformation overloadManagement priorities

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.

cated use of the computer to edit and di-gest this information allows it to be putto practical use.In general, the means for obtaining infor-mation about the individual are less phys-ically intrusive than would be possiblewithout technological methods.The storage capacities of modern informa-tion systems permits more informationabout employees to be retained as records.The growing use of computer networksalso permits employee records to be dis-tributed and shared more easily than pa-per folders.

Technology is not, as : .ctical matter, theonly limit on electronic mouitoring. A varietyof factors, aside from legisiation, may influ-ence the way in which monitoring technologyis eventually used. The factors can be groupedinto those that tend to favor an increasingamount of monitoring, and those that tend tolimit monitoring. They are discussed below andsummarized in table 14.

Factors Favoring Increased Monitoring

Because purchasing, maintaining, and usingan electronic work monitoring system often in-volves cor, siderable expense, monitoring is un-likely to be done gratuitously. Beyond achiev-ing the stated goals of enhancing productivityor quality, or detecting and combating waste,fraud, and abuse, several factors in combina-tion suggest that work monitoring may in-crease, both in terms of the sheer volume ofbusinesses that monitor and the variety ofmonitoring techniques and work environments.Some of these factors include:

111 0

le The Electronic Supervisor. New Technology, New Tensions

The economics and increasing sophistica-tion of the technology. In the past, theeconomics of monitoring tended to workagainst intensive mass surveillance; paidemployees were required to observe otheremployees. Modern monitoring techniquesalleviate this fixed cost, labor-intensive ap-proach, and substitute an approach witha near-zero marginal cost, which is capital-intensive. Monitoring systems may be-come cheaper to maintain than the costof abuse or inefficiency in the labor force.And, although it is easy to overstate theimportance of new technologies," thepermeation of microelectronics into mostoffice technology means that monitoringcan be fully integrated into work processeswithout the need for elf borate and costlyindependent measurement devices. Com-puter terminals and PBXs, for example,can be monitored through relatively simpleand inexpensive changes in software."

Labor Market Trends.Organized labor'sshare of the work force is currently be-tween 18 and 19 percent of the nonagricul-tural labor force in America 'down froma high of 35.5 percent in 1945), and it isexpected to decline further over the next15 years." There is a coneowitant shiftin jobs from the manufacturing to serv-ice sector; precisely the sector in whichmonitoring is highest and unionizationweakest. It does not necessarily followfrom this that employee rights are being

"For example, keystroke counters, called "cyclometere,"were available for typewriters in 1913, and Taylorism devel-oped variety of sophisticated techniques for measuring out-put, sampling piecework, and counting unite of production. See,4, jos Galloway, Office Ahmegeseset: IbPriodpkwandPractise (New York, NY: Ronald Press, 1919): and William Schulze,The American Office Its Organisation, Management, andBeards (London: Key Publishing, 1918).

"The Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) may domuch to accelerate this trend toward integration, since all trans-actional information can be reduced to commensurate, digitalhem. The first critical steps toward ISDN Lave already beentaken, sod will give users access to a broad range of communi-cations and data processing services. See: Robert Rosenberg,"The Digital Phone Net Finally Starts Taking Off," Electronics,Avg. 21, 1988, pp. 5741.

11'Beyond Unions," Business Week, July 8,1986, pp. 72-77.

diluted," but it may divert the source ofemployee rights from the provisions oflabor-management contracts to statutoryor common law; areas which, as we haveseen, provide a paucity of protectionagainst monitoring.Macroeconomic Trends. Increasinglycompetitive international markets in theprivate sector, and decreasing agencybudgets in the public sector, force em-ployers to trim expenses, including thoseassociated with labor. Monitoring is oneway of accomplishing this." At the sametime economic insecurity within the labormarket over finding and keeping a jobtend to blunt the incentive of employeesto "rock the boat," particularly if it wouldentail lawsuits against employers.Employer Liability. For a variety of rea-sons, it is the employer that generallysuffers economic losses from the wrong-doings of its employees. Product liability,negligence, trade secret, and even crimi-nal laws often en.sure this result. Further-more, plaintiffs in civil suits often look tothe employer's "deep pocket," rather thanto just the employee, for redress. Juryawards may be very high. Under these cir-cumstances, it is not merely prudent, butin fact mandatory, that the employer ex-ercise a degree of oversight and controlover its employees. Electronic monitoringmay often be the least expensive and mostThorough way of facilitating this."Vendor Bandwagons. Vendors of com-puter-based monitoring and telephonecall-accounting software have an obviousinterest in promoting their products. Whilesome vendors are sensitive to privacy and

"Some think that the case is just the contrary: "Some busi-nese leaders think they will get union-free environment, butwhat they may get is legalized environment," according toHarvard labor law specialist, Paul Weiler, as quoted in Busi-ness Week, July 8, 1985, p. 78.

"A press release by OMB in support of its Telephone CallReduction Initiative said, for example, that "the PCIE andGSA/OMB initiatives will address the reduction of the Gov-ernment's long distance phone costs."

"For example, by using a computer to track the accuracy ofrecords maintained by employees to avoid liability for warrantyar negligence in providing information; by sampling the com-munications and memos that go out of the office; or by usingcameras to observe employee conduct.


other concerns, some teed to "puff" thesavings that their systemo offer.Technological Imperatives.Monitoringmeasures many things that employershave always wanted to know. In addition,a manager is concerned with doing all thathe or she can to increase efficiency and cutwaste. Nor should one rule out an irra-tional, but common response to new tech-nology: "if it can be done, it should bedone." Because of this, the use of moni-toring technologies may become an im-perative or an accepted way of doingbusiness.

Factors Limiting Increased Monitoring

Not all factors indicate a headlong drifttoward more widespread and intensive moni-toring. Indeed, many factors seem to suggestthat monitoring, if taken to extreme,, may ac-tually impede some of the goals that it seeksto further (e.g., productivity). Such factors mayinclude:

Employee Backlash, Morale, and Turn-over.Past attempts to drive employeesto ever-higher levels of production throughclose supervision, surveillance, abuse, andthreats of discharge have met with greatresistance among workers." Employeesabotage and informal collusive "slow-downs," which tended to reduce produc-tion below the average, were often the re-sult, even in nonunionized industries.During times of economic expansion, jobturnover also increased. To the degree thatautomation is contributing to job upgrad-ing (see below), turnover may become anincreasingly expensive proposition, be-cause of the time and money involved intraining new employees.Diminishing Returns.A monitoring sys-tem that emphasizes speed or volume, asmany computer-based monitoring sys-tems do, may often do so at the price ofquality or accuracy. A computer-basedmonitoring system that counts keystrokes,

"Sec A. Gouldner, Pattern, of Industrial Bureaucracy(Gismos, IL: Free Press, 1964

for example, may engender a greater num-ber of unintentional or intentional errors(e.g., holding one key to increase totalnumber). According to a recent work onthe subject, greater gains in productivityare often the result of a reorganized work-flow and the integration of previouslyfragmented tasks.°Job Deekilling or Upgrading.It is unclearwhether office automation is strippingrelatively skilled jobs of their discretion-ary and autonomous content (desk:Ming),or whether it in fact is taking the drudg-ery out of work, leaving the employee witha greater latitude for individual creativity(upgrading). Some studies have suggestedthat both deskilling and upgrading areoccurring, sometimes within the same oc-cupation." To the degree that jobs a ebeing upgraded by automation, work mon-itoring systems that require jobs to be rou-tinized, and reducible to standardizedunits of production, may become less andless apropos of highly complex, nonstan-dardized work environments.°Information Overload.Although elec-tronic monitoring offers gains in efficiencyover human observation, it very often re-quires that a human digest the informa-tion generated by the system and makemanagerial decisions based on that infor-mation. This in itself may require consid-erable investments of time and wages. Therecords generated by telephone call ac-counting systems, for example, can bequite voluminous, and often require acadre of auditors to verify and interpretthe results."

"Paul Straussman, Information Payoff (New York, NY: FreePress, 1986).

"P. Attewell and J. Rule, "Computing and Organisations:What We Know and What We Don't Know," Communicationsof the ACM, December 1934, vol. 27, No. 12, pp. 1184-1192;R. Kling and W. Sacchi, "Computing as Social Action: The So-cial Dynamics of Computing in Complex Organizations," Ad-vances in Computers, vol. 19, 1980.

°Paul Strauseman, In Payoff (New York, NY: FreeProw 1985).

"See ch. 3 for an example of an expense report generated bytelephone call accounting.

all. Edwards, "Individual Traits and Organizational Incen-tives: What Makes a 'Good' Worker," Journal of Human R.sources, winter 1976.

.112


Management Priorities.The kinds of in-formation provided by electronic monitor-ing may not assist management in ad-dressing the workplace inefficiencies thatit perceives as most troublesome, andmonitoring may frustrate the human re-lations goals that many firms see as a keyto productivity. Among management'smore pressing concerns are employeefraud and chronic absenteeism and tardi-ness:* conduct that requires no elec-tronic monitoring to detect or deter. Moreover, management may have no interestin monitoring systems that degradeworker responsibility and morale, sincecommitment to the job is perceived as avital element of employee productivity.*

Wild Cards: Automation andArtificial Intelligence

It is possible that present concerns over workmonitoring may be rendered obsolete by ma-chines whose functions are to substitute forprecisely the type of job that is today the fo-cus of monitoring. As mentioned in chapter2, electronic monitoring is most often used injobs that require relatively few skills, that arehighly routinized, and that have more or lessuniform patterns of input and output. Thistype of labor is gradually being substitutedby automation. Data-entry work (whether nu-meric or textual in nature), for example, canbe eliminated by:

interorganizational transfer of data,directly from computer to computer;

"R. Walton, "From Control to Commitment in the Work.place," Harvard Business Review, vol. 36, No. 2,1986, pp. 7684; and "The New Industrial Relations," Business Week, May11,1981. See also Business Week, "The Hollow Corporation"special issue, Mar. 8,1986; Business Week, "High Tech to theRescue," June 16,1986; National Acadscw of Science, Towardsa Now Era in gal U.S. Manufacturing (Washington, DC: 1988);and Human Resources Practices for Implemeoting AdvancedManufadming Technology (Washington, DC: 1986).

direct input of data by optical scanningtechnologies, and possibly by speech rec-ognition technology; andcapture of data at the point of origin, ina variety of ways ranging from bar codereaders to consumer use of terminals, e.g.,bank automated teller machines (ATMs)."

In conjunction with progress in natural lan-guage processing and pattern recognition sys-tems," this trend toward automation ofhighly routine jobs may end up eliminatingnarrow, low-skill clerical positions altogether,replacing them with multi-activity skilled po-sitions.* Highly complex jobs, requiring mul-tifaceted decisionmaking, interpersonal skills,and "common sense" judgment, are unlikelyto be as susceptible to electronic monitoring,since these jobs are not amenable to merelyquantitative measures of performance.°Thus, it is possible that the issue of electronicwork monitoring is merely a transient phasein the automation of office work. There aresome indications, however, that data entry re-quirements are accelerating faster than theability to automate them. So it may be quitesome time before monitored jobs are auto-mated out of existence.

"From U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Automation of America's Offices, OTA-CIT-287 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1985), p. 47.

"U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, "inns-Lion Technology R&D: Critical Trends and Issues, OTA-CIT-268 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Feb.ruary 1985), see especially ch. 3, "SelectedCUM Studies (Artifi-cial Intelligence).

"U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Automa-tion of America's Offices, OTA-CIT-287, p. 61. Of course, thelow- skilled employee may be eliminated entirely. The conse-quences of automation for the job market are highly controver-sial, but it is unimportant for present purposes to enter thedebate.

"Thi s . -taut should be qualified by two civvies: any jobperformance can in theory be subjected to quantifiable, elec-tronically monitomble criteria; and electronic monitoring of thefuture may be able to build in some sort of assessment of thequalitative features of job performance.

413

Ch. 4Electronic Work Monitoring Law and Policy Consideratioi.s 101

PART III: AN OVERVIEW OF APPLICABLE LAWThe Framework for the Legal Analysis

Part II suggested that concerns over the pur-pose of monitoring can be understood as ob-jections based on notions of fairness; that themanner and method in which monitoring is im-plemented may irsvolve issues of dignity, au-tonomy, and privacy; and that issues involv-ing the effects of monitoring can be largelyunderstood as concerns over health and stress.The following legal analysis uses this frame-work by applying more specific legal conceptsto the purpose/manner and method/effect frame-work. Table 15 shows the relationship of thisframework to applicable law.

Each of the major types of monitoring con-sidered in this reportcomputer-based moni-toring, telephone service observation, and tele-phone call accountingwill, to the extent thatthey raise unique legal issues, be discussedseparately. Otherwise, the analysis that fol-lows is cumulative; what is said of computer-based moLitoring, for example, applies equallyto telephonl customer service observation andtelephone call accounting, unless specificallymentioned in the text.

Before proceeding with the analysis, it is nec-essary to discuss two issues common to allthree types of work monitoring the concept

of employment-at-will and the differing legalstatus of private and public sector employees.

The Concept of Employment-at-will

Under the common law tradition in theUnited States, the relationship between em-ployer and employee has been one of "employ -ment-at- we'll." Employment-at-will simply meansthat, in the absence of a specific agreement tothe contrary, an employer has an absolute rightto discharge an employee for any reason, andthe employee has a correlative right to resignfor any reason." Although subject to consid-erable erosion through a variety of judicial andstatutory exceptions and qualifications (dis-cussed below where relevant),4' the employ-ment-at-w01 doctrine is still law in all 50 States.

"S. Williston, Contracts 11017 (1967); see e.g., Pearson v.Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 332 F.2d 439 (7th ar.). cert de-nied, 379 U.S. 91411964). The terminalelity at will doctrine cinbe modified by a contractual agreement to retain the employeefor a specified period of time require that the discharge of enemployees be based on a breach of that employee's obligationsunder the terms of his or her contract of employment.

"The claim of wrongful discharge, for example, has been so-cepted in a majority of States. "To date, the common law ofthree-fifths of the states has recopied, albeit to marl

extents, a cause of action for wrongful discharge in one formor another." Kenneth T. Lopetkay, "The Emerging Law ofWrong DischargeA Quadrennial Assessment of the Labor LawIssue of the 80's," 40 Business Law 445 (1984), and see: Wil-liam L. Munk, "Wrongful Discharge The Erosion of 100 Yearsof Fmployer Privilege," 21 Idaho Law Review 201 (1985).

Table 15.A Framework for Addressing Electronic Work Monitoring

Concern

Purpose of monitoring Fairness

CriteriaRelevanceCompletenessTargeting

Example of applicable law

Manner and method of monitoring Autonomy IntensivenessDignity IntrusivenessPrivacy Visibility

TypeLeakinessPermanence

Effect of monitoring Health FrequencyStress Continuousness

RegularityControl

National Lab& Relations Act; Civil RightsAct; Merit System Principles (as admin-istered in EEO, OSHA, ERISA, EPA, etc.');State Law on Privacy; Constitutional Law'State Law on Wrongful Discharge; State Lawon Privacy; PCIE Guidelines; Title III of Om-nibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act;Electronic Communications Privacy Act; Ns-tional Labor Relations Act; Privacy Act of1974'Worker's Compensation Statutes on Stress-Causing Labor

aApplles only to Faders! enhAorlAll-

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

1114


The significance of the doctrine of employ-ment-at-will for electronic work monitoring liesin its practical effect on the legal or economicpressure that an individual employee can bringto bear against the employer. Unless the con-tract of employment includes either substan-tive prohibitions, such as work environmentdames that can be construed to extend to workmonitoring, or procedural requirements, suchas binding arbitration agreements, an em-ployee who objects to being monitored has theoptions of accepting the practice, protestingthe practice to the employer and facing possi-ble dismissal, or leaving the job voluntarily.This is particularly true of Federal employees,who, though they are represented by the Amer-ican Federation of Government Employees(AFGE), are forbidden by law to negotiate per-formance standards which are at the heart ofmany disputes over electronic monitoring."

The Legal Status of Public v. PrivateSector Employees

The legal rights of an employee with respectto electronic monitoring depend critically onwhether the employer is a privately owned andoperated firm or an agency or subdivision ofthe local, State, or Federal Government. Asa general rule, an employee has no constitu-tional rights against private individuals, in-cluding private employers." Therefore, evenif some forms of monitoring can be said to in-

"a U.S.C. 143, The Federal Labor Relations Statute."Phis =mewl is known as "State action." It is a basic prin-

dpie of oonstitutiond law, and provides thatCo

rights securedto bdividuals by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution pro-wzibe only certain actions by the state, state agencies or subdi-vision, or individuals acting under color of State law, and donot limit actions between private individuals or private enti-ties. Else e.g., Ma Ikon, Inc. v. Brook., 486 U.S. 14911976).T h e r e i n c e r i r d n n a r r o w e x c e pt i o n s t o t h i s r u b , as where' com-pany assume. ell 6'Am:timed a innoidpality, ihnah v. Ala -

. bona,1.323 U.S. 501119461, or when there is substantial Statebodement with a private entity, e.g., Bart= v. ViIhningtathada g Authority, 10116 U.S. 71511961). Some have argued thatthe actins of larep private oandrations that wield greateco-nomic power over individuals should be considered State ac-don. Sae, e.g., Barb "ConLautional Limitations on CorporateActivityProtedion otPersonsl Rights Invasion Through Eco-mmic Power," 100 UnlveraftydPermsylvanis Law Review 933(1262).

fringe a constitutionally protected interest,that interest can only be vindicated if the em-ployer is a local, State, or Federal Government,or if the employer is acting pursuant to or un-der authority of a statute or ordinance." Fur-thermore, the Privacy Act of 1974, which maybe relevant insofar as electronic monitoringoften generates a system of records, appliesonly to records kept by the Federal Govern-ment. it is therefore significant primarily toFederal Government employees."

Notwithstanding this crucial distinction be-tween private and public sector employers,there are a number of State and Federal stat-utes that may be relevant to considerationsof the purpose, the manner and method, andthe effect of monitoring by both private andpublic sector employers. The public/private die-Unction is therefore considered below onlywhere relevant.

Purpose

Computer-Based Monitoring

Computer-based monitoring is the computer-ized collection, storage, analysis, and report-ing of information about certain employeework activities. Within this broad definition,the chapter focuses on the use of computer-based monitoring to obtain data about employ-ees directly through their productive use ofcomputer and telecommtmications equipment.In all cases documented by GTA, computer-based monitoring is used by both public andprivate sector employers for entirely legal pur-poses. As a rule, an employer is not liable forendeavoring to further its legitimate businessinterests, such as enhancing productivity and

"Even in the latter case, the breadth of State action may infact be very narrow. See, e.g., Moose Lodge v. rrvls, 407 U.S.163(1972) (State liquor license for segregated dinerg room wasinsufficient State involvement).

"A provision that would have made the Privacy Act, 21552a(1976), appicabb to the private sector was present

in the original Senate Man of the Act, S 3418, 93d Cong.,2d um f201(a), but was not adopted. The Privacy Act io, how-ever, applicable to government contractor. 5 U.S.C. 1552a(m).

115


quality. Nor is an employer liable for protect-ing its property, or for investigating miscon-duct or crime."

Computer-based monitoring for purposes ofadvancing or protecting commercial interestsand overseeing actions of employees is notmerely prudent business practiceit may bea positive legal requirement." In many in-stances, an employer is held vicariously liablefor the torts or crimes of its employees, basedin part on the theory that it is in control ofand responsible for many of the actions of itsemployees while in the scope of their employ-ment" Furthermore, an employer, as a selleror even gratuitous supplier, may be liable forthe quality of the goods, services, and perhapseven the information produced by its employ-ees." And, monitoring the flow of tradesecret information out of a business concernmay be necessary if an employer is to preserveits rights under trade secrets law."

"Based on one sunny of the tap throe reasons for auditingthe use of inteMgent desktop terminals were

To prevent abuse of company PC resources for personalpurposes.To pnwent confidentielitylmanity breeches.To prevent violation of legal/regulatory duties in the useof dknt or employes data.

From Alan Westin, and The Educational Fund for IndividualRights, Privacy and Quality of Wort Life hem in EmployeeMonitoring, costeador paper prepared for OTA, May 1986.

For simple, a Npremntative of American Empress Corp.,Inc., informed OTA that American Express is required by theFmk Credit Reporting Act to stop dunning a card member whowrits. in to say that he or she is having a disputa with a servicee s t a b l i s h m e s t . B e c a m e the letters are computer generated, theonly way that American Empress can know it is in compthmceis through its monitoring system, which aggregates all suchtransactions and reports on when they are made.

"See, e.g., Prosser on Tarts, 169 (1971)."The Uniform Commercial Cods, adopted in 49 States, im-

poses on the seller of goods three different kinds of warranties.U.C.C. 2413-315 Providers Cl services, such as insurers, maybe liable for breach of either express or implied conditions ofthe contract. Information providers, such as detainee compa-nies and weather forecesters, may be liable on several theories,such as staict Ilability,,wiligsnee, warranty, or defamation. See:e.g., Aetna Casualty & aunty Co. v. Appwrin & Ca, 767 F.2d1288 Was Qr. 1965k and Dunn & Bradstreet v. Gretemoes&Baru inc., 106 &Ct. 2939 (1965).

"A trade secret is a form of intellectual property that cov-ers any confidential fonnula, pattern, device, or compilation ofinformation used in a business, which gives that buskins anopportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who donot boow or =tc the occra. Ors Cl the foam: far determiningwhether a business' secret is a trade secret is "the extort ofmeasures taken by (itl to guard the secrecy of the information."Restatement Cl Torts, 1757, comment B.

When used for certain purposes, however,computer-based monitoring may become theinstrument of illegal ends. It is conceivable,for instance, that monitoring could be used tofrustrate the rights of employees to organize,by being used as "ptmishment" for individualsseeking to organize." OTA found no evidencethat monitoring is actually being used in thisway."

It is also conceivable that monitoring mightbe used to discriminate against a class of em-ployees, by placing stricter scrutiny and stand-ards of job performance on certaingroups. Asmentioned in chapter 2, the highly specific in-formation that monitoring generates oftenre-quires a considerable amount of interpretation,leaving great leeway for (intentional or =in-tentional) misinterpretation in the guise of "ob-jective," quantitative evidence. OTA foundnocase where monitoring was intentionally usedfor this purpose, but that does not precludesuch a possibility." It is important to pointout, however, that the vast majority of employ-ees whose work is monitored by computer are

*Such rights are protected, for example, by the Nationalbar Makes Act, 29 U.S.C. 1151 et seq., which secures to em-ploye. "the right to ealferganhation, to form, join, or assistlabor organizations . ." Id., at 1157. The use of monitoring toimpose changes in working =Widowe.g., by acalsrating ma-chine pacingmay be Mega if dons for the purpose of reprisalagainst employee organizational activity. 29 U.S.C. 1158 (a) (3);See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Sanitary Bag end Burlap Co., 406 F.2d750 (3rd Qr. 1969) It is also possible that PC use could be mad-tared to detect =ion communications by *earthing or auditingPC-user duke or files, although there is no indication that thisactivity is widespread today. Monitoring for this purpose, how-ever, would probably not violets labor laws, since employersmay observe the activities of employees on its property duringworking time. Stone& Webster Barinessing Corp. v. N.L.R.B.,586 F.2d 461 (1st Cir. 19761; N.L.R.B. v. R.C. Mahon Co., 209F.2d 44 (tithe Cir. 1969).

"One source told OTA that one practice in monitoring cowpeter files is to check for human error. Under this circumstance,some privacy questions may raised, despite the legitimate pur-poses of the monitoring.

"For example, the veracity of computer monitoring recordswas the subject of an arbitration disputs between The Stateof Oregon Employment Division and the Oregon State PublicEmployees Union (affiliated with the SEIU). on behalf of oneof its members. The employee was fired from her job as wordprocessing specidist for allepdly tampeing with her end others'production statistics generated by a Wang "Machlue StadeWs System." The arbitrator found the statistics generated bythe computer system ndiable, albeit drcumstantial, widowsthat the employee had tampered with the system co& lel theStates decision to terminate the employee stand. The union

ifootems castined on ant NO

1.1 6


female, raising questions about the existenceof de facto discrimination in working con-ditions."

Finally, monitoring could be used as amethod of detecting, preventing or retaliatingagabst whistleblowers. This might be accom-plished by restricting access to certain com-puter files for the purpose of preventingdamaging information from being revealed, bytracking the types of files accessed by certainemployees in order to ascertain the source of"leaks," or by imposing more onerous demandson certain employees for revealing evidence ofwaste, fraud, or abuse." OTA again found noevidence that monitoring is being used for suchpupatesdestatte maimed from previous pegs)disputes the arbitrator's fmdings, and suggests that the em-ployee'. "work station was frequently used by other employ-ees, pirticularly her supervisor with whom she had a bad work-ing relatiosisidp." From a "case study" submitted to OTA bythe Service Empioyeas International Union, and Westin,"Privacy and Quelity-of-Worklife Issues in Employee Monitoring," OTA Contract Report, December 1988. See also,The WallStreet Journal, June 6,1985. The union thus suggests the pos-sibility that the employee could have been "framed." Regard-less of whether the employee in this case was in fact culpablefor the alleged tampering, it is dear that monitoring systemsare eligible of being used for discriminatory or retaliatory rea-mer the objective, mechanically produced measurements ofproductivity can be "rigged," and undue trust can be phredin machine printouts.

"See Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 2000c(MU The de facto feminization of monitoring may give rise toemits under the Civil Rights Act, since intent to discriminateis not a prerequisite to an action under This VII.

"Federal employees have been protected by statute againstreprisal for disclreng waste, fraud, or abuse in the Federal Gov-ernment since 1979. As part of "merit system principles," allemployees of the executive branch of government, the Admin-istrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Government Print-ing Office:

should be protected against reprisal for the lawful disclosureof Wormed= which the employee; noesonably believe evidence.

(A) a violation of fey law, rule, or regulation, ormisenuegemset, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of author-

ity, or a eabetasdel and specific danger to public health or safety6 U.S.C. 1230101191

Additional protection may be available under anti-reprisalclauses of various substantive employee protection or public'protection laws,Other publc pmide

EEOpHuEnRdIeSr

AF. EsPt Am, and so ont

ae e First AmendmentprIndpies, as articulated in Pickering v. Board of Education,1191 U.S. 663 (1988) ("the interests of the [employee], as a citi-zen, in commenting upon matters of public concern [are to beweighed against] the interest of the State, as an employer, inpromotion the efficiency of the public services it performs

Wits employees." Id. at 688. See also: Mt. Healthy CuyD1strictBoard el Educative v.Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (19771

iprefacted whistleblowing most be "a matter of public concern"

The number of illicit purposes to which mon-itoring can be put is limited only by the imagi-nation, yet monitoring seems no more or lesslikely to lend itself to illegal retaliation thanany other form of office technology (the papercopier or punch cloc' r, for instance). However,the employee may c ften know that his or hercomputer files or phone calls are being "ob-served" by the monitoring system, and thisknowledge may in itself act as a "chilling" de-vice to would-be whistleblowers or union or-ganizers. In a case example submitted to OTAby the AFL-CIO, the chilling effect of videoobservation was noted:

. . . employer installed and focused TV moni-toring equipment inside the plant on everywork station and worker after organizing ef-fort began. Monitors were not available for allto see, but viewed only by management inmanagement's office. Employer said monitor-ing was for safety reasons and would lowerWorker Compensation insurance rates. In fact,no one could determine how that could be. Dur-ing the height of organizing, two workers wholeft their work stations to go to restroom weresuspended for leaving their work station, with-out permission. Monitoring had chilling effecton workers attempting to orrnize for pur-pones of collective bargaining. Of the 100workers in the unit, 89 signed authorizationcards calling for a recognition el action. Butwhen the final vote came, the union was 12votes shy of a majority. . ." There was an un-spoken fear that Big Brother would catchthem talking for or working for that union."

Even if the truth of this use of monitoringfor alleged purposes of union-busting are not

and play a "substantial part" in decision to firer and Connickv. Myers, 451 U.S. 138 (1983) (whether dissent is a matter ofpublic concern is determined by content, form, and context ofcommunication). In addition. 21 States have enacted whistle-blowing statutes. "Beyond Unions," Business Weak, July 8,1986, p. 73.Employees he the private sector may be protected under excep-tions to the employment-at-will doctrine. See footnote 49.

"From AFLCIO Case Examples, submitted to OTA. Themausolea allegedly used to monitor these employers was thevideo cameraa technology not considered in this report. How-ever, software for computer-based work monitoring could beused to accomplish much the same purpose as alleged in thiscase study, by recording the time away from a station, by mon-itoring internal electronic mail and ecupkyourgersete.ed docu-ments, cr by determining who was logged onto a particular workstation.

117


born out, it nevertheless illustrates the height-ened potential of monitoring used to deter theefforts of whistleblowers or union organizers.This potential is also explored below in the con-text of telephone call accounting.

Telephone Service Observation

Telephone service observation was describedin chapter 3. It refers to the act of systemati-cally intercepting the content of employee tele-phone calls by listening in on them. This isoften done by a supervisor or quality controlspecialist to evaluate courtesy, accuracy, orcompliance with company guidelines. It is acommon practice in a host of businesses whichsell products or service customers over the tele-phone. As mentioned in chapter 2, service ob-servation is becoming integrated with variousforms of computer-based monitoring, the le-gal implications of which were consideredabove. This section will consider service ob-servation in isolation from other monitoringtechniques.

The use of service observation for illicit pur-posese.g., to discourage or listen in on em-ployee organizational activities, to discriminateagainst certain classes of employees, or to de-tect and punish whistleblowersis subject tomuch the same legal analysis as computer-based monitoring, and presents few uniqueproblems for the law." Since service observa-tion is by nature a method of intercepting thecontent of employee communications, legalrights to privacy under State tort law may beimplicated, and while the employer often en-joys a qualified privilege to listen in on em-ployee phone calls, that privilege may be viti-ated by improper motive." Otherwise, the

"A very important qualification to this statement is ThisHI of the Canmunkations Act of 1934, which prohibits "eaves-dropping" per se, without regard to the intent of the persondoing the eavesdropping, with certain crucial exceptions. ThleIII is considered more fully below under the manner sad methodanalYsis-

"(Defenses to common law claims of invasion of privacy in-clude the defense of "privilege") The qualified privilege of thedefendant to protect or further his own legitimate interest hasappeared in a few cases, as when, a naphone company has beenpsnuittod to monitor calk ; &tor Schmulkor v. Ohio BoilTelephone. Co., 116 N.E. 2d 81911953) (time and motion studiesof employees); Psopk v. Applebaum, 97 N.Y.S. 2d 80711960)

employer's purpose for monitoring is not a con-sidration separate and apart from the man-ner and method in which the service observa-tion is conducted.


Chapter 3 discusses telephone call account-ing in detail. Telephone call accounting sys-tems are devices which can be attached to ei-ther the central office switch of the localtelephone network or, increasingly, to the pri-vate branch exchanges (PBXs) on the custom-ers' premises. Call-accounting systems gener-ate detailed raw data on telephone usage;incoming and outgoing call numbers, totalnumber of calls made, total time on the line,etc (they do not provide information on the con-tent of the telephone call). This raw informertion can be processed by computer to providesummary reports of any type of telephoneactivity that the employer feels is relevant oruseful.

Call accounting is often used for purposesthat many might consider legitimate businessfunctions, such as allocating costs betweenvarious accounts in a business, billing custom-ers or clients for particular services, and keep-ing track of abuse or waste of local or long-dis-tance telephone services. The recently enactedCommunications Privacy Act of 1986 explicitlyrecognizes the need for call accounting in thecourse of providing communication services."

The extent of personal phone use in the Fed-eral Government was examined in a call-ac-counting audit conducted by the President'sCouncil on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) inconjunction with the General Services Admin-istration (GSA) and Office of Management andBudget (OMB). That audit reported in the fall

(tapping own telephone to protect own interests); Wheeler v.Sorenson Mfg., 415 S.W.2d 682 (1967) (publication of wagesand deductions of employees to combat union drive); and Cityof University Heights v. Conley, 252 N.E.2d 198(1969) (spyingon suspected thief). Prosser on Torte, 1117

"The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Pub-lic Law No. 99-508, 99th Cong., 2d sees., Oct. 21, 1986 amendsportions of the criminal cods (Title 18) to accommodate digitalcommunications, computer networks, cellular telecommunimLions, and other advances in communications. Its import fortelephone all accounting and service observation is discussedbelow where relevant.

118


of 1986 that on the average about 33 percentof long-distance calls made on the Federal Tele-phone System (FTS) were "unofficial," that is,made for personal reasons.

Concerns were raised in Congress over theimplications of the PCIE audit for privacy andwhiatleblowing. Problems might also exist,particularly in the private sector, if callaccounting were be used to frustrate unionorganizing efforts. As previously discussed,however, legal protections exist to address con-cerns over employee/union rights, and whis-tleblowers. Moreover, PCIE has adopted guide-lines to address some of the concerns over theprivacy and first amendment implications ofthe program." Among the protections are: a"conservative" approach to classifying callsas "unofficial," prohibitions on invading theprivacy of the persons called from the agency,categorization of "calls possibly made to newsmedia, congressional offices, public interestgroups, and employee unions" as "official,""and a prohibition on using data to single outindividuals or to conduct investigations." Itremains to be seen, however, whether and howthe PCIE initiative will be continued and be-come part of the regular internal auditing Fed-eral agencies. One department indicated thatin spite of its pilot study resultsindicatingsignificant unofficial use of the department'stelephone systemthe agency had no plans forfurther efforts to reduce these misuses, becauseof concerns over privacy implications.7' If theaudit does become a permanent part in intra-agency audits, questions arise over whetherprotective guidelines will also become perma-nent, and if so, how such guidelines will be en-

%snare' Services Administration, Office of the InspectorGeared, Office of Audits, "Guide for the PCIE Review of Fed-eral Telecommunications System (FTS) utilization.- pertsee especially app. XIII, pp. 85-74, July 3, 1985.

"Ibid., p. 29. Section IX of the "Guide" states that researchactivities concerning calls to these destinations should be ter-minated, that the information cannot be released to mamas&mint, and that the information cannot be used against the per-son who made the calls.

"Ibid., p. 30. The Guide does recommend, however, that"serious or egregious" cases of misuse should be referred tothe agencies investigative organisation for possible furtheraction.

narA staff taisphons interview with Department of EnergyOffice of Inspector General representative, fall 1988.

1 1

forceable. If, for example, a Federal employerwere to discipline or withhold promotion or in-formation from an employee based on that em-ployee's contacts with the press, the employeemay find it difficult to prove that the em-ployer's motivations for doing so were the re-sult of information sbtained through telephonecall accounting.

Although the PCIE study guidelines forbidlistening to or recording conversations (as doesMae III, discussed below), information on tele-phone transactions can yield a great deal ofinferential knowledge about an employee's per-sonal and life outside of work Knowing thatan employee contacted a particular newspaperone day before a damaging article is printedis sufficient to infer the content of the conver-sation, regardless of how that call is classifiedor whether it is subject to detailed investiga-tion. Moreover, records of the audit which con-nect names and numbers, while protected bythe Privacy Act, may nevertheless be subjectto disclosure through the Freedom of Infor-mation Act."

Yet another difficulty with the PCIE studyguidelines concerns enforcement and disci-pline. At present the guidelines contemplatedisciplinary action, such as removal, suspen-sion, demotion, or reprimand only in cases of"extreme" cases of FTS abuse. The difficultyhere is with selective enforcement and uniform-ity of treatment. The PCIE guidelines offer noguidance on what constitutes "extreme" abuse,and no mention is made of who within eachexecutive agency will be responsible for en-forcement. This leaves considerable discretionto agencies' Inspectors General in determin-ing who will be disciplined and under what cir-cumstances. It opens the door to claims ofdifferential treatment between low-rankingclerical staff and high-level government execu-tives. Since the scope of job responsibility isoften fairly narrow for low-level employees(e.g., claims processing at the Social Security

"See Title 5 U.S.C. 1552, intr.,. See also Notice of ProposedPrivacy Act Guidance for Call Detail Systems (0M13), 51 Fed-aid Register 19982,19984 (Friday, May 23,1988), which dis-cusses disclosure in the context of a permanent FTS telephonecall-accounting system.


Administration), discriminating between "offi-cial" and "unofficial" calls may be relativelyeasy. But for high-ranking personnel, whosecommunications are more likely to be a mixof "business" and "pleasure," such determi-nations may not be so easy. In other words,the informalities and ambiguities of the PCIEguidelines may give greater latitude to high-ranking employees than lower level employ-ees. Under the proper circumstances, this maygive rise to a claini of denial of equal protec-tion of the laws under the 14th amendment.

Finally, there is a difficulty of administer-ing the telephone call-accounting audit, par-ticularly if it is implemented on a permanentbasis. Although OMB has, under the PCIEguidelines, drawn up fairly extensive analysesof Privacy Act implications concerning em-ployee privacy and the disposition of records,the question remains: who will be responsiblefor overseeing the agencies in the conduct oftheir audits to ensure that the guidelines arefollowed? A recent OTA report" concludedthat OMB is not effectively monitoring suchbasic areas as: the quality of Privacy Actrecords; the protection of Privacy Act recordsin systems currently or potentially accessibleby microcomputers; the cost- effectiveness ofrecordkeeping; and the level of agency resourcesdevoted to Privacy Act limitations.

Such practical difficulties notwithstanding,there appears to be no dearth of legal protec-tion for activities of Federal employees thatthe law recognizes as legitimate and responsi-ble. However, the use of telephone call account-ing by private sector employers for illicit pur-poses is not so clearly proscribed by law. Infact, the only recourse of the private sector em-ployee against the employer for using callaccounting to track whistleblowing activitiesis the nascent legal right against "wrongfuldischarge. ' "6 Because of the principle of

"For example, is a long-distance call to set up "businesslunch" with a good friend an "official" or "unofficial" call?

"U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, FederalGovernunt Information Meltwater: Electimic Record Systemsand Individual Privacy, OTA-CTT-296 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, June 1986).

"Retaliatory discharge for whistleblowieg activitiesmay hacounter to public policy, and may thus constitute a wrongful

State action (see above), the private sector em-ployee can claim no first amendment right tospeak to the public or the press. Of course,statutes governing communications betweenemployees and labor organizations, discussedabove, apply with equal force to telephone callaccounting. It should be noted that, unless theemployer consents to the use of its telephonesfor labor organizational purposes, the em-ployee probably does not have rights understatute to protest the use of telephone callaccounting to track and squelch union com-munications."

Manner and Method

Computer-Based Monitoring

The use of computer-based monitoring as ameans for furthering the legitimate employerinterests raises few, if any, legal issues. Thefirst hurdle that an attorney challenging thepractice itself must meet is to identify a "causeof action"a legally recognized right thatforms the basis for a lawsuit. The only rightremotely relevant to monitoring is the rightof privacy."

Privacy is a broad value, representing con-cerns about autonomy, individuality, personalspace, solitude, intimacy, anonymity, and ahost of related concerns." Since monitoring

discharge. See, e.g., Mono v. Beebe Rubber Co, 114 N.H. 130,316 A.2d 649.82 A.LR.3d 264, 26 EPD P 31,843; and R. Murgar9 J. Sharman, "Employment at WM: Do Exceptions Over.whelm the Rule?" 28 Boat= College Law Review 32911982).Moreover, employers may be held to their own internal state-manta of policy concerning matters such as privacy and treat-ment of employees with respect to monitoring. See, e.g., Wool-ley v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 99 NJ 284, 491 A.2d 126711986),which held that the employer's official statement of policy forits employees created contract of employment for an indefi-nite period.

"Under the National Labor Relations Act., 29 U.S.C. 1168,for example, it is not unlawful for an employer to observe em-ployes activities at the worksight during working hours to seeif union activity is being conducted on company time.N.L.R.B.v. R.C. Mahon Co. 269 F.24 44 (8th Cir. 1959).

"Various theories under tort law, such as assault, intentionalinfliction of emotional distress, defamation, Wane, and mayhem were consaiseed, but lack sufficient connection to the typesof activities involved in computer-based monitoring.

"See U.S. Congress, Office of 'Technology Assessment, Fed-eral Government Information Technology: Electronic RecordSystems and Individual Privacy, OTA-CIT-298 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1988).

120


is one method of obtaining information aboutand control over an employee's activities, someof these concerm ay be relevant.

Although monitoring may affect culturallyheld values, there are serious problems in at-tempting to stretch the legally enforceablevalues regarding privacy, whether based oncommon law, statute, or the Constitution, tocover the types of monitoring conrdered in thisreport." Although 34 States have adoptedlaws regarding employer use of polygraph ma-chines, and 21 have laws addressing the pri-vacy of employee re"ords," none have so faradopted legislation restricting monitoring, assuch. One State, Massachusetts, has attemptedto enact legislation that might prohibit com-puter-based monitoring per se, but the legis-lation was found to violate the due process andequal protection clauses of the U.S. Consti-tution."

"The most widely accepted privacy framework under tortlaw is that offered by Prosser. See "Privacy," 48 alifornia LawReview, 383 (1980). Each of the four distinct tortsintrusion,disclosure, false light, and appropriationrequire a physical in-vasion of the person or his/her property or personality and pub-Radian of the information gained by the invasion. Neither ofthese criteria is applicable to monitoring considered in this re-port. Moreover, consent to monitoring, either explicit or as aimplied condition of the employment contract, would probablyvitiate whatever claims an employee might have. Privacy un-der statutory law, at both the Federal and State level, concernsprincipally privacy of employee records, and while not relevantto the act of monitoring itself, may be relevant to records gen-erated and kept by the monitoring system. This is consideredbelow where relevant. Privacy under the U.S. Constitution hastwo main branches; rights under the 14th amendment, designedto protect family relationships, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),&lank, v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); and rights underthe Fourth Amendment, designed to limit unreasonable searchesand seizures. Rata v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), andprogeny. Both of these branches require state action. Even sup -psing that monitoring might be considered a "search" underthe fourth amendment, it is unlikely that an employee wouldbe found to have a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in hisor her performance at a given task. Id.

"These figures are from Compilation of State and FederalPrivacy Laws (1984-85 ed.), Privacy Journal (Washington, DC:Privacy Journal), and January, 1986 eupp., but see: Congres-sional ResearchReports, Mar. 21, 1986, which reports that 22States have adopted laws regarding employer use of polygraphmachhiss, and that 10 have adopted laws addressing employeeaccess to records.

"The legislation prohibited "the use of any monitoring de-vice, without the express consent of the employee, by meansof which the surveillance of employees might be effectuated."The term "monitoring device" included "any device, electronic,mechanical, Anti, or photographic" by which "appearance, ac-tions, or speech" could be monitored. cite. Re. Opinion ofJustices, 8b6 Mese 758, 250 N.E.2d 4481 I-

Furthermore, some State courts may holdemployers to internal statements of policy re-garding employee privacy, and may awarddamages for "unjust termination" of employ-ees who seek to withhold information underthese policy statements.82 This approach hasnot been widely accepted in the courts, and thecorporate policy statements seldom addressmonitoring explicitly.

There are several situations in which com-puter-based monitoring may Implicate certainlegal rights. The first is where the monitoring,which ordinarily reveals quantitative informa-tion about the amount of work done and thetime spent doing it, reveals "personal" infor-mation as a byproduct. For example, if the onlydiscretionary breaks allowed a monitoredworker are for trips to the bathroom, the com-puter may allow an employer to glean this itformation by the frequency and duration thatthe employee is logged off the terminal." Inthis situation, a breach of employee privacyis arguably present." Another situation con-cerns the monitoring of personel computer use,and the auditing or editing of employee com-puter files. If the employer permits an em-ployee to use computer files to store personalinformation, or electronic mail capabilities forpersonal messages, a breach of privacy maybe found under a number of theories if the em-ployer subsequently examines or reveals thecontents of the files or mail." Finally, to the

"Op cut., Woolley v. Hoffman-LaRoche, 99 NJ 284, 491 A.2d1257 (1985).

"See: Karen Nussbaum and Virginia DuRivage, "ComputerMonitoring: Mismanagement by Remote Control," 66 Businessand Society Review 16 (winter 1986); and Nine to Five: The Na-tiopol Association of Working Women, Computer Monitoringand Other Dirty Tricks, April 1986.

"The tort of Intrusion may be applicable, if such monitoringamounts to an invasion of the employee's solitude or seclusion,et en if there is not physical intrusion. Prosser on Torte, p. 807.If the private activity is publicized, there may also be a tortfor public disclosure of private facts.

"For public sector employees, an action may arise directlyunder the Constitution. For private sector employees, a tortaction may lie. The Electronic Communications Privacy Actof 1986 is ambiguous as to whether an employer might accessthe contents of its employees' computer files. The prohibitionsof the Act speak to an "electronic communication while it isin electronic storage." 18 U.S.C. f2701(a) (as amended). Whileperhaps not intended asa communication when written, all filesin a personal computer are potentially communicable. Further,the Act's prohibitions do not apply to "the peree-.4 or entityproviding a wire or electronic communications service," or to

12i


extent that the transactions monitored by com-puter become part of the employee's record ofemployment, compliance with procedures setout in the Privacy Act of 1974 (governing onlyFederal employees) or several State privacystatutes may be necessary.

Telephone Service Observation

Unlike computer-based monitoring, whichprimarily raises serious legal issues only whenit is used to tromote ends that are ilk gitimate,the legal difficulties with telephone service ob-servation lie primarily in the manner in whichit is carried out.

The principle law governing service obser-vation is still Title III of the Omnibus CrimeControl and Safe Streets Act of 1968, subjectto the amendments involved in The ElectronicCommunications Privacy Act of 1986." TitleIII forbids the interception of the contents oftelephone calls by government or private per-sons, except by judicial authorization." Thisblanket prohibition on "wiretapping." how-ever, is subject to two exemptions that per-mit telephone service observationthe consentand business extension 3xemptions." Bothexemptions have been construed narrowly bycourts. Consent cannot be implied from thea "user or that service with respect to a communication of orintended for that user " 18 U.S.C. 49701(b) (as amended).

"Title III of the Omnibus Crira Ceitrol and Safe StreetsAct, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520 11976). Public Law No. 90-351,802, 82 Stat. 212, as amended by The Electronic Communica-tions Privacy Act of 1986, Public Law No. 99-508, 99th Cong.2d Bess., Oct. 21, 1986.

The relevant portion reads:Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter anyperson who

(b) willfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other personto use of endeavor to use any electronic, mecLanical, or other de-vice to intercept any oral communication. .

. shall be fined not more than $10,000 or Imprisoned not morethan five years, or both.18 U.S.C. 12511(10

The statute also provides for a civil remedy and statutorydamages. 18 U.S.C. 12520.

*Section 2511(2)(d) of the law permits interception "whereone of the parties to the communication has given prior con-sent to such interception," and Section 2511( 1Xb) excludes fromcoverage any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipmentor facility, or any component thereof. . .being used 17 the sub-scriber or user in the ordinary course of its business; . ." Inaddition, communication.; common carriers may "inkecept, dis-close, or use (an employee's telephone conversations) in the nor-mal course of his employment while engaged in any activitywhich is a necessary incident the rendition of his service or

employee's knowledge of a capability for mon-itoring," but must instead be based on aknowledge (or imputation of knowledge) thatcertain types of phones or phone conversationswill be listened to." Similarly, the businessextension exemption applies only to the inter-ception of particular calls as a part of the en-terprise's ordinary course of business," andeven at that, one court has held that personalcalls may be intercepted only to determinetheir nature, but never their content."

Title III and the Electronic CommunicationsAct of 1986 appear to be the excluzNe, albeitextensive, legal framework for issces that mayemerge from telephone service observation.

Other legal theories, such as the common lawright of privacy and (for governmental employ-ee:1j the fourth amendment's prohibition on un-reasonable searches and seizurzas, while possi-bly forming the basis fog a legal action, are

nproven in the context of service observation."A recent case held that, 'although public em-ployees are protected by the fourth amend-ment, their expectation of privacy must bebalanced against the government's need forsupervision, control, and efficient operation ofthe workplace.t9 Moreover, ths government isnot held to a "probable calm ." standard; in-stead, its actions are assessed under a "reasona-bleness under the circumstances" standard.Title III applied only to aural communications,but The Electronic Communications PrivaciAct of 1986 extends the coverage of Title 18to address analogous concerns present in theservice observation of the content of data com-munications."to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of suchcommunication . .." 18 U.S.C. c2511(2)(06).

"Watkins v. L.M. Beny & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983);Campiti v. Walonis, 811 F.2d 387 (1st Cir. 1979); Croaker v.U.S. Department of Justice, 497 F.Supp. 500 (D.Conn. 1980).

"Watkins v. L.M. Berry, supra; Jandik v. Village of Brook-field, 520 F.Supp. 815 (N.D. Ill. 19E).

"Watkins v. L.M. Bony & Co., supra; citing Briggs v. Amer-ican Air niter Co., 890 F.2d 414 (5`,.4 Cir. 1980).

"Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., supra at 589. In essence, thecourt held that, once the personal nature of the call is known,the employer must hang up.

"O'Connor v. Ortega,107 S.Ct. 1492, 55 USL vt"40511987)."Title III convened only oral communications, 18 U.S.C.

42510., cf. U.S. v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159(1977)holding the a communication -rider Title III must be capableof being overheard.

.12e)


Telephone Call Acc. JungMany of the legal issues surrounding the use

of telephone call accounting center on the in-cidental information generated by a call-ac-counting system. In other words, although theemployer may not purposely set out to infringeemployee rights, many of the by-products ofcall-accounting systems may in fact threatenemployee privacy. In the act of tracking re-cipients of calls originating from certain phonenumbers, employers must, of necessity, obtaininformation on the identity of the personscalled, and the nature of the call (business ornonbusiness). Depending on how the audit isconducted, and how closely focused on indi-viduals it is, a "picture" of extra-employmentactivity may be obtained merely from the iden-tity of the destination phone numbers, evenif the intent of the audit is to identify non-business-related calls." Once the informationis collected, it may be intentionally or acciden-tally disclosed to people whom the employeewould prefer remain unaware. Although a call-accounting audit may disclose misuse, suchmisuse may not be the fault of the employee(especially when others have access to the em-ployee's phone)a claim that may be hard toprove.

Federal employees are the most protectedsegment of the labor force. If the records gen-erated by the telephone call-accounting sys-tem form part of a "system of records" per-sonally identifiable to particular individuals,then, under the Privacy Act of 1974, the Fed-eral employee is subject to a number of proce-dural safeguards concerning notice that suchrecords are being collected, the subsequent useto which they can be put, the right of the em-ployee to correct or amend the records, the ne-cessity, and the acquisition for lawful purposesof those records."

For public employees in general, it is unlikelythat a constitutional claim under the fourth

"Calls to collection agencies may re. sal debt trouble; callsto counselor may reveal psychological or marital trouble; callsto employers in similar businesses may reveal an jutted to changejobs; and calls to the news media may reveal the source of" kaki."

U.S.C. 1552(a), infra.

amendment could successfully be broughtagainst the practice of telephone call account-ingeven against its surreptitious use by po-lice in order to obtain evidence for a criminalindictment." The Electronic Communica-tions Privacy Act of 1986, while providingstronger protection than the fourth amend-ment by requiring a court order for the appli-cation of pen registers and trap and tracedevices," is applicable to telephone call ac-counting." However, depending on how theinformation gleaned from call-accounting sys-tems is used and whether it is disclosed, allemployees may have rights under common lawtheories of privacy or defamation.

Effects

Aside from the abusive purposes and meth-ods of electronic monitoring discussed above,the most salient legal issue presented by mon-itoring concern its health-related effects on par-ticular workers. Other, less tangible, effects

"Pen registers, which are devices that attach to a telephoneline to record dial pulses, may be used in law enforcement toobtain information oa suspects without the need of a searchwarrant. Smith v. Maryland, A2 U.S. 786 (1980). By extension,the use of call accounthog systems (that achieve very much thesame result albeit, in a more detailed fashion), which often forman integral part of modern PBXs, would seem to raise no uniquefourth amendment problems, especially when they are used onthe employer's premises and it is known by employees that theyexist (thus raising no "subjective expectation of privacy").

"18 U.S.C. Ch. 206 "Pen Registers and Trap and TraceDevices."

"litle 18 has been amended so as to specifically exclude a"provider of electronic communication service to record the factthat a wire or electronic communication was initiated or com-pleted in order to protect such provider, another provider fur-nishing service toward the completion of the wire or electroniccommunication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, un-lawful, or abuse use of sue_ service" 18 U.S.C. 2611(8)(h)(ii)(emphasis added)

Call-accounting software might arguably be a "pen register"for purposes of The Electronic Communications Privacy Actof 1988, since, like SMDR PBX equipment, it is defined as "adevice which records or decodes electronic or other impulseswhich identify the numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted onthe telephone line to which such devices is attached.. . ." How-ever, SMDR equipment and software is excepted from the pro-hibitions of the act "(pen register) doss not include any deviceused by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communi-cation service for billing. or recording as an incident to bil ling,for communications services provided by such provider or anydevice used by a provider or customer of a wire communicationservice for cost accounting or other like purposes in the ordi-nary course of its business . ." 18 U.S.C. P128 (emphasisadded)

123


are sociological in nature, and concern the hn-pact of monitoring on the overall climate ofwork in the United States.

The literature on stress and work monitor-ing is not broken down cleanly into the threecategories of monitoring dealt with in this re-port. Computer-based irinitoring, telephoneservice observation, and telephone call account-ing may each entail widely different work envi-ronment factors (e.g., different organizationfactors, different physical relationships be-tween the employee and the technology onwhich the employee is working, and differentexpectations). Thus, any particular findings onstress are likely to vary widely between typesof work monitoring. Nevertheless, ,at of thelegal analysis that follows will hold true so longas stress can be shown to be caused by or asso-ciated with the particular type of monitoringin question.

This section relies on the analysis developedin chapter 2 examining the evidence for com-puter monitoring as a cause of stress, and ap-plies relevant law in light of this evidence. Theprinciple conclusions of chapter 2 are: 1) thatevidence that computer monitoring, per se,causes stress is Ex igestive, but not conclusive;and that 2) many other aspects of job designand work enviornmente.g., computer pacing,heightened work pressure, routinized activi-ties, variable workloads, lack of control overthe task, lack of decision latitude, lack of peerand supervisory support, and fear of job lossmay also cause stress among VDT office work-ers. Research to date has not succeeded in sep-arating the effects of computer monitoringfrom effects of these other workplace factors,insofar as stress is concerned.m

"%tress due to work monitoring should be considered sepa-rately from that due to the use of Video Display Terminals(VDTs) per se. A recent OTA report concluded that "evidencefor a relationship between stress-related disease and VDT workis still sparse." U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Automation of America's Offices, OTA-CIT-287 (Wash-instal, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1985),p. 150. In part, this is due to the methodological problems inattributing stress and stress-related ailments to any one factoror combinations of factors in the workplace. The OTA reportdid conclude, however, that electronic monitoring in general isassocistad with the symptoms of chronic arousal, and can leadto increased anxiety, fatigue, psychosomatic complaints, andjob dissatisfaction. Id. at p. 180. In this regard, the report did

Many of those opposed to work monitoringfocus on its health, and particularly stress-related, effects. Moreover, many of the "casestudies" submitted to OTA by a variety ofunions emphasize the deleterious effects thatmonitoring has on employees' health. The ap-proach of this section will therefore be to takethe assertion that monitoring causes stress andhealth-related problems as a given, and ask:how might present law address concerns overthese effects of monitoring?

All State jurisdictions recognize stress asa compensable injury, either under their tortor Worker's Compensation laws."' However,"stress" is subject to a wide variation in defi-nition in the way it is manifested, and the man-ner and context in which it is inflicted. Stand-ards of proof for its existence, and the degreeof injury necessary for compensation, are de-terminative of whether monitoring-inducedstress (if it can be shown to exist) will rise tothe level of a legally recognized claim.

Worker's Compensation, which was estab-lished in all 50 States to provide compensa-tion on a "no-fault" basis for the loss of abil-ity to earn wages, is a substitute for employertort liability. Most Worker's Compensationstatutes require that the injury be accidental,and that it arise out of or in the curse of em-ployment. Courts have read these require-ments expansively in recent years, so that even"accidents" that are slow in manifestation andwhich rise out of employment-related risk arecompensable.102 This means that, as a thresh-old matter, chronic stress caused as a resultof monitoring may be compensable.

not separate computer-based monitoring from customer serv-ice observation and call - accounting systems, as is done in thisreport. However, the way in which monitoring was described,as a system of electronic supervision or feedback in work orga-nization, would include the first two forms of monitoring con-sidered in this report. Moreover, machine pacing the use ofa computer to control when and how fast a task is performedcan lead to anxiety, depression, boredom, dissatisfaction, fre-quent health complaints, and decreases in productivity withincreases in error rates. Id. at 128-29; citing Selveady and Smithfads.), Machine Pacing and Occupational Stress (London: Tay-lor & Francis, Ltd., 1981).

10118 Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation. 142 in-fra (1982), and Prosser, Law of Torts, 112.

'0l1A Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation,1137.00.39.00 and 1 p.m.®, infra

,124

112 The Electronic Supetvisor. New Technology, New Tensions

Even if stress meets these threshold require-ments, not all States recognize psychologicaleffects as compensable injuries caused bystress.'" Only a handful of States would al-low recovery for monitoring-induced stress, ifthat stress can be characterized as "not un-usual," or "not in excess of everyday life oremployment."101 Otherwise, in order to be acompensable injury under Worker's Com-pensation laws, stress must be "unusual, "106or even "sudden," "frightening," or "shock-ing."10e As electronic monitoring gains ac-

"Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana,Nebraska. Ohio, and Oklahoma do not recognize purely mentalor emotional injuries as the result of stress. Emotional Stressin the Workplace, op. cit. All jurisdictions recognize stress-related ailments, whether "mental" or "physical," that havean antecedent physical injury. And, with the exception of Ohio,all States recognize "physical" disabilities resulting from stress.1A Larson, 142.72 at seq.

"California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, Ore-gon, a 4 West Virginia. See generally "Emotional Stress in theWorkplaceNew Legal Rights in the Eighties," National Coun-dl on Compensation Insurance, 1985.

'Arizona, Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts. New Mexico.New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, Wiscon-sin, and Wyoming. Id

"Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Masissippi, South Carolina,Tennessee, Texas, Virginia. Id.

ceptance as an ordinary part of the work envi-ronment in which it is deployed, any stress thatit causes (if any) is arguably "not unusual."In order to be recognized in most States, there-fore, electronic monitoring-induced stress mustmanifest itself in a physiological symptom tobe compensable.

Finally, many States today recognize thetort known as "intentional infliction of emo-tional distress." Although compensation foremotional distress previously required somesort of physical invasion or injury, such as abattery or assault, this is no longer the law ina substantial number of jurisdictions. This not-withstanding, monitoring-induced stress is un-likely to be actionable under tort law. First,the distress-producing act must often be of an"extreme and outrageous" naturea charac-terization that is probably not fitting to elec-tronic work monitoring. Secondly, as with thetort of invasion of privacy, consent (found inthe implied or explicit terms of an employmentcontract) will probably vitiate an employee'sclaim. Finally, many States still require thatphysical illness or some other nonmental ef-fect be present before allovr;ng recovery.

PART CONCERNS NOT ADDRESSED BY LAW

Table 16.A Framework for Addressing Electronic Work Monitoring

Concern Criteria Example of applicable law Possible "gaps" in lawPurpose 3f monitoring Fairness Relevance

CompletenessTargeting

National Labor Relations Act;Civil Rights Act; Merit SystemPrinciples (as administered InEEO, OSHA, ERISA, EPA, etc.');State Law on Privacy; Constitu-tional Law'

Manner and method ofmonitoring Autonomy intensiveness State Law on Wrongful Dis-

Dignity Intrusiveness charge; State Law on Privacy;Privacy Visibility PCIE Guidelines; Title III of Om

Type nibus Crime Control and SafeLeakiness Strests Act; Electronic Commu-Permanence nications Privacy Ac;; National

Labor Relations Act; PrivacyAct of 1974'

Effect of monitoring Health Frequency Worker's Compensation StatutesStress Continuousness on Stress-Causing Labor

RegularityControl

Due processtypeguidelines for privateemployees

Privacy In transactionalinformation; "HumanRights"type law;laws requiring noticeof monitoring

Guidelines/regulationson stressinducinglabor practices

'Applies only to Federal employees.

SOURCE Of of Technology Assessment, 1987

Ch. 4Electronic Work Monitoring Law and Policy Consijerations 113

If we look at the types of concerns raisedby electronic monitoring, and at those ad-dressed by law, several broad conclusionsfollow:

PurPoseIn general, public employees are better pro-tected against "unfair" monitoring practicesthan private sector employees. Constitu-tional due process protections afford pub-lic sector employees the opportunity to chal-lenge &missals, demotions, or other actionsbased on monitoring that is irrelevant, un-fairly targeted, or incomplete. Although thedoctrine of employment-at-will is graduallybeing eroded in State courts, a suit for un-just dismissal of private sector employeesbased on unfair monitoring is unlikely tosucceed.

Aside from provisions made in union con-tracts, no law compels an employer to im-plement monitoring with fairness, unless itcan be shown that the employer has takenactions against certain employee(s) based onrace, sex, or religion or for motivations thatare against narrow public policy exceptionsto the employment-at-will doctrine.

Electronically monitoring formerly unmoni-tored tasks may change the very nature ofthat task by accommodating the task to thesystem of measurement. While some em-ployees may object to this as an unbargainedfor change in job description, no legal pro-tections, aside from employment contracts,exist.

Manner and Method

Monitoring most often involves the collec-tion of transactional, rather than substan-tive, information about employees' perform-ance. No privacy protections exist againstthe collection of transactional informationon employees' activities while at work. Forexample, no law prevents the collection oftelephone usage data in a call-accountingsystem, or of performance data in a com-puter-based monitoring system. If, however,

transactional data becomes part of a per-sonally identifiable record, then the subse-quent use and disposition of that record isregulated by both Federal and State law.With some exceptions, no law prevents anemployer from using the monitoring sys-tems considered in this report in a secretive,low visibility manner. For example, an em-ployer is not under a positive duty to revealto its employees the fact that their keystrokesare being counted, or that their outgoinglong-distance calls are being documented.Unless the employee has an expectation ofprivacy in the activity or location while atwork, the employer is free to collect as muchinformation on the employee's performanceas it sees fit.Although employees may regard some meth-ods of monitoring as an assault on their dig-nity or autonomy, there is no legal right tobe treated with dignity or as an autonomousperson. Unless the monitoring technique isintrusiveinvading either the bodily ormental integrity of the person (as, perhaps,in drug testing or brain wave analysis)there are no legal protections against moni-toring because it is "dehumanizing." Al-though monitoring may affect interpersonaland power relationships at work, no law pre-vents employers from using intense, low vis-ibility monitoring. For example, using com-puters to set the pace at which tasks areaccomplished, to measure the employees'performance, or to document time awayfrom a terminal, are not prohibited by law.

Effects

Although some forms of monitoring maycause stress, and may therefore havehealtheffects, no law currently protects workersagainst stressful environments, whether thestress is caused by monitoring or by otheraspects of the work environment. Lawmak-ing with respect to stress in the work envi-ronment is not unprecedented, however, andseveral foreign countries have adopted leg-islation that attempts to address stress inthe work environment.

1 2


In some cases, stress may be a compensa-hie *jury under Worker Compensation stat-utes, but stress-related health effects are dif-ficult to prove, and are not accepted in amajority of State courts.

What Does the Future Hold?

Depending on the influence of a variety ofbusiness, economic, and social factors (see partII), the next 10 to 15 years may see substan-tial changes in monitoring technologies andsettings in which they are conducted. Thesechanges may raise a whole new set of concernswarranting continued congressional sc.. utiny.

Incremental Changes

Today's monitoring techniques, which arein and of themselves neither illegal nor clearlyin conflict with employer-employee custom,=cease.* form a precedent for future moni-toring techniques. As these techniques becomemore sophisticated and permeate the workenvironment, law and lawmakers may have adifficult time distinguishing between each newinnovation and the one that preceded it. Thelaw and practice that grows up around a par-ticular form of monitoring may easily assimi-late a new, incremental change in the technol-ogy or application. The cumulative changes inwork environment may be great, despite their

flue: and hence imperceptable nature. Theork for analyzing claims to privacy,

which relies on an assessment of an individ-ual's "reasonable expectations," 1°7 can easilybecome teinple descriptive statements of whatthe monitoring milieu is, rather than prescrip-tive statements of what ought to be. An indi-vidual's knowledge that certain technologiesare capable of intruding into previously pri-

'elate v. United States, 889 U.B. 347 (1967) announced theconstitutional "reesonable expectation of privacy" standard thather guided the Swum Court ever since. It has two comp-mate whether the individual actually expected that his or heractivity remain Ovate, and whether that expectation is onetied sodety is premed to accept as reasonable. This standardhas gradually been applied in nonconstitutional, tart-privacycases.

vats realms may vitiate claims that the indi-vidual's expectation of privacy was a reason-able one.'"

Work Environment Changes

Much of employee behavior in the past wentunobserved or undocumented simply becausethe technical facility for monitoring it didnotexist, or was too cumbersome to employ. Asnoted in chapter 2, however, the use of mod-em information technology enables employersto keep track of more informationon employeeperformance in much greater detail. Given thisnew ability, much of the "looseness" of previ-ous work environments may be reduced oreliminated. What was in the past a de factoperquisite of the job, such as a limited abilityto make nonwork-relatad plnue calls, or an oc-casional break from a given task, may in thefuture become grounds for discipline or dis-missal. In such a case, the question is notwhether the employer is "within his rights,"but whether the work environment should be-come so rigorously controlled as to eliminateall discretionary employee activity.

Qualitative Changes

As discussed elsewhere in chapter 1, a cleardistinction can be made between work moni-toring and worker testing; the former is anevaluation of the performance or behavior ofan employee, while the latter is an evaluationof an employee's physical or mental state. Intheory, it may be possible for legal rules to beframed in accordance with this distinction.However, while the distinction may be rela-tively easy to make in theory, it is breakingdown in fact. Research in the field of psy-chophysiology, discussed elsewhere in this re-port, may be able to correlate behavior withpsychophysiological states; blurring the bound-aries between monitoring work and monitor-ing the worker.

"For example, in California v. Moab, a recent case in whichpolice used an aircraft and camera to obtain evidence of mari-juana growing in a suspect's backyard, the Court concludedthat Itjhe Fourth Amendment simply does not require the po-lice traveling in the public airways . . . to obtain a warrant inorder to observe what is visible to the naked eye." The stand-ard for determining what expectations of privacy are reason-able is, in part, dependant on the state of technology for intrud-ing on that privacy.

x.27


PART V: POLICY OPTIONSBefore addressing the problem of how Con-

gress might act, it is first necessary to con-sider whether and when action may be appro-priate. Some factors suggest that a "wait andsee" posture may be appropriate; uncertaintyabout whether monitoring causes stress, thelack of judicial precedent, the possibility of pri-vately negotiated restraints on monitoring,and marketplace checks on monitoring areamong these. Other factors indicate that Con-gress may want to act now to alleviate grow-ing concern about monitoring in the workplace.These include the lack of union representationin the bulk of the monitored work force, inade-quacy of current law to address concerns overhealth, privacy, and dignity, difficulties of leg-islating against powerful economic interestsat the State level, and increasing sophistica-tion of the technology itself. Several possibledirections of Federal policy are describedbelow.

Option I: Take no Federal action concern-ing work monitoring at this time.

Questions of the fairness of work monitor-ing practice would be left, as they are atpresent, in the hands of stakeholders, em-ployers and employees. In industries where la-bor unions are active, collective bargainingwith regard to technology change, monitoring,and methods of evaluation should continue un-der current rules.

Although many unions have adopted posi-tions opposing electronic work monitoring (seetable 11), their bargaining strength with re-spect to it, whether by informal negotiationsor by formal collective bargaining or arbitra-tion, is probably not great. However, someforms of monitoring take place within specificindustries or companies. An argument cantherefore be made that, pending the develop-ment of a longer history of negotiations be-tween labor and management on this issue,monitoring is beat addressed at the union level;the parties concerned are most familiar withthe specific problems, and contracts, rather

than national policy, are the best way of ap-proaching what appears to be situation-specificproblems (see part III). Under these circum-stances, Congress may want to avoid legislat-ing on the issue of monitoring per se, and in-stead make monitoring an item for compulsoryarbitration or collective bargaining under Fed-eral labor law.

This, of course, does not necessarily ensurean outcome that is satisfactory for the majorityof monitored workers, who are not unionizedand are therefore powerless to negotiate a fairmonitoring practice, or any other aspects ofthe quality of work life, through the collectivebargaining process. Furthermore, a growingsegment of the work force are temporary work-ers, who, since they come and go on a weeklyor monthly basis, have little ability to improvethe quality of worklife.

There is the argument that natural "mar-ket krces" may tend to limit unfair monitorinr and preclude the need for congressional ac-tion even on behalf of nonunionized workers:employee backlash, low morale, cud high turn-over should dissuade employers from monitor-ing practices that their workers find onerous.If monitoring is indeed stress-producing, thenemployers who use it will inevitably see theeffects of stress on diminished quality and out-put of its product or service. The response tothis is that many monitored jobs comprise rou-tine work subject to and indifferent to a highturnover rate. And, in many instances, highattrition works to the employer's benefit (bylowering the costs of pension, salary increases,etc.). Thus it is not clear that "natural" checkswill be sufficient to ensure that monitoring isnot abused.

If natural checks are not sufficient, politi-cal action is still available. Unions and otherinterest groups have worked to pass State levellegislation on monitoring, service observation,or VDT health and safety. These activities willprobably continue. Some of these attemptsmay be successful, giving rise to a variety oflegislative or regulatory approaches to deal-

128


ing with issues related to electronic monitor-ing. Some may serve as models for Federal ac-tion at some later time, should the need for theharmonizing effect of national legislation beseen more dearly in the future.

Option 2: Establish whether stress effectsof electronic monitoring are an occupa-tional health hazard; if they are, considercreating Federal legislation or regulationsgoverning the use of electronic moni-toring.

The effect of monitoring on stress andhealthissues which might vovide the policy-maker with the most direct and least value-laden approach to acting on monitoringis ina state of scientific uncertainty. There existfew authoritative studies on the effects of elec-tronic monitoring on health. Many studies andinformal polls of workers suggest that moni-toring has stressful effects, and there is a cer-tain common sense appeal to the idea thatworking in fast paced, highly monitored envi-ronments may be very stressful. However, notmuch is known about the types of monitoringthat are stressful, how stress might be reduced,or how stress due to monitoring manifests it-self (if at all) in physiological symptoms. Un-til more is known about the effects of moni-toring on health, policy action under a "stress"rationale may be premature. The policymakermay consider it appropriate, therefore, to ini-tiate studies on stress in the workplace, andon the role that monitoring plays in such stress.

The National Institute of Occupational Safetyand Health would seem to be the logical agencyto supervise or carry out studies of stress asa workplace hazard. Specific studies of moni-tored workers would have to be done with aneye to understanding the effects of monitor-ing independent of other workplace stressors,a major deficiency in existing studies. In addi-tion, however, it would be useful to understandmore about the phenomenon of workplacestress in general, given the rising number ofworker compensation claims and other evi-dence of the growing importance of stress inoccupational health. Research may reveal thatother factors in the workplace are as impor-

tant as or more important than monitoring incontributing to stress-related illness, and thatthese should also be co-iered by protective leg-islation or regulation.

Option 3: Consider Federal legislation aimedat gaps in current law. This could be intwo postalle directions: general legislationaimed at establishing certain rights foremployees within the workplace or surgi-cal legislation aimed at specific monitor-ing practices.

There have been no court cases challengingthe types of monitoring considered in this re-port. Two conclusions can be drawn from this.The first is that, until the judiciary acts, Con-gress has very little clue (aside from analysesof tie sort found in part III of this chapter)as to the type of legal inadequacies it shouldaddress, and ought therefore to wait to legis-late on work monitoring. The second is thatcurrent law is inadequate to even form the ba-sis for a lawsuit, and that Congress must takethe lead in "roviding rights to monitored em-ployees, should it decide that certain forms ofmonitoring are pernicious.

Current worker protection legislation givesworkers a variety of rights, such as the rightto organize, to bargain collectively, to mini-mum wage, and increasingly, the right to knowabout health and safety hazards that form partof the working environment. However, U.S.law has not heretofore involved itself deeplyin quality of worklife issues nor in issues ofpersonal privacy or dignity in the workplace.There is no legal right to be treated with dig-nity or as an autonomous person. There is nolegal right to a well-designed, interesting job,nor is there law that compels employers to con-sider employee input in decisions about newtechnology or new monitoring procedures. Tothe extent the law treats privacy in the work-place, it looks to r standard of what an em-ployee might reasonably expect to remain pri-vate; as mentioned earlier in this chapter, thisstandard may fail as a guide for action in theface of employer's increasing use of monitor-ing, surveillance, or testing technologies.

129


That these issues are not currently addressedin law does not mean they could no be. Asis discussed in appendix A, a number of othercountries have quality of worklife legislation.Such legislation could give guidelines on therights to health, safety, privacy, constitutionalprotections, or information that employees canexpect to enjoy in the workplace. As indicatedearlier in this chapter, the erosion of the doc-trine of "employment-at-will" through anti-discrimination, health and safety legislation,and public interest concerns, has alreadymarked some involvement of the U.S. Govern-meat in regulating the work environment. Theissue of electronic monitoring in offices is toonarrow to serve as a basis for comprehensivework environment legislation. It should be justone factor of many to be considered in deter-mining what rights U.S. citizens have in theworkplace, both as employers and employees.

However, assuming that blanket legislationon worklife quality is neither wise nor dogra-ble, Congress might address concerns over spe-cific issues through the use of specific amen-datory legislation. If, for example, telephonecall accounting is an area of particular concern,Congress might address the problem specifi-cally by amending the Electronic Communi-cations Privacy Act to comport with what itconsiders "fair" monitoring practice. ThePresident's Council on Integrity and Efficiencyguideline may form a template for such legis-lation, or instead, Congress may mandate a:ter-natives to telephone call accounting discussedin chapter 3 of this report.

Another example of an area of the law notcurrently addressed, and on which Congressmay wish to act, is what might be called trans-actional pri^ cy, or the collection of "informa-tion about information." For example, thenumber of keystrokes, the number of visits tothe bathroom, the destination of calls, etc., areall type of information about transactions,rather than about the content of communica-tions or activities (see part II).'" Although

'N'hansactiosal information, it will be recalled, differs from=bawdw information, in that the letter reveals the contentor meaning of coo nos or documents. Transactional in-formation, In contrast., reveals facte about oomnumications ordocuments.

present law, such as the Privacy Act and theFair Credit Reporting Act, regulates what canbe done with transactional information oncecollected, it does not forbid its collection assuch As we have seen, however, the collectionof transactional information, particularly ifdone on an intensive basis (see part II) canarouse feelings of having one's privacy, dig-nity, and autonomy invaded. Moreover, be-cause of the power of computers to generateprofiles and crossmatch many transactions,transactional information can yield informedestimates of the substantive content of com-munications or patterns of behaviorit can be,in other words, a "back door" for getting atpersonal information that existing law reg-ulates.

Certainly, to forbid or regulate the collectionof all transactional information would be un-reasonable. Much transactional data collectedby electronic monitoring software is used tomonitor equipment utilization, to track totalsof tranbaetions made, and to Bete: mine whethersecurity systems are working properly. The col-lection of transactional data becomes mostsubject to controversy when it is collectedabout the performance of an individual worker.It may be that Congress would choose to treatelectronic monitoring as a "right to know" is-sue for workers; that is, employers could havethe right to collect whatever kind of transac-tional data they wish about employee perform-ance, but would be required to give employeesaccess to, and if need be, correct, this infor-mation.

As this report has indicated throughout,however, the issue of work monitoring cannotbe adequately understood, nor appropriatelyaddressed, in isolation from larger labor-man-agement, privacy, and the health and safetycontext in which it is embedded. Nor will spe-cific policy actions taken with respect to par-ticular forms of monitoring neitessanly end thecontroversies arising out of the application ofnew technology forms in the workplace. Thepolicymaker should therefore be aware that anexclusive focus on the forms of monitoring con-sidered in this report will at best form the ba-sis for a series of patchwork solutions to whathas been a perennial issue between workers andemployers.

130

Appendixes

131

Appendix A

Notes on Computer Work Monitoringin Other Countries

Introduction

Because the American economy is so tied to theglobal economic structure, incoming attention hesbeen given to approaches taken by other industrialnations in their efforts to maintain a competitiveed. and adapt to microelectronic technology. Itis kWul to look at the experience of other coun-tries in evaluating what lessons might be learnedwith respect to work monitoring. There are a num-ber of ways in which the different legal structureand the institutional structure of labor relationshas resulted in different policies toward moni-toring.'

The American labor relations system and laborlaw model differ importantly from many other in-dustrial nations. Most other industrial democra-cies have a higher level of unionisation. Tablo 17&Iwo the approximate percentage of the work.force that is unionized in the United States andin 15 other developed countries. Given the higherlevel of union participation in the work force insome of these countries, unions have naturally hada greater influence in a wide variety of workplace

'Porta d die section draw heevily item Stever Deutsch, "I'be In-teredioned Corset at Lebor-Managenrat Reindeer Implication forWoripince Mesiteting," pew pegrared for OTA,

Table 17.Percent of Unionized Waters by Country

United States 22%France 23Japan 30Canada 35Switzerland 35West Germany 40Netherlands 40Italy 50Ireland 50Britain 52Austria 60Belgium 65Norway ..65Denntwk 70Finland 86Sweden 90SOURCE: Alm mean and Musee11 Pips, "Wectfonic kinfiNenna In Min MR*

Pleased Couneise," contrador report mewed for OM, INS.

63-982 0 - 87 - QL: 3 4

issues, including introduction of computer technol-ogy and use of work monitoring. In addition manyof our competitor nations have a tradition of gov-ernmental involvement in labor relations and amore developed tripartite government-labor-man-agement approach to industrial policy, economicdevelopment, and growth. This approach has noreal equivalent in this country, but there are in-creasing calls for some efforts in this direction.

A traditiot of worker participation, includingemployee involvement in applying new technologyin factories and offices, is also more developed insome other industrial countries. In some countries,this participation depends almost entirely on thecollective bargaining process, as for example inEngland, Australia, and Canada, where the adver-sarial labor relations model is closer to that of theUnited States. In others, however, worker partici-pation or "co-determination" is required by law,as in Sweden, Norway, Germany, and Holland. Insome of these countries as well, work environmentlaws define certain workplace rights and giveguidelines for job design. Tables 18 and 19 list somework environment legislation. The NorwegianWork Environment Act of 1977 reads, in part:

General requireneste.Technology, organisa-tion of the work, working hours and wage systemsshall be set up so that the employees are not exposedto undesirable physical or mental strain and so that

Table 13. European Work Environmen! ActsProviding Goals for Changing Worldns;Conditions During Office Automation

Federal Republic ofGermany The Works Constitution Act of

1972The Netherlands Working Environment Act of 1980Norway Work Environment Act of 19776Sweden Working Environment Act of 1974Denmark Act Respecting the Working

EnvironmentGerman Democratic

Republic Labour Code as Amended, June1977

These Acts dell with of working conditions, thus we specifically appecable_to oleos automation.°Also known as Act Reepecting Wows Protection and the Working En.

Wronment.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1094.

132

121


Table 19.European Acts Requiring Employers To Provide Information About NewTechnology and Worker Representation in the Decisions About the Quality of Work life

Country Information provision Work representationFederal Republic of

Germany Works Constitution Act of1972°

Works Council Act of 1979'Employment Protection Act of

975°

Act No. 82-915 of 28 October1982

Act Representing Co- Act Representing Co-Determination of Work of Determination of Work of 19761976°

The NetherlandsUnited Kingdom

France

Sweden

Works Constitution Act of 1972

Works Council Act of 1979Employment Protection Act of

1975

Act No. 82.689 of 4 August 1982

ainfonnation is provided to a Work Council siddi can be a croaseection of all interested pollee la:iodine persimmon, Industry,and labor.

binformation is provided to the worker or worker representative.

SOURCE: International Labour Organization, Automation: Work Organization and Occupational Straus (Geneva, Switzerland:1964).

their possibilities of displaying caution and observ-ing safety measures are not impaired. ...

Arrangement of walk. The individual employ-ee's opportunity for self-determination and profes-sional responsibility shall be taken into considera-tion when planning and arranging the work.

Efforts shall be made to avoid tmdiversified,repetitive work and work that is governed by ma-chine or conveyor belt in such a manner that theemployees themselves are prevented frog.. varyingthe speed of the work. Otherwise efforts shall bemade to arrange the work so as to provide possibil-ities for variation and for contact with others, forconneution between individual job assignments, andfor employees to keep themselves informed aboutproduction requirements and results.

Control and Oneida' systems.The employeesand their elected union representatives shall be keptinformed about the systems employed for planningand effecting the work and about planned changesin such systems. They shall be given the trainingnecessary to enable them to learn these systems,and they shall take part in planning them.This law, and the Swedish Work Environment

Act of 1978, were both based on evidence thatmachine-paced, monotonous work, done in socialisolation and involving shift work, leads to un-healthy outcomes in both emotional and physicalterms'

There is a well-established international commu-nications system across management and unioncircles which has shared research results and ex-

'Bjorn Gustavus and Gerry Honshu, Na,' Patterns of Work Re-im& The cow at Norway (Odds Oslo University Press, 1961); BarthOardeil and Bjorn Gustayson, "Work Envirooment Research and Sc-old Change Curtest Devdopanots in Scandinavia," Jourealot °veget-ated Ikbeekr. vol. 1, January HMO.

perience in job redesign, improvement of workinglife quality and participative management. Thereis evidence of a substantial growth of a more par-ticipative and cooperative trend in the Americanlabor-management relations community,' and theFederal Government has started an initiative onlabor-management cooperation in the U.S. Depart-ment of Labor.'

Since collective bargaining covers only one-fifthof the American work force, other initiatives havebeen explored by advocates and policymakers, in-cluding the use of occupational safety and healthlaws and agencies (which somewhat parallel workenvironment laws in other nations that have ad-dressed job stress, work organization and technol-ogy concerns). Concern over health effects, stress-related worker compensation claims, are among thedriving forces for reform here. Thus far, only mod-est changes in Federal legislation and standards,such as the OSHA hazard communication stand-ard, have been seen. More activity seems focusedat the State and local level in efforts to pass legis-lation to I Id employees against possible healthand safety hazards associated with video displayterminals (VDTs). European developments havebeen a significant stimulus for some of this effort.

'Sea, for example Baldness Week, "Th. Hollow Corporation," Mar.3,1966; Steven Deutsch and Sandra Albrecht, "Worker Partidpstionin the United States: Efforts to Democratise Industry and the Econ-omy," Labour and Society, vol. S. July-September 1963, pp. 246-269.

'See U.S. Department of Labor. Bore= of Luber-Management Rela-tions and Cooperative Programs, U.& Labor Lew and the Attars atLabor-Management Cooperation, 81.116 104 (Washington. DC: 1966).

. 133

App. ANotes on Computer Work Monitoring in Other Countries 123

Policy Approaches to Monitoring inSelected Countries'

West Germany

Both the West German Trade Union Federation(DGB) and a number of individual unions have beenactive in trying to set ergonomic and work envi-ronment standards for VDT users. In 1979-80 Ger-man unions opened a campaign to write "modelcodes" for VDT work into both industrywide andplant-level agreements. These models inlluded aban on individual monitoring, for tr..ample: "It shallnot be permitted to monitor the performance ofworkers, for the purposes of messnrement, control,or comparison, by use of the installed [VDT] equip-ment."' A study of about 50 actual contracts con-cluded during this period found that work moni-toring clauses hie the above were often included.Part of the concern about monitoring arises at leastpartly from the fear of social isolation of monitoredworkers. A study of bargaining agreements foundthat such clauses are often included in actual la-bor management agreements as well.

Another example of a clause preventing moni-toring comes from the 1984 contract between theC-o___merzbank AG and the bank employees'union:

The performance or behavior of employees shallnot be eff ected by means of existing or planned EDP.Data and programs which serve to verify perform-ance or behavior shall be erased. . .; A guaranteeshall be given that personal data on the employeeswhich are a by-product of the working process orwhich can be deduced from work process data willnot be such as can be used or interpreted as a checkon personnel behavior or performance.An interesting feature of the West German la-

bor relations scene is the Works Council, an electedgroup which management must consult in all mat-ters of "internal order" in an enterprise; its func-tions are independent of the collective bargainingprocess. Works councils are active in the processof "co-determination," that is, they represent theemployees' voice in the selection of technology and

'Much of the information in this section comes from Alan F. Westinand Russell Pipo, "Employee Monitoring in Othar Industrialized De-mocracies," contractor report preps:ad kr OT

an NA,

1966.."Viest Germany: Workplace Agreements ew Technology,"

Haropeas Industrial Retie= Review, No. 106, November 1962, pp.74. Cited in Alan F. Weals and Russell Pipe, "Employee Monitoringin Odom Industrialised Demomacies," contractor report prepaid forOTA, August 1906, p. M.

1111.1MM,..

in other matters. According to the Act on WorksConstitution, which created works councils,

. the works council will, if no statutory rules orcollective bargaining agreement exist, codetermine:. . . the introduction and use of technical installa-tions that are intended to monitor conduct or per-formance of employees.

Norway

There is an understanding in Norway, amongboth unions and employers, that the work meas-urement capabilities of new office technologieshave groat potential for increasing productivityand helping in planning and management of work.However, there is a strong aversion to using theinformation for individual performance meas-urement.

The general trend is to use the work monitoringsystem to collect information, but to only use ag-gregate data. The social security administration,for example, recently introduced a computerizedcase handling system. The daily work statistics onindividuals are collected by the system, but thereports issued are aggregated by work groups. Atthe present time the data are available to bothunion and management as part of an experimentdesigned to test the productivity of two differentwork organization approaches.

Similarly, the bank union has included in its tech-nology agreements with employers that data onwork volume and speed be used only at the workgroup level:

. . . local regulations laid down under the collectiveagreement are designed to ensure that such infor-mation . . . is not used to evaluate employees. Theunion points out that the only way to assess the im-pact on employment and working conditions of newtechnologies.... is by using such work measurementdevices. However the union stresses the importanceof cor 'rolling the use to which the information is put.

Sweden

The Swedish Codetermination Act of 1978 re-quires that employee representatives participatein decisions about computer system design, including the possible use of electronic monitoring. Fur-ther, The Work Environment Act of 1978, whichguarantees workers the right to a "satisfactory"work environment, is generally interpreted to meanthat jobs should be designed to avoid machine peeing or individual computer monitoring, if possible.

Electronic monitoring systems, as negotiated be.tween employers and unions, are generally onlyused to measure group performance, as in Norway.

134


However, in some cases, where the union hasagreed to the necessity, individual monitoring canand has been used. This has been the case, for ex-ample, where computers are used to keep track ofinventory in order to prevent theft. In addition,nommionized temporary workers are sometimespaid by piece rates, so their work is sometimesmonitored electronically.'

Canada

Canada has a voluntaristic labor union systemsimilar to that in the United States; although thelevel of unionization is higher. There are no spe-cific provisions dealing with work monitoring inany of Canada's national or provincial labor codes,nor have there been any regulations on monitor-ing issued by national or provincial regulatory au-thorities, although several have been considered.What limitations on employer conduct that havetaken place have been the result of (a few) collec-tive agreement clauses negotiated on that topic,or arbitrator rulings interpreting rights of employ-ees under contract.

Electronic monitoring appears to be fairly com-mon in Canada, in the same sorts of work it is ap-plied to in the United States. Service observationis also an established practice in the telephone in-dustry and in other types of telephone customerservice.

A survey conducted for the Canadian LabourCongress' (CLC) 1980 study of VDT health andsafety issues found that monitored workers experi-enced stress-related illnesses (general tiredness,irritability, headaches, and sleeplessness) to a greaterextent than nonmonitered workers. As a result, thereport recommended that "direct electronic moni-toring of individual worker's activities and pro-ductivity be discontinued." Where productivitymonitoring was deemed necessary, the report sug-gested that indirect or aggregate monitoring tech-niques be used.

Canadum unions began mobilizing around VDTrelated issues, including work monitoring, in theearly 1980s. Model contracts proposed by theCanadian Union of Public Employees and theCanadian Labour Congress, among others, con-tained language banning monitoring of individuals.For example:

/Minim with Elisabeth Lagerloi, Labor Specialist, Swedish Em-hussy, Mar. 26, 1906.

It is recognized that voidemeasurement maybe necessary to obtain objective evaluation ofthe level of production of a group, a section or anoffice. However, there shall be no individual workmeasurement.

Such language has been adopted in a few contracts.The Postal Workers, for example, negotiated forwork measurement by group in 1981 when newequipment was installed. The TelecommunicationsWorkers got a commitment from British Colum-bia Telephone Co. that data collected on computer-ized cash registers at Phone Marts would be Usedonly for inventory purposes, rather than individ-ual performimce.

A task force appointed by the Canadian Minis-try of Labour also addressed the question of elec-tronic monitoring in its 1982 report In the Chips:Opportunities, People, Partnerships." The taskforce considered monitoring "the most seriousmanifestation" of the introduction of new officetechnology, pointing to the stress, performancepressure, and lack of autonomy suffered by moni-tored workers.

The Task Force regards close monitoring of workas an employment practice based on mistrust andlack of respect for basic human dignity. It is an in-fringement on the rights of the individual, and un-desirable precedent that might be extended to otherenvironments unless restrictions are put in placenow. We strongly recommend that this practice beprohibited by law.The Task Force recommendations were in gen-

eral considered too sweeping, too costly, and too"pro-labor" and were not endorsed by the Minis-try of Labour. However, there have been attemptsto pass legislation at the provincial level to createergonomic standards for VDTs and to ban individ-ual monitoring. Legislation was introduced in On-tario, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan be-tween 1981 and 1985, but none of the bills passed.

Japan

Interviews and published reports indicate thatindividual electronic monitoring is not common inJapan. This may be due in part to the still lowpenetration of automated equipment into officesthere, but is most strongly related to culturalvalues toward work. According to an executive ofone computer firm:

Individual work monitoring is not an issue in Ja-pan. Employers do not measure individual outputand make individual judgements on that basis. If

Canadion Union of Public Employees, Model contract on Tecimologi.cal Champ, 1962. Mad in Westin & Pipe, op. cit.

'Westin and Pips, op. cit.

1 :3 5

4


they tried to do that, unions would complain, be-cause it would violate the union-company attitudetoward worker productivity. The climate in ourworkplaces is for employees to work hard, and forthe whole work groupemployees andmanagersto strengthen the norm of Lard work. We would notmeasure each person.In one documented case, individual monitoring

has been used, not to increase worker performance,but to insure that employees did not hurt them-selves by working too hard. In the 1960s, a waveof repetitive strain injuries among keypunch oper-ators was attributed to the high number of key-strokes they performed daily. Several companiesand unions proposed voluntary limitson keystrokesand in 1964 the Ministry of Labor issued a guide-line of 12,000 keystrokes per hour. The guidelinealso called for breaks of 10 to 15 minutes per hourof work, a total of 300 minutes keypunching perday, and regular medical exams. To enforce theseguidelines, employers have monitored individualperformance, at least on a test basis. These Minis-try of Labor guidelines are still in use, andare themodel for updated guidelines now being consideredfor VDT work."

Privacy Legislation

Most Western European nations have privacylegislation intended to ensure that personal privacyis not eroded as a result of data processing appli-cations. Most of these laws were passed in the1970s, beginning with Sweden's Data Act of 1972;this was the same epoch as the work of the U.S.Privacy Protection Commission (final report in1977), the passage of the Privacy Act, and severalother privacy-related laws in the United States.

Unlike the approach of the United States, how-ever, European laws do not leave it to the injuredindividual to complain or sue if he or she believe.that personal data has been misused. Rather, in-dependent government agencies (data protectionauthorities) were created to supervise and enforcepres..-ribed data handling practices. All databasescontaining personal information must bewith the data protection authority so that usecan be supervised. In most cases, this applies toboth government and private databases. One prin-cipal focus of the data protection authorities hasbeen to prevent linking of databases to build up"profiles" or "dossiers" of citizens.

°Westin and PM( , op. nit. Inkematlon complied by Alan F. Westin.from interviews with Industry, hp!, and academic mmorta, Tokyo, May1965.

44 1,

Table 20 outlines the main provisions of legisla-tion of 11 nations that use the Western Europeanmodel of privacy protection. These features gen-erally include a requirement that the data be col-lected for legitimate reasons and used only for thespecified purpose, and that the individual have theright to inspect the data In some countries,citizens can withhold sensitive information; any-one storing it in a database without their consentwould be in violation of the data protection law.

While the words "work monitoring" do not ap-pear in the privacy legislation of any Europeancountry, computerized work monitoring is coveredby data protection legislation to the extent that:1) information is collected and stored by computerand 2) information can be related to a specific em-ployee. Table 21 indicates coverage of computerusage monitoring, telephone call accounting, andwork measurement records under the laws of 11nations.

Although records created by work monitoringare covered by privacy laws in these nations, it ap-pears that these laws have not been used exten-sively to prevent or modify any monit-Tbig prac-tices that unions or individual workers might havefound objectionable. Data protection authoritieshave been preoccupied with their first-line respon-sibility of bringing major government and privatedatabases into compliance with the law, and re-cently have had to deal with increasingly frustrat-ing problems of enforcing the laws in an era ofproliferating personal computers. There appear tobe no jurisdictional problems involved with dataprotection authorities becoming involved in thecase of some inappropriate use of work moigtor-ing records; data privacy officials in some coun-tries have expressed increased interest and true-trativn with their inability to regulate such aspectsof the new information technologies. It appearsthat the unions, works councils and labor courtshave not requested their involvement. Thus, tradeunions and labor law will continue to be the focalpoint of actions to deal with monitoring.

Privacy Legislation and Telephone CallAccounting

In West Germany, telephone call accounting hasbeen the topic of at least two court cases and theabject of a continuing disagreement between tiv

privacy commission and the Federal government.The privacy commission objects to collecting rec-ords of personal telephone calls by governmentemployees and urges utmost restrainteven in keep-

1 3 6


Table 20.Main Provisions of Foreign Personal Data Protection Legislation Relevant to Coverage ofEmployee Monitoring

National legislation

CCLL

>.es 0 c >. C

O co v 0vi 11 c... as is' E 2-c a cO as c. D II 2 0 3

Provisions a 0 u. 0 0 0 z (.0 D

Scope of application:Central government Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Provinces/states Y N Y N Y YY`f Y Y Y Y

Private sector Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Covers all Information traceable to identifiableindividuals Y Y Y Y`f Y filiNby 'if y 'if

Information collected and/or processed usingcomputers Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Limits placed on personal data collection Y Y YcY Yrly 'if y 'if 'if Ng

Personal Information must be collected forspecified, legitimate purposes Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

individuals have right of access to inspect per-sonal information Y Y V Yf YaY Y Y Y Y Y

Sensitive personal details specified (collectiononly with data subject's knowledge and con-sent) N N Y Y Y N Y N Y YYf

KEY:1' Yee; N No,11Covers Information concerning private affairs, such as financial situation of individuals.°Covers information on an Individual's personal statue, intimate affairs, economic position and vocational qualifications.*Collection, of person:- data limited unless It Is "natural part of the normal operations of an enterprise."dpersonal Information collection Is permissible If It eaves the purpose of a corractual relationship or there Is a legitimate Interest In (a business) storing It.*stow law, may be enacted that for personal data maintained by the public sector.

SOURCE: Russell Pipe and Ala, F. Westin, "Employee Monitoring in Other Industrialized Democracies," contractor report prepared for OTA, late.

Table 21.Applicability of Foreign Personal Data Protection Legislation to Employee Monitoring

National legislation

Type of monitoring

as

7,=a

iC

Employee computerusage monitoring (by IDs,terminals, and passwords)

Teiephone-call accountingWork measurement

YYYY`fYYffY Y

cc '2U-

>. 2,c >. c

i as -6 a 'S

.05 as c E 03 .

O 0 V X 0 3 hesr. 0 0 so -J z 0 D=

Yf rUbYcy YayVDU Ycy 'fay 'ifYfaf Y flofKEY: 1, Yes; U Uncertain.°Personal data covered by this law must be organized or filed so as to be retrievable automatically using identifiers that can be linked to aparticular person.binfonnallon must be related to a person's private affairs, such as financial situation.OM official translation (ch. I, pars 2) states that It Is an Infringement of privacy to: 1) spy on or trail a person in a manner likely to harass him, or any other harassment;

and 2) 'listen In."SOURCE: Russell Pipe and Alan F. Westin, "Employs Monitoring In Other Industrialized Democracies," contractor report prepared for OTA, 19(18


ing records of official call destinations. Of particu-lar concern are calls by union representatives andothers (counselors, medical services) in sensitivepositions. In one agency, on the basis of an unwrit-ten understanding in effect since 1984, calls by the"personnel council" have been channeled througha separate telephone line to bypass the call-account-ing system. In general, however the Federal gov-ernment finds value in call accounting and has notcomplied with the privacy commissioner's requestto terminate the practice and erase previous rec-ords. A similar controversy is going on at the statelevel

Conclusion

The force of law, tradition of labor-managementrelations, and the current economic and politicalmilieu have shaped the American approach to deal-

ing with the new technology at the workplace, in-cluding electronic monitoring. It is a model whichis different in important ways from the more cen-tralized, regulatory, legislated model of emr ' ver-employee relations in many other industrial na-tions. While voluntary and recommended styles ofparticipative management and other approachestowards dealing with microelectronic technologydeveloped abroad may have growing influence inthe United States, there will continue to be a dis-tinctly different approach taken in this county inthe foreseeable future.

fIN

Appendix B

Privacy and Civil Liberties Implications ofTesting Employees in the Workplace

Introduction

The focus in this section shifts from the moni-toring of work to the testing of employees, It looksat some of the tests that can be given by employersin hopes of predicting some aspects of an employ-ee's future work quality. Can technology help em-ployers predict how good an employee will be be-fore the person is hired? Could there be somecorporate equivalent of a carnival "weight andfate" machine, capable of succinct predictions:"This woman will try to embezzle money: don'ttrust her." "This man will have a heart attack at45; don't invest in training him." "This one usesdrugs: don't hire him." "This is is a healthy, honestworker; hire heel"

Clearly, such a single tool for personnel selectiondoes not exist, but a growing number of einnktvP-sare relying on tests for empkorees and joke appli-cants to try to predict behavior or personal char-acteristics that may affect their job perforzoGzez.Limited evidence suggests that over the past fewyears workplace testing has been Amidergoing a re-vival that may surpass the heyday of psychologi-cal testing in the 1950s. The future trend may wellbe in the direction of more testing. If this is thecase, then the controversy about worker rights,workplace privacy, and privacy of personnel rec-ords, may intensify.

Issues such as those explored in earlier chapterswill con' inue to arise and become more prominentconcerning what information is reasonable and nec-essary for an employer to have, rho shculd haveaccess to it, and how it ought to be d.rie and wherethe line should be drawn between lotion thatis personal and private and that s -1-2a is noz.

As noted earlier, the past pattern nas been forthese new capabilities to come into use in a piece.meal fashion over time. Sometimes, however, theyare put to use almost immediately, before adequateresearch car be conducted, as with polygraph test-ing, and before consideration can be given to thelong-term consequences for society. When this happens, issues arise that have no established legal,ethical, or other useful framework for bvaltation.

This appendix focuses on three technologies thatare already in use today: polygraphs, drug tests

128

by urinalysis, and genetic screening. In addition,the appendix will review some research in the fieldof brain wave analysis that could give rise to newforms of worker testing in the next few years.

Some of the technology used for testing is notnew. The polygraph, for example, has had limiteduse in law enforcement for 60 years. Now, however,its dominant use is in personnel screening; of 2 mil-lion polygraph tests given annually, about 98 per-cent are given by employers to job applicants andemployees.' Medical screening for drug or alcoholuse, formerly used primarily as a diagnostic toolin clinical settings, began to be used by the De-partment of Defame in the 1970s to identify return-ing military personnel with drug problems. Now,nearly all military personnel, millions of private em-ployees, and a growing number of government em-ployees find that their jobs depend on passing thedrug test.

Genetic screening. an emerging technology forpredicting a person's likelihood of developing dis-eases, is now used only in a few workplaces, usuallyto identify workers who may be hypersusceptibleto chemicals found in those workplaces. However,tests for many common diseases will be commer-cially available within the next 5 years, and em-ployers may want to include them in preemploy-ment physicals.

Still in the research stage are tests based on brainwaves. Currently under study is the possible useof brain wave analysis in monitoring concentration,detecting lies, and predicting certain illnesses. Acomputer-based system to detect drug use bymeasuring brain waves is already on the market.

Controversy about worker testing focuses on theaccuracy and predictive value of the tests. Em-ployers who test employees for drug use or hon-esty may believe that the tests work or at leastthat the fear of testing discourages the unwantedbehavior. Washington Area Metropolitan TransitAuthority, for example, noted a decrease in druguse and in accidents sham beginning its drug test

1Harrieon Donnelly. "Privacy in the Workplace," Editorial Rowan*Report.. Mar. 21,1966, p. 214, dting figure. from the American Poly-graph Amodation.

*Kenneth F. Englade, "rim Business of the Polygraph,~ Across tboBoard. Oetobw 1962, pp. 20-27.

App. 9Privacy and Civil Liberties implications of Testing Employees in the Workplace 129

program. Officials of the Eckerd Drug Co. believethat requiring a test of all applicants and periodictests of employees, is the beat way to deter theftand "keep basically honest people basically honest."But there have been no systematic studies of em-ployee theft to support this claim'

On the other hand, there are concerns about test-ing, and many argue that these gains, if they ex-ist, are achieved at a heavy cost: undue intrusioninto p.-ivate lives of employe* creation of anatmosohere of fear and intimidation in the work-place; and false accusation and denial of job op-portunities for many innocent people.

This chapter outlines some trends in workertestingwho uses it, what can be learned, anddirections of research. The chapter also exploreswhy worker testing is controversial, and looks atsome of the ethical and legal questions raised byits use.

Polygraph Testing

Extent of Honesty Testing

Employee theft is a major business problem, re-sulting in losses estimated at $5 billion to $10 bil-lion annually.' To counteract it, employers are in-creasingly using "honesty testing" on workers,either using the polygraph ("lie detector') or paper-and-pencil honesty tests. One major object is tocut down on employee theft by screening out po-tential thieves before they are hired. In addition,a number of employers use polygraphs as part ofpaternal investigations of theft and other wrong-doing, and some administer polygraph tests on aregular or random basis as a deterrent towrorgdoing

A testing industry has grown in response to thisdemand, and perhaps has helped to fuel the de-mand. While some large firms have in-house poly-graphers (one Florida drug firm has a staff of 40),most rely on detective or personnel security firmswho provide polygraph services on a contract ba-sis. There is no good estimate of the total numberof such firma throughout the country, but a gaugeof their growth can be found by looking at selectedcities. In 1970, for example, there were only threesuch firms listed in the Atlanta yellow pages. By1975 there were 20, and in 1985 there were 33.'

'Susan Gardner, "Wiretapping the Mind: A Call to Regulate TruthVerification in Employment." San Di110 Law Review, von 21 No. 2,March 1963, pp. 296-323.

'Kenneth F. Epode, 'Ilse Business of the Polygraph," Across theBoard. October 1962, pp. 2047; Atlanta Yellow Pages, 1985416.

At present 3,000 polygraphers belong to the Amer-ican Polygraph Association, but it is estimatedthat there are 8,000 to 9,000 full-time polygraphersnationally. Some are employed by law enforcementagencies, some by detective agencies, and some arepart of in-house security departments of largefirms.'

Paper-and-penal honesty testing has gainedpopularity in the past few years, partly in responseto criticism of polygraphs and partly as a lowercost alternative. Compared to a cost of $40 to $50per test for polygraphy, paper-and-penal testa canbe administered and scored for $8 to $15 a piece.'At the present time, about a dozen firms nation-wide are dominant producers of these tests, twoof the largest being John E. Reid & Associates inChicago and Stanton Corp. in Charlotte, NC. Atleast 2 131111i081 of these tests are given annually inpreemployment screening.

Thirty-two States have legislation limiting theuse of polygraphs in employment, including 12with an outright ban on employers' requiring orrequesting that employees take a polygraph test.Nine States require licensing for the polygraphoperator. Four States have legislation regardiugthe types of questions that may be asked, prohibit-ing questions on such topics as sexual preference,religion, union affiliation, or politics. Twenty-oneStates have laws providing that polygraph testsbe voluntary? (see table 22).

At the present time there seem to be few Statelaws dealing directly with paper-and-pencil honestytests. One 1986 Massachusetts law outlaws hon-esty tests that amount to paper-and-pencil poly-graph tests. There have been several attempts topass polygraph legislation at the national level, in-cluding bills in the 99th Congress"

Part of the reason for the growing use of hon-esty testing is the increasing difficulty and highcost of doing good background checks. A thoroughcheck might cost as much as $250, and many em-ployers hesitate to give detailed information aboutformer employees, partly due to fear of Beisuits.'

'Joseph Buckley, III, President, John E. Reid & Antedates. person&communication, Aug. 19, 1986.

"Susan Deoshr, et aL, "Can You Pass The Job Test," Norwalk May5. 1966. pp. 4663; Kenneth F. Engirds, "The %ahem of the Poly-graph," Across the Board. October 1982, pp. 20-27.

ViRiam E. HartafiekL "Polygraphs." Labor Law Journal, vol. 36,November 1:45, pp. 817-834.

'Employee I. Aygraph Protection Act of 19861H.R. 1624) paused theHouse; Polygrap, Protection Act of 198618. 1815) was reported outby the Committee s. Labor and Human Resources but not acted onby the Senate.

High Cost of Employes 'Theft," Dun's Basinger Month, Os-Vb., 1682.

140

1X The Electronic Supervisor: New Technology, New Tensions

Table 22.State Legislation on Polygraph Testing

Employer may Employee must Certain personalnot test or Employer may not be told test is questions License for

request test require test voluntary prohibited poiygraphersAlabamaAlaska XArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticut XDelawareD;strIct of Columbia XFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaine XMarylandMassachusetts XMichigan XMinnesota XMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew Jersey XNew Mexico XNew York XNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregon XPennsylvaniaRhode Island XSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginia'WashingtonWest Virginia XWisconsinWyoming

X

xx

X

x

x

x

x

xx

X

X

X

xx

X

X

xx

Applicant or hployem must give illtten consent and be told all questions In advance.

SOURCE:Adapted from VAIllam E t(artsfleld, "Polygraphs," Labor Law Journal, vol 36, November 1962, PP 617534

141

App. BPrivacy and Civil Liberties implications of Testing Employees in the Workplace 131

Technological Considerations

Polygraph technology has not changedsubstan-tially since it came into use in 1921.10 The poly-graph measures and records a number of phy-siological responses, including skin resistance,respiration, and blood pressure, while the subjectanswers a series of questions posed by an inter-viewer. The most commonly accepted theories ofpokgaphy hold that the subject's guilt and ner-vousness will produce measurable physiologicalre-actions when hear she is lying. These reactions mustbe interpreted by a trained polygraph interviewer.

Critics argue that the physiological changedur-ing lying is still not well understood, and evenproponents of polygraphy agree that a unique setof physiological reactions to lying has not beenfound. The reactions often attributed to lying canalso be caused by anxiety, anger, or humiliation.Being required to take a polygraph test elicits pre-cisely these feelings in many people.

In determining the accuracy and reliability ofpolygraph tests, it is important to considerwhetherthe test is used for investigating a specific crimi-nal incident or for screwing. Thequestioning tech-nique is also important. as discos/led in a previousOTA report.11 The polygraph appears to be mostreliable when the interviewer is asking relevantquestions about a specific event (e.g., "Did youtake 3200 out of the cash drawer yesterday after-noon?") and comparing the reactions to a list ofirrelevant control questions (e.g., "except for whatyou told me already, did you even steal anythingbefore the age of 21?")." Subjects that react morestrongly to relevant questions than control ques-tions are believed to be deceptive. OTA'spreviousreview of research on polygraph validity found thatmost research has focused on use in specific inci-dents. Methodological problems and differencesmade it difficult to draw overallconclusions aboutvalidity. In the studies reviewed, accuracy ratesranged from 0 to 100 percent, and innocent peoplewere more likely to be assessed deceptive than viceversa. A summary of the findings of the OTA re-view is shown in table 23.

"Kenneth F. Engler* "The Business of the Polygraph." Across theBoard, October 1984, pp. 20.27.

"For a description of the various polygraph techniques and en evalu-ation of scientific resew& on polygraphs, see, U.B. Congress, Officeof Technology Aseememeh, Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing:A Ramada &view add EnkletlonA TechnkalMemorandum OTA-TM-H-16 (Washington, DC: U.& Government PrintingOffice, Novem-ber 1983).

Table 23.Accuracy of Polygraphs forSpecific incident Criminal investigations'

Field studies Range AverageSix prior reviews 6498%OTA review of 10 individual field studies:

Correct guilty 70.8-98.8% 86.3%Correct innocent 12.5.94.1 76.0False positive° 0-75.0 19.1Fasie negative° 0-29.4 10.2

OTA review of 14 individual analog studies:Correct guilty 35.4-100.0% 63.7%Correct Innocent 32.0-91.0 57.9False positive 2.0.50.7 14.1False negative 0-28.7 10.4

bFelesdes sail.

Innocent a faradaItsisceptIve.False negellsoduay persons found no, deceptive.

SOURCE: Adopted from U.B. Caldron. Once of Technology Assessment.scien-tific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Reetrach fieview and Evoke.donA Tedmime Memorandum, OTA.TM44-I5 (Wardengton. DC: U.S.Government Printing Office. November 1113), p. 97.

Validity in screening situations, where questionsare of a more general or hypothetical nature ("Haveyou ever taken something that didn't belong toyou?") and responses cannot be easily comparedto control questions, is more problematic. Somecritics suggest that screening polygraph tests arestrongly biased agohast honest people. In this view,the basically honest person, the one who feelsguilty about small past wrongdoings or angry ata challenge to his or her integrity, is likely to doworse on a polygraph test than a person with lessdeveloped conscience." The American Psychologi-cal Association, for its part, charges that poly-graph tests produce "an unacceptable number offalse positives. "" The OTA report found nostudies evaluating whether polygraph testing isvalid in personnel security situations." OTA iscurrently reviewing the Defense Department'spolygraph test and research programs."

The validity of pencil-and-paper honesty testshas also been called into question, and there ap-pears to be a dearth of independent research ontheir validity. Some critics note that many "cor-rect" test answers are based on values and defini-tions of honesty that may not be shared by all testtakers."

"David T. Lykkan. "Detecting Deception in 1984," American Brhawked Solentiet. March/April 1984. pp. 481.499.

""Cen You Pass the Job Test," Newsweek. May 6.1968, pp. 48-63."For a desaiption of the various polygraph techniques and an evalu-

ation of scientific research on polygraphs, see, U.S. Congress, Officeof Technology Assimement, Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing:A Research Review and Evaluation A Technical Mein randomOTA-TMH15 (Washington, DC: U.& Government Printing Office, Novem-ber 19831.

"OTA, Review al the Wawa Department'sPolygraph Tact and Re-search Program forthcoming (1987).

"Quoting Michael Mecham In "Can You Pose the Job Test,"Newsweek. May 8. 1988. p. 49.

142

121......-...


Legal and Ethical Considerations

The privacy issue pits the employees' interestin being left alone, and in keeping certain informa-tion private, against the employers' interest in pro-tecting their businesses and selecting employeesby their standards.

However, questions addressed to workers in on-the-job polygraph tests sometimes go beyond job-related topics and probe into sensitive areas of per-sonal life. Several critics have charged that the pur-pose of such questioning is not only to intimidateworkers but to screen out minority group membersor those who may show dissident tendencies or aninclination to join unions. At least four States havelegislation prohibiting employers from askingquestions about politics, religion, union affiliation,or sex life."

Drug Abuse Testing

Rationale and Extent of Drug Testing

The problem of drug abuse on the job has gainedincreased attention in the past few years, but itis not a new problem. In fact, overall abuse of mostdrugs in the United States has held steady or de-clined since 1979." Substance abuse is stall a ma-jor problem, however, and the current public aware-ness and concern should help to reduce it further.

Alcohol abuse is estimated to cost the U.S. econ-omy a total of $89.5 billion per year in lost employ-ment, illness, reduced productivity, and death andinjury due to automobile accidents. Other typesof drug abuse are estimated to cost society about$46.9 billion per year." The U.S. Chamber ofCommerce estimates the direct costs of drug andalcohol use among workers costs employers $60billion per year in reduced productivity, increasedmedical claims, and absenteeism." Workers whoare dependent on alcohol or other drugs tend tohave more accidents, which may increase their em-ployers' insurance costs. Addicts are also morelikely to steal money or property from the employeror from co-workers in order to support their habits .

In order to ensure a drug-free workplace, someemployers have resorted to testing their workerfor drug and alcohol use. About 25 percent of the

"William E. Hartaddd. "Polygraphs," Lobar Law Journal, vol. 36.November 1966. pp. 317-634.

"Ramer& ?Mingle Institute. Econotnic Costs to Soday of Akoholsod Drug Abuts and Mortal Moms,Research Triangle Park, 1964. Thecontinuations of this trend is supported by 'teddies of the National

"IbidInstitute

.

of Drug Abuse.

"Sum Dander. at al, "Can You Pau the Job Test?" Newsweek.May 6, 1966. pp. 4643.

Fortune 500 firms now do some testing of employ-ees, as compared with 10 percent in 1982." As ofmid-1986 nine Federal agencies had drug-testingprograms in place, and at least eight were plan-ning to begin testing in the immediate future."An Executive Order of September 1986 establisheda "drug free workplace" as the policy of the U.S.Government.

A number of firms that have instituted drug-testing programs have reported dramatic de-creases in on-the-job accidents and injuries-90percent in the case of Georgia Power and 70 per-cent at the Southern Pacific Railway." However,there are some who dispute that testing is respon-sible for these results; for example, in the case ofGeorgia Power, the accident rate began its declinebefore testing started.* In addition, the testshave also led to charges that they are invasive ofprivacy, that tests are sometimes inaccurate, andthat testing programs are sometimes used to in-timidate, discriminate against, or harass certaingroups of workers.

Public concern with the substance-abuse prob-lem, on the one hand, and concern about the ad-visability of on-the-job drug testing, on the other,readied a hem b 1986. March of that year, thePresident's COMMifiSiC 1 on Organized Crime rec-ommended that Federal employees and contractorsbe subjected to "suitable" drug testing as an es-sential step in reducing the demand for drugs. Sev-eral months later, President Reagan held "volun-tary" testing for the White House staff andsuggested that government agencies and privateindustry follow suit. Executive Order 12564 of Sep-timber 1986 directed the Office of Personnel Man-agement to develop governmentwide guidelines ontesting. Objections to widespread use of testinghave been voiced in the press and in a report bysubcommittees of the House Committee on CivilService."

"Mark A Rothstein, ning Workers for Drew A Legal and Ethi-cal Framework," Employs. Rolstacas Law Journal, winter 1986/1966,pp. 422437.

"U.S. Congress, House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,Subcommittee on Civil Service, "Drug Testing in the Federal Govern-ment," Staff Report, June 20. 1966, pp. 7-10.

"Stephen R. Deja*, "An Unhadthy Swarm: Drug Testa Air Un-oonstitutionsl sod Elansthoes Wrong," Washington Post, Aug. 17.1906.

"Testimony of Mt Leslie Price bateau the Subcommittee on HumanResources, House Committee on Poet Office and Civil Swim Sept16 1986.

"U.S. Congress, House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,Subconnuittee on Human Resources. "Drug Testing Federal Employ-ees," Hearings, Mar. 16 1966. fluid No. 9944: Subcommittee on CivilService, "Drug Testing in the Federal Government," Staff Report, June20. 1966.

143

!

134 The Electronic Supervisor New Technology, New Tensions

fractions of the body) for a byproduct of THC (theactive ingredient of marijuana), thus producinghigher false positive rates among black people."There is also controversy over the cutoff pointsto be used for tests. While some experts suggestthat tests for msrijnana should be consideredposi-tive only if they have a concentration of over 50nanograms per mil liliter (nglml) a more typicallyused cutoff point is 20 nikial andsome organize-thins use even lower cutoff points. Inaccuracies inall tests are much more Nicely at low concentra-tions.° Even the use of confirmatory tests hasnot stalled controversy about accuracy, especially

. since some commercial labs rely on lower cost testsfor confirmation as well as screening."

Ethical and Legal Issues

Privacy. There are several reasons why employ-ees have objected to drug testing on privacygrounds. For one thing, it can reveal details of per-sonal life outside of work. Current methods ofdrugscreening reveal recent use of a drug, not currentknpairment; people who use drugs outside of worktest positive, even th3ugh they might be sober andfit for duty during work hours. Is after-hours useof legal or illegal drugs an employer's concern?

In addition, producing a urine sample before wit-nesses violates most people's reasonable expecta-tion of privacy for bodily functions. Both tIlese ob-jections apply to deficiencies of urinalysis, not tothe concept of drug testing in general.

Methods and Conditions of Testing.The firstquestion is whether testing is the appropriate re-sponse to ed drug use in workplaces. Inmany pop a testing program may cast toobroad a net, subjecting many workers to testingin order to identify a very few drugusers. The nextquestion is who should be tested? Should all em-ployees be tested or only those with jobs that posemedal problems of safety or security if there isdrug abuse? If only some employees are tested,does this create equal protection problems if thosetested are disproi Aionately racial minorities orblue collar workers? What drugs should be testedfor? Is it an employer's job to identify onlyusersof illegal drugs? Many legal drugsare also abused.

"Janes Woodford. Ph.D., personal oommunicatiou Ana. 26, 1986,heeed mi stades conducted st the U.S. Army Farouk Lab, Wkebaden,Ciormsey. See also 'The Melanie Defense, Debated by Woodford and

Bobetesno Mere Report, DeeWoo.

1, 1986, p. 3.""The Mobs Defeo Debated by d ard and McBay," Sub.

seam Abase Report, Dec. 1, 1988, p. 9."Tubb on "Modified Drug Stow" from conference material

predated by Smithillise Mika Laboratory, Mosphis. TN.

On the other hand, some employees that are usinga legal drug for legitimate medical reasons may beimpaired using it.

Is there a socially acceptable need for an em-ployer to mandate periodic or random substance-abuse testing for the workforce, or should testingbe limited to specific instances where an employ-ee's conduct raises "reasonable suspicion" of sub-stance abuse? Random or periodic testing seemscontrary to the principle that people are innocentuntil proven guilty; such a testing scheme requireseveryone to prove his or her innocence on a regu-lar basis. In a number of cases to date, the courtshave required that employees be tested only whenthere is reasonable suspicion of druguse. Randomtesting of Iowa prison guards. and compulsory test-ing of New York City teachers applying for tenurewere struck down by the courts." In both cases,however, the employers were government entities,whose employees are protected by the FourthAmendment to the Constitution against "un-reasonable search by their employer." A numberof private employers makeuse of random testing,and some of their programs are also being chal-kngs&

Another imports_ t point is what drugs shouldbe covered by the tests. A survey of drug testingprograms in the Federal Government found widevariation in the types of drugs being screened."While many employers focuson illegal substanceslike cocaine and marijuana, a number of legal sub-stances are also abused. However, testing for thesedrugs will also reveal their use by individuals whouse them legitimately, thus raising another privacyissue.

One interesting point is the lack of interest ofmany employers at the present time in testing foralcohol abuse in the workplace, despite all the evi-dence that alcohol is responsible for far more work-place accidents and absenteeism than the illegaldrugs. (Alcohol intoxication is usually tested bybreath or blood tests, rather than urinalysis.)

*For simple, cuss of New York artyOpeceers, New Jenny govern.meet workers, Josue Rangel, "Government Bars Drug Testing ofTimbers," New York Times, Aug. 12, 1966,1).131; Alfonso A. Novae,"U.S. Judge Blocks Urine Drug Tees," New York Thom Sept. 19. Nee.p. Al.

"See U.S. Cowen. Hour Zommittaat Post Ofike and Civil Serv-ice. Subcommittee ma MA Service, "Drag Toting in the Federal Gov-ernment," Staff Report, June 90,1986,pp. 7-10; also Lawrence Mae"Amery and Reliability at Urine Dreg Testa," in House Committeean Post Office and Civil Service, Subcommittee on Human Resources,Hearings of Sept. 16, 1966.

145

App. 8Privacy and Civil Liberties Implications of Testing Employees in the Workplace 135

Use of Test Results

Another question germane to any testing pro-gram is what to do with the drug abusers whenthey are discovered. In the case of pre-employmentscreening, the answer of most firms is not to hirethem, although a few do tell the applicants whythey have been turned down and invite them toreapply once they are drug free.

In some firms, a current employee who tests"positive" might be referred to an employee &ask,-tame program (EAP) for rehabilitation. Some ob-servers have expressed concern that existing EAPs,which heretofore have assisted employees who vol-untaril sought help for drug problems, will be se-verely weakened by an influx of clients who havebeen "sentenced" to rehabilitation after a positiveurine test. An alternative followed by many clientsis the dismissed or discipline of drug users. Between1971 and 3980 the Armed Forces tended to reha-bilitate returning Vietnam veterans whose drugproblems were detected through urinalysis. In re-cent years, however, the emphasis has turned todiscipline and dismissal. The cmrent guidelines is-sued by the Office of Personnel Management forFederal agency drug programs directs each agencyplan to include an EAP, but also lists disciplinaryactions including reprimands, suspension, and dis-missal. According to the guidelines, dismissal fromFederal service would be mandatory upon a sec-ond confirmed finding."

A forthcoming OM technical memorandum willlook in greater detail at some of the technical,administrative, and legal problems involved indrug testing.*

Genetic Screening

Extent and Rationale for Genetic Testing

Genetic screening is not new, though in manyways it is still an emerging technology. Tests fordiagnosing or predicting some genetically baseddiseases have been available for some time. For ex-ample, screening tests for sickle cell trait, a condi-tion especially common among those of African an-cestry, were available in the early 1970s. Bloodtests of newborns to screen for phenylketonuria(PKU), a genetic ailment that causes mental retar-

870f6ce if Personnel Management, PPM Letter 792-, "Establishinga Dreg-Free Federal Workplace," Dec. 27, 1955.

seOffloe of Technology Aasunwant, Chine Drug Testier, TechnicalMamoresion forticosaing 19871.

dation and death if not treated early, is called forin statutes or regulations of 46 States and is cus-tomary in the others.*

Genetic screening in the workplace is not yet awidespread practice. In its 1983 report on geneticscreening in the workplace, OTA found that fewlarge U.S. firms were using genetic screening intheir personnel selection practices.* Out of 366respondents, only 8 said they were currently do-ing any type of genetic test; 17 had done so in thepast; but 59 had plans to do so in the future. Whilethese r3sults indicate that genetic screening in theworkploce was not widespread at the time, manyresearchers in the field assert that it is difficult toget good information about firms that do geneticstudies. Such firms may not answer questionnairesor talk about their policies because of the con-troversies, including charges of discrimination,that have arisen when other firms have publiclydiscussed screening programs."

Despite the bad publicity that might attach it-self to the concept of genetic testing, screeningmight offer some advantages to employers. It isknown that human beings have varying suscepti-bilities to illness, including illnesses related to ex-posure to toxic substances at work. Not everyonewho mines coal gets black lung disease, for exam-ple, just as not everyone who smokes cigarettesgets cancer. If firms could determine that certainpeople are especially susceptible to a toxin foundin the workplace they could decline to hire themor otherwise avoid assigning them to work nearthe hazardous substance. Thus the employer helpsthe employee stay healthy while also avoiding thepossible costs of a future illness that the employermight have to bear. Employers often pay part orall of their employees health or life %sure= costs.Group insurance rates depend on the health experi-ence of the group. Thus it would be to an em-ployer's advantage to identify and eliminate un-healthy or potentially unhealthy employees inorder to keep rates low.

slAmwicen Bar Foundation, State Laws and Regulations Govern*Nowiorn Sam*, compiled by Lori B. Andrews, Chicago, 1966.

*U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Asseennont. The Bak elGenetic Teeth,: in the Prevention el Oceapetiosal Mee" OTA-BA-194 MalgIbIltak DC: US. Oorwmoust Printing Moe, April 19831-

41Intarriew with Mine Draper, Ph.D., School of Public Health,Univenity of California, Berkeley, September 1986. See also ThomasK Murray, "The Social Contast of Workplace fieneatag." The Hast-ings Center Report October 1964.

146

,

r

App. B Privacy and Civil Liberties Implications of Testing Employees in the Workplace 137

these tests to screen applicants for insurance cov-erage, and some have withdrawn from the marketin areas where such screening is forbidden by law.

Brain Wave Research

State of the Technology

Brain activity that underlies psychological proc-esses can be recorded from the surface of the headand body in the form of weak electrical and mag-netic signals, or "brain waves" as they will be calledin this section. Many of these signals are not wellunderstood by scientists despite decades of re-search. However, some are known to reflect cogni-tive (memory, language, learning) or sensory (vi-sion, hearing, touch) processes stimulated byexternal stimuli. These signals, often called "event-related brain potentials" or ERPs, are extremelyweak (typically on the order of a few microvolts,or millionths of a volt), but they can be monitoredthrough sensors attached along particular regionsof the scalp." Magnetic recordings of brain activ-ity are also possible by using a specialized mag-netic detector termed SQUID (superconductingquantum interference device).

"Cavities processes are identifiable through ERPs that occur be-tween about 100 and 700 thousandths of a second or more followingeach *ironies; Mowry Foamed Are reflected in ERN that occur within100 thousandths of a second following the etimuluu

Research on electrical and magnetic recordingsof human brain activity is being conducted in anumber of government, government-supported,and academic laboratories. Government fundingfor research is provided by a variety of Federalagencies, including the National Institutes ofHealth, the National Science Foundation, and theDepartment of Defense.

Five areas of focus characterize much of the cur-rent research:

1. assessment of neurological function and neu-rological disorders;

2. assessment of mental disorders;3. analysis of normal cognitive processes, includ-

ing perception, memory, language, and deci-sionmaking;

4. analysis of cognitive disorders; and5. human factors applications.

Table 24 shows some of the recent research in thisarea

The potential benefits to society appear to be inseveral main areasas a tool for medical diagnos-tics and cures, for developing optimal learning andeducational techniques, and for enhancing man-machine interfaces. This technology is already inuse as an aid to diagnosing brain tumors. multiplesclerosis, dyslexia, epilepsy, and strokes. It hasalso been used to test for mental retardation, coma,and autism.°

"Carol Tumid, "Watching the Brain at Work," IEEE Spedewm,Marc, 1983, pp. 62-67.

Table 24. Examples of Research on Brain Waves

Research center Areas of investigationNational Institutes of Mental Health

University of CaliforniaLa Jolla, CA(ONR, NIMH, NSF funds)

Veterans Administration Medical CenterWesthaven, CT

University of IllinoisChampagne-Urbana, IL

Harvard Medical SchoolBoston, MAAdvanced Research and Development, Inc.Columbia, MD(NASA funds)

AIr Force Aerospace Medical Research LabDayton, OH

University of Florida at GaInesvile(CIA funds)

Predict risk of psychiatric disorders; tendency toward behavioralproblems (sbstance abuse, antisocial personalities).

Analysis of sensory and cognitive processes diagriosis, e.g., deafness.Man-machine interface: Analysis of mental workload, e.g., attention and

concentration

Detect neurological disorders, multiple sclerosis and make more preciseneurological diagnoses.

Understanding brain structures and processes responsible for surfaceelectrical activity.

Cognitive processes, e.g., memory, learning, decision-making.Man-machine interface

Brain electrical activity mapping for detecting mental disorders, e.g.,dyslexia, Alzheimer's disease

Man-machine Interfaces, e.g., aircraft pilots

Man-machine interfaces; analysis of mental workload

Lie detector test (ended 1906)

SOURCE: Office of Technology Ameament, leST.

148

The Electronic Supervisor. New Technology, New Tensions

Workplace Testing Applications

The examples above of brain wave research atleast raise the possibility that brain wave analy-sis could lead to usable technologies with possible

in the workplace. If developed as prac-systems, they could be used to gather exten-

sive information about a subject's psychologicalstate, genetic propensities, or honesty; they mightbe useful in new means of measuring or pacingwork.

Some predictive tests that might be of interestin the area of work monitoring or worker testingcould be derived from the above avenues of re-search. These could include the following:

predicting whether a person is at risk of cer-tain diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease oralcoholism;determining whether a person is concentrat-ing and predicting the speed of mental re-sponse to stimuli;determining recognition of persons, places,and objects;testing for knowledge of a specific subject;detecting lies.

Brain waves are also being explored as a possi-ble means of improving man-mschice interfaces.Future systems are envisioned that would moni-tor the operator's ability to cope with informationflows and to make decisions. On the basis of theinformation about his performance, the systemcould either adjust the rate of information flow tothe operator or automatically take on some of theoperger's tasks to optimize his performance. Somefuture applications could include pilots, air trafficcontrollers, and other computer-band work.

If practical brain wave systems could be devel-oped, the implications for privacy would be tremen-dous. In the case of workload measurement, for ex-ample, the distinction between monitoring thework and monitoring the worker completely dis-appears. In the case of something like an improvedlie detector, such technology might actually givethe ability to "read the mind," removing all possi-bility of a person's keeping information private.

Whether practical systems can be developed,however, is another question. There are seriouslimitations on our of brain waves,and at least one researcher worries about the "poly-graphization" of brain wave research.' By this he

--end Doodah% Psychophysialogioal Monitoring Possibilitiessad Prospects, contractor report prepared for DTA, September 1986.Also, Dr. Charles Wood, Department of Neuropsychology, VA MedicalQuaff, Weethaves, CT, sad Dr. Steve Hillywd, Department of Newremcbace, University of C4dffenda at La Jolla, mewed with this viewis telephone interviews with OTA staff. September 1988.

refers to commercial applications of scientific dis-coveries before the underlying principles arethoroughly understood:

Polygraphization occurs when the commercial de-velopment is done without an anchor in the scien-tific community. Actions are taken to assure theprofitability of the product, and caution and con-trol become less critical . . I emphasize that all thisis done well within the law. But, it remains thecasethat it is quite possible to have what appears to be animpressive instrument that is essentially worthless."The danger of using such a device in the work-

place, of course, is that decisions affecting people'slives will be made based on flawed technology orflawed principles. Due to the complexity of thenervous system, it is likely that only very generallinks will be drawn between physiological processeslike brain waves, and psychological ones like lyingor concentration. Even these tests may only bevalid in a very structured environment, such as ina controlled laboratory setting. A workplace set-ting would introduce too many uncontrollablevariables.

Other researchers, however, are more optimis-tic about the possibility of developing practical sys-tems. Researchers at Westinghouse Research &Development Center have, for a number of years,been exploring the use of brain waves, in particu-lar a wave called the P300, to determine an indi-vidual's level of attention and cognitive process-ing. A Westinghouse researcher has predicted thatwithin the next 10 years, Westinghouse could mar-ket "a complete system capable of monitoring themental processing effort of employees as theyworked."'

In a slightly different direction, a system forusing brain wave analysis for determining whethera person is intoxicated on alcohol or drugs is al-ready on the market. Called the Veritas 100Analyzer, it is marketed by National Patent Ana-lytical Systems. The Analyzer is small, about thesize of a personal computer, and is designed to beused at the workplace. A disposable headband isplaced on the subject's head, and the analyzer ex-amines the cm neal-mtinal potential transmittedalong the ve*.tibular nerve. According to the man-ufacturer, the system re.mgnizes the characteris-tic brain waves that this nerve group produceswhen the subject is under the influence of particu-lar substances. The signal is unique because eachdrug produces a specific "fingerprint," a waveformknown as a "drug-evoked potential," according to

°Emanuel Donchin, Psychophysiological Monitoring: Possibilitiesand Prospects, contractor report prepared for DTA, September 1988.

allichad &Iirege, "Technology Could Let Boma Read Minds."Washington Post, June 3, 1984, p. Cl.

14D

App. 9Privacy and Civil Liberties Implications of Testing Employees in the Kir *place 139

the inventor.* Results of the test are availablewithin a few minutes. The analyzer shows a reporton the screen and also prints out a report and storesa record of the test.

The manufacturer claims accuracy in the 99 per-cent range. The device is currently undergoing in-dependent testing, but the results were not avail-able to OTA at this writing. The Veritas Analyzerhas already been used by several police depart-ments and in some workplaces.

Conclusion

While somewhat different issues are raised byeach type of employee testing discussed above,there are some common themes. In general, test-

" s. Thomas Wrstermau, at el., "Qualitative Measuremest of Drugs,"Laryngoscope, vd. 94, No. 2, February 1994.

ing pits the interests of the employer in reducingcosts, increasing workplace safety, limiting liabil-ity and exercising managerial control against em-ployee interests in maintaining personal dignityand privacy. Some of the legal questions involvedin testing are discussed in chapter 4 of this report.In addition, listed below ara some OTA analysesdealing in detail with the topics of polygraph test-ing, drug screening, genetic screening, and withthe constitutional issues involved in workplacetesting:

Review of Deftzse Department's PolygraphTest and Research ProgramsHealth StaffPaper (March 1987);Tests for Human Genetic Disorders (forthcom-ing, 1988);Urine Drug TestsHealth Testimony (June10, 1987);Science, Technology, and the Constitution(forthcoming, 1988).

k,OVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : QL: 3 1987 0 63-982

or'riSuperintendent of Documents Publication Order Form

Charge your order. issasy!

YES, please send me the following indicated publications:

The Electronic Supervisor: New Technology, New Tensions, GPO stock num' 052-003-01082-8; price $6.30.

3111

1. The total cost of my order is $ (International customers please add an additional 25%.) All prices include regulardomestic postage and handling and are good through 3/88. After this date, please call Order and Information Desk at202-783-3238 to verify prices.

Please Type or Print

2.(Company or person .; name)

(Additional address/attention line)

(Street address)

(City, State, ZIP Code)

( )

(Daytime phone including area code)

3. Please choose method of payment:

Check payable to the Superintendent of Documents

GPO Deposit Account

VISA, CHOICE or MasterCard Account

{11111_1[1 11 I I

Thank you for your order!(Credit card expiration date)

(Signature) 9/874. Mail To: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402-9325

15j

Office of Technology Assessment

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was created in 1972as an analytical arm of Congress. OTA's basic function is to help legis-lative policymakers anticipate and plan for the consequences of techno-logical changes and to examine the many ways, expected andunexpected, in which technology affects people's lives. The assessmentof technology calls for exploration of the physical, biological, economic,social, and political impacts that can result from applications of scien-tific knowledge. OTA provides Congress with independent and time-ly information about the potential effectsboth beneficial andharmfulof technological applications.

Requests for studies are made by chairmen of standing committeesof the House of Representatives or Senate; by the Technology Assess-ment Board, the governing body of OTA; or by the Director of OTAin consultation with the Board.

The Technology Assessment Board is composed of six members ofthe House, six members of the Senate, and the OTA Director, whois a non-voting member.

OTA has studies under way in nine program areas: energy and ma-terials; industry, technology, and employment; international securi-ty and commerce; biological applications; food and renewableresources; health; communication and information technologies; oceansand environment; and science, education, and transportation.

AMIN

156