|
Citation |
- Permanent Link:
- http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00055670/00001
Material Information
- Title:
- Privacy and quality-of-work-life issues in employee monitoring: contractor report
- Creator:
- Westin, Alan F.
- Publisher:
- U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment
- Publication Date:
- 1986-12
- Language:
- English
- Physical Description:
- 265 pages.
Subjects
- Subjects / Keywords:
- Supervision of employees -- United States ( LCSH )
Privacy, Right of -- United States ( LCSH ) Quality of work life -- United States ( LCSH )
- Genre:
- federal government publication ( marcgt )
Notes
- General Note:
- This report discusses broad perspectives an historical trends on worker monitoring,and current work-evaluation monitoring. It also describes a variety of federal-agency monitoring practices.
Record Information
- Source Institution:
- University of North Texas
- Holding Location:
- University of North Texas
- Rights Management:
- This item is a work of the U.S. federal government and not subject to copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §105.
- Classification:
- Y 3.T 22/2:2 El 2/7/v.1/privacy ( sudocs )
Aggregation Information
- IUF:
- University of Florida
- OTA:
- Office of Technology Assessment
|
Downloads |
This item is only available as the following downloads:
|
Full Text |
PAGE 1
1 "13 J ;, ;;). '. .,Q_ ). bi V. l pr," o..,c y PRIVACY AND QUALITY-OF-WORK-LIFE ISSUES IN EMPLOYEE MONITORING Contractor Report by Or. Alan F. Westin, President, Educational Fund for Individual Rights (a non-profit foundation) Thia docwaent was prepared for the OTA assessment, The Electronic Supervisor: New Technology1 New Tensions, September 1987. Final, Revised Draft, December, 1986 Thia document was prepared by an outside contractor as an input to an ongoing OTA assessment. It does not necessarily reflect the analytical findings of OTA, the Advisory Panel, or the Technology Assessment Board. fc.t. Educational Fund For Individual Rights 1100 Trafalgar Street, Teaneck, N.J. 07666 (201) 836-9152
PAGE 2
Contents: I U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment The Electronic Supervisor: Hew Technology, New Tensions Contractor Documents: Volume 1 Alan F. Westin, "Privacy and Quality of Work-Life Issues in Employee Monitoring," December 1986 l Russell Pipe and Alan F. Westin, "Employee Monitoring in Other Industrial Democracies," August 1986 261 Elaine Eisenman, "Employee Perceptions and Supervisory Behaviors in Clerical VDT Work Performed on Systems That Allow Electronic Monitoring," April 1986 407 Steven Deutsch, "The International Context of Labor-Management Relations: Implications for Workplace Monitoring," September 1986 450 Steven Deutsch, '!!The Context for Exploring Workplace Monitoring," September 1986 474 These documents were prepared by outside contractors as inputs to an OTA assessment. They do not necessarily reflect the analytical findings of OTA, the Advisory Panel, or the Technology Assessment Board. I
PAGE 3
-CONTENTS SCOPE AND FOCUS OF THIS REPORT .... Guidance from the Statement of Work Further Specification from our "Detailed Plan of Work" Perspectives for Assessing New-Technology Impacts ..... SOME BROAD PERSPECTIVES ON WORKER MONITORING .... Major Social Issues Raised by Worker Monitoring Defining Employee Monitoring .. A Socio-Legal Framework To Apply ..... HISTORICAL TRENDS IN EMPLOYEE MONITORING Introduction .. The Pre-Mechanical Office, 1800-1880. The Mechanical and Electrical Office, 1880-1980 Eavesdropping on Employee Conversations for NonWork M_eas~r~~~-~~--J:u.ry~s~~-.. : .. =-... Work-Measurement Monitoring New Employee Privacy Rights Recognized . . I& Page b .4 q .'f 10 I! ,~ ,~ ..,, It ,~ ., -. CURRENT WORK-EVALUATION MONITORING Social Trends: 1981-1986 ... . . . . Monitoring Capabilities of New OA Technology ..... Employer Incentives To Use VDT Monitoring Capabilities. How Extensively is VDT Work Monitoring Being Used? VDT Site Visits Made by the Educational Fund .... 9 to 5 VDT Hotline Callers ........... . :.~-2. .. (. (_ 9 to 5 Nati ona 1 Survey on Women and Stress ~-: Overall Estimate . . . . !-/::. Factors Explaining Differences in Managing VDT Clerical Work .. 41 Work Monitoring in the Federal Executive Branch . ~-5 Sources for this Discussion . The Federal Government as an OA User ..... The Overall Labor Relations and PersonnelPolicies Setting in Federal Agencies ......... 4q Monitoring of VDT Telephone Work ........... S:
PAGE 4
Varieties of Federal-Agency Monitoring Practices in Data Processing . . . 51/ 1. Some Agencies Collect No Statistics. At All For Clerical VDT Operators 5~ 2. Some Agencies Collect Statistics But Do Not Use These For Individual Evaluation. 5 3. Some Agencies Use Individual Evaluative Monitoring and Report Good Employee Response ............... 4. Agency Monitoring Practices That Have Generated Controversy ....... (1) The Social Security Administration c. ..., f' (2) The Postal Service ........ ~r 5. Examples of Cooperative Federal LaborManagement or Employee Relations in High-Production Settings ~5 {a) Department of Justice Employee Data Service . ff .5-. {b) The Internal Revenue Service ~7 Sumnary of Federal Agency Practices Work Monitoring in the Corporate World ....... f4 VDT Monitoring in "Traditional-Productivity Modes". ,:2 "Fair Work Monitoring" Approaches ......... 3 Proposals for Legislative Control of Employer Monitoring . . ..... 101 KEY ISSUES IN VDT WORK MONITORING POLICY CHOICES IN WORK MONITORING \ \ tJ H'i u
PAGE 5
--, EMPLOYEE CALL-USE MONITORING . . . . J "">' Background . . . . Iii The Federal "Telephone Call Reduction Initiative" I ; '"2 --MONITORING OF PERSONAL COMPUTER (PC) USE COMPUTERIZED PERSONNEL DATA SYSTEMS OVERALL LEGAL AND POLICY ANALYSIS OF . \ 3.if> EMPLOYEE MONITORING ..... .., -. Recap of Findings Thus Far \~ Extrapolation From Previous Employer Conduct . \4~ Five Areas of Employer Use. . . 14~ The Current Legal Status of Monitoring Activities by Employers ................ \ 4t~ 1. Clearly Legal Measures 2. Probably Illegal .... 3. "Lega 1 If 11 a. Monitoring Calls of Customer Service Operators .......... IS~ b. Computerized Brain-Wave Analysis for Determining Substance-Abuse. "H m B 11 c. u an ugs ......... ARE NEW LEGAL STANDARDS ON MONITORING LIKELY? VDT WORK MONITORING PROSPECTS FOR 1987-1988 ... I,.. ,, ... l l-t 7 I !Jtj L l 61 A CAUTIONARY SUGGESTION TO OTA: ADHERE TO THE "PRIVACY AND SECURITY" DIMENSIONS OF NEW COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES l~S ,, ; .;JI APPENDICES . . . . . . .. Item 1: Item 2: Excerpts from Alan Westin, Privacy Issues in the Monitoring of Employee Work on VDT1s in the Office Environment: Practices, Interests, and Policy Choices, a Contractor Report to OIA, December, 1984 . . . . . JP9 Two articles from the Comnunication Workers of America on a joint Company-Union experiment with "no monitoring" work settings . . . Zot-t
PAGE 6
Item 3: Survey and findings by ConnectiCOSH and the CUTW of Southern New fngland Bell VDT operators, on the 5 PaQe --relation between monitoring and stress . c?H Item 4: Selected Articles From Union and COSH Group Publications on VDT Monitoring, 1986 ........ ~,, Item 5: Selected Articles from the General Media and Computer Publications, 1986 2c.~ Item 6: Press Release and "Suggestions for the Effective Use of Computer Monitoring," Computer Business and Equipment Manufacturer"s Association, June 10, 1986 '2.S't FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . :--. -c_...., '-.J (-, .. J
PAGE 7
SCOPE AND FOCUS OF.THIS REPORT Guidance from the Statement of Work In the Statement of Work for Task 1 of our report on "Employee Monitoring," we have been directed to do two major things: 1. Trace historical trends from the 19th century to the present in employer monitoring of workers' activities in the U.S., covering available tools, employer practices; legal and social norms, and issues in debate; and 2. Evaluate present conditions and likely future trends, emphasizing principles for judgment; current practices in monitoring office workers using information technology systems; factors that may change or reshape employer purposes and practices; and institutional and interest-group forces at work. Particular attention was to be paid to trends that might "warrant changes in Federal and State policies,11 including the relation of current or possible monitoring to protection of "government whistleblowers.11 It was specified that our historical, legal, and policy analyses would draw upon our earlier {December, 1984) report to OTA on Privacy Issues in the Monitoring of Employee Work on VDT~ in the Office Environment: Practices, Interests, and Po1icy Choices. Since this report was quite detailed and comprehensive in its historical analysis and its treatment of legal and policy issues as of late 1984, we have incorporated segments of that analysis, suitably updated, in this report, both in the text and the Appendix. Further Specification from our "Detailed Plan of Work" In our "Detailed Plan of Work," approved by the OTA Project Staff, several important specifications were made to focus our report properly, and to insure that it did not duplicate unnecessarily other reports being done by OTA Contractors for this project.
PAGE 8
7 1. We will be focusing on employer monitoring of on-site worker activities and behavior, and particularly where this involves use of information technology by the employer. This excludes pre-employment investigations or testing of job applicants and also the post-emplo;ment handling of formercm~loyee personal data. It also excludes employer inquiries into off-the job activities of employees --in their homes, associational life, or community. 2. Following the guidance of a February, 1986 OTA staff memorandum,* we will concentrate on three current areas of on-site worker monitoring: a. Work measurem!!!!_, both in tenns of quantity and quality. The particular focus will be situations where new office systems and comnunications technologies offer employers possibilities for more continuous, detailed, or non-visible. monitoring of work performance than was previously possible with manual, mechanical, or electric monitoring tools. b. Call accounting, through computer-generated data "related to the date, time, duration, destination, and cost of calls made from a particular telephone" or other comnunication device. The expressed purpose for such monitoring is control of communication costs and detection of 11teleco111T1unication abuse." c. Computer-usage monitori.!19., through logging of the times or duration of an employee's use of computer time, or to insure _compliance with privacy, confidentiality, and security regu lations of the employer. While we will give primary emphasis to these current issues, our historical and social analysis will necessarily include discussion of related Letter to Alan F. Westin from M. Karen Gamble, Comnunication and Infonnation Technologies Program, OTA, February 19, 1986. ,-,, \ ._) (__)
PAGE 9
employer monitoring or surveillance activities, since those help to illuminate employer and employee interests and are the precedents and analogies that policy-makers look to for guidance. Perspectives for Assessing New-Technology Impacts A key mission of OTA is to anticipate possible impacts of new tech nologies (in this case, information and communication technologies) and to consider whether new organizational rules or legal measures may be needed to protect various rights and interests that could be adversely affected. While this sometimes calls for free-wheeling scenarios and long-term futuristic projections, we will apply a near-tenn, realitybased analysis, using the next 3-5 years as our period of inquiry. Such a near-term analysis proceeds by examining two basic issues: 1. What are fundamenta 1 _and direct interests of various major groups (business or government employers, trade unions, social critics and dissenters, etc.) in the use of employee monitoring and how have these groups used or opposed employee monitoring in the past? What interest oroups have done before is the best predictor of what they are likely to try to do or oppose being done with new tools. 2. What have been the abuses of power or threats to constitutional rights and values that have occurred when new tools for monitoring became available in the past? How liberty has been threatened before, and in what circumstances, is a good predictor of ~new threats to liberty are likely to arise in the near future. Adopting this perspective does not deny the value of projecting and discussi_ng potentially new and distinctive applications of information and
PAGE 10
q communication technologies by powerful institutions or interests. What the "near-term" approach assumes, however, is that new technologies are generally applied in gradual and imitative ways, and it is these effects the kinds of actions that the next five years are likely to witness -that will be of primary value for OTA and its Congressional clients. SOME BROAD PERSPECTIVES ON WORKER MONITORING We begin our report by offering some definitions and concepts that we think will be useful to frame the historical and contemporary discussions that follow. Major Social Issues Raised by Worker Monitoring Workplace monitoring involves a society's values, institutional arrange ments, and legal rules on at least five major social issues: 1 The nature of work, and the individual roles and responsibilities a society assigns to workers; The industrial relations system of a society, and the role and rights of trade unions; 1 Investigation and control of crime at the workplace, and related security-integrity issues (e.g., drug testing; fraud, waste, and abuse controls, etc.) 1 The definition and treatment of individual privacy and dignity interests asserted by employees; and 1 Employer design and application of new information technologies in the workplace, and social approaches toward the degree of discretion or regulation applied to such managerial innovation. The point of noting the presence of these five issues is to underscore the relation between worker monitoring and some very broad, sensitive, and controversial social questions that are of current importance in all advanced industrial democracies. Though it seems to be a fairly narrow issue, the policies a society sets for worker monitoring involve both very real and symbolically important questions. n ~ ... -~ .J '--/
PAGE 11
,o Defining Emp.loyee Monitoring There is no generally accepted definition of employee monitoring in the personnel, social science, or legal literature. Terms such as "worker monitoring, 11 "worker survei 11 ance, 11 "performance monitoring," and other vari a-ti ons have been used. For the purposes of this report, we think it is use ful to start by noting that employer activities in this area vary according to three factors that require careful empirical investigation and judgment: 1. The employer's declared purpose and actual uses of monitoringi for example: (a) to provide group data for planning and operations; (b) to evaluate individual work perfonnance and use for individual personnel decisions (pay, promotion, re training, discharge, etc.); (c) to provide personal and property security at the work site; (d) to investigate specific incidents of misconduct or crime; (e) to increase management control, discourage union organizing activities, identify dissidents, etc. 2. The type of monitoring used; for example: (a) human, visual observation (with or without a clipboard, stopwatch, or other documentation equipment); (b) listening-in on telephone transactions, either with or without recordings being made; (c) microphone overhearing of worker conversations, again with or without recording; (d) photographing of work, by still camera; (e) video camera observations, with or without videotape recording; (f) machine-generated data collection on operators' work performance, whatever type of machine being used;
PAGE 12
3. (g) recording data on the entry, movement, or location of the employee on the work premises, from traditional timeclock punch-in to computerized card or personalidentifier access systems; (h) automatic recording of the telephone numbers called by individual employees, for use in administration of telephone usage rules. (a) whether set unilaterally by the employer or whether employees or unions participate in setting standards or procedures; (b) whether open or covert, and with or without general or specific notice to employees; (c) whether casual, random, regular, or continous; (d) what standards are set for good performance, and how these are arrived at; (e) in performance evaluation, whether individual employees can see the records produced and contest them in any procedure. A Socio-Legal Framework To Apply \\ The above discussion indicates the wide variety of employer activities that involve the use of monitoring techniques. It is also useful to identify briefly the general socio-legal concepts that American society has tended to apply in addressing most issues of monitoring or surveillance. This can be pictured in terms of five elements our society uses to weigh social interests and create standards for legal judgment: the place where the surveillance occurs; the person and activity being observed; the technique of observation or surveillance applied; the J!!!. made of the information obtained; and the safeguards .Q!. limitations followed. While these five elements could be discussed at length, the Table devel oped on the next page illustrates briefly the kinds of interests and standards that each element generates in the American socio-legal tradition. n : ) I
PAGE 13
\'2.. Table 1. Five Elements in the Socio-Legal Analysis of Surveillance Issues ELEMENT INTERESTS STANDARD 1. The place where The property interest of Whether the place is monitoring occurs the owner; the "home is one society af-your castle" interest of fords a reasonable the individual and family; 11 expectation of pri-etc. vacy 2. The person and Public official or private Whether the individual activit~ being citizen; special occupa-is someone entitled to observe tion deserving confidengreater or lesser pri-tiality treatment (doctor, vacy protection than religious advisor, etc.); the "ordinary" citizen etc. 3. The technique of A. Freedom from "constant," A. Whether this is un-observation being "total," or "unfair" reasonably intruapplied surveillance; sive surveillance, B. Requirement that techor inconsistent with basic human nique be accurate and dignity. results not subject to manipulation B. Whether the tech-nique meets due process standards 4. The use to which Privacy interest of sub-Whether the social need put ject versus social or outweighs the reasonable institutional need for expectation of privacy survei 11 ance ("balancing tests") 5. The safeguards Holding intrusion on Whether the surveillance applied individuals to the nar-system is properly rowest scope needed bounded and limited, and with meaningful as a constitutional safeguards to control democracy requires. or disclose abuses.
PAGE 14
HISTORICAL TRENDS IN EMPLOYEE MONITORING Introduction 13 The treatment of employee monitoring in American law has essentially gone through three phases: 1. In the pre-mechanical era, 1800-1880, the law treated employment as a master-servant relationship, and the employer's power to watch, set standards, discipline, and discharge was treated as absolute. 2. In the 1880-1965 era, a period of great expansion, mechani zation, and bureaucratization of employment, and of gradual social regulation of employment relationships, American law shifted to a property rights standard. When it came to worker monitoring in factory or office, American law assigned very broad rights of observation and record-keeping to the employer because of (a) ownership of the premises at which work was done; and (b) the "right to manage the work process," which was regarded as a basic employer prerogative, even under collective bargaining. 3. In the 1965-1985 era, challenges to the employer's monitoring prerogatives have been asserted in the name of privacy, dignity, worker-health, and worker-participation interests. So far, as we will show, there have been only a few legal interventions upholding such claimed rights against employer monitoring and these have generally involved special circumstances, such as monitoring of telephone conversations where the public is involved. ., "\ \ J u
PAGE 15
-However, as we will also show, we may be entering a period in the near future in which a combination of new social values and the potential depth and intrusiveness of available technological monitoring will lead society to set a new balance between employer and employee interests. It seems appropriate to divide our historical sketch into three periods, keyed to a combination of the state of office technology available in each period and broad social-value changes in American society. These periods will be 1800-1880, the era of the pre-mechanical office; 1880-1965, the era of the mechanical and electrical office; and 1965-1985, the era of advanced electronic technology. And, since call-accounting and computer-usage monitoring are both very recent phenomena, it is work-measurement that our historical sketch will cover. The Pre-Mechanical Office, 1800-1880 Setting production standards for a job, observing and measuring worker output, and using this for rewards and/or punishments is a managerial activity as old as work itself. It was done in the ancient and medieval world, usually to slaves or serfs, as in the work of the Hebrews on the Egyptian pyramids. It was part of artisan and clerk supervision in the mercantile age, and in the era of 18th and early 19th century offices portrayed by Charles Dickens or Nathaniel Hawthorne. Similarly, in the social ethos of the 19th century, employers and their supervisors watched workers closely to prevent theft or sabotage; to see that rules of conduct and discipline were followed; and to see that moral behavior was followed on (and off) the job. The close supervisory practices of New England factory owners employing both men and women in the pre-Civil War era have been well chronicled.
PAGE 16
In office work in this era, the means of production were quill pens, letterpress copies, ledger books, and foolscap. Employers used Girect visual observation to oversee their small staffs, who worked in full and constant view of their employers. Private offices were unknown for workers. Standards of output and accuracy levels were set by employers without legal or governmental intervention of any kind, and sanctions from loss of pay to dismissal were applied by employers on the basis of their evaluation of a worker's performance, with no appeal rights by the employee to public authorities, and with no labor unions available for office workers. Record-keeping about employee perfonnance, given the small-scale nature of both business and government office work, was generally 1 imited and informal. The Mechanical and Electrical Office, 1880-1980 Between the 1870's and 1900, four technological developments took place that changed either the nature of office work or the ways in which worker monitoring could be conducted. The invention of the telephone in the 1880's made telephone work in the office a major organizational activity; created a major new occupational group (the "telephonist" or telephone operator), and carried with it the capability for employers to monitor either statistics of telephone operations or the employee's conversational perfonnance. The invention of the microphone in the 1870's provided both an office operation (dictating and transcribing) and a tool for microphone easvesdropping (surreptitiously, if desired) on the conversations of employees throughout the employer's premises. The invention of the typewriter and other mechanical business machines in the 1870's and SO's (adding machines, calculators, mimeograph machines) provided tools for faster, more uniform, and more n .......... ',.)
PAGE 17
U, measurable office activities, especially at the clerical and secretarial levels. Finally, the invention of "instantaneous cameras" in the 1880's, with dry-plate, fixed-focus photography, allowed the capture of inmediate events and situations in a "candid" and quick fashion; this began the process Eavesdropping on Employee Conversationj for Non-Work Measurement purposes Histories of telephone tapping and room microphoning document that listening to conversations of employees was a practice that certain types of employers engaged in throughout this era, especially given the weak anti-wiretapping laws in the United States in the 1880-1965 years. 1 Some employers used such surveillance for eavesdropping on the at-work conversations of employees active in union affairs, especially during periods of labor negotiations; or for investigation of employee theft or other suspected criminal activity of workers; or for employee loyalty security investigations at periods of high concern about suspected subversive activities (the 19201s, 19501s, etc.). Other uses included eavesdropping on telephone calls or room conversations to discover disloyal pro fessional employees or managers who might be giving confidential business information or trade secrets to competitors. Something of a high point in such practices during this period took place in the early 1960's, when advanced (microminiaturized) listening devices and closed-circuit television cameras entered the general marketplace. A budding business by private-detectives and electronics firms offered to (and did) install such devices when businesses built new headquarters or opened new offices. "It's so much more cost-effective to wire up your
PAGE 18
whole premise at initial construction time, and have a console for selective listening in the executive suite," went this appeal, "than to have put such equipment in later.112 While such omnibus eavesdropping was not widespread, there was ample documentation in court trials, legislative hearings, and newspaper stories in the 1950's and 60's of extensive ad hoc --eavesdropping by employers for the purposes noted above.3 Work-Measurement Monitoring In our 1984 OTA Report, we characterized the issues involved in workperformance monitoring in the 1880-1965 period in the following historical and analytic terms: 4 "In every era, work measurent brings to the fore a classic tension between employers and employees. There are conflicting interests in the n .......... quality and rate of work set as a norm, the rate of pay the way in which ~') supervision of performance is accomplished, and whether individual or group output is used to determine pay or promotion. The constant introduction of new technologies in modern societies leads to continuous debate over fair standards and fair measurement techniques, as work settings in factories and offices undergo major changes. In practice, the standards and measurement techniques applied by man-_agment reflect many factors: prevailing social and cultural values, current theories of mangement, expectations and perceptions of employees, the state of the labor market, collective bargaining in unionized organ~ations, and, 1n some areas, regulatory and legal controls. In economic terms, manage ments in modern, advanced-industrial societies have to balance their in terests in expanding productivity with an awareness that work standards and measurements techniques that employee consider unfair can harm employee \ u
PAGE 19
l'i morale and commitment, create physical and eaotional stress, increase absen teeism and tumover, generate employee sabotage and generally impair the increased productivity the employer is trying to achieve. "Similarly, employees reacting to production standards today have to. take into account the "iability and survival of their employer in a competitive world, and the possible peril to their jobs if work is not produced in sufficient quantity or if the quality of the work is not good enough. "Th social policy questions as tc;; work monitoring are roughly similar to those presented in other privacy settings, such as viretapping, computerization of credit record,, or use of polygrapb testing. In work 1:10nitoring, society has to decide: (1) whether to leave the setting and applying of work standarda to private ruolution (through labor-manase:ient negotiations in unionized setcings or, :1n a.on-u.nioa. settings, to an assu:ned "labor I market" effect on the a:ctracting and keeping of good employees); (2) whether to ban certain types or uses of work =onitoring co=pletely, as so subject to abuse and so destructive of mployee dignity that it should not be allowed; or (3) whether to allow vork monitoring at the mployer's discretion,_but set conditions on its use, intended to prdtect loyee privacy, health, or other interests wile still allowing 'proper use' to employers as an important. productivity and work-quality tool."
PAGE 20
Our 1984 OTA Report then presented for 1880-1970 an analysis of employer monitoring goals and practices; trade union and civil-libertiesgroup protest; estimates of monitoring uses; and the norms, arbitration rulings, and legal doctrines that had developed in American society on work monitoring during those 90 years. Following this, the 1984 Report discussed the changing social and legal environment on these issues between 1970 and about 1980, in what was called the i11111ediate pre-OA (office automation) baseline. Since we believe this historical presen tation remains accurate and complete, we reproduce below the overall 1880-1980 sumnary of work-measurement monitoring from our 1984 OTA Report. (We have also included in the Appendix the two sections from the 1984 Report developing this material period by period, and providing footnote documentation for the trends identified.) 11 A. A Recap of Basic Pre-OA Trends If we look at work settings in the office in the 1960s and 1970s, before the introduction of word processors and micros, an occupational map of performance monitoring of office employees might have been drawn as follows: Ki;hly-routinized jobs Sau-routine jobs I Lea.st-routinized jobs Data and order entry Se,::retary txecutive secretary Custoaer-s,ervice Draftsperson Professional and (coaplaints, telephone scientific worker orders, reservations; etc.) Claims adjustor Typing pool Messencer and Salesperson mail clerk Financial and inventory Receptionist Supervisor and aanager clerk Progra:::1e1er txecutive n ,, __ r
PAGE 21
-"w k or ers in the highly-routinized catesories generally had quantitative standards set for their performance, and we saw that regular collection of data on their individual output was done in !2!!!!. offices to see that performance continued to meec the standards. This was done on two bases: (1) guantitv -lines typed, orders entered, papers filed, calls taken, etc.; and (2) t1uali_tv errors in typing and data entry, papers misfiled, poor er discourteous handl-ing of customer calls, etc, 11Somewhat "looer" production tandarda were set for office workr iD the semi-routine joba. "Subjective" and "qualitative" factors were usually considered sufficiently usportant that only periodic quantitative check.a were d and thua were uually balanced asamst the qualitative mauuru. "Allloni the leut-routma jobs, salesp~rsons were usually subjected to rigorous performance meaaureaat, ill the form of orders taken, dollar-volumes sold, etc., so that a high-autonomy ~ob could sometimes be one in which individual and regular .numerie:a,l monitoring took pl,ace. For most of the sample occupations listed 1111der our "least-routine work" category, however, individual IIIOllitoring did not take place. There, the mployee's performance was judged by the output ofunita or groups that he or she belonged to (scientific and technical workers) or that the employee directed (as supervisors, managers, and executives). "This sample of occupaticmal groupa also reflects the status, compensation, and power spectrum 1D organizational offices. The higher the occupational status, the less likely that quantitative standard on an individual basis would be set (with a few exceptions, such as sales), and that regular or even periodic monitoring of individuals would be done by manage::aent.
PAGE 22
-------------.. ... .. 2 .. \ "the critical aspects of individual monitoring of highly-routinized joba in the pre-OA era wu that direct, visual supervision waa necessarily occas10nal (supervisor couldn't be everywhere at once); and record-keeping was not total and continuoua (whether of sign-in and sign-outs or trackin work volumea by small unita of time, such u hours or even by day). And, wheretelephone-service monitoring wu used, this was a periodic, sampling tech nique. rather than a continuous oversig~t. In terma of social nonas and legal con:trols, .musuring work output for highly-routine and semi-routine jobs seemed acceptable to social opinion 1D the pra-OA era of 1945-1980. Social critics and unions would at:tack "sweat shop" ployers who paid lov wagu, set hi;h production quotas, and supervised their employ iD "exploitive" ways. Judgad by objective actions of society lov unionization of auch ployeu despite heavy union organization efforts,; the absance of gmeral replatory intervention; and non-intervention by the courts under any atatutory or constitutional bases it seems accurate to say that the American ptblic ~aumed that most office work was being asured and moat individual.a were being evaluated in ways that did not call for social iDterventiona againat aist1ng employer practic 11 there were two :Important types of "monitoring" that were exceptions to thia social approval: (1) employer monitoring of telephone calls by employee cwstomer-eervice. operators (for telephone companies, airline reservations, newspaper claaaified-ad departments, utilities, etc.) and (2) employer uae of hidden microphone to record employees at various work locationa. In these areu, aa we aa,r, there !!I!. so interventions in the pre-OA era by statute or regulatory-agency rule, or under a few collective bargaining n __ .,, contracts. We will return to these actions and their relationship to the u
PAGE 23
VDT work monitoring question later in this report. The key point to make here is that there were .!.2!!!. forms of employer monitoring of employee on-thejob performance that had already raised privacy issues in the pre-OA office se_tting, and for which concepts of "reasonable" and "unreasoni:.ble" employer surveillance had been formulated. 'Throughout the development of the pu-OA office, from the early days of mechanization and 1tandardization of office work (189O-193Os) to the 1960-1980 period of electric efficiency and "modern caanagaent," there have been not only conflicts between the classic union position ("group" rather than "individual" nonaa for pay ad performance) and .that of management, but also a diversity of position withiA. the managment camp itself aa to the most effective and justified m~thods of measuring and rewarding employee per formance. These employee-relations issues involve whether to use incentive pay systems for varioua typu of jobs and occupations; how to use timemethod-and-aa.otion studies and gther quantitative "studard-setting" approaches; what are ac~eptable and unacceptable techniques of supervisory observation and evaluation; md other similar issues. By the 197Os, the literature on work measurement and evaluation featured many divergent judgmants as to the best management approaches in the work environments and employee-value orientations of our era. These ranged from the traditional, Taylor-based belief in scie.nt~fic time-mati011 approaches using standards and competitive illcentivu to c:alla for more employee-participative and "humanistic" approaches. (See the footnotes for exumles of these 0011-tioas.) These were not p~ivacy baaed issues, we should note, but matters of employee or labor relations, governed essentially by collective bargaining where office employees were union represented or by marketplace factors and emp~oyer-philosophy 1D the non-union settings."
PAGE 24
New Employee Privacy Rights Recognized By the close of the 1965-1980 period, as part of the overall shift away from a propertY rights emphasis in balancing employer-employee social interests toward a recognition of some privacy interests by employees, American social nonns and law made some important changes in employer prerogatives vis a vis monitoring of employees. We can illustrate this by noting the limitations placed on listening to or photographing workers on the job and the collection and recording of evaluative data on employee perfonnance. First, referring back to our Table on page 7, we can see that American society now identified various places and activities of employees that were felt to require privacy protection even though they occurred on the employer's property and affected the employer's interests. This was particularly true when employer monitoring was being carried out with new technological tools and in covert fashion. A good exa~ple was the enactment in Connecticut in 1971 of a law titled, "Use of Electronic Surveillance Devices By Employers Limited .. 115 This law provides that no employer or its agent shall operate any electronic surveillance device or system to record the sounds or voices or use any closed circuit television device to record or monitor employees in "areas designated for health or personal comfort" or provided "for safeguarding of their possessions," such as "rest rooms, locker rooms, or lounges." {Such laws were passed in response to widely publicized news reports in the 1960's of some employers bugging rest rooms and lounges with new microminiaturized listening devices, and also using concealed closed circuit TV cameras for employee surveillance in such places.) 6 ,--\ u
PAGE 25
Then, in 1980, Connecticut expanded this same statute to prohibit either employers or employees, or their representatives, to use elec tronic surveillance devices to overhear or record "a conversation or discussion pertaining to employment contract negotiations between the two parties," unless the consent of all parties to such conversations had been obtained. 7 Here, the law was affording privacy protection to a type of activity --discussions by employees (or by management) about labor contract negotiations --that society believed ought not to be monitored even though discussions by employees or union representatives were taking place on the employer's property and during working hours. Secondly, federal wiretapping control law (Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968)8 forbade persons other than law enforcement officials to engage in telephone tapping or room eaves dropping, even by an employer on its own property, and on its own telephone system, unless this were done under certain exceptions. The exception relevant to our topic 1s service observing of telephone operators (as already discussed). Similar statutes were enacted by most states.9 While there is little doubt that some employers have continued to use covert microphoning or phone tapping in labor relations work, security investigations, or intra-management struggles, reported incidents of such conduct have been rare over the past decade, and the kind of widespread employer "wiring up" documented in the 1960's has been greatly reduced. Third has been the creation of new organizational policies and some legal controls over the collection and maintenance of employee performance data.
PAGE 26
.ZS In the 1965-1980 period, as social concern about data banks and privacy arose and was translated into new organizational policies and privacy-protection laws, employer computerization and use of personal data on employees was one of the key issues. This development is treated in detail in Alan F. Westin, Computers, Personnel Administration, and Citizen Rights, U.S. National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 500-50 (1979) and in the report of the U.S. Privacy Protection Study Conmission, Personal Privacy in An Informatior. Socfe!l (1977). For our purposes, s~veral aspects of the "data surveillance of employees" issue seem relevant. By 1980 (and continuing tn the oresent) the federal government, many state and local governments, and most large to medium sized private employers have adopted employee privacy codes limiting data collection or retention to job-relevant information; setting confidentiality rules for handling sensitive employee information within the employer organization; setting guidelines for release of employee personal data outside the employer organization; and providing employees with the right to examine their personnel records and contest the accuracy or completeness of information there. In addition, state employee privacy statutes began to be passed in the late 1970's providing access rights to private-sector employees and setting confidentiality rules for handling such data; 10 states have passed such statutes as of 1985.10 n .. / .......
PAGE 27
The effect of such employee record-privacy rules and laws was to cause most employers to re-examine what information they put into super visory or personnel files, and to be aware that employees could now examine such records --including work monitoring data --if it was preserved by the employer. As is often the case in privacy-protection laws, the employee privacy codes and laws did not forbid employers to collect and record evaluative data on employee performance, but they did bring what employers recorded into the reach of employee inspec tion rights, and with that, of challenges to the accuracy, completeness, and ultimately the proper usage of such work monitoring data.
PAGE 28
CURRENT WORK-EVALUATION MONITORiNG Sociai Trends.: 1981-1986 Attitudes of the American public and of organizational leaders toward privacy remained basically the same in the mid-198~s as they had been re~ corded in a I.Duis Harris survey of 1978. A later Harris survey in 1983, sponsored by Southern New England Telephone Company, found that concern over invasion of privacy, ab" of computer technology, and failure of public and private orga nizaticms to keep the sensitive personal inforr:aation they collect fully confi dential, was still the view of majorities of the public. Also, there was a strong willingness to use law and penal sanctions to punish willful privacy 11 intrusions by organizations using information technology. Two other important social trends marked the early to middle 198Os. One was a -rising medical, media, and public concern about the health effects of stress at the office workplace. Studies showed that stress among office workers was a contributing cause of adverse health impacts such as heart dis ease, and that clerical workers because of their "high demand-low control" 12 working situations., were among the occupations in office work most "at risk." While the studies did~ find that harmful stress by clerical workers was dependent on VDT use --high levels. showftd up in high-production, closely monitored clerical work with pre-OA technologies -the growing use of "machine paced" and "u,.achine monitored" VDT clerical work became a major concern of stress research and scientific evaluation. The second trend was growing public, expert, and media concem over work and workplace issuu in the United States. Economic recession, heightened world competition, widespread layoffs, and uncertainties over job and career futures provided the basic dynamic behind this concern. But it was also prompted 'by concern over the deepening impact of office technology uses on the quality of work life -on the content and design of jobs, on social relationships in n. ~ / .,l.,. ..... )
PAGE 29
---. offices, on physical effects of using VDTs in inadequate ergonomic conditions, on health and safety issues raised by VDT use, and on future job opportunities u whole industries moved to convert high-volume data and telephone trans actions to VDT processing. While work and its effects on people has always been an important issue in American lif, the changing office workplace took on a primary importance in the lives of millions of Americans in the 19801 th&t it had not had, to that extent, in previous.post-World-War II decades. These social trends help to explain why VDT use, and the work monitoring issue in particular, moved onto the national public agenda in the 19821986 period. Specifically, national TV programs such as the McNeil-Lehrer 13 14 Report and ABC-TV Nightly News featured programs on "Big Brother" monitoring in 1984. A stream of newspaper and magazine stories in the general press and books. like Robert Howard's Brave New Workplace 1 ~ included attacks on "VDT surveillance of workers" in 'their treatment of the 16 new automated office and the social issues it presented. Business maga-zines reported on the controversy, again with a strong focus on the work 17 monitoring issue. As union and women's activist group campaigns for VDT legislation unfolded in 15 states in 1982-84, and bills in seven states proposed bans on work monitoring, the media gave further publicity to the 18 monitoring question. And, work monitoring was treated in OTA's 1985 re-port on Automation of America's Offices19and the U.S. Department of Labor's Women's Bureau report in 1985 on Women and Office Automation: Issues for the Decade Ahead.20 In this growing discussion of VDT uses, concern over "harmful stress" and violations of "employee dignity and privacy" came together in the critique of "unfair work monitoring." Before analyzing this critique, however, we need to examine the nature of VDT monitoring, the extensiveness of its use in clerical work, and the major patterns of employer applications of VDT monitoring capabilities.
PAGE 30
Monitoring Capabilities of New OA Technology What is new about office system technology is that it is now feasible to record and cumulate the inputs of individual VDT operators on an "instan taneous" basis, and to use the software capacities of both stand.-alone word processors and multi-terminal office systems to pace and guide operator performance. Computer technology can automatically record when operators sign on and off their terminals each work period; how long their transactions take (whether these are telephone calls, orders processed, sales ude or cl~'lms adjusted); when operators leave their machines; how long the "down time" is between transactions; how many transactions are completed each day; and similar a~pects of operator performance. Most multi-station terminal systems automatically generate detailed master records of the kind described above for each terminal and for each identified operator at that terminal. This can provide management with a documentary record for each worker by minute, hour, day, week, or month. Office systems can be programmed (through commercially available software or by the software designed by user employers) to "prompt" operators with audible or visible cues to keep the pace of work moving. This results in lights flashing on terminal screens or "bullet'in boards" when calls are waitin;, bells or tones sounding if an operator pauses too long between transactions or is away from the terminals too long, or "alert" signals being sent to supervisor terminals if operators are falling behind production quotas. -.'\ u
PAGE 31
On the following pages, we reproduce two printouts that illustrate the individual-operator records that are generated from word processors or data entry machines through software programs. The first s~eet, headed "IV Phase," 1a f rom the National Finance Canter, Off ice of Finance and Management, of the 21 U.S. Department of Agriculture. It 11 part of an Operator Statistics System that processes data from a Four Phase 111ini-cc:,mputer system used by a Data Preparation Unit. Programming accumulates a daily operator swmary and "detail statistic" for "each batch of data entered by the operator." It also generatu report showing individual performance by operator and appli cation, identifyina proficiency level under five rankings for each operator. The daily total.a are for entry and verify ke.yatroku, entry and verify time, and total time, calculated ill hours, miDutes, and seconds. A monthly per formance appraisal report ii generated averaging the operator's daily times.
PAGE 33
i ----------------. ----. ----. .. ----. -------------------IV PHAU. OPf,AIOM SIAIIIIICS I DE1L LISIING .Of IAICHIS POtEiSED IY OPERA10II DAIi ,.1,a,10 1010111, flU" o,,oz,,, '"~u Ot/Zt/11 .. ,.u --I OPEIAIOIS IOI CHEIYL 1 SIINARI ENlAW NOOE ,1111s11,s VEllfY NODI S1A11SlltS __ Q.A H lNJIHD.'-.JltlULI _________ -------------------------------In JOI ,,s,s,_N DOC. Na"I HO. 1VP l&ICNNO CONPLl1ED PRGf UVEL Plltlf 01/00 OH .. ,on 0611,uo ... --------------------Plhlf r,uoo o,o ooi JJ111 ... --. -. -. __ 0~100 oz,o 0,, ,1, I ---' .. .. --. JOYAL .. l'IILY 115 aatl IOIAl IINI JOit IOJJZ 00111,z ,,,, aii~ 011111J1 1111 .. UHi 0IIHU1 --. ... -lPUI.. "IIU ... ___ ___ .. -. 1/S IAH JOHl UME .. ,-0---00,ooioo 0 00100100 .o oo,aoo .... u l'lhlf 01100 o,ozas 01101,,, ,1,, 10)11 0011111, .-0 00100101. ---------------------------!_~~~-~-~-~------------~--~~------PINlf 01/00 o,o e,ollt 01121100 I ZSSJ 11111 001111,J 0 0 001 PINUIS1 0"00 ----...... Plklf 01/110 IJO OUOS DIUIHI -------Plttlf oi,oo 110 OUOH OIUlH . -. .. ..... OSIUO ltD HOOIO OllJII" -. PINIF .,,0., Jot HIDI DJIIDIH ---.... u H/0(1 Ill OtOOll 0111110,---........ -...... H/00 110 II0011 OJIHHO PINU 01100 OH IHOlO 'oi ,,.in ------PlttEF H/00 DH HtDOI 11111191 --..... PINH OS/00 uo IIJDDI DIIIIIH .. -. IIISPU H/00 U6Jt OIIUIO --IIISPU OUDCI UUH 0UHIOI IIUP&Y HIOO U6JZI 01u,n1 "'"'' OS,00 U6Jtl Otl0UIS .. ----&DIJIINV OS/00 1t11,, OttHUI ADUIINV OS/Of, NIH& OIUUH I I s J ' 10.-IIUO 00101111 ___ ------, 0 00100100 ,,i 1,1,, 00,1111, ,, ... UHO ODIOOtlt Jil IOOIO 001111Jo ...... .,, 1,,11 -. 0 00100100 --. -o--ooiooiio ------I 0 00100100 ---... -. ---0 00100100 0 00100100 1111 ,,1, 11101100 1111 IHH 00... 145 161> OOIIOIJI ..,.1111 00111111 a 1,1,0 001001,, 11, a.no 00100111 JIii 61Jt OOIJJZI -----ltlO 161 0010,1~0 .,, 00101,0, I -0-,,,00100- 0 0OI00I00 --0 ---0 -00100100 ___ 0 0 a 0 0 00100100 0 00100100 0 00100100 J,. 1,,,1 001011)0 ,,, azt, 001011,0 a, D 1--() (: 3/ \...._/' () .....
PAGE 34
the second printout presented as an illustration i~ one recording the work of word processors in an Oregon State Government agency who prepared or revis~d letters and documents for their department. (This was used as evi dence in a discipline case that want to arbitration, and will be discussed later in this report.) The printout contains a document number ID; a code for each operator comprised of the unit she works in (ADJ), the type of docu ment (TC telecommunication, for example); and finally the initials of the operator. The "unit" rafera to the specific work station the operator was using. "Activity" indicatu the kind of work done on the doc\11:lenc. The last column, "Keystrokes," is a cumulative count of all keystrokes made in the 22 course of working on that docUINDt. ...
PAGE 35
--. ... 33 July 11 through July 22, 1983 Unit 32 n Tfmt Tfme Work Key / Opera to.-Unft Act1v1 ty Oitt In Out Time Pages Strokes -------------------------------------~--------~------------------------------~~-~-------w ADJTCJS 32 Creation 07/21/83 10:42 10:43 01 1 58 .., AOJNMJS -32-Cre1t1on 07/21/83 10:42 10:44 01 z 9 w AOJNMJS 32 Cre1tfon 07/21/83 10:45 10:46 01 4 15 ii ADJNMJS 32 Creation 07/21/83 10:52 10:S6 03 4 215 w AOJTCJS 32 Cr11t1on 07/21/83 10:57 11:00 02 1 185 w AOJTCJS 32 Creation 07/21/83 11:00 11:02 01 1 339 N AOJOWS 32 Ed1t 07/21/83 11:06 11:06 01 2 578 J 32 Edit 07/21/83 11:06 11:07 01 10 3101S4 w TCB816 32 Creation 07/21/83 11:07 11:08 01 3 2 32 Edft 07/21/83 11:09 11: 11 02 26 41154 32' Edit 07/21/83 11: 12 11: 14 02 42 74096 32 Cre1tton 07/21~83 11:15 11: 17 02 26 883S 32 Cr11t1on 07/21/83 11:18 11: 19 01 69 30650 ',I TCB819 32 Creation 07/21/83 11: 19 11:20 01 3 z V TCB818 32 Creation 07/21/83 11:21 11 :Zl 01 3 6 AOJNMJS 32 Cr11tton 07/21/83 11:21 11:ZS 03 22 39 H AOJMAJS 32 Edit 07/21/83. 11:24 11:25 01 14 3846 J 32 Ed1t 07/21/83 11:24 11:26 ~1 10 397006 AOJNMJS 32 Cre1t1on 07/21/83 11:25 11 :47~ 21 22 2957 N AOJMAJS 32 Edit 07/21/83 U:57 12:0G' 02 11 1642 J 32 Edit 07/21/83 12:00 12:00 01 10 397205 .,_~~) ., AOJTCCW 32 Cre1tian 07/21/83 13:00 13:00 01 1 1S9 AOJNMJS 32 07/21/83 2234 ,_ :-',I Cr11t1on 13:00 13:01 01 6 J 32 Edit 07/21/83 13:00 13:01 01 10 310253 J 32 Edit 07/21/83 13:01 13:02 01 10 310278 'ti AOJNMJS 32 CrHt1on 07/21/83 13:03 13: 13 10 23 4295 'ti AOJNMJS 32 Cre1tton 07{21/83 13:13 13:26 12 23 4S66 .. AOJNMJS 32 CrHt1on 07/21/83 13:27 13:31 04 23 4652 J 32 Edit 07/21/83 13:31 13:32 01 10 3103S1 ',I AOJHEMOJS 32 Cre1t1on 07/21/83 13:39 13:44 OS 3 375 J 32 Edit 07/21/83 13:45 13:45 01 10 397656 ~. AOJTCJS 32 CrHt1on 07/21/83 13:45 13:49 03 1 246 AOJNMJS 32 Cre1t.1on 07/21/83 13:57 13:59 01 17 19 w AOJNMJS 32 Edit 07/21/83 14:00 14:01 01 6 23S6 J 32 Edit 07/21/83 14:01 14:02 01 10 397871 V ADJNMJS 32 Cre1tfan 07/21/83 14:01 14:16 14 14 336 J -32 Edit 07/21/83 14:15 14:16 01 10 398091 w AOJTCJS 32 c,-,uf on 07/21/83 14: 16 14:17 01 1 26 W AOJNMJS 32 Edit 07/21/83 14:21 14:23 01 16 375 'W AOJNMJS 32 Edit 07/21/83 14:24 14:29 04 4 434 J 32 Edit 07/21/83 14:28 14:30 01 10 398419 .w ADJNMJS 32 Cr11t1on 07/21/83 14:30 14:32 02 2 175 J 32 Ed1t 07/21/83 14:33 14:33 01 10 398446 .H ADJTCJS 32 CrHt fan 07/21/83 14:33 14:37 03 1 252 .w AOJTCJS 32 Cre1tton 07/21/83 14:39 14:39 01 1 28 )I TCBSll 32 Crut1an 07/21/83 14:39 14:40 01 2 2 7,1 TCB834 32 Crtit1an 07/21/83 14:39 14:41 01 3 ,2 0 .w AOJNMJS 32 Cr11t1on 07/21/83 14:40 14:41 01 2 180 ADJTCJS 32 Cr11tton 07/21/83 14:42 14:43 01 1 2 :w ADJTCJS. 32 CrHt 1 an 07/21/83 14:42 14:43 01 1 24 ;
PAGE 36
Employer Incentives To Use "IDT Monitoring Capabilities The early 1980's was a time in which a combination of externaL and in ternal factors invited managements moving into OA to consider applying the monitoring capabilities of office systems technology to intensive VDT production work. The recuaion meant that producing product and services at greatly reduced costs, and reducing "headcount" were management imperatives. Set-ting ambitioua production quotas for data entry, ~laims processing, wnrd processing, and customer-service operationa and "policing'0 these through detailed operator performance records seemed a major way to cope with recession pressures. Govarment agencies facing budget slashes had similar incentivu. At the time, deregulation meant that many businesses had to lower coses draatically to compete both witp lean, young entrants in their own industries and large, powerful firms from other industries vho werenow "raiding" their preaerve_s. Established airlines, for example, had to cut reservation processing costs to meet the competition of new, low-salary and non-union air carriers. Locai banks now had to compete with out-of-state banking institutions, while hanks, 1nau:rance companies, brokerage houses, and large_retail chaiu were now in sharp competition for the pu~lic's in vestment dollar. Competition from foreign firms added a final challense to some firms, t~ough this was not as common in office work as in industrial settings. In our site visits, ve found that pressure to lower information proceaaing coat becauaa of all these "new competitive pressures" vas the 110st co111110n reaaon given for applying production quotas and monitoring ~o. intenaive VDT work. This was especially true as we will discuss in a later section, of AT&T in the period of the late 1970s, and especially from 1980-1983.
PAGE 37
Finally, organizations that spent large sums of money on terminals and office systems generally did so because the vendors promised extensive improvaent1 in productivity, and advocates of OA expenditures inside the or ganization had aet out detailed plans documenting how such productivity gains would be achieved. Given the reality that changeovers to new OA systems almo1t invariably meant disruption of routinu and workins group rhythms, and that frequent downtime of OA 1ystema. was common, there was a built-in "upset" factor in th fir1t atagas (often months to years) in most large OA applica tions. In many situ we visited, this lad to pressures on group or ~ivision or bureau managmenta to "get produc::ioc up," and that pressure was passed on directly to unit managers, who passed it right along to supervisory staffs. With their OWD. performance ratings, bonuses, promotions, and careers riding on "payoff performance" from the new OA equipment, supervisors leaned on cleri-cal workers doina the moat intensive VDT vork to produce more, faster. Since many organizations already used.production quotas and work monitoring in the pre-OA era, thua had little trouble in applying their basic philosophy with the newly-enlarged capacities of VDT systems. Some firms we visited that had .!!2S_ used. work monitoring in the pre-QA period adopted this practice in thei; QA clerical operar.ions, both for "coapetitive pressure" and "new opportunity" reasons. At the same time, !!2,!!_ organizations we visited which had a personnel philoaophy that did .!!!:!i accept produc;ion quotas and work monitoring iD the pre-OA era did not abandon that ~pproach just because they plugged in word processors or telecommunication terminals for customer service work. (We will give examples of these policies later.) 35 Q \ u
PAGE 38
How Extensively is VDT Work MonitoringBeing Used? There are no trustworthy figures on how extensively employers are applyinr VDT based software to monitor individual operator perfomance and use this to make individual judpaent on pay, promotion, or discipline. Ho one ha such figures, and no available baaia for calculating them is at hand. When we read a recent mas;azine article that quoted 'NIOSH as having estimated that the two-thirds of 7 lllilliou employees using VDTs in the 23 U.S. are being "electronically monitored" by their employers, we contacted Dr. Michael Smith of NIOSH. Be stated that he had never made such a statement and that he knew of no NIOSH study or report that had ever made such an estimate. Bia opinion ia that no-one has reliable figures on the extensive-24 nus of individual VDT evaluative monitoring. What we can provide to OTA is a series of empirical observations we have made or collected on particular subsets of the employee population, and, from these, suggest some ball park figures as to how widely VDT monitoring may be going on overall. VDT Site Visits Made by the Educational Fund the Educational Fund visited 110 business, government, and non-profit. 25 organizations in a VDT fieldstudy during 1982-84." The following describes how we found.VDT'monitoring capacities being used: The great majority, in the 80-90% range, were collecting some operator statistic for at lea1t some of their clerical workers, uaing the mot production-oriented segment of their VDT work. Those not collecting statiatica at all vere u~ually organiza tion using older word procusing or micros that did not have aoftware for extensive monitoring; organizations with new applications in early implementation; non-profit organizations (especially universities) who "just don't do that;" and some state and local government agencies which "saw no need to com pile those recorda."
PAGE 39
Of tho collecting individual statistics, about a quarter said they used these only for uaeaaing group performance, to plan for handling peak.a and valleys of work demand, and to coat-justifv their use of the office ayatema. The remaining three-quarters are uaing individual operator statistics to make aome sort of imlividual-operator evaluation. This ranged from "we uae it to ai,ot the need for more training" to tho who baaed atandard pay, incative pay, or promotion on the machine record, vith.aoma aayin1 it waa "almost the entire baaia" for such judpenta and others saying it vu "one factor in five or aix factor uaed to evaluate performance." 37 In the last half of 1985 and the first quarter of 1986, the Educational Fund went back to the 110 sites originally visited for an update of the VDT policies and practices. We found no increase in the percentage of employers using monitoring for some kind of personnel evaluation (this remained about 75%). But a majority of these now reported that they had created a "more formal system" for setting work 26 standards and letting employees see the results of monitoring if they wished. In 1986, 9 to 5, the National Association of Working Women, published a pamphlet-C::--) 27 report on Computer Monitoring and Other Dirty Tricks. In estimating how much monitoring is taking place ("Who Is Monitored"), this report states: Professor1Alan Westin of Columbia University surveyed data processing, word processing, and customer service operations in 110 worksites and found that 98% were using computers to continuously track workers' movements. The citation given was to the Fund's published report, The Changing Work-place: A Guide To Managing The People, Organizational, And Regulatory Aspects Of 28 Office Technology (1985). At no point in the chapter on "Work Standards and Performance Monitoring" is it stated that "98%" of employers we studied "track workers' movements." What is stated is that "Almost every one of the llO organizations we visited is using the work monitoring capacities of VDTs to collect .!2!!!!. quantitative data on the performance of employees in data-entry, word 29 processing .and customer-service functions We then went on to note that some employers used the data for studying peaks and valleys of load, some to u
PAGE 40
set work-group norms, some to identify employees for supplementary training, and some to calculate performance ratings for pay, promotion, or assignments.30 This is quite different from citing our study for the proposition that "98%" of employers are using computers "to continuously track workers' movements." 9 to 5 VDT Hotline Callers 9 to 5, the national Association of Working Women, initiated a "Campaign on VDT Risks" in May of 1983, which included a nationally advertised "Hotline" that VDT operators were invited to call to discuss their experiences. Within six months, ~.ooo calls had been received, two-thirds (about 4,000) from VDT users. (The rest were from supervisors, emp1o~~rs, and others.) Of 6,000 questionnaires sent to Hotline callers, 873 were returned, and these were analyzed by the 9 to 5 organization~ They point out that this is not a representative sample of office workers in general or VDT users in particular, but is "instructive in pinpointing the typical uses and effects of VDTs among a wide 31 variety of users." Sixty-two percent of the Hotline respondents were clerical or secretarial workers. (The rest were professionals, supervisors, managers, or others.) 79% have worked with VDTs over a year and now do so over.4 hours a day. Only 11: of the total re~pondents say the speed of their work is controlled "mainly by computer." (65% say they control their own work; 10.S: mainly by the supervisor; and 16: by "both supervisor and computer." 35% say their work is "measured by the camputer,'' while 541 say it is not, and 111 don't know i~ it is). Only 2SS say they have a ''required amount of work to produce." 721 say they do not. Of the 281 that have work quotas, 91: say they receive extra pay or incentives when they produce more than that amount. Only s: say they lose pay when they. fail to produce their quota.
PAGE 41
9 to 5 National Survey on Women and Stress A national survey on women and stress was conducted by 9 to 5 in late 1983. Respondents \'1ere 40,000 readers of four major uor.,en's magazines~-Working.Woma11, 32 Glamour, and Essense (the latter a primarily black readership audience). While these magazines have generally middle class readerships, the occupational roles of the total rel.ondents and the subsample created for analysis p~ovide a group of office workers whose responses are worth noting. It was clearly n.21 a representative sample (being reader-volunteers) and it alr:10st certainly under represented lowest-level data-entry workers, part-time and temporary clericals, and lower-paid black, Hispanic, and oriental women. Forty-three percent of the 4,500 responses selected for analysis reported that they were using VDTs, CRTs, word processors, or PC~. Of these users, 25: were in managerial jobs. 301 were professional and technical workers, and 44: were in "clerical" posts. The survey combined secretarial, customer-service, data-entry, and other similar functions to make up its "clerical" category. One question on the survey asked: "Is your work measured, monitored, "constantly watched" o~ "controlled" by machine or computer system?" 171 of all OA users, about one in six respondents, said yes and 83: said no. Of "clericals," 20i (one in five) said yes and SOS no. (151 of "managers" and 13% of "professionals and technicals" also say their work is monitored or measured by machine.) 33 In tenns of intensity of use, two out of five of the total OA users were using their machines soi or more of their time per week, with clericals the largest users, professionals next, and managers the )east. (} ....... C):
PAGE 42
Overall Estimate Looking over these very diverse surveys and field observations, and. recognizing their limitations, we believe two overall inferences can be drawn, as a backdrop for this repo,:t: The great majority of clerical employees working on VDTs --in the 65-801 range --are not presently monitored by l'llchine and evaluated for pay, promotion, or discipline on that basis. Assumptions that most employers using VDTs are monitoring most of their clerical workers are not warranted. However, if 20-35: of clerical employees using VOTs !!!. bei~g ~onitored, this means several million employees are being evaluated in this manner. This is a substantial population of workers, and a number that could grow steadily lsrger in the next 5-10 years. Therefore, social attention to how VDT monitoring is being ca~ried out among clerical workers is certainly warranted. .,
PAGE 43
lJ I Facto!s Explaining Differe'!S.es 1n_)1anaging VDT Clerical Work As we noted in sunmarizing use levels from our site visits, a majority of organizations are collecting individual operator statistics for~ of their clerical applications. Organizations then divide into three camps: (1) those that use these only for group evaluation, planning, and cost-justification analyses; (2) those that apply traditional, supervisor driven performance monitoring; and (3) those that have developed "fair performance measurement" approaches. We turn in this section to a discussion of factors that explain these variations. As was true in the pre-OA era, and we will see to h~ve c~itinued in early use of office systems technology, organizations have not faced many external constraints thus far in their decisions whether to use or not use VDT work monitoring. There are no federal or stite laws or cofflTIOn law judi cial decisions_governing employer use of evaluative monitoring, apart from the advance notice and record-access rules set by some state public utility conmissions for telephone/telecorrmunication service monitoring. Under both government and private labor relations law, and arbitrator rulings, the deci sion to adopt and use individual work monitoring is a "management right," not required to be bargained for in unionized settings: Grievance appeals place few limitations on unionized managements either, unless the monitoring is used to conduct surveillance on union organizers or officials. As for executive level rules for government agencies, througi1 civil service or personnel regulations, we found no municipal, state, or federal limitations against conducting in~ividual work monitoring. 0 As of May, 1986, we are not aware of any labor contract negotiated in the U.S. that forbids the employer to use individual work monitoring. (See ~ ') the SEIU-Equitable contract discussed later for an example of negotiated '-'1 procedures as to standards and employee access to measurement data.)
PAGE 44
Recognizing that non-telephone VDT jobs are not affected by external legal or regulatory constraints, what explains the variations among employer organizations that we have described? Based on our site visits, and other materials collected for this report, we believe that variations among organizations arise from the following factors: First and foremost i's management ph11t,sophy. Within the same industries and among similar government agencies, adoption of work monitoring and variations in how this i~ used flow pri marily from top mangement's approach to personnel administra tion and operational style. We found organizations with virtu ally identical clerical operations and 0A applications t~at did and did not use individual ~rk monitoring, or used it in significantly different ways. Put another way, how managements approach motivating and rewarding employees, including clerical employees, is a critical element in how 0A technology will be used by tt:,:t organization. 1 Second is the nature of the work bei1g done and its perceived role in the operations of the organization.. The more "routine" the clerical function is perceived by management to be, and the
PAGE 45
more decisive its costs are seen as be;ng to the profitability of the business or service-delivery in governr.ient, the r.10re likely it will be that work monitoring w;11 be used. In many organizations, therefore, work monitoring is used only for those operations and not for other clerical applications of OA, and not for secretarial, professional, technical, and management work. Third is the nature of the organization's operations. The more a clerical function is a vital part of an organization's central business --customer service in airlines, utilities, telephone companies, hotels, credit-cird firms, insurance claims processing, and comparable functions in government tax, licensing, social services; and law enforcement agencies --the more likely it is that most organizations in this situation will set fonnal work standards, monitor individual perfonnance, and use this for per-sonnel administration. Where a clerical function is not central, but is more of a general administrative support function in offices, monitoring can be regarded as not 11necessary11 for such operations by this organization. fourth is tbe specific approach being taken by each organization toward OA technology as an instrument and a process. There are some managements that believe the adopting 0A for routine clerical work "dictates" indiv~dual monitoring, partly because capital costs must be recovered by greater productivity and partly because the presence of a technological capability --generation of individual records on a continuous basis --represents an enhancement of management supervision and worker control that it would be "foolish" n ... ./
PAGE 46
to reject. Other managements believe that such ~ses would violate their organizational culture and decline to accept a technological imperative. 1 Fifth, is the perceived employee response. If r.ianagements assume that clerical employees do not mind and can live with close individual monitoring (and those that mind can easily be replaced); if the quality.of work does not seern to suffer unfuly; and if no employee subotage on the job is likely, then such managements may see 11111 plus and "no minus" in using monitoring. 1 Sixth is the quality of labor-management relations in union-represented organizations. Some managements do not use evaluative work monitoring because they say they do not want to risk conflict with local and national union officials by doing this.* In other cases, 2monitoring will be conducted is affected by either adversarial labor re lations (as in the telephone industry) or by cooperative relationships (as in several federal agencies discussed later). Furthennore, some non-union companies we visited said a major factor in their decision to reject operating-management proposals to do work monitoring was a belief that this could give union organizers a good issue." seventh, the financial condition and resources of the organization bear on the decision, Though all organizations today face budget constraints and pressures to work more efficiently with limited resources, some organizations are much better equipped with revenues and skilled staffs than others, and some organizations skate on the thin ice of survival as their basic condition. In those pressured organizations using close work mon;toring will be seen as."not an open question." S~e t~e effects of union :epre~entation on supervisory behavior in two orga nizations reported by Elaine Eisenman in the Supplement to this report, titled: Employee Perceptions and Supervisory Behaviors in Clerical VDT Work Performed on Systems That AJJow Electronic Monitoring, Report to OTA, April, 1986.
PAGE 47
1 Eighth'is'the public 'milieu. Some business organizations are significantly concerned with their public reputation as enlightened and "progressive" employers. They believe this helps them recruit the best new employees and attract customers, and helps the orga nization in its relations with regulators, public policy makers, and the media. Anything that is likely to give the organization a "sweat-shop" or "Big Brother'' image is, looked at very carefully by such image-conscious firms, especially if strategic activist groups and trends in media attention highlight the potential "negative exposures" from such conduct. What this list suggests is that whether organizations do or dq not use work ~onitoring, at all or for a given clerical function, is dependent today on a combination of management-philosophy and situational factors. In the early stages of 0A adoption (1976-~982), the external environment for decidi~g to use work monitoring was almost wholly permissive. However, as we will see, recent changes in the external environment and in the concerns and attitudes of clerical employees within organizations may be altering the milieu within which organizations are operating, and may affect decisions as to work monitoring in the future. Work Monitoring in the Federal Executive Branch Sources for this Discussion The Educational Fund included federal executive agencies {both civilian and military) among VDT-project sites visited in 1982-1984. Seven agencies were visited, with sub-units visited within some of these. In addi tion, ,-,e addressed a lett.er of inquiry to 78 federal agencies, bureaus, or 0 departments in September of 1984, using a list of ADP executives in these 10
PAGE 48
agencies supplied to us by OTA. One area we asked about Has \1hether the agency had any policies or procedures relating to the measurement of work performance by individual VDT/CRT operators. As of December 31, 1984, 44 agencies had responded by letter and accompanying documentation. We conducted follow-up telephone interviews with 12 of these reporting significant activity relating to work moni~oring. The list of 44 responding agencies appears in Figure 1.
PAGE 49
Figure 1. FEDERAL AGEUCY RESPOHSES TO PROJECT LETTER ON VDT WORK t10HITORWG ( 44) Adv. Car.rJ. on Historic Preservation American Battle r4onuments Car.mission Bureau of Labor Statistics conn;ssion for Purchase from the Blind Conmission on Fine Arts C011111odity Futures Trading Commission Department of Agriculture Department of the Army Department of Connerce Department of Defense Department of Energy Department of Health and Human Services Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of Transportation Department of Treasury Environment Protection Agency Equal Employment Opportunity C011111ission (EEOC) Executive Office of President Fam Credit Administration Federal Conmunications Conmission Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Federal Energy Regulatory Conmission Federal Reserve Board Foreign Claims Settlement Corrmission General Services Administration riational Aeronautics and Space Administration (rlASA) National Bureau of Standards National tapitol PlaMing Connission National Coanission on Libraries and Jnformatian Service National Endownent for the Arts National Science Foundation ~, National Transportation Safety Board ..... ) Office of Personnel Hanagement Panama Canal Canmission Railroad Retirement Board Selective Service Svstem Small Business Administration Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) U.S. Infonnation Agency U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Veterans Administration u
PAGE 50
We also conducted interviews with staffs at the national headquarters and in some local areas for labor unions representing federal employees. These included: ~rican Federation of Govern~ent E~ployees; National Asso. ciation of Government Employees; Hational Federation of Federal Er.uloyees; ............. National Treasury Employees Union; and American Postal Workers Union. The Federal Government-as an OA User A useful point to discuss at the outset is the position of the federal executive branch as an OA user, compared to the corporate and non-profit sectors. An often asserted judgment 1s that the corporate sector is, on the whole, "ahead of" the federal executive branch in installing OA. While this may be true if one uses measures such as percentage of word processors per secretary across the federal system compared to Fortune 500 business finris, we do not believe it is correct in terms of pursuing advanced applications. From our site visits to 110 private and public sector organizations, the responses to our inquiry into 0A activities at federal agencies, and other sources, we think the situation is more complex than this assertion captures: (1) Some federal agencies .are significantly behind their counterparts in the private sector in both percentage of occupational groups with OA equipment and in advanced applications. Such was the judgment, for example expressed to us by the Federal Reserve Board, in comparing its OA work with leading banks and financial institutions. (2) Some federal agencies, or units within them, are clearly at the frontier in automating units such as customer service or in specific OA applications. Examples are the IRS, several military agencies, the Executive Office of the President, and 8-10 other federal organizations. (3) f1any other federal agencies are in a "mainstream" of OA use by both penetration of machines and types of uses that compares closely to the mainstream of most industries, in which it is only a minority of firms that ~re doing the advanced OA work featured in the media or computer periodicals.
PAGE 51
In short, we think it is a mistake to place the federal executive branch as a whole "behind" any other sector of the organizational cOITlfflunity in the United States. There are advanced applications being pursued in many federal agencies, plus a drive for integration of information activities through lnfonnation Reso~rce Management approaches, that is quite comparable to leading-edge activities in the corporate _sector, and is probably ahead of most areas of the non-profit world. The Overall Labor Relations and Personnel-Policies Setting in Federal Agencies Federal labor law doctrines hold that applying work measurements and using these to evaluate employees are management prerogatives, not policies required to be negot,ated with unions representing federal employees~ This falls under the "Management Rights" clause of the Civil Service Refonn Act of 1978. (Federal ..2!, Title V, Section 7106(a) (A) and (B). However, managements at the agency or local level!!!_, if they wish, bring the union into the work standards and measurements process. Federal union officials we interviewed stated that attempts had been made to raise the monitoring issue at some federal anencies that have heavy, all-day VDT work and use individual monitoring policies, but these had been rebuffed as "non-negotiable" under the "management rights" clause. Arbitration rulings have upheld agency managements when work monitoring has been challenged, for example, in the S 1 S t Ad t 34 oc1a ecur1 y m1n1stra ion. Federal unions have adopted bargaining guidelines or model contract provisions on VDTs which they distribute to 1 oca 1 bargaining conwni ttees o_r use in agency-wide negotiations.* Despite the "management rights" situation, Our main discussion and analysis of union positions will appear later in n (). this report. \._)
PAGE 52
these union guidelines address work monitoring. The Anerican Federation of Government Employees includes in its current list of VDT contract demands, under "Introduction of Technological Chaoge, '' th~ demand that there be "Uo f.1onitoring:There will be no machine pacing. There will be no machine moni-35 taring on an individual basis." The National Association of Government Em-ployees includes opposition to monitoring in a Hst of "VDT protections" it recor.nends for federal agencies as "health and safety measures," to be used "while research is conducted and long-term solutions are developed" to VDT effects. Their position is that "Stress-inducing features of automated jobs 36 such as machine pacing or computer monitoring should be eliminated." Whiie no contracts that we have heard of have adopted such provisions, unions report that they are raising the manitoring issue in joint labormanagement conmittees on health and safety; as part of filing worker compensation claims for employees experiencing harmful effects from intensive VDT use; and in grievances focused on unfair working conditions. And, several unions said they would try to raise the work monitoring issue directly in new contract negotiations in 1985-86, though it would take a "creative approach" to get bythe "management rights" clause.37 .so
PAGE 53
51 In terms of executive-branch regulations, there are no central rules set for work monitoring by fe~eral agencies by the Office of Personnel Management or General Services Administration, nor is there any presidential executive order governing employee work monitoring. Each agency is free to adopt work measurement and performance evaluation policies for VDT operators as they wish, as long as these do not violate overall federal personnel policies. 38 Monitoring of VDT Telephone Work Our pre-OA baseline account (Appendix Item 1) .. suqqested a distinct.ion has to be made in a privacy-oriented analysis between telephone-based VDT work ~Y customer service operators, where conversations with the public are involved, and situations wher:e employees are handling manual or digital data by VDT. As far as telephone-monitoring is concerned, interviews we conducted with General Services Administration officials a.slate as 1985 indicated that GSA "still had under consideration~ the issuance of the same proposed regula tion for telephone-service monitoring by federal agencies that we reported it was "considering" in 197a.39 "Work is still being done on what rules and guidelines to issue," we were told, with four possible rules presently under consideration: (1) Agencies would have to publish their rules and procedures for doing service monitoring of telephone-VDT systems. (2) A log of uses made of service monitoring would have to be kept. (3) A proper notification of the public would be required. (4) Approval of GSA would be required. Service monitoring of VDT-based public or client telephone calls is widespread in 1986 by the same agencies that we reported doing this in 1978. n ,,_ ., For example, the attached sheet indicates how IRS notifies taxpayers that U service monitoring is taking place:
PAGE 54
Oepar1m1nt of lh1 Trauury Intimal R1v1nu1 Service HOLTSVlLLE NY 00501 If you have any question! .at,r to U'lis Information: Data af Tbla Notice: AUG. 13 19 a 4 Social s:urity Number: Document Locator Number: Fonn: 1040 Tu Year Endect DEC. 31 t 1983: Call: OI Write: 73Z BRONX,MNHTN,,STelSLDe 997 ROCKLAND COUNTY 997 WESTCHESTER COUNTY CNII, Taxpayer Assistance Sadlon lntlml& RtvMU Service Cent HOLTSVILLE, NY 00501 n,---.111an1,-111111111111no11c& 1nc1uJOWtllap11Me """''*' ..... Ille "" ..... to ca& A '1E~C'E0 REIYJU AC!S NQWL EPG .... MEtj-....it-.._ ______________ _____ WE RECEIVED YOUR AMEND!~ RETURN FOR THE TA~. YEAR INDICATED ABOVE. WE WILLs REVIEW YOUR= RETURN. AS. SOON ASPCSSllLE SINCE WE HAVE A ~ARGE NUMBER OF SJMl~AR. REQ~ESTS, 1r MAY TAKE AS LONG AS 3 MONTHS BEFORE YOURS. 15 PROCESSED. WE APOLOGIZE FOR ANY-. INCONVENIENCE THIS OELAY MAY CAUSE YCU. YOU WILL RECEIVE A NOTICE FROM. US REGARDING THIS TAX YEAR WHEN THE CHAN~E HAS BEEN COMPLETED IF YOU HAVE ANY 0UESTlONSi YOUHAY CALL QR WRITE US SEE THE INFORMATION IN THE UPPER. RIGHT CORNER TO MAKE SURE THAT IRS 7)\PL?JfEES -G 1 VE COOR I EOUS kESPCNse;s AND CURR EC t 1 Nr URf1AT1 ON I U TAXPAYERS, A SECOND lRS EMPLOYEE SOMETIMES LISTENS IN ON TELEPHONE CALLS.
PAGE 55
53 In some federal agencies we visited, t~lephone monitoring is done for "checking courtesy" and "correctness of procedures" but not to measure compl iance with production standards. For exa~ple, the Department of Transportation has a large, nationwide "hotline" service for members of the public to call to ask whether their automobile has been recalled for correction of defects, i f 40 and other types of automot1ve n onnat,on. An official at DOT noted that employees are told that supervisors listen in for courtesy and correct procedure checks, and emptoyees know this is part of the employee's perfonnance evaluation. However. speed and quantity of calls are !!2lmonitored. The official explained: "We have not set specific perfonnance standards for operators in terms of how quickly they should get information ou.t ta callers like 45 seconds. Partly, this is because we know we have peaks and valleys of use, and it isn't easy ta standardize parameters. But partly this is because the Carter and Reagan Administrations have not wanted to treat this citizen service like a private busi ness, and feel it is important to let the operator talk with the caller for any reasonable amount of time to handle the problem. Overall, in our site visits, our federal-agency telephone interviews, and our federal-union contacts, we did !l2l hear of either union complaints or employee discontent over clos~ and stress-inducing VDT-based telephone-service monitoring. Certainly, nothing was raised resembling the protest by the Comnunication Workers against "stress-inducing" monitoring of directory operators by the Bell System in the 197Os and early 8Os. It is the&!!!_ entry and claims processing functions in some federal agencies that have been the focus of employee and union protest, to which we now turn. 0 \ LJ
PAGE 56
Varieties of Federal-Agency Honitoring Practices in Data Processing As we noted for all employment sectors in our previous section, whether individual operator monitoring will be done -vary even within one industry or governr.1ental sector according to the type of VDT job, the role it plays in the agency, the personnel philosophy of the organization's management, the state of labor-management relations, and similar factors. Our site visits demonstrated this varied pattern among federal agencies. 1. Some Agencies Collect r,o Statistics At All For Clerical VDT Operators; Some federal agencies, usually the $fflaller ones without heavy data entry or customer-service operations, state that they collect no production statistics at all for clericals using VDTs. The Federal Corrmunications Commission, for example, explains:41
PAGE 57
s;nce we are basically a small agency, ,-,e have not attempted fonnal studies for measuring work performance by tenninal operators. Evaluation of all our employees is primarily based on the ability of all staff elements to meet specific agency objectives as defined by management. 55 Other agencies, just moving into OA applications, indicated they did not plan to install individual monitoring. The inf~rmation management officer at the National Endownent for the Arts conmented.42 There is something particularly Orwellian about automated data-gathering techniques which are initiated, perhaps even with good intentions, to assess an employee's 'productivity' and end --quite easily --by monitoring the employee's daily comings and goings. I'm even more concerned about the inevitable next step (backward): the possibility of paying employees e~pecially non-union employees, aiicf"most ispecially lower~ graded minority and female employees --by the piece. This smacks too much of a return to a situation the social ramifi_cations of which began to ebb only at the tum of this century. In other cases, we were told that work monitoring was not done for cleri0 cal VDT operations at particulir offices or sub-units of agencies we contacted. -,'~) The Office of Computer Sciences at the Small Business Administration, for example, stated that "policies and procedures designed specifically for evaluating and measuringwork perfonnance of individual Video Display Tube/Cathode Ray Tube operators are not the methods of perfonnance measurement currently used 43 by this office." t1ost agencies indicated that they had no agency or department wide policy on VDT work monitoring, but left this to local-unit option. As the Department of Labor put this: "Individual -organizational units or managers may use such measurements for evaluating performance. As'"' work to improve produ~tivity, quantified measurements of all sorts are examined for possible use.1144 --'\,,
PAGE 58
,,. 2~ Some Agencies Co11ect Statistics But Do Not Use These For Individual Evaluation Some federal agencies collect production statistics by individual operator but do not use this for calculatiog individual operator paYMent or performance. At the Federal Reserve Board, individual operator keystrokes and error rates are collected from employees in data entry, but this is used only for documenting service charges to be paid by divisions using the data entry services. "It is not linked to operator payment," the agency reports. "Our focus for performance is on achieving a standard adequate work unit, with proper quality, and we feel no need to use individuai operator statistics to acc~plish that.45 3. Some Agencies Use Individual Evaluative Monitoring and Report Good Employee Response A good example of the collection of individual statistics and use for personnel evaluation comes from the Department of Agriculture's Uational Finance Center da.ta entry unit, whcse printouts of operator keystrokes and time we used as an illustration in Se.ction VIB. In a report on how these statistics are used,the Department stated:46 The Data Preparation Unit works primarily on a selfevaluating program for two critical elements: 1. Type Data Entry and 2. Time on the CRT Machine. In addition, there are two noncritical elements operators are rated on. This reporting system affects the pay of each individual operator. The operators must maintain an Acceptable level (3) or above for a 12-month rating period to be eligible for a Within Grade Increase (WGI). Anything below a 3, the WGI is withheld until the operator can satisfactorily.meet and maintain the 3 level The same principle applies for any operator recor.rnended for a Quality Step Increase (QSI). The operator must maintain an Exceeds Acceptable (4) or better and have an overall performance average of 4.3 or better during a 12-month rating period. Uo element can be below a 3.
PAGE 59
In sunmary, the PRSM system has been used in the Data Preparation Unit for 5 years. Supervisors and operators are satisfied with the system. Productivity has increased along with employee morale, because the individual has the opportunity to review their performance in relation to their standards on a monthly basis. A PRSM report is produced monthly for each operator. Irnnediate supervisors review the reports with the employees a~d prepare a monthly performance report for the Section Supervisor. The per fonnance report consists of all four elements the employee is rated on. This detennines the employee's perfonnance rating when due. By doing a monthly review, the employee knows what level they a" perfonning and what can be expected on their yearly perfonnance appraisal. At many of the agencies we surveyed, officials stated that individual work standards were negotiated between the-supervisor and the indivjdual employee as part of the regular setting of performance goal~ for each em ployee:, under Office of Personnel Management guidelines. For example, the U.S. Infonnation Agency reported that their uemployee evaluation process requires the setting of individual performance goals each year, and th.is is () done "jointly by the supervisor and employee." They uconsist of perfonnance standards appropriate to each job,N and, in the case of VDT work, "could include volume or volume and quality measures of VDT/CRT production.~ 7 Some federal agencies report that their union contracts provide that employees will receive written performance standards pertaining to their job, so that they will know what they are expected to accomplish in a day s work. This would include the number of claims to be processed per day, the number of pieces of correspondence to be produced, etc. ;n order to receive ratings such as "fully satisfactory,0 outstanding, "below satisfactory.u 4. Agency Monitoring Practices That Have Generated Controversy When federal union officials are asked about VDT monitoring in the federal government, the picture they paint is one of "a few bad places, and very bad --in the sweatshop mold.1148Examples given were. the "production shops" 0
PAGE 60
at agencies like "Department of Education," "Labor," "Treasury," and --the most widely cited --"the Social Security Administration." "The Postal Service" was1 also cited by union officials as a "terrible monitoring environment." (1) The Social Security Adminfstration The Washington Post, on September 3, 1984, ran the following profile of work monitoring in SSA's data entry operation in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania.49
PAGE 61
ilJ r~I0-131~1 "111'1 "'J ~,~1_rr,>11-1lf hf Plf1Uhi~f! fJ ;}fll_ 1a-... 8 tfil ::i:11 Rtr8J I rl~ 1rl al I I 1-' Jf a.11 .1... (e-.trll' .. s;-1 i 1 nll:~~1-lr 'a_h,.- ,.:, II. J[ J. !l!h_,t_,g:h;::!~-h-fi i ~:;; al s I ~.Ji ii; i.:. l...r 5 i 1-t B I : E' ii"... l t"t> 1q'JJ I 1 ...... ;I .. I pil f p 111,~-g .. 1111 1 --l JUi ;1H!Eh!b.,,1 :~t1d11f uhl __ a !h~ !ifh 111 et> r1.; :r1:!ilJi!Ji1~;11r r1[!i1! n~1: jl!f ii{i 1r~ ~i~: sln h-a: l. h bn f r111~r U! ... I ... ,.. u~I r,tt ....... ~-r 9 ~c, ('D 8 t:= 0 -0 ta-, ;; ----.-,:: 1-r~:-~u 1 ~. 1a1 a !1 t!.fi~!-;,.;!! f.tll!tB l!i:t;i Ji!! -eB = fT1 ii.I' t~1;J!i-if1 "~1, ;11 1~11~ fitil!J-1-11r~11a~,,_, o .5..,fS t1.li_11-;... gJ t:tl h a.n .U .. .f~n.. t11_1.l::J11IU1 t:S :!. ~~rn th UI ~ir, n,~ ltU ~~~! :.It.Us i;>ijU:Uf::r=;tJIII \J~ c... ( I,\ ('D \__,. '-....J 'J \t\
PAGE 62
. _I Our conversations in 1984 with headquarters and local union officials re presenting employees at SSA indicated that they regarded union-management relations as "adversarial" rather than "cooperative;" some improvement was made under a Joint Labor Management Project in late 1985 but that "QWL" effort is reported by both union and management officials we interviewed to be "in trouble" in 1986.50 The union says it has no complaint with the teleservice operations of SSA, where monitoring is not done. It is the data entry shops and claims processing operations where the union feels that "unfair" quotas and "unfair monitoring" are taking place. However, because of thP "management rights" clause in federal labor relations the unions have not been able to challenge these practices directly in bargaining. (2) The Postal Service Though not a "federal' agency," the U.S. Postal Service deserves treat-ment somewhere in our report, and we will put thi's here, in the most closely related sector for postal operations We will rely on Congressional hearings and published materials, plus our union intervie,'15, for our presenta-tion, since we did not visit the Postal Service. We were also unsuccessful in getting a Postal Service spokesman to talk with us about t~ese issues. There fore, OTA will want to obtain the Postal Service's comments as to its alleged practices, and charges made by the American Postal Services Union. We beg;n with a Washington~ story in September of 1984, which focuses on the way that supervisory use of monitoring is used in Washington's main Post Office. 51
PAGE 63
The Washinaton Post Sept. :?, 1984 Firit ,_ rtidu BJ Peta Pat T ........ TIie mecbanical arm en Wllapmml.,..dlemaalOI C C)Q tblt _.. relendessly ill frail ol Pamc:ia Jobmon's uybaanl die ntnipt shift at Wnmnpw'a Clftl'llom main ... cilcl. i&arateal501eaen'per ...._Jb a a spit teeOIIIL ... nnemblr al tbe dlousaada d a:ldz widiD die 20011 111d 2081&.cadel al Nortbeu&. ...... llllllt paDda. br IIIIDDl"J, tM praper two-dilit mde tD MIIIII adl piece ai di&. IA 4'1 llllliJ 1D CIIII of 70 llftlr:. Cii i&a. la die .. would ...,. b1r oerfonnance bJ watcbinl her or ex.aminins-a batch of her work. But now. ber sui,erv110r sits at .11 vide,,, screen. punches a 'mpute~ kt~t:oard. and Qft immediately ~ec how many mistakes Joh.11Gft is rmkina. If her accuracy falls belnw 95 percent for an extended period. John son ":an be fired. -The maal II runnina by me aud numinl by ~-and the machine kmd m nypnotizes you.~ Johnson said. anc1 this computer II lookiD1 OYer ,-\r sbouldtr. watdun1 you. le. acts very strblful .... ~e SUl)er'YU! knows ev~nf about you. ript in that machine. Jnh111011. 30. th, ..... ~gle parent of :in llyear-old bu), is one of a sruwin1 number uf American worvn who no lonpr labor soleMonitoring by Computers Sparks Employe Concerns ~l 0 ly under the watchful eyb or the boss or the foreffliln. Now. nnl bons ua IMue
PAGE 64
I PtlOIIIDJJeelllldllrdal-Tbl...,t _.,_ ~DIT computer ii uaed by poetal officials to analyze worken' apeed and accuracy and d11eover problema. Employee often don't know when auperyiaon are monitoring them. ... Patricia Johman came .to the W~ post office 12 qo. Sbe bu lane -, mutered ber job, she believes, and ._. ally baa an accuracy rate of about 99 ,.er cent at the SO-per-minute pace of the let ter-sorting machine. But as sbe aita in a row of 12 mechanical sorting machines-Yri,Ui a supervisor at the video screen maaitODDI her and the other operators-the tensitm can be maddenina, she said. -The no.iae is incredible A people ww-their Walkman (radiol)~ have hundreds of ~le. and tremendous noise, and tremendous heaL Tbe air<00-ditioain1 break& down quile often too, sbl9 said. And it's like you are sUIIJl)ed mto tbat machine. You gotta have your rbytbm. Rhythm is everything. The averaae employe is a good keyer. but you can become hypnotued._Thoae machines can hypnotize you." Adding to the tension, she said, is uncertainty about whether the superviaor is acrutiniling her work. The worker never knowl, she said, whether the supervisor is watch ing, or just what he is watching. ~itbout getting up from his desk," she said, iae can see what you are keying in, whether you missed a character or only keyed in one diait instead of two. Or if you mils the hit ;l)tneflthttr'" ii!--t~p Pnvt-ln~~ whiz h, "People are bumm ud )'Oil bffl d dif ferent kiDda ol wpeiwilcn. pd ad bad. Johnson said. -Sut it's like overaeers sometimes, watching and WIikin& and walbur and watchin1. --~ Carl H. Robimon, president of the 2.socJ member D.C. Local of the An.eiic:an ~taf Worken Union, said employe failunr.to keep up the required 95 percent accuracy. rate results in about five dismissals per year, which are carried out only after attempts at remedial training. But sometimes, he said, the Postal Semce is beavyhlnded in failing to coasider the 11uman aspect" d whJ a worker bu trouble: "They're only concerned with productmty. The Postal Service. with its abundance of acronyms, calla its monitoring systema EDIT and EZR-the Engineered Data lse>lation Technique and the Electronic Zip -Retrofit-and uses them not only to monitor employa but allo to monitor marbioel, llid Poltal Semce apca&1D1D Georae Con-rad. BEST COPY r,.vri.n r PLE
PAGE 65
Paml alic:ia1I. mini emplaJe tenennt relaciDI to tbe cmrear sca..,,,,te in CODlnCt taDca. wauld'not allow interviews with JohnlOll'S super'Yilon or dilcuu her specific complaina, but Conrad said the ~"'"" is intended to momtor performance iaarly ~nd aenente conMICtift criticism. Operators IDIJ be 1111111 poor bud position or llllkina otber correctable emrs tbat the computer will help detect, Conrad said. With mnmin1, be saacL 1111111 comet tbeir cleficiea ciel Somecimes. lie said. aan fiDd tbat die miseakes may be 11 tbe IIIIChiDa rather than the opemar. Reprdig employe rwntmat ol tbe a,stem. Caand said ... oppaaitioa is ii-. evitab1e but tbat die .,._ is cracill V maaitariDI production: -i can't ._ for bow people feel about this. I am sure in any kind ol production job there are dilerent W1J1 ol llliD1 wbat we are doiq. C) :'] BEST COPY AV.~1LJ8l..E
PAGE 66
lvnerican Postal Union officials we spoke with began by noting that postal employees have been visually monitnred throughout the Post Office's history {see our pre-CA baseline), and that fighting against "catwalk peepers, microphones pfanted in rest roans, cameras watching mail sorting, and now, electronic machine monitoring is part of the postal scene. Postal employees work under 52 surveillance already, constantly. At one level, the union has worked out a modus vivendi with the management that monitoring by machine is acceptable as long as the figures obtained are used for retraining, improving procedures, and balancing work loads, not for "reprimanding or controlling employees." The union looks at production quotas and work standards to see whether these reflect what an "average employee can do," not "sor.1e laboratory model under perfect conditions that an efficiency expert has dreained up.11 The union has worked to get "fair" standards for all kinds of pre-VDT jobs and has taken those cases into arbitration; it views its role now with VOTs as a continua tion of that process. In one area, however, the APWU has tied injuries to postal workers to the work quotas set by the management. This involves some 5,000 postal employees 53 using VOTs in a computerized mail forwarding system. The APWU has collected health-impact data from its members using the mail forwarding system (CMFS). It has also cornnissioned two health studies, one in Minneapolis and one in New Jersey It alleges that 24 out of 46 workers using VDTs in this system at the r1inneapolis unit "have had occupational diseases diagnosed either by their own doctor or by the Postal Service doctor in Min neapolis," and seven additional employees have had "hand, arm and wrist problems" and are awaiting medical evaluation. The primary problems are carpal tunnel disease, tendonitis, and epicondilitis.
PAGE 67
The APWU believes that the problems are caused by a combination of im properly designed terminals for this task, poor ergonomic conditions, and the "dangerously high" work-quotas set for each operator. The crux of the problem seems to be that a CMFS operator must depress a key on the right-hand side of the keyboard to order a label printed with a change of address. for a postal patron whose mail is being re-directed. The placement of that key requires that the little finger of the.right hand reach over a signifi-cant distance to accomplish that task, causing strain on the tendon. The APWU expert we talked with believes that a split space bar, to be used by the thumb, would solve a good bit of this problem. (Other issues involve the terminals being at the wrong height on standard desks, and similar problems.) What needs underlining about this issue is that the union is protesting against machine-paced work and "dangerously high" work quotas, n ..___ J not the record-keeping and surveillance" aspect of VDT use. While the two ,-) issues are often joined --machine pacing and machine monitoring --it is important to note the different problems each raises, and to recognize that machine monitoring of fair work quotas and quality as well as quantity aspects changts the character of the situation significantly. s. Exam les of Coo erative Federal Labor-Management or Employee Re at,ons 1n H19hreduction ett1n9s We can provide several examples of situations in which federal agencies have used work monitoring for VDT operators in ways that have drawn positive employee and/or union responses. (a) Department of Justice Employee Data Service The Employee Data Service of the Department of Justice handles pay roll for 41,000 employees in the OOJ. About 48 employees ~,ork in this heavy production unit {so: female and 20: male), and "overwork" is the daily condi.__,.,
PAGE 68
tion in the unit. "We would need 10-12 more people to catcp up and keep up S4 with our work load," the director of this unit feels. ihe VDT operators key in documents, there is an edit program, and an error program that kicks out those mistakes for which prograr.ming can note the error. Periodically, other workers check for keystroke error. Pay is by the hour, and people stay until the work required for the day gets dune, receiving time and a half for hours over eight per day. Presently, employees working as "contract" persons have their production monitored and their errors calculated, and this is used in perfonnance evalua tion. This system will be extended soon to the full-time employees. Management has_ presented the work standards, error calculation system, and perfonnance procedures to the local American Federation of Government Employees union representative. The union looks to see \fflether the standard is fair for average workers, and whether the discussion process with the employee is full, fair, and "realistic.t Under the contract, the local union participates in setting the standard and the evaluation procedure; it can also represent the employee in any problems that arise in applying the system, at the performance evaluation time. There has never been union opposition to work monitoring as such in this unit. As long as it is done openly and fairly, the use of monitoring has been satisfactory to the union_, the employees, and management. The director em phasized that monitoring as they do it gives employees recognition for the accurate and high quality work they do, and allows for promotions and other recognition. "We wouldn't want a shop where people don't get recogni~io~lor the effort and skill they contribute," the unit's director told us. 55 ~rfor to the new director initiating thi"s system (October, 1984)-, he felt 11there
PAGE 69
was lots of fear by the employees, because they didn't~ whet was expected of them for satisfactory performance, and what they had to exceed to get promotions~' "The system we put ;n has been a great relief to employees. Having specific figures of total group perfonnance, plus each individual operator, was also helpful in discussing the standards with the union, as to what would be fair. The concept of "fairness" at the DOG Eoployee Data Service has been seen as embracing several elements: It must take "the ups and downs of \10rk into account." When work influx increases drarnaticai'ly, and "keeping up" ts critical, the accuracy standard has to be decreased. 1 When the pressure gets too great on any individual operator, management will redistribute the load rather than expect "heroic" effort. (b ) The I nterna 1 Revenue Service IRS has about 25,000 clerical employees working in its 10 service centers during tax return filing periods, about 9,000 of them using VDTs. They are of two types: data entry workers and telecommunication operators using a computer-based call controller, with display board. All these employees have individual performance data collected by machine (software generated) statistics. (IRS has traditionally used production monitoring in its pre-VDT data-entry operations.) Working with local union conmittees of the Hational Treasury Employees Union in six of the 10 local service centers, the IRS has developed a joint labor-management Incentive Pay Program that has work monitoring as one of its key elements. Local union-management comittees can select either keystrokes or documents as th~ir measure for productivity. The goal of the program is n .... ,..., 0
PAGE 70
to attempt to retum to the individual operator soi of the savings realized by increased productivity and quality through the VDT/productivity program, 56 as "incentive payN beyond regular pay. Employees can opt to participate in the incentive pay program or not to do so. They can see their own printout at any time, in daily or weekly fonn. The union has access to all production statistics generated by the system. The reporting on individual employees is done through a combination of machine generated statistics and employee reporting of production data and hours on a special form. Error rates reduce total keystroke or docu~ent production counts, so that employees must address accuracy as well as speed. The fonn contains five critical elements, set up for each specific type of VDT job. Three evaluation levels are used: "satisfactory," "w,satisfactory," and "superior." Both union and management officials we interviewed say that employees like 57 the system. The local union ccmnittees are positive about the way that standards of quantity and accuracy are set, and the way that 11substantial additional pay" is being achieved by participating employees. Management feels that the improvement of work rates and accuracy rates is "very satisfactory." However, the IRS has not tried to do strict pre and post-experimant productivity studies. They feel that recent changes in tax forms and rules make scientific comparisons impossible. Surnnary of Federal Agency Practices The Federal Executive Branch displays the full range of clerical VDT work monitoring policies and employee/union reactions that we found in the private sector. These range from heavy VDT operations that do not collect individual-
PAGE 71
operat~r statistics to continuous monitoring of individual operator output and its use for evaluating performance and making incentive pay~ents. We also found that while federal unions are all opposed, in principle, to "machine pacing" and "machine monitoring." applications by management in which unions participate and that are considered "fair" as to work level and evaluation procedure have drawn positive reactions from local and national union officials. Federal employees ~ndividually also demonstrate the basic split among VDT workers between those who feel any monitoring is "unfair surveillance" and used to .. control them" and those who feel that this provides an objective measure of their performance that --in the hands of a fair management.-will recognize their achievements and win them better pay or upgrades that would otherwise depend on "personal" and "subjective" judgments of supervisors. Work Monitoring in the Corporateworld A 1984 article in Dun's Business Month provides a useful series of vignettes showing how large firms are using individual monitoring of VDT service work. These profiles match those of similar companies that we visited which are using evaluative monitoring for VDT-intensive jobs:58 "Amaric.u Express uses them to 111011itor the data-entry personnel who record accoUDt payments and the operator who ansver phone queries frm credit card holders, among others. 'I'he company, which gets some 20 million phone calla a year, considers the speed of response part of the quality of its customer service, explains Senior Vice President Edward Sherin. The monitoring system measures theaverage time it takes to answer a call (the goal is ten seconds or two-to-three rings) and the time each representative spends with each 0 \ V
PAGE 72
caller. The system reports this data per operator, per unit and for the 500 people in the organization. To assess service quality, supervisors listen ~n and rate each operator Qnce a day on the time the operator takes for the greeting, to get to the point, to give the answer, and courtesy. According to Sherin, gains in productivity units (production in relation to staff) in the past two years show an overall \ rise .of s: a year. IJ a consequence, be boaats, '\Je have added leas staff in proportion to the gain in volume of business.''' ;o "At the Third ~ational ank of ?lashville, First Vic:e President Ronald lobinson, director of opera~ions,atarted a product~vity program in February 1981 for the 33 uchine operators who en code the dollar amounts on checks to make them readable by com-' puter. Using a software program to count the rows, or 'fields,' of numbers each machine operator encoded, Robinson increased productivity standards from the average 900 fields per hour then being realized to a minimum acceptable rate of 1,000 fields. Employees who failed to make the grade were retrained until they succeeded or were transferred within the bank. Before monitoring started, Robinson paid encoders the mini mum wage. Now he pays the minimum for 1,000 fields and a bonus of varying amounts for each 100 fields achieved above that. The result: Encoding production is up 55% to 1,400 fields an hour; the encoders are making more money; and the employee turnover rate has dropped from 70% to 20%. 'The program is fantastic,' Robinson says."
PAGE 73
0Another enthusiast is Scott Byer, vice president of group operations at Equitable Life Assurance Soc~ecy, which has been using computers to monitor it processors of group health and disability claw inc July 1982. Because all claims are not equal in difficulty or lenstb, the c0111puter mu,t analyze the characteristics of each claim an approver processes each day and than assi&n the claim a unit of productivity depending on comp laxity. Equitable evaluates each approver every six months and grants salary increue~ or assesses decreases depending on performance. Subatantial productivity gains reaultin& fraaa the program, Byer reports, have allowed the company to cut its claims processing staff fram 3,000 to 2,000-to-2,500. 'We are paying 20% more claims with 25%-to-30% fewer people,' he saya." "Similar improvements arireported for a computer program that monitors classified advertising sales employees at The New York Times to distinguish between the time they spend writing and processing ad copy and the time spent in selling. By linking incentive bonuses to improved employee efficiency, the company says it has raised employee earnings, improved customer service and increased classified advertising reven~ea." it n 1, ,/ u
PAGE 74
One important point shown by our site visits ana interviews is that many small and ~edium sized businesses, not just large firms, are using computer monitoring for VDT-intensive clerical jobs. At one small mail-order jewelry firm in a metropolitan area that sells low-cost diamond rings, five operators verify customer orders, trace invoices, enter refund amounts, and perform similar operations at their VDT keyboards, accessing a customer data base. Their work is monitored by computer printouts and also by surveillance cameras used by this fim both for security purposes and to watch employee performance. A former employee we intervie~,ed recalled that "they used the cameras to \'latch how hard you seemed to be working, when you got up to stretch or take a break, and your 1attitude' at work. It was really a totally monitored place." This woman was not granted the standard raise after six months of "probationary" ~,ark at minimum wage --even though this was recorrmended by her supervisor -because the management said she "didn't look like she was working that hard" \~hen they observed her on the camera. She had no access to her own production figures or to those of other employees with which to challenge that judgment, nor were there stated production standards she could rely on even if she had any complaint procedure. She quit, as did many of the women working in .this small shop after their first six months. The management saw such heavy turnover as quite all right, since they had a steady supply of trained VDT operators willing to take "probationary" pay, and the finr. did not need operators knowledgeable about the business to do the data entry work involved. r1ost of our site visits, however, were done at large sized business finns. Looking at these organizations, the picture is slightly different than the overall pattern of monitoring we described earlier, for all the organizations we visited. Reflecting the early entry of large business firms into office automation, and their use of work measurement practices in pre-QA office-production jobs, the pattern of VDT monitoring a~ong the business firms we visited was as follows: Virtually all business fims are collecting operator statistics on sorne clerical operations in their organization. Depending on the business, this may involve a Jarge number of clericals or only a few small units, such as a "data entry shop."
PAGE 75
A small minority of finns, perhaps 10:, said they used machine monitoring only for group evaluation, planning, and costjustification analyses, These firms stressed that supervisors were able to judge individual operators well enough in their operations without needing perfonnance printouts, and that concerns over the quality of work and the unevenness of customer or transaction demands did not make measurements of transactions useful in those enterprises. '7..J In the remaining business firms, about 90:, individual operator monitoring was used in some way for employee evaluations. Our judgment is that two-thirds of these business fims were using monitoring in what could be called "traditional productivity modes," and about a tnird had developed what we will call "fair measurement" approaches that stressed privacy-related and employeeinvolvement mechanisms. We turn now to describe exa~ples of the assumptions and practices of the business firms using monitoring for employee evaluations. VDT Monitoring in "Traditional~Productivity Modes" At about two-thirds of the business finns we visited, what could be called "traditional-productivity modes" were being applied to clerical VDT work, especially to data entry, custaner service, and claims processing jobs. Critics call these "Taylor factory models" or "scientific-management control11 techniques being transferred to the new technological settings of office work. Business spokespersons defend these as thoroughly fair methods geared to insure efficient operations, well within the capabilities of average workers. We noted two main variations in the use of such traditiQnal-productivity modes of VDT monitoring. In so~e, managements felt that quantity of output and speed was so critical to the successful operation of their enterprises that they ~ade this the dominant element in their perforMance standards, with the VDT-generated records of quantity, speed, and time-working used as the critical elements of evaluation. While almost all such fims stressed that they were also concerned about achieving low error rates in data entry work, for example, or ~eeting special customer concerns on telephone contacts, their systems made 0
PAGE 76
7 '1 quantitative measures the driving force of their monitoring program~. How employees we interviewed felt about such systerns, in both unionized and non-union set~ings, depended on factors such as how well quantity/speed standards reflected the reality of VDT jobs and working conditions; how well system problems in new or changing OA applications were recognized; and whether supervisors apP,1ying standards were seen as fair or punitive. These factors were well illustrated by the experience of a large, non-, union distributing company we visited which introduced a VDT customerordering system in the 1970s. The business involved was one in which total volume of units sold in the nation was steadily declining, discount sales threatened traditional profit margins, and the basic profitability of the enterprise was threatened. This finn turned to new technology as one important way to meet the challenge, and also adopted techniques of detailed productivity measurement that hed not been used in this firrn previously. A special work productivity unit was created which did tiriemethod~and-motion studies, set strict quotas, and generated detailed records on each VDT operator. Employee morale dropped and turnover rose to 801. "Everything was numbers," one executive rec a 11 ed, with "no attention to the downtime and slow-response-time problems of the new system, or the changes in volumes operators faced during peak periods, or of the different length and complexity of cstor1er orders." In addition, improperly filled orders increased under the pressure operators felt to raise their total of orders completed per day. The productivity system was scrapped after several years of operation. A new approach was instituted that still collects individual operator statistics but has standards geared to actual system operations and load cycles. In addition, as part of an overall "Quality First" campaign in this firm, the new performance standards stress "order quality" over ''sheer numbers." Several dozen long-tem employees we interviewed said that the first productivity systan was a "very bad time" at the company, but that the new approach is "fair to both company and employees," and they have no trouble in meeting both the quantity and quality standards. At a medium-sized suburban newspaper, customer-service employees felt that the record-keeping done by the VDT systen in the circulation and classi-
PAGE 77
15 fied-ad departments had been fairly applied from the earliest days of these systems. Alice, employed three years at this newspaper, had worked pre. viously doinq non-VDT order entry at a manufacturing company. She said she likeQ working on the VDT very much. She cited the ability to see ~at you are entering "come right up on the screen," to be able to call up data base infonnation to help the customer, and to spot troubles for the customer and "fix them right away." The management has a daily job chart that records each operator's time on and off the machine, errors made, and accounts handled. "I don't mind that at all," Alice said. "They don't judge us on the numbers here; they take into account changes in the business service we are making, and the way customers --some of them --need more service than others. It's not a Big Brother thing." She explained that sometimes custoPl!rs call to complain but not to start or stop a subscription, and if the employer was only after "subs numbers," they would be "docked for time that did not produce an actual transaction. This isn1t done. As a result, Alice said "I don't feel they're looking over my shoulder wrongly. I'm comfortable with the supervision .here." She also noted that management's attitude led employees to cooperate infomally to take heavy loads off one another when the calls piled up at one or t.,o stations. "We can do that because we know 0 it doesn 't penp 1 i ze anyone to share l'IO rk th h way. A 1 i,c e a 1 so /-_-) said that pay was 110K11 but not "great" at this newspaper, but she liked the job,very much because "the benefits are excellent, you can take courses at night and have the company pay for it, and people you work with are fun to be with. 11 How important the balance between quantity and quality was in a tradition ally-oriented system was shown at a large public utility, with union represen tation. At this firm, counts are made of the custor.ier-service calls that operators handle. However, the count is weighted so that operators working on larger amounts due and more complex payment plans receive more credit than simpler calls that can be handled faster. "Our who 1 e approach," the manager of this unit explained, 11 is focused on quality,11 and our strong instincts about who is working well, which "we trust more than machine statistics." The manager ex l)lained that "some productivity programs look ~,onderful on paper, but they won't work in real job environments. If they aren't fair, and fine-tuned to the job being done, they can easily be defeated by the employee. They can always find ways to make the figures look better for them, and defeat the whole purpose of a productivity drive. We aren't a factory here, ~,; th production 1 i ne quotas. In an office, doing customer service work, its people you are dealing \ith, and relations with people count thr most. It's quality of
PAGE 78
service we go for here, not call counts and line counts. And the employees know that, and appreciate it." Our employee intervieus found high satisfaction with the evaluation system at this finn, and the local union said it "had no problems" "'ith \ork evalua tion procedures. Another example of general employee satisfaction with a traditional productivity measurement approach was at a large non-union financial company, using a VDT-telecommunication system in collection work. This firm had gone frorn a system that had used telephones plus manual records to a system that had a dial telephone plus a VDT database, and, most recently, to a system that combines an automated telepnone call-up of customers with a screen display of that customer's account. Through all three of these successive systems, the company had collected detailed transaction records on individual collection operators, using these to give individufl and group "recognition awards" for excellence, evaluate each operator for annual salary-level increases, and help decide on promotions to lead operator or supervisor. In this firr.1, quantity of output was used as one measure of perfonnance in an eleven-factor evaluation system. (The fonn used, with the factors listed, is reproduced on the next page, as Figure 2.) Ue interviewed several dozen employees at this firm. They were over\1helming ly satisfied with the way individual output was measured, and the balanced quantity/ quality/attitude/attendance oriented employee evaluation system that uas being used. In fact, employees who were good at collections work said they would be very unhappy at any system that used only "group perfomance" and did not record how well they ere doing individually. These employees felt they were excellent performers, and they wanted the high salary-grade increases each year and other recognition that \ent along with their achievement. As one wor.1an put it, "We wouldn't want to be dependent only on the subjective judgments of a supervisor, who might be someone you di dn It get a 1 ong with so we 11.. 11 ,.
PAGE 80
figure 2: Mixed-factor Performance Evaluation System for VDT Customer Service Operators, large Hon-Union firm IHPLOYII IVAUIATION IIORUHEET NAHE._ _____________ HONTH/YIAI ______ ~-------IVALUATION IATINC _______ CRITUIA l. QUALln OF WORK PIODUC!D 2. VOLUHE OP WORK PRODUCED J. COHHUNICATES IFPICTIVILY WITH DfPLOYEES, SUPIIVISOU, CUSTOHIRS, ETC. 4. WORKING 1111110UT CLOSI IUPIIVISION s. KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING' TECHNICAL USI OP RotrrlNIS a. PROCEDURES 6. CONCLUDES ASSIGNED DUTIIS I IN A TIHELY HAHNER 1. HEETS CHANCING DEHANDS or TIIE WORJt Sl11JATION WORKING Wint OnllRS ,. WOU IWITS 10. ADHERENCE TO WOK SCHIDULI 11 ATTENDANCE DAYS OUT C \ EHPLOYEI SICNATURl ____________ 1....,D~TI ______ HANAGIR1S SIGNA11JRI _______ DATE ./ l___j 7? t_J
PAGE 81
Two examples of disputes over the application of traditional productivity models to VDT clerical work wi 11 illustrate the controversies that have arisen over these methods. The first ;nvolves telephone company customer-service wor.k. Monitoring by the Bell System of directory assistance and long-distance telephone operators which we discussed in the pre-OTA and transition eras, carried over into VDT jobs in the 1980s. Many telephone operators we interviewed bristled ~ith anger at the production standards and work monitoring practices used by AT&T in the AWT (Average Work Time) system. Operators noted that the system puts in each operator's personal 10; the date each day; and how many times they plug into or out of their position; oow ~any hours and minutes are worked eich day; how many "position calls" are handled per second, per minute, per day; the total work volume, and then a AWT percentage figure. Operators are expecte~ to handle a call in 30 seconds or less, and to achieve a 96.0 or better AWT percentage. If an operator did not have 96.0 or higher for three consecutive months, she or he would not be granted an upgrade, could be identified as needing "training," or could be disciplined by the supervisor. One telephone operator described the proble~ she saw with the AWT administration 59 as follows: f1anagement would like everyone to exceed this figure of 96.0, so in return some operators try very hard in many ways to exceed it. The problem with this is that some of the cust~mers we are helping are getting very poor service, and in some cases, no service If the company would really look at AWT1s honestly, they would realize that by having this type of measurement they are causing the operator to give poor service and in return are losing the respect of our customers. We no longer are considered as caring and helpful operators. We get many complaints that the operator did not stay uith the customer's call and follow through.
PAGE 82
Why AWT's? Many of our customers are very dissatisfied with our service. and are going to other telephone companies. We are losing a lot of revenue, plus the stigma of being a rude and unhelpful company. That is what A~'T's have done for our company --What price is the right price in the name of progress? 1, These concerns expressed about telephone-company-manage~ent reliance on the AWT system are not hypothetical ones. In 1983, for example, a veteran telephone operator in Baltimore working for the Chesapeake and Ohio Telephone Company was fired for taking "too much time" with callers. The company said that Maevon Garrett averaged three seconds 1 onger than the company's AWT productivity stand ard of 30 seconds per call. Garrett --who was also a union officer and spenc. a limited t-ime per month on operator duties --said her exceeding the average \-1as because she refused to cut short cal ls from "people who are hard of hearing or who have difficulty with the English language." The Cof!ITlunication Workers won her reinstater.!ent after newsp-apers and television publicized her case, but .. --) she was still given a two-week suspension for spending "excessive time" with customers. 60 AT&T' s position, as given to us by canpany officials, is that it sets A~tr standards only as a gui~eline to show employees what is needed for the company to provide service at a price that will ~eet its growing competition for telephone service. Monitoring of quantity by software in the VDT system and sampl ing of conversations by supervisors is not used for disciplinary or "punitive" purposes, company officials say, but to identify operators \',hose "consistent" record of taking longer on calls requires supervisors to see what explains that fact, and to provide better training or coaching so that the employee achieves the standard as an average. over thousands of calls. AT~T officials say that if soMe local supervisors have used the AWT standard for disciplinary purposes.
PAGE 83
that violates company policies, and is not something that \'JOuld be continued if it is exposed, though they ackno~,~edge that "a few over-zealous supervisors11 may have done this in the past. Company officials also believe that, in the past, the Conwnunication Workers union has made the "monitoring issue" a highly emotional one at its conventions and in public statements, to suit union pur poses, rather than working cooperatively with the Management to deal with any exce$ses or ~isuses that may have occurred. (For a discussion of some current efforts at cooperation between the CWA and Bell Operating Companies, see the later section on innovative appro4ches to war~ monitoring.) The second example of controversy over traditional productivity models applied to VDT clerical work involves the claims processing office of Equitable Life Assurance Society in Syracuse, New York, which was successfully organized in 1982 by an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union. In 1979-80, Equitable began implementing a company-wide automated claims system for health insurance. Previously, claims-approving was a "semi-ski11 ed" job that was done manually, using data sheets, with various filing activities and telephone work included in the daily routine. With automation, claims approving became essentially a data-entry job; clerks spend almost all their nine and a quarter hours a day, four days a week, keyboarding claims data into the data base, via video display terminal. Most of the approval-rejection func ti ans are bu i1 t into the sys tern software. .In its 1982 ~al Report, ~quitable describes its "Equi-Claims System" as "the most sophisticated computerized system in the industry
PAGE 84
At Equitab)e's Syracuse office, many of the 90 women claims approvers did not regard this changeover as one for the better. Jane Ratner, a former schooJ teacher who had worked under the rnanual system, said she had never expected to be doing such work as an office employee. "I'm a factory worker, that's the way I feel. The way our office is set up, it's a whole line of computers. We're all lined up. We all face the same direction. And all we do is punch keys all day long." In late 1980 and early 19&1, some of the Syracuse claims processors said they tried to get management to look at problems arising from the way the company was applying automation. As one employee recalled this: "We raised questions about the work procedures, about glare and eyestrain, about 'dirty curtains' and annoying 'paper fleas,' and about the ergonomic and health issues being presented on national television and in the press. We wanted to work with the management to make things run better." In the employees' view, the Syracuse Equitable management was not re-sponsive to any of these concerns. Some issues they felt management simply re jected; others they said were explained as "management decisions" that just had to be accepted; some things "they promised to look into but nothing was ever done." On the health questions,. the supervisor approached said: "There's nothing to that. Don't start making trouble in the office." According to the employees, Equitable did not have any Quality Circles or other employe~-involvement pro-grams for these ~orkers, where such issues could be raised. Several employees remarked that they felt they knew more about problems and bad effects from the new computer system than the management did; "but management basicallv told us, shut up and key-in your data. 11
PAGE 85
~1achine monitorfog of the claims approvers was a central issue in the union organizing campaign, in the contract negotiations that followed, and in the contract terms approved in 1984. In testimony before a House Sub cornnittee in 1984, 61 one woman clerical worker in Syracuse, Rebecca Alford, discussed monitoring in these words: The electronic monitoring is one of the most offensive and pernicious aspects of our jobs. 1984 is nowhere more apparent than in the elec tronically-monitored Equitable office. We 'clock in' at 7 A.M. and from then until the end of the day, the VDT is counting every key stroke. At the end of the day, managers have a computerread-out from which productivity is detennined and then averaged with subjective factors such as attitude to detennine our rate of pay. Being watched, counted, and paced by a machine makes it very difficult to take pride in your \1ork. The Syracuse Equitable workers charged that printouts of their performance are given to ~upervisors, who use them to calculate pay. The employees also charged that the performance evaluation system included "subjective" factors such as "attitude" which management could use to discriminate against employees who complained about VDT working conditions or were leading the union campaign. Employees did not get to see the printouts, the employees charged, and were not able to challenge how their work is assessed. This was alle~ed to be a violation of Equitable1s own "Employee Privacy" code, which says that employees can see the information used to make personnel judgments about them. Equitab1e management defended its monitori~g practices, saying most of its claims approvers across the country "like the objectivitiy" of the computer monitoring system, and do not experience a sense of "stress" as a result of its use. Company officials also defended the multi-factor perfomance evalua~ion system it used as a good balancing of quantity, quality, attitude, and attendance elements, denying that it had been used in a discriminatory way. 62 (For a discussion of how monitoring was treated in the 1~84 EquitableSEIU contract, see the following section on labor relations actions involving monitoring.)
PAGE 86
Finally, some managements using incentive pay systems based on work ~onitor ing, especially in routine "heads-do\m11 data entry jobs, defend this as "the only .thing that makes this job worth while for women doing it." At a small data entry unit in a large insurance company, the unit manager said that'the women who work there soon develop a high proficiency in putting the data in, and take home "very good pay --much more than they could get \'IOrking in a five and dime or a fast-t~od place. They can pace their effort according to how much 'extra' they need for themselves or their families, and know that they can raise their pay by putting extra effort in or just 'nake standard' with average effort." Data entry employees atseveral finns we visited told us that this was an element that they liked to be able to decide for themselves, and they believed the company's system of standard and incentive pay was a good one for them. 11Fairwork Monitoring11 Approaches At about a third of the business finns using evaluative work monitoring, managements had developed policies for conducting work monitoring that recognized the special sensitivity of this practice, in light of social values of the 1980s, and had instructed their operating divisions and line supervisors in how to use any individual records in clerical uork generated by VDT ~oftware. At IBf1, for example, a Manager's Guide to The Visual Display Tenninal Environment was issued in 1984 that set out rules for how VDT work was -and was not --to be evaluated. This Guide serves as one part of a manager's training course on VDT work that each of IBf1's 50,000 managers, world uide, will be going through in l~a4-&5. The Guide places its discussion of monitoring in the context of 10:11s overall philosophy and practi_ccs for planning and evaluating employee performance (See Figure 3). _j ) ,..__.
PAGE 87
... ---------~-.. F;gure 3: IBM's Work Evaluation Approach in Using VOTs Setting Objectives, Performance Planning, and Evaluation One Important reality of lntroducint VDT's Is that they do change how the work Is done and what la expected of employees. In same Instances, due to the Increased capabilities VDT's provide, a function's mission may actually be enlarged and the jobs of the people In It expanded. In other cases, VDT's may require the c,... atlon of an entirely new function. When this occurs, you must redefine the functlo'9's objective and th responsl billtlea of the people within It. Setting Objectives Starting with the function, you should clearly define the overall objectives for the total organization and each department within It. Next, Identity the type of Information you wlll need to measure how well your function Is meeting the stated objectives. Finally, decide what relevant data the VDT system can provide to help you measure your tunc tlons performance. Performance Planning Once the objectives are agreed upon, they must be related to all the Individual Jobs within the function. You should conduct a meeting with the entire function to explain your objectives and how the installation of VDT's wlll make It possible to achieve them. You should then plan tor all managers within the function to conduct performance planning ses siona with their employees. This will give each person a chance to understand the Impact of VDT's on his or her own job. During the lndlvldual performance planning sessions, each manager should discuss: _. What tasks or responsibill ties are being changed; _. What new tasks or responslbilltles (H any) are being added; .. What Is expected In the Job, specifically as It relates to the work done using th~ VDT; and ai. What will be evaluated and how It will be measured. Through this, you and your managers will have the oppor tunlty to tailor th Job to the employee, based on his or her stage of development. Since peWormance planning Is a two-way process, each manager should be able to plan an assignment that meets the Individual needs of the employee, provides the great est level of Job satisfaction, and achieves the: objectives of the function. Evaluation The method of evaluating the performance of an employee who uses a VDT Is very lmpor tant since It may be possible to track a great deal of data using the sytt,,tem. It Is essen tlal that you evaluate your employees on the measure ments you discuss with them during the performance plan ning process. If some of the employee's per formance will be measured using data from the VDT, be sure you explain exactly what will be tracked and why. Employees should not be measured on a purely quanti tatlve basis, such as numbers of keystrokes. You should not monitor performance data on the VDT without an employ ee's knowledge. The data should be meaningful and relevant to the work being done. You should never include data in your evaluation that was not previously discussed with the employee. BEST COPY AVA1l.i\~-LE
PAGE 88
.. We found "fair work evaluation" policies such as 1er11s being used by other organizations we visited that have a reputation for innovative employee relations. These included banks, insurance companies, utilities, newspapers, hotels, airlfnes, manufacturers, and service companies. (For an analysis of what fair work evaluation approaches require, see the "Policy Analysis" section of this report.) n Work Monitoring in State and Local Gov~rnment and the NonProfit Sector In our site visits, discussions with union staffs, and other interviews, we documeAted examples of no-data-collection, traditional-productivity models, and fair work evaluation approaches taking place in clerical operations of state and local govern~ent agencies and non-profit organizations quite similar to those we have documented for federal agencies and corporations. State and local government agencies seem to have about the same patterns as the federal government. However, in terr.ts of organizational milieu and management style, there is generally l~ss evaluative monitoring going on at private universities, religious bodies, civic groups, and similar non-profit organizations. Mani tori ng of Profess i ona 1 and r1anagement Personnel by VDTBased Systems Though we have co~centrated our discussion on machine monitoring of clerical ,~orkers, we found that in some organizations, perhaps 10-15: of those we visited, productivity monitoring is being applied also in office systems developed for professional ~nd management staffs. ~hile these employees are usually better educated, better paid, and have higher social status than clericals, the effects of close monitoring done without appreciation of co~plei system perfonnance and human reactions with it can raise problems similar to those in clerical work. ..... -~ ,, \_)
PAGE 89
Here is a first-person account of how one loan officer and his collea;ues at a major bank learned to hate and to defeat -a productivity monitoring s system imposed on their department. "An individual loan administrator manages a portfolio of approximately 75 mortgages The job of the loan administrator involves a fastidious attention to detail. The computer system, called our Management Information System, (MIS) is a useful device for tracking important details such as due dates; these may include tax due dates, insurance due dates, investment roll-over dates, and the like. "Each employee is watched by the system, sort of like the realization of the Orwellian prediction. To be tracked on the system is to be monitored by it on a daily basis with regard to ev,ry conceivable item of work which could be performed on the job. The ~IS does perform some essential functions in helping to manage the enor.:ious work load, but often it was looked upon as.an excuse for increasing the work load even more. Preparing the daily MIS input sheecs at the end of the day is a dreaded duty, done hurriedly before leaving the office. "The ?iIS theoretically tracks every thing which the loan administrator performs during the course of the day (otherwise referred to as "demand time.") The entire job of the loan administrator is dis-sected into every minute function which might be performed. Each function is assigned a certain time standard for ho~ long it should take co be performed. After the MIS is posted, the system calculates each worker's daily productivity as a percentage figure based on what
PAGE 90
the employee reported as having done that day. It is this aspect of the system which makes those who are watched on it distrustful of management because it seems like a management surveillance system. Th loan officer than explained the computer's "aging scale" which tracka how many financial statements are outstanding for borrower accounts assigned to each loan officer, and how many days overdue they arew The standard for such overdue items is 60 days. "~en something goes out of standard, the loan administrator is severely upbraided, penalized and punished. Anything which goes out of standard on an employee's }tIS automatically throws the department's MIS out of standard. :Uddle management can become quite tyrmnical in its enforcement of t,1e MIS, tiaking the system that Q much more unpopular with the employees~ ) "To avoid having things go out of standard on the ~ns the empioyee can just get around the system by taking the particular item out of the system and entering it the next day, thereby turning back the clock on the .aging report." Another way to beat the system, the loan officer explained, is to put false items on the Daily Activities Report that will earn the loan officer high points under the system's rating scale, and brins his daily average up co where it is supposed to be. Since it is not easy for supervisors to verify ~hat these particular transactions were carried out, the loan offi cer noted, "they can be used to inflate one's utilization and productivi_ty race." As a result, the Activity Reports often do not document what the loan officers are really doing, but what they put in to upgrade their productivity.
PAGE 91
Summing up his judgment on the bank's monitoring system, the officer comments: "The system's shortcomings lie in the manner in which it is imposed by management. The preoccupation with the ms itself distracts the loan administrator's attention from doing his job. The CDount of paperwork generated for and by the system reduces its effectiveness because it becomes a consuming activity in and of itself. The MIS is viewed aa part of the bank's bureaucratic organization, and it is constantly a source of frustration and .annoyance to thoaewho use it. "The bank has apent significant sums of money on these types of systems and their dvelopment over the years. They consider this one to be literally the 'state of the art" in M!S applicati~ns, and they are very proud to shov the system off. They would do well co bring ;he level of their management expertise up to the stmdarda of their management information systems." The possibility of newspaper reporters and other professionals being put under machine monitoring by employers has been raised by the Newspaper Guild. The editorial and cartoon below, from the March, 1984 Guild Reporter, describes this concern.
PAGE 92
. ._ Editorial --. VDTs and productivity One of the m~y things that .electronic data processing systems do very well is count. That includes those used at newspapers, magazines and wire services to write, edit, set/send news and ad vertising copy and compose it into pag~. Because tbe systcm5 count so well they are equally adept at keeping track of the productivity of each person wbo sits in front of .a VDT and enters through -its keyboard the various kinds of data that the systems process. -~ -..,,,/ In tbe departments and firms that have been established to enter data into the systems of establishments such as banks and insurance companies tbe machines report regularly on bow well each operator is conforming to standards o! prod11i:tivity estab lished for data entry workers. The reports might include the number of key strokes by an operator per minute o~ per hour; also, the proportion of entries that require correction; even the time the operator is present at the machine and the time he or she is gone from it-to tbc second-and more. In some places, particularly where the -operators arc not organized, rates of pay depend on meeting those productivity standards. Often a data / ) entry operator's keeping her or bis job depends on the same thing. The operators have little. if any, say in settins those standarcis. Several years ago, when electronic entry systems began to be introduced into the pans of the publishing industry where Guild members work-particularly into advertising. circulation and editorial departments-TNG fore~aw just such problems and added a provision to its CoUective Bargaining Program to deal with them. The provision requires locals to "seek protection that employers not be permitted to establish standards of speed and accuracy in the use of new types of equipment, and that profi ciency in the use of such new equipment not be the buis" for usignments. Some thought the bargaining position unneccssary---c:rying ''wolf," if you will. No one seriously would consider making pro ficiency at a VDT a criterion for inside or outside sales jobs, or for editing and reporting jobs. The very nature of the work, par ticularly of the latter, defies conventional measurement. Right? Consider, however, some of the reported comments of one pan elist in a session on newsroom productivity at tbe California Newspaper Publisbers Assn. convention early in February. Max Jennings, executive editor of the Mesa (Ariz.) Tnlnme, a Cox-chaun daily, ac:tuall,Y touted using the computer to keep track of bow much copy .Ii reponer produces as a way to moni,or and increase productivity, according to Publishers' Auxiliary, publi cation of the National Newspaper Assn. Jennings told of a reporter who complained about another who was being paid more. The computer's tabulaltion showed that the higher-paid staff er was producing more. The complaining reporter '" ) also began producing more after seeing the data, Jennings said. '-"" Sounc1s 1w piece-wort 10 us. but then it is t9B4. BEST COPY AVAl!}n'. f
PAGE 93
1he next 'ne w 1ournalism'?
PAGE 94
Finally, we saw a few situations where monitoring systems were being applied to middle management, and where some were evoking the same nega-tive reactions and manipulative responses as in the loan officer situation just cited. For example, in one company, headquarters announced it would institute a centralized monitoring_ system that would allow corporate staff to have on-line data about production, shipments, and so forth from each plant of shipping site on a constant basis. The plant ma.~ager that we interviewed was deeply angered by this plar., which he saw as a threat t d "u--0 goo management-. .-MMaagers at my level should be accountable to corporate headquarters on a quarterly basis, not on an hour-by-hour monitoring of our time and decisions. It will just emphasize temporary negative events, and you'll be called on the carpet by top management whenever they look at the tube and see below-par figures." The plane manager felt that top management should let him manage without such "minute surveillance," which would only result in efforts to keep daily productivity up at the expense of much better productivity gains that could be achieved in a more up-and-down cycle. This pinch of top management monitoring of middle managers was observed also by Dr~ Craig Brod, in his recent book, Technostress. 64 Brod writes: "?fiddle managers also know that with computers they spend less time monitoring and more time being monitored. With computerization, quarterly reports become monthly or even weekly reports; if 111 unsound decision 1s made or an unlucky risk taken, there is less time to fix it before the next report points it out. ) \ I \__)
PAGE 95
-:-..... "Bureaucrats or supervisors who are not accustomed to being \,atched over feel nervous that their work is now subject .to monitoring from above, or perhaps by peers. But while clerical workers have no say in whether management counts their keystrokes or times their phone calls, managers and executives may simply choose not to commit sensitive information to the computer "Jack is a manager for a computer manufacturing company. \.Zhen he comes across a discrepancy in inventory, he writes it down on a sheet of paper; he doesn't use his terminal. He wants to avoid having the problem traced to him. Other managers ac his company do the same, he says." Union Positions and Protests on Work Uonitorin& As we have documented in our pre-OA and transition-period profiles, opposition to se~ting "unfair standards, monitoring individual workers, and using tho,e records for pay or discipline has been a traditional labor union position in the factory, and in those pre-OA office settings in which monitoring of production-type work or telephone service was conducted by employers. The additional aspects of intrusiveness and heightened stress that unions have associated with the continuous machine monitoring of VDT work has made this issue an import~t one for the labor movement as high technology enters offic4, service, and even some factory work (inventory VDT systems, for example). Their position has been shared by womens' activist groups and local unionaffiliated committees on safety and health (COSH ~roups) in many states. The International Federal of Clerical and Technical employees (FIET) included a call for "no VDT monitoring" in its 1984 bargaining guidelines for member white-collar unions. The AFL-CIO at the national and some state levels Our Task 2 Report to OTA, Russell Pipe and Alan F. Westin, Employee Monitoring in Other Industrial Democracies, March, 1986, describes FIET positions on VD~s and monitoring in 1985-86 as well as ILO publications. These have been given wide circulation by U.S. unions in 1986.
PAGE 96
has adopted a similar position. We collected statements opposing either VDT work monitoring in general or "improper use" of such monitoring by 20 U.S. unions, out of the 32 unions that have addressed VDT issues in the past few years. Several unions that had not issued official statements against work monitorin~ explained to us that they shared the general labor movement opposition to m~nitoring but did not have enough members involved in such activity for this to have been made an issue, especially given their more pressing concerns in the 1981-86 period. Figure 4 lists the 32 unions active on VDT issues,_ and Figure 5 the 20 unions with anti-rn~nitc-ing positions. n :J
PAGE 97
Figure 4: 32 UNIONS ACTIVE OH VDT ISSUES, 198i UUIOHS Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Workers (UAW) Communication Workers (ACA) Conmunication Workers (CWA) Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers (UE) Electrical Workers ( IBEW) Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers ( I UE )" Federal Employees (~FFE) F 00d and Car.mere i a 1 Workers ( UFCW) Government Emp 1 oyees (AFGE) Government EMployees (HAGE) Graphic Arts Employees (GAIU) Hospita 1 and Hea 1th Care Workers (HHCW) Hotel and Restaurant Employees (HERE) Ladies Gannent Workers (ILG~) Machinists (1AM) . . . . . Newspaper Guild (TNG) Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers (OCAW) Office and Professional Employees (OPEU) .... Pos ta 1 Workers (APWU) Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Ra il\lay, Airlines, and Steamship Clerks ( BRAC) Retan, Wholesale and Department Store Er.1ployees ( RLIOSU) Service E~ployees (SEIU) State, County, and f1unicipal Employees (AFSCrtE) Steelworkers (USWA) Teamsters ( I BT) Tel ecomnuni cation Workers (TIU!) . . . Telegraph Workers (UTW) ........ Treasury Employees (HTEU) Typographers (ITU) ... University Employees (Clerical and Technical, affiliated with HERE). Utility Workers (Ul~UA) '* Most active unions. . + Totals rounded. Source of figures: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1980; AFL-CIO estimates; supplementary inquiries at individual unions, 1984.
PAGE 98
Figure 5: 20 UIHOUS WITH POSITimlS AGAWST VDT \~ORI~ r1mJ1iOJ11NG UNIOHS Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Workers (UAW) Conmunication Workers (CWA) Electrical Yorkers (IBEW) . Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and ~1ach i ne Workers ( IUE) . Federa_l Employees {N~FE) . Government Employees (AFGE) Government Employees (NAG) Machinists ( IA:1) Newspaper Guild (TNG) . . . .. Office and Professional Employees {OPEU) Postal Workers (APWU) : . Railway, Airlines, and Steamship Clerks (BRAC) Service Employees (SEIU) . . State, County, and r1unicipal Employees (AFSCME) Steelworkers (USWA) . Teamsters {IBT) . . Telecommunication Workers {TIU) . Treasury Employees (NTEU} . Typographers {ITU) . . Utility Workers (UWUA) . . t . . . . . Est ima tee i1embers + 1,350,000 ., 550,000 1,000,000 160,000 150,000 265,000 300,000 940,000 40,000 125,000 320,000 200,000 650,000 1,100,000 1,230,000 2,000,000 50,000 120,000 80,000 ,000 Totals rounded. Source of f;gures: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1980; AFL-CIO estimates, supplementary inquiries at 1ndividual unions, 1984. n / -__ .. ;/J
PAGE 99
R~cent cartoons in the union and activist press on work monitorin~ of VDT operators \
PAGE 100
"Keystroke! Keystroke! Keystroke!" KEEP JANE'S FINGERS DANCING! Secretary Jane's keystroke count can slump anytime: during tht first hour of work before sleep's cobwebs have cleared, at 11 :45 when thoughts of lunch intervene. or after 3:00 in that mid-afternoon doldrum. Whenever it happens. PREsse (Performance Reinforcement Electronlca and Software System) 11 ready to help. If Jan,, count drops below your choHn margin for more than three minutes, subliminal wamlng flickers at the top of the screen. And If Jane attll hun't pulled herself together after two more minutes, 1 healthy l-11cond jolt of 50 volts pulses out of her specially modified keyboard and grounds harmlessly through her chair. It s guaranteed to get her moving again! And If Jane "steps away from her deu" for more than thrH mJ.11utes w!,Jaout prior 1upervtaor approval, PRESS~ will dolt out a similar Jolt u a little con-ectlvt rtl'nlnder wh,~n 1ht sit.I down to work again. PRESS-The Automated Zap that gives your workers ZIP! From CONTEK The Productivity P.aple ,WOCSSED WORLD 11, () u
PAGE 101
A typ;cal statement of the union view appeared in a series on VOTs in the Utility Workers newspaper in late 1983. The union reported that operators feel that they are 'constantly watched' by the machine VOT operations provide a much closer tracking system of their job performance than traditional 'paper punching systems. nany of the unions active on VDT issues have adopted resolutions or articulated demands involving work monitoring. At its 1982 Skilled Trades Conference, the UAW's resolutions on new technology included this statement: "Technology must ~at involve undue stress on workers either .mentally or physically, and must not be introduced for purposes of computer-time study, monitoring, discipline, or job-pacing. The union must have full access to all infonnation created by canputerized data. In its VDT Guidelines for Federal Empl~ees, the National Association of Govern~nt Employees expresses a similar theme: "Stress-inducing features of automated jobs such as machine pacing or computer monitoring should be eliminated." A.FSO~E has emphasized in its materials that productivity gains come when employees are able to work more effectively through new technology, not by trying to make employees work harder under tight monitoring: Mikin& Employus Woric Harder. Somrtimes new tech nolog)' cuLS costs b)' makin& em~lo)ns bear some o( the true costs of providinQ the goods and services. New rmchinery rN) speed up the pace of work. or enable m.1:iagement to monitor v..ork and measure output more closel). ,A,j a result, employees v..ork hardrr under the nt\\' system than under lhc old. They bear the costs of addition,! stress and fati;ue and possibly physical risk but do not recci\"e comrenSition for the in crused inlcnsih of their work. One example of this cost. sh1ft1n~ can be found in some arrlications of ,isual displa>
PAGE 102
tcrmiNls (VOTs). Dati enlr)' work can be reoraanized so that the picc and duration of thr optrators tir,'lt on lhe michine arc increased, ind the VDT an be used to closcl)' monitor whJt work is done. This may lead to increased stress~ fatigue. hudaches, muscle iches. and eye strain. Ideally. ""'' technolol) should impro,e productivity by makin& the .:mployces in volved ~'Ork more c(fectivcl)~ not tardrr. Collective Bargaining Positions and Outcomes No union contract we are aware of includes a prohibition on employer use of ~chine monitoring. The Communication Workers and TelecommunicAti~n Workers, which have made "undue stress" through monitoring a regular bargaining issue in recent years, have only won provisions saying that the company will use service monitoring for training purposes and not for discipline. Union official.9 we interviewed felt that local supervisors and managers in some locations target older employees and union activists for close monitoring to build up cases a;ainst them, then use thi either to block upgrade transfers or attempt disciplinary action. The Baltimore case we described earlier illustrates this kind of action, according to the union. The contract won by the Service Employees from Equitable Life Assurance, for its Syracuse, New York claims approvers, represents, accordin~ to union offi cials, tbe oost itilportant "break-through" thus far in contract provisio:is on 65 many clerical VDT iss~es, including work monitoring. The key provisions of this contract which ~ddress the privacy aspects of monitoring include: Employees will receive full access to information on the productivity system and its operations, including how work units are counted, the weighting formula for time and erros, 3nd how individual pay is calculated. Employe~s will have access to their own individual records, including the raw data sheets. If employees believe there is an error in their records~ or their pay has been miscalculated, th~y can file a grievance and this can go all the way up to arbitration, if not settled by the parties. n .... ,.,,,; i,.) \; ... u
PAGE 103
While management's multi-factor employee evaluation p~ogram continues, which includes ~uantity, quality, attendance, attitude, and communication, attendance will no longer be used as a basis for penalty points and pay. In addition, annual wage increases will be paid, apart from the evalua~ion program. Many union publications in late 1984 featured accounts of the Equitab'le contract provisions on monitoring and said this would become a "union standard." bb For example, an article in the Allied Industrial Worker in December, 1984 wrote: A problem with such monitoring is that it can be done without the worker being aware that he or she is being checked. T~is raises serious questi~ns about the dignity of workers, their efficiency and their health. While thus far most computer monitoring involves industries such as airlines, banking, insurance and telecommunications, it is likely that such monitoring will develop in many industries as the use of computers becomes ~ore widespread. The best method for unions to use to attack in this area is contract language. The best example of such language is contained in the new contract between the Service Employees and Equitable Life Assurance Company. Quality of Work Life and Joint-Committee Efforts Ir. some unions, joint labor-management committees or quality of work life groups have dealt with VDT i~sues, including ergonomics. stress, health and safety questions, and work oonitoring. We discussed in our section on Federal agency practices the incentive pay project of the IRS and National Treasury Employee Union, in which work ecandards and measurement techniques were worked out in colla~oration for this prosram. The C0111Dunicati0n Workers have described another such example involving !1ountain Bell Telephone Company, one thac is especially interesting given the long history of telephone company monitoring and of union O?position to how 67. this iR maintained.
PAGE 104
'0 \ In Phoenix, Arizona, Uountain Bell and the CWA developed an experimental office where 130 ooerators handle long distance calls and billin~s for hotels n in the entire Mountain Bell service area. Instead of using Average Work Time standards and traditional Bell-System monitoring of machines and telephone c3lls, the operators in this office set their own performance standards and supervise their own compliance with them. These standara reflect a quality commitment to assist callers needing special attention as well as efficient handling of peak loads, total productivity goals, etc. CWA President Glenn Watts reports that "these operators are working at higher than average performance.levels, completely without supervision.'' After a year of operation, Watts reports r.hat "the company has measured that unit's profitability at an incredible 45 percent" increase. This proves, Watts says, that "Atll' just isn't needed to provide efficient and economical telephone service." and he has called on other te.lephone companies to follow the Mountain Bell example at other sites. He adds that AT&T' television ads "lately have emphasized the importance of its telephone operators and other workers in providing good service, but we still find in too many areas the company pressuring our people to get rid of c~llers in order to meet an arbitrary standard of so many seconds per call." Watts hopes to persuade other telephone systems around the country to try the Phoenix experi ment. (Two detailed articles on this experiment appear in the Appendix, Item #2.) Stress Studies and Filing tJorker Compensation Claims U~ions, women's activist groups, and COSH groups have conducted surveys among union members of complaints about VDT workinR conditions and their ~ealth effects. This has been done by the CWA, Postal Workers, AFSCME, 9 to 5, and many others. The following repc~t in late 1985 of health complaints among 900 Southern New England Telephone employees, for a survey conducted by the Connecticut Committee on Safety and Health (ConnectiCOSH) for the Connecticut Union of Telephone Workers, indicates the type of sell-reports of monitoring-stress linkages that unions and COSH groups have presented. u J
PAGE 105
SURVEY OF VDT USERS UNVEILS POSSIBLE LINK BETWEEN HEAL TH PROBLEMS, MONITORING Preliminary results of a survey by some 900 Southern New England Telephone (SNET) employees. most of whom regularly use video display terminals. reveals a high correlation between reports of health complaints and reports of electronic monitoring through the equipment on which those employees work. The survey. which was conducted by the Connecti .,l!t Unio.rulf.J_~Le_p_~9_ne Workers (CUTW), found tnat about three-quarters of VDT users who reported problems of dizziness. headaches, and muscle aches also reported that their work was monitored. "There seems to be a correlation between health concerns and monitoring. reported Rick Melita. administrative assistant to the union president. He noted that the health complaints were reported despite the fact that. in most instances, workers were provided with "ergonomically correct" terminals and related office equipment. such as detachable keyboards and adjustable chairs. The survey was conducted in March 1985. Questionnaires were mailed to 6,400 CUTW members em ployed bv SNET in iob classifications involvin2 VDT work. The union received 926 completed question-, naires. for a response rate of 14.5 percent. Melita' noted that. while the questio~naires were sent to those in job titles that involved VDT use. the union had no way of knowing whether specific individuals receiving ~he survey actually used VDTs. Among those respond ing, nearly 70 percent said they worked 30 or more hours a week on terminals. Melita said. Just over half said they performed other tasks besides VDT work. he said. 102 Monitoring and Health Complaints The survey results showed that 67.5 percent of the respondents h~d their work monitored. Of that group, 50.3 percent said that the monitoring was used for disciplinary purposes. Of those who completed the survey, 90 percent had .. some sort of complaint," Melita said. ..This shows that it is not just the occasional crank or malcontent who has complaints," he said A feeling of tenseness was the most frequent complaint (66.5 percent), followed by headaches (64 per cent); difficulty focusing eyes (61 percent): muscle aches (60.5 percent): general vision problems ( 49 percent); and dizziness (21 percent). the sun ey results show. Just over 14 percent said they had high blood pressure. and 18.6 percent reported stomach problems. Melita said. Among those who responded affirmatively to these nine health complaints. in each category more than 70 percent also reported that their work was monitored. a tabulation of the data showed. The data revealed. for example, that 76.9 percent of those reporting dizziness were monitored. while 74.l percent with muscle aches and 74.8 percent with feelings of tenseness were monitored. While only 3 percent of the respondents reported problems with pregnancies. of those citing this problem, 75 percent said they were monitored. Melita said. High blood pressure and stomach problems -both of which were reported less often than other health complaints -had a better-than70-percent correla tion with monitoring. the data revealed. Source: Emoyee Relations Weekly, 12-2-85, Bureau of National Af airs, p. 1478. We have obtained and reproduce in the Appendix, as Item 3, the full survey and CTU report of the results.
PAGE 106
In addition, unions have initiated campaigns iri 1985-86 to docu-ment that injuries and disabling conditions experienced by VDT operators, and for which worker compensation claims have been filed, had their origins in a combination of bad job design, poor ergonocics, oppressive ~ork monitoring, and supervisor threats based on such monitoring. While there ha~e been well publicized awards of worker compensation to some VDT operators, we are not aware of any statement by a Board or an appeal that has dealt specifically with the monitoring aspect of such worker claim. However, unions and allied groups are ~lurly focusing on office-worker stress as a major thrust in worker com pensation activity, and monitoring will be a key feature of the case against stress-based injuriea~ Grievances and Arbitration We have already noted that under federal law and labor relations doctrines covering other employment sectors, the right to measure work is a man agement prerogative, and has been so held in arbitration. Grievances involving VDT monitoring are therefore focused on particular management use of VDT monitoring. For example, in a recent case involving clasified ad takers at the Hew York Times, the local Newspaper Guild chapter argued that management's introduction of a new telecommunication-VDT system that produced a log of ti:le in and out and transactions completed was a "1984 system" that could not be introduced unilaterally. The union argued that this changed the terms and conditions of work in a manner that called for advance consultation wit~ the union, and its acreement, and the union filed an unfair labor charge. A highly emotional walkout occurred, in which ad-takers complained that the system would record "when people went to the toilet," and was a "Dip, Brother" n -/
PAGE 107
10 'i speed-up and surveillance system that ill-behooved "a great newspaper that is also a champion of freedom of the press and individual liberties." Badges saying "1984 -6th Floor" appeared in the midst of the protest.68 The management answered that the system was a good one whose improved color graphics, better credit data base, and screen "prompts" would help adtakers improve their productivity and increase their pay; it was never intended to nor would it be used to discipline people for breaks, including toilet breaks. In retrospect, management at the Times conceded that they had not done a good job of preparing ad takers for introduction of the new system, and that they had been unprepared for the violent reaction of the employees. The new system seems to be well accepted now, is producing improved pay for the I employees, and has not been used for punitive actions. Another grievance that went to arbitration in 1984 is the first instance we know of in which computer-monitoring itself bec~e the center of a griev--~g ance proceeding. The Employment Division of Ore;on State's Human Services Department began experiencing in 1982-83 a mysterious loss of docU1Dents from its Wang word processing system. When Wang technicians could find no defects in hardware or software, management concluded that one or more word processing operators was changing records to increase her production statistics, presumably to earn more pay or better evaluations. The Wang system had a software package called the "Machine Statistics System" (MSS). This creates a rP.cord with the ID of the operator; the date; the document ID being worked on; the time work st~rted and stopped on that document; what kind of activity vas being done; the number of pages created, and the.number of keystrokes used for each document. Ue reproduced a sar.tple page from this Wan~ system earlier in this report, on pap,e 21. This was used by the ar,ency to collect monthly statistics on the group work unit and each individual operator.
PAGE 108
Jo s However, they had not used it to check on which operator was using a particular terminal. The agency then wrote a more detailed software program to identify which operator was at a particular terminals. Using this system, management found that all the disappearing documents were originating at one terminal, used by an employee named Donna Stroup. They then monitored all activity at her terminal for a two week period, concluded that she was increasing her keystroke count while she also deleted documents worked on by other employees, thereby decreasing their perforaance levels. Management said __ that cross-checking the printout with that of other operators convinced them that only Ms. Stroup could have tampered with all the documents changed. Also, no tampering took pl~ce during a week in the test period when she was on vacation, or the week she was suspended prior to being dismissed. Manage~ent said she had a motive to do this because she had been cautioned aa a marginal performance earlier; that she knew how to perfom the changes that were used to alter the document insauctions; and that only she would benefit from the alterations made. ~ianage:znt summed up its position to the arbitrator by saying r.hat the computer was a perfect and credible witness. The Oregon Public Employees Union, affiliated with the Service Employees International, defended Ms. Stroup 1n the arbitration. They asserted that she had been performing satisfactorily for a year and had no recent warning about productivity; had no need for more pay or promotions; did~ have the skills to do the deletions that were done; and, like other employees, believed that the Wang software could detect any iaproper acts done by operators. The heart of the union's defense was that there was not a single eye witness and no motive given for Us. Stroup's alleged action, and that it violated due process concepts .. J' \ u
PAGE 109
to accept the "hearsay evidence" of a computer, which cannot be "cross-examined." The union also argued that, because canagement had not installed available security software to prevent operators from deleting documents that others worked on, it had not provided the proper system from which to take action against alleged wrongdoing. After reviewing the printout data, the testimony of the computer experts at the arbitration hearings, and the grtevant's case, the arbitrator found the computer evidence to be "reliable" and ruled that its use "does not violate basic, procedural due process "While both the Union and the Arbitrator pointed out at the hearing that the Employer has no human witness to the charged .activity, nevertheless the Employer does have a mechanical witness --the computer. This mechanical witness, without bias, has given a minute-byminute account.of the activity of the grievant on her work station (132) for the two-week period in question. The computer is a tabla !!!!. on which the operator writes. "Tlie Wang software package, the Machine Statistic System ("MSS") silently monitors, 24 hours a day, the activity at each work station in the Employer's clerical support unit, including that of Work Station 32. The MSS, therefore, is the language in which the mechanical witness captured the activity on that work station during the two-week pe'riod in question ..,.he computer printouts described above are the translated record Gf what the computer 'saw'. The computer r.&ade a record of the events of those two weeks (and of the period July 1, 1983 through July 8, 1983 and during the work week July 25, 1983 through July 29, 1983) as if it were a tape recorder or a videotape, running constantly and focused on work station 32, without hu~an intervention. it is from a reading of this mechanical witness's record that the most damaging evidence against the grievant comes."
PAGE 110
The union Business Agent who prepared the Stroup defense sees the impli-0 cations of the arbitration decision as very serious. For our members, the big issue here is control. There are many employes out there working with computer systems which are not secured in any way, and which monitor their produc-tion. This makes them highly vulnerable to sabotage themselves. There is no question that another employee or supervisor who wished to get rid of aomeone, could frame a person by manipulat-ing the software. Aa strong as the computer evidence was in this case, it did not completely rule out this possirility. I think this is something employees should be alerted to. I think it would also be valuable for employees to find out exactly what kind of data is collected on their work through the computer tracking systms. Proposals for Legislative Control of Emplover Monitoring Bills to regulate VDT use have been introduced in 25 states between 1981 and the present. These have been sponsored primarily by labor unions, supported by activist women's groups, local COSH chapters, and some occupational health experts. The bills generally contain three sets of provisions: on health and safety matters; 0'11 ergonomic standards, and an vork rules for intensive VDT use. ,.~=) In seven of these state bills, and in the model bills drafted by the Communication Workers and the Newspaper Guild for use in all states~ a one-sentence provision appears that would forbid employers to use "individual production monitcring." This has been included in the VDT bills in Ohio, Minnesota, !-lassa chusetts ,Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, and ?tew .Jersey. :he Ohio bill, for example, reads: "No employer shall use a video display terminal to monitor the productivity or measure the performance of an operator on an individual basis.," and a similar sentence appears in the. 1985-86 Tennessee bill. At committee hearings on these VD_T bills,the witnesses supportina them have called for.the anti-monitoring provision because of the harmfui stress that monitoring is said to create, and the violation to dignity and privacy that "total, Big Brother surveillance" entails. They have said that while some "good" emvloyers do not use monitoring in an oppressive way, the law is needed to reach 0
PAGE 111
IO-t the many "sweatshop offices" doing this to employees. Employer witnesses have denied that there ia the widespread "Big-Brother"-type use of VDT monitoring alleged by union witnesses, insisted that record keeping on employee perfomance _ia vital to increasing productivity, and said that any regulation of work standards and measurement should be left by state legislators to labor-management negotiations in unionized firms or to employee relations in the non-union sectors. None of the VDT regulation bills have passed .. as of mid-1986. T11c only state government recommendation regarding monitoring so far has come in Connecticut, where the legislature in 1983 had ordered two studies of VDT health and safety aspects to be done, one by the Connecticut Academy of Science and Education, and the other by the State Department of Consumer Protection. Consumer agency included two rec0111Dendations to employers: The report of the they should not conduct continuous monitoring of individual employee performances through VDT software capacities; and monitoring or recording the conversations of VDT customer-service operators should "be discouraged." Nothing was done with this recommendation by the Connecticut legislature in 1984.or since. There are no signs that the 1986 campaign will ~o any further than the earlier efforts. Basically, the regulatory campaign has not succeeded because many liberal legislators, and most middle of the road and conservative legislators, have not been convinced that there is a sound health hazard case against the machines per se, based on scientific studies of radiation and other emanations from the VDT. As for the passage of a law to require ergonomic measures and detailed work tules (including bans or limits on work monitoring), most legislators thus far have felt this was not an appropriate step for state legislators to take at this time, when use of VDTs is still in an early stage, managements are learning
PAGE 112
10~ what measures need to be taken for comfort and ease of use, and the technology is still changing and developing so rapidly. In addition, witnesses for the major vendors and user groups have warned that the regulations proposed would be extremely expensive for employers to comply with, and most state legislators are not anxious to "drive business away" (especially high-technology users) un less there is clear and convincing evidence that this is necessary to safeguard worker health and well being. Unless chi~ basic situation changes in 1986, passage of the omnibus VDT bills, and of anti-monitoring provisions in particular, does not seam likely.* KEY ISSUES IN VDT WORK MONITORING Unlike the use of "IV-monitors to watch assembly lines, or of hidden microphones to overhear workers in cafeterias or rest rooms, the collection C) ... ..... of operator production statistics generated by system software does not represent an intrusive, unethical, or dehumanizing act per se. Whether the effect of monitoring is intrusive, unethical, or dehumanizing depends (-, J' on what management does with the d.ata it collects and how its actions are perceived by employees. In terms of polar positions, we have seen that there are two main models of work standards and measurement, the "unit-n model" and the "Taylor production model." Figure 7 shows the key elements in these presentations, and which of the issues they raise are privacy-related, rather than employee and labor relations based. .....,,, The CWA_persuaded the West Virginia legislature to ban telephone service monitor ing (on intra state calls) in 1981, after a well publicized example of what the union called "nasty company behavior" by the local telephone coopany. A sirt1ilar bill was vetoed by the governor in California, and was considered in New York in 1985. but-was not enacted. The West Virginia law does not mention VDTs and was .. not written with OA technology in mind. U
PAGE 114
Figura 7. 11 IIAitl IIODBLS IN VDT IIORK HONITORING UNION HODEL "TAYLOR" PRODUCT I OH HODEL lndtv. All Known Perform-Data Proce-ance Available dure Sampl-To For tng Employee Cha 11 eng i ng "Record" Constant Data No Hachtne Not Proce-tloni torReadily dure tng 'Available For Challenge PRIVACY-RELATED ISSUES: "lntrus tveness II And "Subject Access" I -Employee Group Qual tty/ Standard Can Produc-Problem Pay Pace tion Factors Hork. Quotas Recog-nized 'I Hachine lndlQuantity/ Piecework Paces vidual Speed Pay Work Quotas Standard Or Bonus I I LABOR RELATIONS / El4PLOYEE RELATIONS ISSUES: t I Individual Shortfall Leads To Training Or Group Discussion lndividua I Shortfall Leads To Discipline : "Fair Work,11 "fair Pay," "fair Perfonnance Evaluation11 I --0
PAGE 115
Hr. We do not know of any ~nionized firm in which the full union oodel is being used. We saw the Taylor model used in some of thP. sites we visited, though these were a very small number among the kinds of government and private organizations we were studying. At the great majority of our sites, about two-thirds, we found that organi tations were using significantly modified versions of the Taylor model, as we described in our repor~s of monitoring use, while about a third were applying what we have called fair work evaluation techniques. In practice, aa we found during our site visits, the difference between employee protests over "Big Brother surveillance" and employee acceptance of work measurement as.reasonable depends on whether there is agreement between employers and mployeea on: (1) the fairness of the standards set; (2) the fairness of the measurement process employed; and (3) the fairness of the way measurements are used in employee evaluation. Put~ing the issue this way highlights the fact that both process and substance are involved in how employees vill respond to work monitoring issues in the automated office. In terms of process, we saw many examples where genuine involvement of employees. -either through joint labor-management committees in unionized organizations or employee involvement tedmqiues in non-union settings -could have spared manage ment painful experiences with employee resistance and protest over work monitoring that is effective and acceptable to employees started with the trusting assumption that almost all employees are ready to pu_t in a f.air day's work for a fair day's pay. The challenge they acce~ted was to involve employees in the application of new office systems technology to the office tasks at hand, and to include work standards, work measurement, and productivity-recognition as matters open for joint discussion. n \. __ #. u
PAGE 116
Recognizing that_employee involvement in the initial design, testing, implementation, and continuing adjustment of work monitoring is critical to a successful process, what are the substantive issues that innovative managements seem to be considering in their administration of VDT work, especially in their clerical and customer-service jobs where VDT use is moat intensive? Figure 8 shows the is1ues that we encountered in our site visits, and which we found about a third of the managements taking into account in developing employee-acceptable productivity programs using machine generated records.
PAGE 117
Figure 8. KEY ISSUES AND PROBLEM AREAS lN :-tONITORI~C CL.ERICAL A.~D CUSTOMER SERVIC:t I'.. WORKERS ) I KY ISSUES l. FAIRNESS OF WORK STANDARDS 2. FAIRNESS OF THE MEASUm1:ENT PROCESS 3. FAIRNESS IN APPLYING MEASUREMENTS TO .'iP LOY EVALUATION PROBLEM ASPECTS Do standards fairly reflect the average ~apacicies of the particular work force? Will they create unhealthy stress for many employees? Do they take into account recurring system difficulties and other workplace problems? Do they include quality as well aa quantity goals? Do they represent a "fair day's pay" for a "fair day's work?" Do employees share in any productivity gains achieved through introduction of nev technology? Do employees know and understand how the measurements are being done? C&n the measurement system be defeated easily, thereby im-pairing the morale of those villina to "follow the rules?" Do employees receive the statistics on their performance directly, and in time to help them manage their work rate? Is the relation between quality and service measureand work quantity. communicated by supervisors when they discuss problems with performance levels vi.th employees? Do supervisors communicate clearly that they are taking system and workplace problems into account! Are group rather than individual rates used when particular tasks make such an approach more equitable? Is there a formal complaint process by which an operator can contest the way work data has been used by the supervisor? Are th,re meaningful recognition progracs for these employees7 Is work. quantity only one of a well-rounded and objective set of performance criteria used for employee appraisals? Does the employee get to see and participate in the performance appraisal? Ia there an appeal process from the supervisor's performance appraisal? '\....J Is there a performance-planning system that identifies employee weaknesses 1nperfor.:ance and identifies ways to remedy such ---~'-----"
PAGE 118
The three issues t~at we have presented in this chart and specific problems involved, were themes we heard in many of our employee interviews, in both union and non-union organizations. They also reflect the concerns that we heard organizations with good employee relations programs or good labor relations beginning to address in 1982-84, during our site visits. And, aa w have noted, about a third of those organizations ve studied that are using monitoring of some individual clerical operators for evaluative purposes are already following fair work evaluation policies along ~he lines covered by a poaitive answer to the "problem aspects" listed in this chart. From a privacy standpoint, the key elementR of fair work evaluation poli cies are employee knowledge of all moni~oring systems uaed, and their operative elements; empfoyee access to their individual records; and procedure for contesting the accuracy or fairness of applying records for evaluative purposes. If one adds to that the "non-privacy" but good employee relations aspect of employee involvement in setting fair standards and good employee manager communication on the pla:nning and implementation of standards, then good employee practice would seem to be present. The parallel between these elements and the Equitable-SEIU contract should be noted. One judgment we reac~ed in our site visits should be useful to OTA. While canagements will no doubt continue to follow divergent appro~ches to VDT monitoring, for the reasons cited on pages 70-74, there seems to be a growing sense in the bus inesa community, and in govemment also, ~hat appropriate work measurement policies need to be developed if organizations are to achieve the machine efficiencies and the worker commitment which together can achieve the productivity and commitm~nt goals that employers are seeking at their workplaces. A good presentation of that emerging sense, and one
PAGE 119
that comes from a mainstream business publication, rather than a refotm source, 0 comes from a 1984 article on Dun's Business Month magazine. WARNINGS FOR MANAGEMENT IN USING COMPUTER HONITOllING* Jhe negative effects of elec tronic monitoring are a growing concern. Some experts believe that the problems involved far outweigh the benefits in the long run. And many employees complain that the new technology is both forc:ing them to function in a more stringent work environment and adding to their stress on the job. "Yorkers are concerned that they will be pushed beyond reasonable limits to gain productivity," explains Donald Kennedy of Pennsylvania State University's Depart ment of t..bor Studies, "and that monitoring and pacing are creat ing a factory in the office.." The health effect5 of ~xiitoring and pacing are being studied by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the research arm of the Occupational Safety and Health Administr~tion. According to NIOSH researcher Michael Smith, studies have shown that monitoring and pacing produce anxiety, depression, irrita bility and anger and that these reactiou can in turn lead to heart-related disorders and psychosomatic illnesses. Physical stress ia also a problem. For example, typists who vork with ,.-,) computer screens can be physically affected when straining to ._ maintain a pace; they get temporary eye ailments and svollen wrists and ams, which in turn reduce their produc~ivity. In a study of 2,150 American workers financed by NIOSH to~amine the links between pacing and health, it was found that machine-paced assembly line workers are 70%-to-200% more likely to develop heart disease than their supervisors. ,And workers who are under pressure to produce and have little control over the job re five times more likely to develop heart disease than workers who have the most control over their jobs Many academic studies have also demonstrated that quality suffers as a consequence of making a job simple enough to monitor, points out Frederick Herzberg, manasement professor at the University of Utah's graduate school of business. Herzberg, an eminent authority in the field who hu acted as a consultant to AT&T, says the studies show that vork simplification ukes people act less responsibly and increases errors, job dissatisfaction and even sabotage. "And supervisors are animal trainers rather than mana gers," he adds. In large part, the fight over monitoring is a power play in which the strong ~-in. In other words, unionized employees and From "Corporate Big Brother Is Watching You," Dun's Business Month, January, 1981..
PAGE 120
professionals such as doctors are more successful than word processors or.bank cl~rks in fending it o~f Monitoring is now a major issue in the bargaining between Equitable Life and the claw processors at its Syracuse, New York, office. While the claims approvers like the wage in creases ude possible by the computer counting, they want approval over the measuring standards used. They argue that they do not understand the method Equitable usu for scoring and they question its fairness. They also fear that when they reach peak performance, their wage increases will not keep up with inflation. Local 92S, which represents the Equitable workers, recently introduced bills in both the California and Ohio legislatures to regular working conditions for operators of computer display terminals, including provisions to bar individual emplo~ee monitoring. Legislation re1ulating telephone surveillance was enacted in Wast Vir&inia in through the efforts of the Communications Workers of America. The lav requires employers to use a beeptone to inform customers aDd employees they are. being monitored. In California, Republican Governor George Deukmejian recently vetoed a similar bill. But the Bia Brother techniques are not all-powerful. "For every system, there is a way of beating it," points out Gerhard Friedrich, a conaultant wbo studies the impact of automation on management organization at Digital Equipment Corp. Most consultants agree that employees can circUlffent even the most sophisticated eiectronic snoops. In one of the most common practices, says Thous Gilmore of the University of Pennsylvania, employees "rest" by getting headaches when they are forced to work at a pace they think is too fut. It is also well known that long-distance and directory assistance telephone operators love to outwit AT&T's monitoring system, which supplies a computer-generated AWT (Average Work Time) score on the average number of seconds each operator spends per call. they cheat by hanging up on callers or by transferring them to a supervising operator even when they could handle the inquiry theuelves LS/rae expert argue that by pr0110tin& speed, the measuring of service worker productivity actually.defeats its purpose. Coat benefit analysis, they say, ia skewed to measure quantity not qua lity and short-term but not long-term coats and benefits
PAGE 121
Vice President Carl Thor of the American Productivity Center, a private research arganization, further points out that since the routine job1 most often monitored are already automated to increase productivity, not much additional improvement is poasible by mea1urin1 employee performance. The computer equipment installed to run operation.a produces the lion' share of any productivity gains, agrees Mitchell Goldstein, office automation consultant at Environetics International, yet the monitorini is frequently mistakenly uaed to j uatify the whole expenditure. Sears, loebuck & Co., for one, believes th costs in employee morale outwei&h the productivity &ains in moat cues. Therefore, it monitors QA.ch call in its cataloa sales division for everything except employee performance. According to George Eaton, director ol catalog sales, Sears uaes individual employee performance reports only to identify personnel that need help and to tally performance on sales pr0110tions. "It really boosts morale to have a contest based on sales per call," he says. The key to effective monitorin&, Ut>erts agree, 11 to convince employees that the asurement system is fair and can't be subverted. American Express, for one, uses outside consultants to make sure its expect:ttions are not unrealistically hi&h or low. "Manage_!ent must be careful not to pu.sh either side .LProduction or qualitI,/ too hard," Sherin says. American Express also has used quality circles to involve em ployees in setting quality standards in order to gain their acceptance. Such employee cooperatioa is critical, says Frederick Herzberg, "because while speed is under the control of the system, quality 1 under the control of the work.er." With employee support, Carl Thor adds, service industries should be aole to avoid the loss of competitiveness suffered by manufacturing companies 1n aacrificing quality to quantity. Co=petition in the service industries is primarily domestic, but the competitive danger is-the sue, he observes. "In the drive toward survival, the com.p...nie that put cost savings and quantity before service vill be at a disadvantage." 117 C) ,-.) r \. '". ,,.. ... '\, u
PAGE 122
POLICY CHOICES IN WORK MONITORING* As we have shown, the issue of work monitoring in office automation is a highly charged topic. Sharply conflicting positions have been adopted by employers, unions, interest groups, and social commentators. The~ is considerable debate over how much VDT monitoring of clerical wckers is going on today and whether this is increasing or decreasing. There is debate over whether the aonitoring that is being done is mostly being carried out in a Taylor-style high-control fashion, a moderate productivity model, or with new fair work evaluation policies. There is also debate over how to evaluate the additional work stress that VDT operators experience u a result of monitoring, compared to that created by fears over job security, high product~on demands, poor job design, inadequate ergonomics, and other negative workplace conditions. Our report has presented OIA with empirical and evaluative materials with which to analyze these issues, as they have emerged in the past 4-S years. At the policy level, American society faces the classic question of whether this issue is one on which law and regulation is called for, or whether it is best left, for the time being and in the early stages of office automation, to private decision-making and social forces. ~e have indicated the positions of leading parties on that issue, and the baseline of very limited regulation that marked the pre-OA position of American society. As far as the privacy dimension of VDT work monitoring is concerned, we have shown that there have been protests over what is regarded as unfairly close, intrusive, and continuoussurveillance by "machine monitoring" at the workplace, even though chis is not a private location and even though what are nomally defined as private acts are not involved. These protests rest -------------------------------------* As readers will have noted, our analysis has been limited to monitoring in office settings, which is what our discussion was asked to treat. However, many of the same issues and social conflicts obviously arise in factory settings and debates over factory-worker monitoring have a long history. For a cri~ical look at "Office Automation in a Manufacturing Setting," OTA has the report of that title by Leslie Schneider, Robert Howard, and Frank Emspak, April, 1985, prepared for OTA's Automation of America's Offices Project.
PAGE 123
on the belief that employees working in locations subject to casual observa-0 tion and tra~itional record keeping have not agreed to nor should the law, they believe, assume that they ought to accept -the kind of "total" monitorin& that office systems software makes possible~ We have shown that thia challenge faces an uphill battle against the well-settled arbi-tration and legal-policy judgment that close employer supervision, even by video cm:aera, does not violate legitimate employee privacy interests. While this uy be the way that arbitrators and judges would decide grievances and lawsuits, absent new legislation, this does not necessarily mean that such would be wise social or public policy. We have shown that whether the collection of detailed perfo~nce and presence data is regarded by employees as intrusive and unfair 1 almost always a function of l!2! .!! .!ill,.!!,~ !?I .Sh!, employer. Where employees know what is being done, have access to their own records, and have a process by which they can contest the accuracy or the fairnes1 of specific data used for evaluative decisions, we have seen that the privacy dimension of VDT work monitoring has generally bean satisfactorily addressed. This suggests that VDT work monitoring is a "two-faceted" issue. Privacy can be thought of as the threshold question. But equally important to employee, employer, and society, 1s the employee relations .2!. labor relations dimension, where questions of harmful stress and its health effects, fair production standards, fair supervisory behavior, and the even more contentious question of "fair pay" are all involved. .... -) t Both of these issues promise to be important concerns on the American social agenda for years to come, since they involve the quality of work life for millions of employees =oving into high-technology office work, as well as -the 0
PAGE 124
future productivity of American organizations in an era of heavy pressures for more cost-effective operations.
PAGE 125
EMPLOYEE CALL-USE MONITORING Background Monitoring of employee telephone use to detect or inhibit personal, nonbusiness uses of the telephone has become important to both public and private organizations in an era of cost-containment through reduction of unnecessary operating expenses. The costs of local and long distance t~lephone calls is a major expense for most organizations, and most have issued rules to their employees stating that the telephones are to be used only for proper business calls. While many organizations have accepted a "tolerable" level of nonbusiness calls --to the employee's home on pr~ssing family matters, to check on the weather for driving conditions, etc. --employers in the past few years have grown increasingly concerned about the extensiveness and high cost of such non-business calls.~iO As a result, both public and private employers have begun educational and then enforcement efforts to roll back such pro hibited telephone use. While we are not aware of any surveys of employer use of telephone-use monitoring, informal conversations with several large busi ness corporations and government agencies indicated that (a) this was a serious concern to them; and (b) various fonns of sampling and auditing of call records had been conducted in recent years, and were continuing. To explore the privacy implications of this growing employer activity, and also because of the key role that the federal government plays as an employer, we will focus on one current program for auditing employee telephone use, being conducted by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) and the General Services Administration. We will also develop this case study by incor porating in our narrative some of the key documents or segments of documents that illustrate how the privacy issues presented by this effort were first (See Exhibit, next page (115A). r"\' \L:).
PAGE 126
Exhibit: U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Sept. 29, 1986 Bosses have a new weapon in fighting phone bills Putting social calls on hold Soon after installing software that her daughter could listen to her fatracked employe telephone call~> vorite soap opera. managers at a Los Angeles insurThat Incident illustrates how em-ance company noticed a puzzling ployes misuse company phones. pattern. Each day at ,,. says Duffy Mich. presi-noon, someone at the dent of RTP Group, Inc., firm dialed a number in a telecommunications-nearby Orange County. consulting firm in Pasa-Each call lasted 58 min. i dena, Calif. Although soutes. The file clerk sta-cial calls during office lioned at that extension was asked hours aren't that extreme everyto explain the matter. Her answer: where, they can be a big problem. Every day she called her mother, Telecommunications consultant who put the phone down beside the Daniel Slusser estimates that 10 television set in her home so that percent to 30 percent of calls at bl: 17 NameJehftQ.flulllle Loe 11,_...,NJ 0Mseon. EltclronlCI Dalt Tilllt To """'l 07110 OtP SanMonicl CA 213., 07110 55P Sutlnaie CA -7 07110 S20P RonkotlOffll NV S16-' 07112 ISP New van NV 212-! 07/1,1 225P LOIA,._. CA 213-1 0711S 7 30P eoca Ra1on FL :JOS.~ 07116 9.56A SanJOM CA 07118 2 !tP MOltne IL 309.7 07121 812A Boca Raton FL ;m.s 07123 104A """' NV 7111, 07128 203P LosAncJc!lel CA 213, 01121 202P ~'"" PA 21s., 07128 3 12P aoc.AalOfl FL :JOSl 01128 P San Monica CA 213.: To1a1 IOf Eten110n 17-JolWI 0. llulllle ** Calls over 30 """"'" I ***** Calls ove, $5.00. 2 J )epl.Sllel ,cc1 OCM11110-n eel .... Coll ;97 2 H6~1J NS 59 12 7 67!, 00 2 28 199 l S2 23 2 18 o 99 ---Jl8 !t06 >1:-.;::~i< 101 131 97 ottlfJ,-C oV'f-~-rt RoO -(10,J ~(.f'&,,,_,Jl most companies are not work related, but range from minor infractions such as "calling Grandma every day at lunchtime lo running a side business." A recent government survey found 29 percent to 50 percent of long-distance calls by employes at five federal agencies were personal. Now, employers can do something about it. Thanks to the computer industry, software that can track information about employe telephone calls is widely available. These telephone-monitoring devices or "call accounting" systems track the date, time, location, duration and price of outgoing calls by employe phone extension. Sales are ringing up tor call-accounting hardware and softwarepresident of Control Key. "But whether or not the bills then creep up to previous levels depends on how closely managers scrutinize the reports," he cautions. A call-accounting sy&tem tor a company with 500 extensions can cost up to SS0,000, depending on its bells and whistles. But companies typically spend between $5,000 and $15,000, says Harry Newton, publisher of an industry magazine, Teleconnect. Dropping prices have spurred sales. For instance, the price of Control Key's call-accounting system, which can handle 60 office extensions, fell from S 15,000 in 1981 to only SJ.000 this year. Although many employes resent electronic watchdogs, bosses say $213 million worth of equipment was sold last year, up from S25 million in 1980. More than 63,000 businesses use call-accounting systems, which have the potential to generate reports on u many as 7 .a million employes, says Slusser. The monitoring systems do more than spy on employes. They can route long-distance calls through the cheapest long-distance carrier, track phone expenses incurred for each client, reorder inventory and trace incoming calls from a competitor, a branch office or other precoded telephone numbers. Generally, company phone bills drop 20 percent to 60 percent in the first month after a monitoring system is installed, says James Burton, they are entitled to monitor how company time and money are being spent. After all, they argue, employes are held accountable for travel, entertainment and other expenses; why not telephone use, too? The deterrent effect of a monitoring system is so power1ul that employers don't even have to plug one in to slash phone bills. Publisher Newton tells of one company where employes were instructed to dial the company operator to place long-distance calls. ''The operator was told to ask if the call was personal or business, but to put it through in either case." Newton says. "Instead of answering, 50 percent of the people banged down the receiver after the operator's query."
PAGE 127
aired, debated, acted upon, and remain in contention. The Federal "Telephone Call Reduction Initiative" In late February of 1985, news was released that two "telephone call reduction initiatives" would be carried out by agencies of the Federal Government. A later press release {March 19th) by 0MB provided the official federal executive branch description of why this initiative was begun and how it would be conducted.71
PAGE 128
Two tel~phcme ca.11 reduction initiatives a.re under way one by the .. resident'& Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) and the other by the General ~ervices Administration and 0MB. llie President's Council on Integrity a.nd Efficiency audit was recommended by the GSA Inspector General to determine the extent of telephone abuse and misuse and to recommend Governmentwide controls. The GSA Inspector General is a. member of the PCIE and will coordinate the audit. Inspector General of participating agencies will review the information collected during the audit ae it relates to their agencies. In support of the PCIE audit, GSA will provide call detail listings consisting of a ZO~ sample of FTS off-net and all commercial long distance calls made from participating Executive agency FTS telephones in the Washington a.rea. No local and no incoming call data will be audited, except !or collect calls charged to an FTS telephone. The listings are similar to those received in home telephone bills that show the originating number, destination number, da.te and tin:e of day the call was made, and duration of the call. The content of the calls will not be known. The General Services Administration management initiative originated in discussions between 0MB and GSA on reducing administrative costs in Government. GSA, in cooperation with 0MB and the Executive agencies, will make .available to -:a~encies detailed listings of long distance calls ma.de from Government phones in the a.shington, DC area initially. Call detail listings will be on magnetic tape for computer analysis by each agency to administer use o! Government telephones within GSA policy guidelines. Calls placed by the White House and the Congress are not included within the scope of either initia.tive. Calls involving national security conceivably could appear in the sample listings, but the content of the calls will not be discernable. ID a.ny event, the in!ormation developed during the PCIE audit will be controlled and sa!eguarded by the Inspectors Ceneral and their agencies to which the information relates. To assist agencies in managing their telephone use, and as pa.rt of its initiative, GSA is developing a brochure !or managers and supervisors on cost-e!! ective management of telephones. GSA will incorporate in its brochure. a.ny appropriate re~ommendationa of the PCIE for controlling telephone abuse or misuse. Recommendations of the PCIE on how to prevent possible violations of.personal ?rivacy will also be included. In summary, the PCIE and GSA/OMB initiatives will a.ddress the reduction of the .:iovernment's long distance phone costs. Both will focus on long distance ca.Ile nade from the Washington area. No telephone calls will be monitored, listened "" or taped as a part of either of the call reduction initiatives. In both, only :tings of-calls and .related material will .be available. Neither will violate the privacy of any individual. The two initiatives will be coordinated. March 19, 1985
PAGE 129
-1~5 0 When this news reached Capitol Hill, it prompted a letter on March 13th from Representatives Don Edwards (Chair, House Subcommittee on Civil and Consti-tuti ona 1 Rights) and Patricia Schroeder ( Cha 1 r, Subcommittee on Service) posing a series of concerned questions to 0MB Deputy Director Joseph R. Wright, Jr. The two subcommittees wished the following infor-72 mat ion: 1. What is the source of authority for the proposed monitoring scheme? 2. How would the monitoring program be conducted, who would conduct it, and what types 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 analyses be used and who would have access to them? 6. What measures would be taken to limit dissemination of the dat.a and analyses? 7. What guarantee is there that the program will not be used to discourage whistleblowers, to stifle dissent, to limit news media access to information, or for other political purposes? 8. What would happen to the data dna analyses after the initial analysis is completed? Our Subc01M1.ittees would like to be assured on these points, and any others that may be raised as additional information comes to light, before any monitoring program begins. News of the two-call-use audits also led to articles in leading newspapers and other mass media. David Burnham's piece in the New York Times, March 17th, was titled, 11U.S. Phones Raise Issue of Privacy: New Equipment Would Provide Detailed Records of Calls." Bill Montague, in the Federal Times of March 25th, had his story headed, "Planned Phone Audit Brings Blast From Several Groups," while a May 9th story in the Washington Post was titled, :,-.\ 0
PAGE 130
"U.S. Agencies Use High Tech To Curb Workers' Phone Use: Savings Estimated at $300,000 a Year." Burnham's article on March 17th noted that, in 1982, "investigators in the Environmental Protection Agency secretly examined the agency's long distance phone records to determine whether Hugh Kaufman, a government em-ployee who had disclosed information that led to the removal of most of the agency's top officials, had talked with news organizations." An interview with Frank J. Carr of GSA indicated that while "new phone monitoring equipment" had already been installed by the federal government, Carr "was not aware of any agency that has rules spelling out the apprpropiate uses of information gained through the system." Carr felt that "events in the past have prompted legitimate concern" over pr~vacy, and he believed "the Government should develop guidelines to make sure the technology is used in an appropriate way." Montague's article in the Federal Times, a week later, reported that "union leaders, civil liberties activists, and several key congressional leaders" had reacted sharply to t~e announced PCIE phone audit. "This is another example of the Big Brother federal government at work" Rep. Edwards stated. "It's ominous and should not be implemented without congressional approval." Montague's roundup of the critics' positions included the following corrments: Jerry Berman, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that while the current project would have "a chilling effect on government service," he is more worried about the long-range implica tions of the technology involved. "The ability of the phone company to analyze phone traffic is getting better all the time," he said. The trend toward metered local service, he predicted, will soon make it possible for GSA to audit local as well as long-distance calls. "We are just a microchip or two away," Berman said, "from being able to do that easily ~nd cheaply. Even if GSA decides not to check up on local calls, the fact that they might have that capability is very disturbing. 11
PAGE 131
Aside from the privacy issue, Schroeder and others also mentioned the potential for selective disciplinary action against workers considered undesirable by agency managers. They pointed out that if abuse is as widespread as GSA says it is, virtually every employee in the government is guilty to some extent. Robert Tobias, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, echoed that concern when he speculated that the audit process could be misused by agency managers as a way of harassing employees who use the phone to conduct legitimate union business. "We are very concerned that our people can continue to have contact with their union without any sort of harassment, or any sort of monitor ing, 11 he said. NTEU, he added, wi 11 attempt to use the Freedom of Inf ormat ion Act to find out how agencies are handling the data they receive from GSA. Mark Roth, general counsel for the American Fed~ration of Government Employees, said that while his office is weighing a possible court chal lenge to the project, it is too early to construct a legal argument for such a case. "We may have to wait until they actually discipline someone and then to after it as an unfair labor practice," he said. ~-) Nor were critical comments limited to lalx>r groups. Bun Bray, president', ... of the Federal Managers Association, called the audit "another little deal to punish federal employees," and asserted that the ~avings from the program would prove "insignificant and minimal." .. "If they really want to save money, they ought to take those resources and check out General Dynamics and some of those other defense contractors that are ripping off the taxpayer," Bray said. On April 12, 1985, Joseph R. Wright, Jr., Deputy Director of 0MB, replied to Congressman Edward's inquiry.73 Wright said the purposes of the PCIE review were "to reveal patterns of misuse of the Federal long distance telephone systems" and to develop "reconunendations for systemic improvements in the management of these systems." He noted that planning for the sampling of call numbers recorded and examination of their business or non-business character "has not been completed." u
PAGE 132
The PCIE is developing guidelines for the review that will resolve the privacy-related issues and will insure that appropriate protec tions are afforded employees and citizens. Moreover, to ensure that all privacy interests are addressed, 0MB is also developing guidelines for the management of information on long distance telephone charges which will ensure that agencies comply with the Privacy Act to the extent that their management systems generate records covered by the law. In no instance will the PCIE "monitor," listen-in, or record telephone calls. The review will be based exclusively on automated billing data received from the phone company. The responses that Wright provided to Rep. Edward's questions about privacy and whistle-blower protection were contained in answers 6, 7, and 8. These are reproduced on the following page.
PAGE 133
6. What measures would be taken to limit dissemination of the data and analyses? The dissemination of data used during the course of the review will be li~ited to the staff of participating Inspectors General. The bulk of the data will be placed in audit workpapers and used to support audit findings which are summary in nature. Any data which require initiation of an investigation will be treated as evidence and will be accordingly protected. Data which may bring together names and numbers will be filed as part of the IGs' Privacy Act systems of records. 7. What guarantee is there that the program would not be used to discourage whistleblowers, to stifle dissent, to limit news media access to information, or for other political purposes? The procedures for conducting the review will include controls designed to protect individuals making such calls as contemplated by your question. The review does notinvolve local calls, so concerns about persons being singled out for their involvement with the news media, Congress, or whistleblower activities should be alleviated. In addition, long-distance calls to news media, Congressional otffices, p~blic intere~t groups, etc., will be considered business calls for the purpose of this review. The review is being performed by statutory Inspectors General who have, among other duties, responsibility under their own enabling legislation to protect whistleblowers. In addition, the Civil Service Reform Act clearly prohibits the kinds of activities described in your question and provides ample authority to the Gover~~ent, primarily the Special Counsel to the Merit Systems Protection Board, to enforce such prohibitions. Thus, while tnere are no absolute guarantees that all persons will act properly, there are ample procedures to deal with those who are found to have committed such prohibited personnel practices or other similar acts of wrongdoing. Finally, the PCIE and its individual constituent member Inspe~tor~ General.will work with management officials of those agencies involved 1n the review to reinforce their awareness of the sensitivities and concerns about the appropriate use of data used in. the review. B. What would happen to the data and analyses after the initial analysis is completed? .,") I The bulk of the data developed during the course of the review w~ll be made part of audit workpapers and will be protected from disclosures to the full extent of the law. As indicated before, info~ation which connects ~ames and numbers will be made a part V of files governed by the Privacy Act. Evidence developed during the course of a~y investigation will also be filed as part of ex~sting Inspector.General systems of records governed by the Privacy Act, and will be protected from disclosure unless otherwise provided by law.
PAGE 134
/j(j On May 2, 1985, Reps. Edwards and Schroeder replied to Wright.74 They indicated their appreciation that the PCIE "is sensitive to preventing un warranted disclosures of information collected in any audit and to avoiding invasions of privacy," lnd were "pleased" that the PCIE "is developing guide lines for the conduct of its audit." Drawing on concepts that were in Wright's reply, and their own sense of proper 2lements to go in the guide lines, the two members of Congress listed the following principles to be embodied in guidelines: The PCIE audit will not record or listen in on conversations. 2. The PCIE audit will be limited to long-distance commercial and FTS off-net calls. The audit will not consider local calls. 3. The audit w111 be a study of FTS abuse. As such, except where extreme cases of abuse are discovered, the audit will not be used to go afte~ individual employees. '4. Disciplinary action, such as removal, suspension, demotion, or formal reprimand, should be taken only in extreme cases following appropriate warnings. 5. All e~ployees shall be afforded advance written notice of the PCIE audit, describing the possible uses of the audit data and indicating what time period the audit will cover. 6. The guidelines and the notice to employees regarding the audit should include a clear definition of a personal call. All other calls,. including but not limited to telephone calls to .the press, congressional offices, and public interest groups, calls for whistleblowing purposes, and calls between union representatives and employees, should be treated as official uses of the FTS. (Deeming such calls official does not address, however, the fact that the Government will be able to determine who has called whom. The availability of such information and the ready means to analyze it remain in our minds the most troubling~and yet unresolved --aspects of the PCIE proposal.)
PAGE 135
7. Before calls are classified as personal, employees shall have an opportunity to explain the nature of the calls. a. All workpapers and records of the audit, whether computerized, written or printed, shall be treated confidentially. Data and documents identifying individual employees will not be disclosed outsid the offices of the participating Inspectors General and will be destroyed immediately upon completion of the audit, except for cases that are referred for prosecution. Otherwise, only aggregate data will be retained. 9. Other appropriate safeguards must be established so that the audit is used as a device to reduce the cost of the government's telephone bill, and not as a way for managers to pry into the personal lives of employees or to find grounds for their removal. 10. The guidelines should clearly state that any official violating them will be subject to the full penalties of law. The two Congresspersons also called on the PCIE to consider alterna tive measures for its audit that would be less threatening to privacy: In evaluating the audit results, we believe that attention should be given to developing alternative measures to curtail FTS misuse. For example, it would seem that individual calls only add to the cost of the FTS if they are made during peak periods, forcing the government to purchase more facilities to handle peak traffic. Announcing the times of peak use and investigating only long distance phone calls made during these times might do a great deal to reduce the incremental costs of the system. Another possibility that might be of value is "blocking" certain types of calls from being made, e.g., Dial-a-Joke, Dial-a-Porn, time and weather recordings. Finally, the Congressional reply to 0MB raised some broad questions about the future of new technology and telephone-call monitoring in the federal service:
PAGE 136
132The proposed audit has brought to the fore several issues of broader significance that we believe must be addressed as the Government responds to technical and market changes in the teleconmunications field. First, we do not believe that the Government should procure or Jnstall any service, feature, equipment or system that would permit recording or listening in on telephone conversations, except in those few instances, such as Veterans Administration service centers, where managers monitor the job performance of employees who give advice over the telephone. Similarly, the Government should not procure or install any service, feature, equipment or system that would permit it to obtain call accounting data on individual local calls. At present, we can see no justification for such a feature. We agree that the federal telephone system should be managed; but we do not believe that advancing telephone technology should be used to manage employees. In both cases, this is not just a matter of not "switchin11 on" a device; rather, it should be a matter of making a policy decision not to have the technical ability to do so. We understand that some agencies are proceeding to acquire equipment that would allo.w local call accounting. We would like to know whether the privacy implications of the acquisition of such equipment have been considered. By August of 1985, a detailed Memorandum had been prepared for the PCIE by Douglas H. Ginsburg, Administrator for Information and Regulatory Affairs of 0MB, laying out "Guidance on the Privacy Act Implications of the PCIE Review of Federal Teleconmunications system (FTS) Utilization.1175 This seven page, single-spaced "guidance" addressed both the privacy and the First Amendment, whistle-blower issues in detail, and embodied many of the safeguards and limitations raised earlier by Wright and in the Edwards-Schroeder letter. (The full text of this memo has been included in the Appendix to this Report.) These guidelines were adopted as the PCIE pilot audit progressed in the Fall of 1985 and the first half of 1986. What is the current status of the PCIE call auditing and what issues are raised in future telephone-abuse monitoring in the federal service?
PAGE 137
n ', ..... ,, 1. According to an April, 1936 interview we had with Benjamin H. Friedwan of GSA,76 the PCIE review is still "on going and under way.11 Sixteen different agencies were doing reviews, with 14 checking on utilization. Two agencies had issued individual reports to their managements. When all the reviews are in, 0MB will do a unified report, with follow-up auditing recolllllendations and also an analysis of the privacy guidelines. This was expected to be done during the summer of 1986. 2. GSA1s view of the March-May, 1986 11furor11 was that some newspap~~s, some Congresspeople, and some public-interest groups "thought we were going to monitor the content of te 1 ephone ca 11 s. 11 Si nee "we never planned that, there was no real privacy of communication issue." And, since "we always planned to follow Privacy Act rules on identified records" and "all other protections of federal employee rights, there was and is no real threat to anyone's rights." 3. The view of Congressional staff members, the ACLU, and some privacy advocates we spoke to in April-May of 198677 is that no such audit, even a 11pilot11 one, should have been instituted unless and until careful guidelines on privacy had been prepared and aired before the Congress. These persons believe that the intervention of the two Congressional corrmittees, and the help they received from outside experts, led to "better and stronger protections being written into the 0MB guidelines than would have appeared if this had been left up to the Reagan Administration." 78 .--) ''\.., ..... 0
PAGE 138
4. There is still considerable concern by critics over what will happen next. The problems involve the fact that adhering to the guidelines will be up to each agency when computerized callnumber audits become a regular practice. In addition, there is no system being mentioned to provide "auditing of the auditors," to see that there is no harassment of dissidents, checking en contacts with the press, etc. Most importantly, critics feel that once the attention focused on the pilot test is finished, what will develop as the primary side effect of this cost-savings program wi 11 be a genera 1 "chi 11 i ng effect" on federa 1 emp 1 oyees in using the telephones. The fact that, at any time, an employee might have to explain to agency managers why his or her calls to a certain number were mad~ is perceived --in the often strained environment of federal personnel and labor relations, and of Congressional-Executive tensions --as a computer capacity critics do not believe the federal government should be using in this way. Whatever may be acceptable in private employment, it is argued, federal employee-employer relations make it far more desirable to rely on automatically blocking out improper service numbers (dial-a-joke) and otherwise relying on education and honor-system influences in telephone use.
PAGE 139
MONITORING OF PERSONAL COMPUTER (PC) USE By the end of 1985, 1~ million video display terminals (VDTs) were in use in the United States, with an estimated 10-12 million of these in office and customer service work. By 1990, between 60-70 million VDTs were expected to be in use overall. As Table 1 indicates, the penetration of desk-top terminals has been heavy in the white-collar occupational sectors, and is expected to rise steadily and significantly the rest of the decade. Over a third of all clericals, almost two thirds of all managers and professionals, and over three fourths of all technical workers are projected to be using VDTs in 1990. Desk-Top Terminals by Occupation, in U.S. Work Force Occupational Group Percent with Terminals Technical Managerial Professional Clerical Sales 1985 55.9% 36.5 39.2 25.0 16.6 Pro ected, 76.2% 64.4 63.7 38.5 32.7 1990 Source: Newsweek Magazine, November 18, 1985, p. 71, from U.S. Department of Labor, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. n ........ \ /") 0
PAGE 140
Since we have already discussed the monitoring of VDT use by clerical and customer-service workers, it is employer oversight of intelligent desktop terminals --which we will refer to as PC's --that we are examining in this section. What employer interests in professional, technical, sales, and managerial use of PC's might give rise to monitoring efforts? Three primary ones have already surfaced in the private and public organizational world: 1. Abuse of PC's (using company resources for personal purposes); 2. Confidentiality-security breaches; 3. Violation of legal/regulatory duties in use of client or employee data. In a previous report to OTA, we presented a lengthy and detailed account of how privacy and security dimensions of PC use were developing in 1980-1984.* In preparing for this report, we recontacted 7 companies (3 banks, 2 insurance firms, 2 manufacturers) and 3 government agencies and asked them, under a promise of confidentiality for their replies, the following questions: 1 Do you do any inspections or searches of PC-user disks or files, in the interest of privacy, confidentiality, or security interests? Are you dqing any auditing of PC or intelligent-terminal trans actions with the mainframes, downloading and uploading, etc.? None of the 10 were doing any inspections or searches of PC-user disks or files, though all said they felt they had the legal right to rlo so, and would not hesitate to do this if a specific rule violation or compromise took place and they needed to investigate this. A typical comnent by one Information System Director was: "We have issued a policy guide for privacy and security compliance in PC use, and have stated that the company reserves the right to inspect all PC files and materials bought by the company and Westin, Alan F. and Hoffman, Lance, Privacy and Security Issues in the Use of Personal Information About Clients and Customers on Micro and Personal Computers Used in Office Automation, OTA, February, 1985.
PAGE 141
used here for our business purposes. But we haven't felt it wise or necessary to swoop, down on people and demand to see what they have on their disks." On the other hand, all of the 10 executives said their organizations did auditing of PC/intelligent terminal transactions with regional or cen tral databases. These were part of the regular, user-password-based security procedures of mainframe/database management. The monitoring consisted of (a) followup of any unusual use patterns indicated in regular audit-trail records; or (b) ad hoc inspections of audit records to identify use levels and local-use patterns. End users are informed (in all the organizations) that such auditing is conducted. As for assuring end-user compliance with legal and regulatory rules. governing an organization's handling of personal client or employee data, four of the ten organizations contacted reported they had issued written policies to PC end-users restating such requirements (e.g., Fair Credit Reporting Act; state employee access to personnel records laws; confidentiality of medical information laws; etc.). However, .!lQ!!!. of the 10 re ported that they have done surprise or announced inspections of disks or other desk-held file materials. We conclude from this small sampling, and also from discussions with computer security experts, that there is very little if any systematic employer monitoring being done of the substantive materials about clients or employees being input and stored in end-user intelligent terminals. n _,/ ..--:) -'. ___
PAGE 142
COMPUTERIZED PERSONNEL DATA SYSTEMS Unlike the situation in Europe, reported in our Task 2 document, U.S. unions and privacy advocates have not been concerned in the 1980's about the automation of personnel data. by employers. We examined the newspapers of 32 U.S. unions over the past four years, and found no articles or editorials dealing with this issue, compared to a steady stream of articles about monitoring of VDT workers. Since there has probably been more automation of personnel data in the U.S. than in any other industrial democracy --a function of marketing by software firms of human resources information systems and also of complex reporting duties for employers under EEO, Erisa, etc. --it is important to explore why personnel data systems have not generated concern. First, the main focus of privacy issues in employer use of personnel data has been on specific, substantive issues, not automation per se. Thus provision of individual employee medical data to OSHA investigators, or Department of Labor demands for an entire computerized personnel tape from Prudential Insurance, or various rights-of-access by employees to examine their files exemplify issues of the past decade. And, unions and privacy advocates have been in the forefront of enactment of state employee access to records laws. But, unlike the Europeans, registration and Data Commission oversight of employer automated data systems has not been pursued in the U.S. Only in the VDT area have U.S. unions sought to borrow the "data steward" approach from the European privacy-protection s.vstems. Secondly, existing employee privacy and EEO laws, plus the widespread privacy codes that employers have instituted for handling employee records, seem to be functioning as an adequate framework given the lack of publicized employer abuse of personnel data systems. Only in the area of computer matching
PAGE 143
1::.9 0 by state and federal government of automated personnel files with welfare, tax, and other records has there been significant concern by civil liberties grouP,s. This issue has already been examined in other OTA reports, and is not a topic that will be treated in this ~eport, essentially because it is not employer monitoring of workers but government law enforcement activity that is involved. .."""'") .......
PAGE 144
OVERALL LEGAL AND POLICY ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEE MONITORING Recap of Findings Thus Far Ii.to We. have noted that there are a number of new applications of comnunication and computing technology at the workplace that require American society and its policy-makers to reassess the definitions of acceptable and unacceptable monitoring of employee actions, speech, or behavior. These new applications include work tools (the VDT or dataphone); data-analysis applications (computerized telephone-number audits or computer-based locating/access systems); sound or picture surveillance tools (increased uses of closed circuit TV, activation of microphones in communication devices); and computerbased devices for measuring employee physical states (brain waveform patterns for detecting effects of drugs or alcohol). In looking over these new or improved areas of potential monitoring, we have suggested that a sound public policy analysis should do three things: (1) identify potential abuses by extrapolating from known instances of previous employer misconduct or abuse; (2) examine existing legal rules and concepts, to see how new technological applications are likely to be regarded under current American law; and (3) consider whether new American social values or concepts of proper employee-employer relationships suggest that new legal or ethical standards should be actively considered by policy-makers. Extrapolation From Previous Employer Conduct There is no evidence from the 1960-1985 period which suggests that either private or government employers in the United States have wanted to or have tried to conduct total visual or acoustical surveillance of their workplaces and workers. In reality, such efforts would be very costly, would surely
PAGE 145
-----------l LI l have prompted worker anger, and would have been featured in the American press as outrageous conduct. The occasional revelations in past decades of wire tapping, room-bugging, or TV-monitoring of selected places or selected workers makes two decisive points: (1) general and continuous surveillance of speech and actions has not been practiced; and (2) secret or covert monitoring has generated problems and controversy for those employers who attempted it, and even some new laws or judicial decisions circumscribing such activities. Classifying the main applications of monitoring at workplaces in the recent past, we can identify five areas of employer use: 1. Wo..-k-performance monitoring 2. Investigation of crime or misconduct 3. Conduct of general security functions 4. Monitoring of union activities 5. Investigation of dissenter/dissident activities In the first three areas, American society has accepted a legitimate employer need for relevant monitoring, and therefore has generally recognized employer authority to conduct such activities. American law and social condemnation have focused in the past on instances of excessive or abusive use of monitoring in those situations. The last two areas are ones in which law and social norms have established either "privacy" or "First-Amendment" exceptions to the private-property, public-activity, and employer-prerogative acceptance of employer monitoring rights. n ""-.
PAGE 146
142 Looking at these five areas in the past, and at early trends in using the new monitoring capabilities discussed earlier in this report, we drew the following judgments: 1. In work-monitoring, only a small minority of employers are now using VDT work monitoring in oppressive and intrusive ways, and there is no evidence of growing abusive use. 2. There are strong signs that economic and social pressures for organizational expense-reduction are leading many private and public employers to (a) redefine what is "acceptable" or -"tolerated" employee theft, abuse of organizational property, or personal appropriation of organizational services (telephone, computer time, etc.); (b) issue new or toughened rules about such conduct; and (c) mount new or expanded monitoring or auditing campaigns to detect such employee misconduct. Similar expanded campaigns are taking place in detecting substance abuse by employees through various testing methods. There have been in past decades and we can predict there will be in the future signi ficant potential for abuse of such monitoring by some employers -unless clear limiting standards, exposure of abuse, and enforcement against abusing employers are present. 3. Use of location monitoring for general security purposes (to prevent outside entries, assaults on employees, etc.) is increasing; however, we are not aware of any stream of abuses taking place in which employers used location monitoring to violate First Amendment rights, violate union rights, or intrude on basic privacy-dignity interests.
PAGE 147
4. Monitoring of union activities has taken place regularly in the past, in all kinds of industries and in various sizes of establishments. Labor boards regularly wrestle with grievances involving surveillance of union organizers or of union negotiating or strikerelated activities. We should expect that new monitoring capabilities will be utilized here by such employers, and should therefore take the investigation of such potential misuse as an important task. If new monitoring applications in this area prove to be widespread, new laws or new enforcement techniques may be needed. 5. Employer monitoring of dissenters and whi~tlebiowers has a iong history; it should be seen as a continuing struggle between the legal holders of organizational authority (and legal responsibility) and those who allege either legal or moral wrongdoing by such managers. The fact situations and the legal/ethical parameters of such contests are rarely clear or unidimensional, and only the classic True Believer or total ideologist will assume that all whistle-blowing is always right and moral and that all employers responding to self-appointed whistleblowers are always covering up wrongdoing. Having made this point of constant relativity in whistle-blowing situations, we can still assume that (a) managements rarely tolerate whistleblowers; and (b) managements generally seek to monitor what whistleblowers are doing. Therefore, any increased '.power to monitor employee locations, transactions, or expressions can and probably will be used by many employers caught up in whistleblowing episodes, unless clearly and directly controlled by legal rules and their enforcement. (We should note that whistle-blowing is primarily a First Amendment issue of '..r~) "~ __ .. 0
PAGE 148
what employee speech or conduct is to be protected, with monitoring usually a subsidiary issue of what the employer is to be pennitted to do beyond normal management practices to learn what the whistleblower or dissident is doing or saying.) The Current Legal Status of Monitorina Activities by Employers 14~ American law is~ complex "web" of rights and duties, powers and limita tions, and, most of all, balancing mechanisms or tests for weighing conflicting rights and interests. In describing what monitoring is "legal" under existing law, we must consider federal and state constitutions; federal and state legis lation; federal and state regulatory-agency or executive-agency rules and regulations; common law doctrines (in 50 states); and various semi-public bodies of authority (labor arbitration, organizational codes, etc.). Rather than start with a general (and lengthy) exposition of employee privacy rights under current American law, it seems more appropriate to provide a characterization of the legal status of the employer monitoring activities involved in this OTA project, and then explain the basis for those judgments. The following chart presents our analysis of the current legal status and also the specific privacy-related claims or interests of employees involved in each of the listed employer activities. (The final two items are hypothetical (but technologically possible) activities included to clarify the legal/ethical analysis.)
PAGE 149
PRESENT LEGAL STATUS OF VARIOUS MONITORING TECHNIQUES APPLIED TO WORKERS, AND RELEVANT "PRIVACY" CLAIMS INVOLVED IN EACH SITUATION Code: CL= Clearly Legal LI= Legal If Done for Proper Employer Purpose and through Reasonable Means PI= Probably Illegal PRIVACY-RELATED VALUES OR CLAIMS INVOLVED .MONITORING ACTIVITY CURRENT Freedom Privacy of LEGAL from UnConwnun. or STATUS Speech/ reason. 3rd-party Assoc. Search orivacy Monitoring of VDT-user work performance CL X I Monitoring of.telephone performance by LI customer-service operators X Monitoring employee personal calls LI X Sound monitoring of employee speech at work sites LI X X Sound monitoring of employee speech in places where employees have "reasonable expectation of privacy" PI X X Closed circuit TV observation of work sites and public areas CL X X Closed circuit TV observation of places where employees have "reasonable expectation of privacy" PI X X Use of automated location devices for access/security p~rposes CL X Use of automated location devices for personnel or investigative purposes LI X X Computer auditing of telephone numbers to detect abuse of telephone rules LI X X X computer aud1t1ng of telepnone numbers to detect dissenters/whistleblowers, etc. PI X Computerized brain-wave analysis for substance abuse testing LI X Random search of end-users~PC diiks or files LI X X Audit of end-user transactions to mainframe or other tenninals LI X X Monitoring of brain-wave indications of PI attention or mind-state of employees X X "Wiring up" of entire employer premises to listen to or photograph any employee acti-vities of interest to management. Pl X X 0 I
PAGE 150
If we rearrange this chart into a listing of what employer monitoring falls under the three categories of clearly legal, legal if done for proper employer purpose and in reasonable manner, and probably to clearly illegal, we get.the following distribution: Probably Ill ega 1 Listening to or recording speech in "private places" at work; 1'V-monitoring of "private places" at work; Computer auditing to detect dissenters; Monitoring mental states by machine; Wiring up entire employer premises for listening or photographing when "needed." Legal If For Proper Employer Purpose and Done in Reasonable Manner Monitoring of telephone performance by customer-service operators; Monitoring employee personal ca 11 s; Sound monitoring of employee speech at work sites; Use of automated location devices for personnel or investi gative purposes; Computer auditing of telephone numbers to detect abuse of telephone rules; Computerized brain-wave analy sis for substance abuse testing Random search of end-users PC disks or files; Audit of end-user transactions to mainframe or other terminals Cl early Lega 1 .VDT work monitoring; .Closed-circuit TV monitoring of work places
PAGE 151
\~7 Before discussing why these judgments about legality have been made, and the support for these conclusions, a word may be useful about the relation between current law and ethical/social values. We start with the assumption that constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and common law in the U.S. is generally close to dominant social values and public opinion, rather than being fundamentally or for 1ong at odds with such values and opinions. There may be moments of cultural lag in the law, or periods-of transition toward new value formulations. But American law does usually reflect dominant mores and values, and is therefore a fairly democratic (representative) element in the U.S. political system. Thus, the presence of a known or believed dis junction between law and majoritarian moral/ethical values is an exception .to be analyzed, rather than a common occurence to assume. We will attempt to illustrate this general harmony of law and values in our analysis of the cur rent legal status of various employee-monitoring techniques. 1. Clearly Legal Measures The two monitoring activities put in our "clearly legal" category are VDT work measurement of individuals and closed-circuit TV monitoring of workplaces. We are aware of~ statute, judicial ruling, or regulatory-agency rule forbidding such activities. In addition, we are aware of no legal rule that sets conditions on how employers may carry out these two activities. While one could imagine some outrageous application by a hypothetical and malevolent employer that might draw a court or agency into defining such a rule-of-reason, no actual employer conduct that we know of has ever taken place and been tested. Why is such activity clearly legal? We believe the explanation lies in the combination of five factors: the "publ ic11 (meaning exposed and open to U general view) nature of the employee's activity; the lack of any First
PAGE 152
14 i Amendment (speech, press, association, religion) element to work actions; the absence of interpersonal comnunication in work processes being captured; the employer's socially-accepted need for measuring and promoting efficient and quality work; and the nature of the premises as private, employer property. In short, the employee activity being monitored is not something to which American values attach a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Equally important is the nature of the monitoring techniques. Collecting data on employee keystrokes or telephone calls by software, or using a TV camera to do what has traditionally been done by the human eye of supervisors {open or hidden) does not seem to most Americans, and to American policymakers, as an impermissibly intrusive method, as applied by employers today. Though some privacy advocates and the media can invoke spectres of "Big Brother technology" in such techniques, neither American law nor dominant opinion sees the actual uses being made of these techniques by employers as improper. How American workers view individual work monitoring deserves some addi tional discussion. Unlike most European workers, where anti-boss and group solidarity traditions permeate workplaces, most American workers begin with individualistic values and accept individuai performance evaluations if these are fair in goals and methods. In a study of 110 private and public organiza tions using office automation (90% non-union and 10% unionized), Westin and his colleagues found that the overwhelming majority of workers using VDTs whose employers did individual work monitoring felt there were more advantages than disadvantages to them in this activity. They wanted to be judged for what they did, not the group, and to be rewarded concretely (by bonuses, incentive pay, higher performance appraisals and promotional opportunities, etc.) if they excelled. They also viewed individual data as "more objective" and
PAGE 153
\Y9 (}. -~ "impartial" than the supervisory subj~ctive evaluations that many experienced before machine-generated statistics were available. While a minority of VDT end-users that Westin interviewed were concerned or angry about VDT work monitoring, their reasons centered on unfair work levels required (especially with system downtime or customer-needs not properly factored in) or secretive, non-co1T111unicated statistics being used in their judgment. This is not to say that experiments with group-based performance stand ards, as the CWA and Mountain Bell have done, may not be a promising employeerelations technique, and an important step 1n better employee participation. But we believe that this is essentially aimed at correcting a highstre~s, lowered-quality work rule that the Bell System felt itself forced to institute as new competition, deregulation, and changed consumer interests in telephone service pressed in on AT&T in the 1970's. It --and similar experiments in changing performance-evaluation and work standards administration --do not arise from any widespread privacy-based claim by American workers that employer monitoring of individual work production is, per se, unacceptable as intrusion. 2. Probably Illegal Five examples of workplace monitoring appear in our charts as "probably" to "clearly" illegal, under current American legal doctrines. Listening to or photographing employees in "private places" at the worksite would be "probably illegal," because a growing stream of case decisions (and a few statutes, such as the Connecticut law discussed earlier) have assigned a legally-recognized "privacy" status to rest rooms, telephones provided for personal employee calls, employee lounges, and lockers for which the employer allows employees to bring in and use personal locks. However, this reasonable expectation of privacy for such locations does not give total immunity \ V ~
PAGE 154
-\50 from employer monitoring. Rather, the nature of these places requires the employer to bear the burden of proving that a substantial employer interest and concrete situation (detection of dope sales in the rest room) is present; courts would also look closely to see whether other investigative techniques less invasive of the "private place" were not possible. These might involve using undercover agents; detecting people leaving a rest room and going back to the work site; etc.* Computer auditing to detect dissenters --such as checking telephone call records to find out who called an inspector general, a Congressional office, the media, or a public interest group --would be quite likely to be held illegal, at least if done by government. If a federal employee were in volved, for example, this could be under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, in its whistle-blower protections; under anti-reprisal clauses of various substantive employee-protection or public-protection laws (EEO, OSHA, ERISA, EPA, etc.); or even be seen by a court as an unacceptable executive-agency interference with First Amendment rights of federal employees. The last two examples are hypothetical ones, included to help clarify the social values and legal processes involved. If an employer were to insist that all employees wear electronic headbands that obtained brain waveform readings indicating qualities such as alertness, attention, concentration, "positive attitudes," or similar mental states, it seems clear that no justification of employer personnel administration, work-quality-assurance, or inhibiting crime would outweigh the unacceptable intrusiveness of such actions. One key element would be the penetration into the internal consciousness and Thus, even these two activities might be put in the "Legal If ... column of our chart, as depending on circumstances and application. However, what we see as the heavier burden on the employer to justify monitoring of "private places" is the reason we put it in "probably illegal" column.
PAGE 155
IS\ 0 mood state of the individual, reaching passive aspects of the person rather than observing active (chosen) conduct. Another unacceptable aspect would be th, continuousness of such monitoring. Wiring up an entire employer premise for sound and/or sight surveillance would also seem to be illegal under current American law. This would be the equivalent of an overbroad "search" under Fourth Amendment concepts, lacking the limits as to specific unlawful/improper activity being investigated and the area-contained search required by American "reasonable search and seizure," doctrines. Courts could be expected to label this the technological equivalent of the writs of assistance or general warrants that the American colonists re belled against, and which James Otis cited as the animating reason for the Fourth Amendment. 3. Lega 1 If .. It has been a fundamental aspect of American law that the legality of much public and private action will depend on (a) the importance of the social interest asserted as justification for an action affecting civil liberties interests and (b) the reasonableness and due-process-satisfying elements of the specific technique or procedure adopted. This has been a central aspect of privacy-law development, especially as new technological systems or devices are applied by public organizations (limited first by constitutional standards and then statutory law) and by private organizations (primarily limited by statutory and colTITion law standards). \_)
PAGE 156
In our chart, we have placed eight examples of monitoring activities in our "Lega 1 If ... 11 category. That is because we !See these as employer actions that will, at the outset, be treated under current American law as within employer authority if an important and legitimate employer interest is pre sented and if the monitoring is carried out in a limited and safeguarded manner. In doing its balancing of employer and employee interests, we believe courts will use the key elements that we presented in Table 1, on page 7. (We present that Table again, on the following page, for easy reference in this section.)
PAGE 157
J53 Table 1. Five Elements in the Socio-Legal Analysis of Suneillance Issues !~ / I ELEMENT INTERESTS STANDARD .. 1.-The place where The property interest of Whether the place is monitoring occurs the owneri the "home is one society afyour castle" interest of fords a reasonable the i ndi vi dua 1 and family;" expectation of pri-etc. vacy 2. The person and Public official or private Whether the individual activity being citizen; special occupa-is someone entitled to observed tion deserving confidengreater or lesser pri-tiality treatment {doctor, vacy protection than religious advisor, etc.); the "ordinary" citizen etc. 3. The technique of A. Freedom from "constant," A. Whether this is un-observation being "total," or "unfair" reasonably intruapplied surveillancei sive surveillance, 8. Require~nt that techor inconsistent with basic human nique be accurate and dignity. results not subject to manipulation 8. Whether the technique meets due process standards 4. The use to which Privacy interest of sub-Whether the social need put -ject versus social or outweighs the reasonable institutional need for expectation of privacy surveillance {"balancing tests") 5. The safeguards Holding intrusion on Whether the surveillance applied individuals to the nar-system is properly rowest scope needed bounded and limited, and with meaningful as a constitutional safeguards to control democracy requires. or disclose abuses.
PAGE 158
We can look at two of the listed monitoring activities which we termed "Legal If ... 11 to illustrate how balancing elements are likely to be used in considering legal challenges to employer conduct. a. Monitoring Calls of Customer Service Operators In earlier sections, we traced the evolution of American law on employers listening-in to customer calls handled by their telephone operators. We showed how this was treated between 1890-1960 as an unquestioned and unlimited employer prerogative. Then, it was authorized as a specific exception to federal and state anti-wiretapping statutes in the 19601s and 19701s, but with some limita tions written in as to employer use for service-quality purposes, notice to the employee, and technique of observation. Then we noted that some state public utility comnissions and some state statutes over the past decade have spelled out the safeguards even further, requiring notice to the public that certain numbers are subject to monitoring. We also showed that federal agencies have adopted printed notices of service observing on forms sent to the public, as with IRS forms. A 1983 case brought under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510) illustrates how employee privacy is protected under this law, not just the privacy of the third-party customer. A supervisor at the L.M. Berry Company was listening in to an employee's telephone ca11 under a known and standard performance observing procedure, usin~ an extension-phone. The supervisor heard this woman employee discussing a new job she was considerin~, and which she shortly afterwards took, leaving the Berry Company employ. The supervi sor had words with the employee about her leaving, during which the fact became known to the employee that her supervisor had listened in to her earlier telephone call. The employee sued under Title III, and the U.S. Court of Appeals held
PAGE 159
that her reasonable expectation of privacy under the statute had been violated. While supervisory monitoring was authorized under Title III, the court explained, this was allowed only for checking the quality and rule-compliance of the employee's work. As soon as the supervisor heard a conversation that related to the employee's "personal affairs," the court said, the supervisor was required to hang up, and the continued listening in to her "private conversation" violated Title III. This clear distinction between business and personal calls is recognized by the practice of some employers in providing separate telephones, usually pay phones, which customer service operators are to use for making personal calls. The employers indicate that no listening in is done on those phones. Looking at the five elements used in the balancing process, we can see 0 that the federal court, using the 1 egi s l ative policy set by Congress in the :=) 1968 wiretapping act, disregarded the fact that this was the employer's tele-phone system, on the employer's property; that the call was being made on company time (during business hours); and that the supervisor was following legal procedure in starting the listening-in. What was critical for the court was that service observing not be allowed to slip over (or serve as a pretext for) listening in on the content of calls of a non-job-related nature between employees and third parties. The fact that the content related to the employee's future employment plans at this company (rather than purely social matters) did not give .the employer's agent any basis for continued listening. One can speculate that the federal court saw a refusal to find this a v~olation of Title III as a judicial action that would open the door to widespread possible abuse by employers of the limited listening-in power that Congress authorized in Title III. An employer's interest in learning 0
PAGE 160
lSb about future employment plans of employees was clearly not regarded as a socially-justified reason for allowing the employee's telephone privacy to be invaded. b. Computerized brain-wave analysis for determining substance-abuse A new scientific technique for detecting alcohol and drug abuse has been patented and is now being introduced for use in hospitals, drug-treatment programs, law enforcement, and employment programs. Because it represents a computer-based program that employers could use to screen employees on their premises and make important personnel decisions, we have included this as an example of emerging monitoring techniques that help illuminate the legal and social policy analysis of future worker monitoring techniques. Traditionally, alcohol and drug testing has relied cm laboratory tests making chemical analysis of urine, breath, or blood specimens. Typically, in the employment context, this requires taking the sample from an employee under controlled conditions of production or extraction; sending the specimen to a laboratory; performing chemical tests on the specimen (often a second "corroborating" test if a first test is "positive"); and then forwardinq the test results to the employer. Legal reviews of employee substance-abuse testing have produced some fairly clear standards when test results are relied on to justify adverse actions against an employee: The scientific test must meet judicial standards as to accuracy, validity, and objectivity of test results; The level of "intrusion" into the body or person of the employee must be considered acceptable; and
PAGE 161
The entire procedure must meet due-process standards, such as proper advance notice of testing to employees affected; accurate labeling and secure handling of the specimen by the laboratory; opportunity for the employee to challenge the test results; etc. \$1 Beyond these standards lie several broader questions about the legal permissibility of an employer's substance-abuse testing on which American law is not yet clear, and about which major debates are under wty: Is there a justification (socially-accepted need) for an employer ~andating periodic or random substance-abuse testing for its work force or should testing be limited to specific instances in which employee conduct indicates the presence of substance abuse and/or its effects? 1 Must an employer limit random or periodic screening to employees in work that poses special problems if there is substance abuse (fork-lift operators, nuclear plant workers, school bus drivers, etc.) or can an employer do random testing of all employees? If only some employees are tested, does this create any equal protection issues if those tested are disproportionately racial minorities.or blue collar workers? What should the law do if employees allege .that random screening is being used to stifle whistle-blowing, dissidents, or pro-union activities? It is in this environment of some fairly clear legal stancards and many larger unresolved legal questions that a computerized test has been introduced that measures brain waveform patterns to detect the "active presence" of proscribed substances in an employee. How this new device, called the ')-,, ,_
PAGE 162
Veritas 100 Analyzer, operates was summarized recently in Law Enforcement Technology (February/March, 1986, p. 56): The Analyzer detects the presence of marijuana, alcohol, and cocaine in a subject by measuring the corneal-retinal potential transmitted along the vestibular nerve and provides on the spot results. The system has been trained to recognize the characteristic brain waves that this nerve grouping will produce when the subject is under the effect of a particular substance. This signal is unique, and each drug produces a "fingerprint" on the signal that the Analyzer identifies. The Analyzer consists of three components: a disposable headhand, a microprocessor, and expert systems software. The procedure begins with a headband being placed around the subject's head. Once this is completed, the subject performs a single calibration test that lasts 15 seconds. This is followed by a series of four tests that last approximately 40 seconds in length. When this is completed, the subject is no longer needed in the testing area. The Analyzer will then provide an operator with the subject's test results on a screen. The results are presented in an easy to read graph that states whether alcohol, marijuana, or cocaine are present, not present, or suspected at that time. The Analyzer will also present multiple drug findings if they are active in the subject at the time of the test. The company plans to expand the drug menu to include hallucinogens, opiates, tranquilizers, amphetamines, and barbiturates over the course of 1986. The instrument will detect the active presence of the drug_ only at the time of testing. It does not provide concentration levels but rather whether or not the subject is affected by the alcohol or drug. It is, therefore, subject specific and considered to be relevant to the subject in question only at that time. In addition to the information on the screen, a hard copy printout is provided simultaneously with the pertinent subject information such as name, address, time of arrest, driver's license number, and arresting agency. The Analyzer will also store the subject's waveforms and results for future use, should it be required. On the following two pages, we reproduce a brochure about the Veritas 100 Analyzer that provides useful details about the equipment and techniques used at this test administeration.
PAGE 163
LS.ti :J ., ,w ..... The Veritas 100 Analyzer: The Drug and Alcohol Detection System 1. Detects the presence of both Drugs and Alcohol in one test 2. "Fingerprint"-like waveforms for each drug show presence of drugs or alcohol 3. Provides tangible proof of presence of abused substances 4. Eliminates drawing of body fluid samples-one test shows it all Small Space, Low Cost, High Yield: 1. About the size of a typewriter 2. Unit is transportable, 'Neighing only 35 pounds 3. Immediate results at a fraction of the cost of other testing methods \ 4. Single operator testing means minimal manpower required -~ NATIONAL PATENT ANALYTICAL SYSTEMS, INC. A SUBSIDIARY OF NATIONAL PATE~T DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PAGE 164
Non-Invasive Method: ] 1 No needles or fluids used-reads brain waves for indicat:on Disposable headband insures a reliable test every time Eliminates costly lab fees 4. Minimizes chance of technician error Fast Accurate Results: 1. Average testing time about five minutes 2. High degree of accuracy 3. Data storage capability maintains all test information and results for future use 4. Data copy feature provides printed readout of conclusions 5. Quick results mean quick decisions The Yerltas,.100 Analyzer Performs The Worlc, Minimizing Operator Error: 1. No extensive training needed 2. Automatically compares subject's brain waves with known drug waveforms 3. Determines presence of substance exclusively at the time of testing 4. Complete training and service support from National Patent Analytical Systems Normal Alcohol Cocaine This is a revoiutionary method of drug and alcohol detection. Now you no longer have to rely on fluids from every subject when the Veritas 100 Analyzer can simply, non-invasivety collect a sample brain wave through an easy-te>-use, disposable headband. Years of scientific research prove that drugs and a1cohol leave a characteristic .. fingerpnnc" on brain waves. The Veritas,.100 Analyzer is capable of identifying these characteristics by means of an expert computer system developed to assure the highest statistical reliabil~ At National Patent Analytical Systems, Inc. we realize that ours is an ever-changing society where new drugs and substances of abuse become available and used. We plan to continually upgrade our system to keep the Veritas .. 100 Analyzer a product ready to service today's needs. '0111 an F411 ..... 'N) .,.,,. ,, IT,_,..,.. ... l'j,4fl0Ntl AMfYtr.* S\""""1. ll'C
PAGE 165
\ .. ___ ~.. .. .. . On the first encounter, this technique can evoke Orwellian images from observers. It can be perceived as "probing the mind, 11 "hooking employees up to a computer probe of the unconscious," and "using high tech to intrude into mental processes." The physical connection of an employee to the microcomputer apparatus resembles the polygraph or "lie detector" setting, as does the production of graph-type waves on a screen or in hard copy. However, our judgment is that an employer who meets the orimary legal standards for engaging in substance-abuse testing (need, proper employee population, frequency of testing, etc.) wouid be upheld in utilizing the Veritas 100 technique. We foresee the courts responding to this new technique as follows: Accuracy and scientific validity: courts will examine the manufacturer's independently-conducted laboratory and field test~ and, if the findings of less than 1% false positives are corro bor~ted, and if the non-dependence of the test results on subjective operator readings is also corroborated, the Veritas technique will be held to satisfy this requirement. t Intrusiveness: courts will take note that no penetration of the body is needed to obtain the test-specimen, nor is there any dignity-impairing production of the specimen (as in urination under supervisory watching). No thought processes or substan tive information are obtained by the employer. 1 Relation to Off-the-job privacy interests: Since the technique measures only present impairment of functions as a result of a substance then present in the employee's system, Veritas is basically testing current fitness for work duties, an interest of the employer that 0 (,-J .. ~-
PAGE 166
commands strong social approval. The test does not capture lingering traces of substance~ that may have been consumed days or even weeks earlier, during the employee's off-the-job, private life. Due process: becausethe Veritas test is administered on the employer's premises, by its agents, produces a result in minutes, and preserves the test result pennanently (with exact identification) for future inspection, retest, or challenge, this procedure avoids the many "chain of custody" problems that arise in the shipment of multiple spec~mens to labs and the extensive handling and testing procedure problems. It would thus meet due process requirements. In short, as a new computer-based technique for testing the current impairment of an employee by substance-abuse, and assuming that an employer satisfied legal requirements as to the need for and scope of its overall testing program, the Veritas test can be expected to be approved by ccurts under current American law. c. "Human Bugs" --The Link Between Privacy and Due Process Generally, an employer, public or private, may bring undercover agents onto its property, posing as fellow employees or supervisors, and have such agents conduct investigations for any legitimate employer purpose: efficiency, security, detection of crime. Such agents have been ca 11 ed "human bugs," as the pre-technological version of hidden microphones. Such undercover agents cannot be used legally to spy on those on-premise union activities protected by state and federal labor laws, nor to detect and then take reprisals against employees for reporting employer violations of law. It is instructive in depicting the current American legal approach to note that, even when such undercover agents are conducting lawful monitoring or
PAGE 167
l~ 0 surveillance, some state statutes have been enacted to insure that an em-player using such techniques provides due process hearings not otherwise available to the non-governmental and non-union employee. A good example is what are known as the "Spotter Fair Hearing Laws," found in states such as California and Nevada. The Nevada law provides: Section 613.160 Spotters: Right of employee to be confronted with accuser; penalty. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, association or corporation, or agent, superintedent or manager thereof, employing any special agent, detective or person corrrnonly known as a spotter for the purpose of investigating, obtaining and reporting to the employer, his agent, superintendent or manager information concerning his employees, to discipline or discharge any employee in his service, where such act of discipline or the discharge is based upon a report by such special agent, detective or spotter, which report involves a question of integrity, honesty or a breach of rules of the employer, unless such employer, his agent, superintendent or manager shall give notice and accord a hearing to the employee thus accused, when requested by the employee, at which hearing the accused employee shall have the opportunity to be confronted with the person making such report and shall have the right to furnish testimony in his defense. Nevada provides for a suit to be brought by public authority, and for a penalty of $500 for each offense to committed. ARE NEW LEGAL STANDARDS ON MONITORING LIKELY? Our discussion thus far has taken current American law as its context. Obviously, public policy-makers can enact new statutes, promulgate new executive and regulatory orders, and develop new judicial concepts that would (,..--) ', ..... > increase employee privacy-protection doctrines in employer-monitoring activities. Is such new legal action likely in the near future? We believe new state or federal statutes are unlikely. Apart from the generally conservative direction of present public opinion, we believe that no significant case of present or likely employer abuse of the examples of current monitoring listed in our Table has been made out by critics or interes\_) groups, or is likely to be made persuasively in the near future. As we have
PAGE 168
noted, efforts to convince state legislators to enact a ban on VDT work monitoring have all failed, even in states like Massachusetts, Michigan, and California that are known for their enactment of strong employeeprotection and privacy-protection laws. The absence of any documented stream of improprieties or misconduct in the use thus far of employeelocation technologies, CCTV monitoring, telephone-abuse auditing, or surveillance of terminal user transactions to central data bases make enactment of new statutes in those areas also unlikely. Only in the area of employer drug testing --which is really not central to OTA's project and which we treated only for clarification of legal and social policy analysis has there been and do we think there will be important legislative action defining privacy rights and setting standards for employer use of monitoring techniques. There may well be some new executive-agency rules or judicial decisions governing at least the public sector's use of some of the monitoring techniques discussed in this report. Our case study of how a set of guidelines developed for conducting the telephone-abuse-audit in the federal establishment shows this process at work, and what finally emerges after the pilot test is completed is likely to be adopted also by state and local governments engaging in such activity. We expect substantial Congressional review after completion of the pilot test, and there could be committee recommendations demanding more protective procedures to see that dissident or whistle-blower federal employees are not being punished by these audits. Federal-court challenges by federal employees citing the Privacy Act or the Civil Service Reform Act may also produce additional "rules of reason" under which telephone-
PAGE 169
abuse audits would have to be conducted. Other existing federal and state employee privacy laws or communication privacy laws (such as Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act or recent Computer Crime statutes) may also be applied by courts to specific employer monitoring activities. VDT MONITORING: PROSPECTS FOR 1987-1988 During the second half of 1986, a steady stream of articles and conferences attacking "Big Brother monitoring" through VDT systems were sponsored by leading unions and activist groups concerned with VDT issues. We reproduce a selection of these materials in the Appendix to this report (Item 4). LarQely as a result of efforts by these groups, with support from the ACLU, the issue of VDT monitoring was given feature treatment in some of the mass media in this period. (Examples appear in the Appendix, Item 5.) A number of business qroups, such as the Computer Business Equipment Manufacturers' Association, replied to critics with a defense of employer use of performance measurement and a presentation of guide 1 ines for "res pons i bl e" use of monitoring systems. (Appendix, Item 6.) () It seems likely that the "anti-monitoring coalition" will seek to air their concern over "oppressive" and "sweatshop" monitoring in both Conqressional and state legislative hearings in 1987-88. The issue has appeal for many leqislators because it combines the "privacy invasion" and "employer abuse of power" themes in a dramatic way, and real employees can testify about adverse "stress and mental health" effects that they have experienced from abusive monitoring. Advocates will argue that only regulation will protect most office workers from such harmful effects, since most VDT operators are either non-union or working in industries where unions have been unable to cuntrol abusive monitoring through collective bargaining. Employer and vendor groups can be expected to oppose strongly any legislative intervention. They will argue that there is no credible empirical data to support the arqument that "oppressive" and "sweatshop" monitorin~ is widespread today U
PAGE 170
in American business or government, or that it is increasing as the technology moves deeper into office and customer service work. They will also argue that the great diversity of job settings, work organization, and work processes make it extremely difficult to write any "code" that will fit all or even most work performance monitoring. Finally~ they will warn legislators that a vital aspect of sound business management would be jeopardized if only group and not individual performance measurement could be used by employers. The prospects for 1987-88, therefore, are for continued debate over the nature, scope, and effects of VDT-worker monitoring, focused in legislative hearings but broadly echoed in the media, in collective bargaining neqotia tions, and in union organizing efforts directed at office workers in highly perfonnance-oriented industries. While legislation from Congress or at the state level does not seem likely, in this observer's judgment, the "anti monitoring campaign" could well produce a set of reconmended guidelines expressing a consensus of good practice. Such a consensus might approximate policies already treated in this report: the terms of the SEIU-Equitable contract in Syracuse, New York; the IBM guidelines; the CBEMA recommendations; parts of the recent 9to5 recorrmendations79; and the "Fair Performance Measurement" principles presented in our analysis. A CAUTIONARY SUGGESTION TO OTA: ADHERE TO THE "PRIVACY AND SECURITY" DIMENSIONS OF NEW COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES As we were asked to do by the OTA staff, we have taken up in this report a very broad set of empirical, legal, and social-policy issues relating to current and potential employer monitoring of employee activities. We even titled this report "Privacy and Quality of Work Life Issues in Employee Monitor ing," to reflect this broad scope. However, in the course of our analysis, we have noted that this OTA study could, if allowed, be carried into many other social issues besides privacy, and OTA could address a wide circle of social-
PAGE 171
policy considerations at the workplace. In concluding this Task 1 report, we believe it is useful to suggest that OTA will make its best and most responsible contribution if, in its report, it closes in on the privacy aspects of worker monitoring, and only mentiones lightly the employee and labor relations, personnel practices, and physical and mental health considerations also presented by monitoring activities. Those are extremely important social concerns, and are currently of significant group and public interest. But, as we understand the OTA mission assigned in this project, detailed treatment of those issues would :epresent a diversion into "extraneous" matters. And, any foldin9 of them into an "expanded" privacy analysis would, we believe, extend the already hazy value-concept of privacy well beyond its intellectually-supportable or politically-viable boundaries. To pile too much on the privacy construct is to risk its collapse as a restraint on organizational action that American society is ready to support. A much sounder strategy, we submit, is to focus on the five elements of a privacy-and-surveillance analysis that we have noted in this report, and to apply the kind of socio-legal balancing that we have done for the main types of present or foreseeable employer monitoring activities. This is not to say that OTA will necessarily agree with our estimate of past or current employer practices, the likely applications of current privacy law .. standards, etc. But, we believe OTA will be fulfilling its project assign-ment best if it adheres to a privacy-based analysis, and resists any temptations, however seductive, to carry its discussions beyond that boundary. 0 .-.)
PAGE 172
.. l .... - .. '--- APPENDIX
PAGE 173
Item 1: Excerpts from Alan Westin, Privac~ Issues in th~ _Monitoring of Employee Work on VDT's in the Office Environment:-Practices, Interests, and Policy Choices, a Contractor Report to OTA, December, l 984. (T_hese_ excerpts. cover trends between 1880 and 1980. For a qeneral historical _analysis of the physical tools for monitoring employees and then use by business and government authorities, see Westin, Privacy and Freedom.1 ) IV. THE PnE-OA BASELI?IE, 1945-1970 A. Introduction In the period between the l880s and 1945, in both factories and offices, craft-based production and employee discretion in perfoniing jobs were replaced by o.achine-assisted work and scientific management approaches. These brought increased division of labor, specialization of tasks, and organization of work around efficient utilization of mechanical (and then electrical) machines. Under the influence of Frederick Taylor and his counterparts in industry, time-method-and-motion studies were applied to identify and then enforce an efficiency-based, "one best uay'.' to perform those tasks for which the applications of new industrial and office machines had produced routine, repetitive, and simplified work operations. The story of how this became the dominant philosophy in factories, and how the saoe ) 'U
PAGE 174
no ideas were applied by Leffingwell and his disciples to routine clerical functions in office work, has been well and often told, from a variety of ideo-2 logical perspectives. The twin pillars of "scientific managment" were observation and measure~-. Time and motion engineers, ar.:Jed with stop watch, chart diagrams, and clipboards, moved through shops floors and office buildings in ~he early 20th century, applying their techniques not only when major new technologies were introduced but also on a continuing basis, ~s changes in business or government services, improvements in oachines, and changes in physical work environments called for new studies of "the best way" to do each task. This process put workers under physical observation; it also required measuring worker output number of widgets produced, lines typed, letters sorted, orders entered by telephone, claims processed, etc. This was done first to set a "work standard," and to keep revising it for maximum output; then, to record each employee's daily or weekly output, to see if the standard had been met or exceeded, or whether the employee had failed to "make standard." While "scientific management" was the dominant approach in both industry and offices from the early 20th century through our baseline period, one important difference among industries and government sectors was in whether such work standards and output measurements were used as the bas~ for in centive payment systms (a "base" wage plus ''bonu,ses" for exceeding "standard"), or only to identify poor perfomance of individual employees, leading t9 additional training, warnings, or discharge if work continued to fall "below standard." In industries where stimulating individual effort was seen by managements as having a significant.effect on production rates, as in clothing
PAGE 175
and steel, incentive pay systems were widely used. In other industries, where continuous process production or assembly lines limited the ability of individuals to affact the pace of producing, as in chemicals or autos, incentive pay plans were used less often. About %5% of manufacturing em ployees were estimated to have been covered by incentive pay plans in the 3 United States in the 194S-1970 period. We do not know of similar a1Jthoritative figures for office clerical work, but it has been shown to have 4 been applied in typing, filing, and machine-operating depart~ents. The position of labor unions toward the form of scientific management 5 expressed by 11raylorism" was one of uniform opposition. The "stop watch man" was the living symbol to unions of unfair "speed ups" of work pace,' lowering of wages for jobs so measured, creation of routine and "mindless" assemblyline work, and the tightening of authoritarian "management control" over workplaces. Because new technology was applied by management to simplify work, and because unions saw this as reducing the "craft" element that gave skilled workers their bargaining power, applications of new technology were 6 often 3ttacked or resisted by unions as "de~umanizing" the workplace. How-ever, there was considerable variation acong unions in different industries in their approval or disapproval of new technologies, depending largely on 7 the impact on job levels and industry growth. The overall position of American trade unions toward new technology in our baseline period was one of positive acceptance, given the prosperous economy and good employ,:ient opportunities of this era, with union efforts focused on safeguarding the in terests of existing and future workers in~ such technologies were npplied. As to incentive pay plans, some unions, such as the Machinists, have been bitterly opposed to such systems; their position is that pay should 8 \1 \ n /
PAGE 176
be for satisfactory achievement by the work group or unit, w~th the individual employee's pay per hour set under collective bargaining agree .ment by specific job classification. Other unions, such as the Steel workers and Electrical ~orkers, have supported incentive pay plans, be cause the workers they represent like the system offered by management 9 and it was being fairly administered. Although unions are able, under American labor law, to bargain w1th m;magements about many aspects of work, wages, health and safety 1n wrk operations, discipline, and discharge, there is usually a "management's right to manage" clause that reserves to the employer the right to deterlO iune the "method and means by which its operations will be carried out." Unions cay attempt to vin limits on or specifications about work monitoring practices ,hroug~ negotiations, but managements can refuse to agree to those, citing the "management rights" clause, and this has generally been upheld by arbitrators. (See sections C and Din this Part.) B. Office Uork and U0nitoring Practices In the 194S-197O period, measurement of output for quantity and quality was commonplace for many office clerical jobs. In terms of quantity.keypunch operators and data entry ~rkers using VDTs in the 196Os were measured by keystrokes. Typists in typing pools were measured by lines, pages, or documents completed. Account~g and inventory clerks and claims processors were measured by units completed in a day or week. Generally, this measurement was achieved by supervisors counting products produ~ed, or verifying produc-tion reports filled out by the employee. For such jobs, quality checks
PAGE 177
were made of errors committed, and if these went above the allowable number for a given task, there could be warnings or discipline, or loss of "bonus" pay if an incentive pay system was in place. As far as watching how these clerical employees worked at their jobs, observation by supervisors was the common technique. The academic literature on office work in insurance companies, banks, and other "clerk intensive" businesses contains mny critical descriptions of "close sur veillance" by supervisors "always watching" accounting clerks, pool typists, tellers, etc. and aggressively monitoring their compliance with ll work procedut'.es and output quotas." However, we have no estimates of how many workplaces had supervisor monitoring that was offensive to e,:i ployees in this period and how nany had practices that were considered fair and acceptable. Presumably, the low levels of unionization ar:iong clerical workers and the absence of public protests or calls for legisla tion are some indication that visual supervisory monitoring was not regarded by most office workers as an intolerable practice. The critical aspects of individual monitoring of highly-routinized clerical jobs in the pre-OA era was that direct, visual supervision was necessarily occasional (supervisors couldn't be everywhere at once and TV 1:10nitoring was not used in offices); also, except for situations where mechanical machines or EDP-data entry systms recorded employee output automatically, record-keeping was not a total and continuous process for clerical workers. Telephone work, both for the tel~phone companies and in the customer service operations of business and govenwent organizations, fell into a different category. Since the early days of the telephone companies, and \U n ., ) \,J
PAGE 178
at least since the 1930s for busi.~ess and government organizations, the perfomance of telephone operators had been subject to what was called "service monitoring."* Thi.I consisted of regular sampling by supervisors of telephone conversations between individual employ2e operators and members of the public seeking service roe the organization. All of the telephone companies operating in this period acknowledged using service monitoring. Business and government use was widespread; an AT&T spokes man estimated (in 1974) that about 4,000 to 4,500 business and government customers were renting seeyice monitoring equipment from Bell telephone 12 companies to monitor the performance of their telephone operations. l74 Looking over lists of such customers produced in hearings before regulatory commissions and legislative hearings in the 1960s and early 70s, the ciajor 13 business and non-profit users included: Airlines utilities Hotels Newspapers and large magazines Retailers/department stores Credit bureaus HospitalsBanks Insurance firms Collection agencies Charitable groups Religious bodies Among major government users were federa~ agencies such as the Intern.al Revenue Service; Veterans Administration, Social Security Agency, General Services Agency, ?f.a.rine Corps, and federal Job Inforoation Centers. Many state, county, and city agencies with high-volume telephone operations were also users of service monitoring. The telephone companies have used nservice observing" to refer to random mechanical checks on the quality of transnissions, connections, and response ti.Cles of the equipment itself, while using "supervisory observing" to refer to a supervisor listening in to customer-service calls to the telephone company to see how well individual telephone employees are performing. In public discussion and legal proceedings, the terci "service monitoring" has been the one generally used for the e~ployee or work cion itoring, however, and thus w~ will use "service monitoring" in this report
PAGE 179
The telephone companies stated that their use of such monitoring was under careful and proper rules. "The sole purpose of supervisory observing is to determine what further individual assistance, training, and development, if any, is required Lfor the individual employee/. It is purely supervisory in nature and is not designed for disciplinary purposes. By charting individual progress, it not only discloses critical areas which require attention but also affords a means of recognizing satisfactory or outstanding performance." Employees were notified that such monitoring was being done, the telephone company noted, and the specific results of moni~oring were 14 discussed between supervisor and employee. As far as invasion of the employee's privacy, the telephone company noted that personal calls by employees were never monitored; telephones for making such calls were provided in employee lounges and never monitored. And, since the customer istalking to an operator in these situations, no telephone con-, 15 versations between members of the public are involved. As far as the types of service-quality checks that the company used monitoring to examine, the telephone company gave as examples the follow-16 ing evaluative items: Did the business office service representative determine the type and color of telephone equipment desired and correctly establish the time and place or installation? Did the directory assistance operator provide the desired number prompt~y, accurately and courteously? Did the plant repair clerk obtain sufficient information about the service trouble, so that proper testing could be carried out and an access time negotiated in the ev~nt it became necessary for a repairman to vislt the customer's premises? Did the long distance operator handle the per~on-to-person ca~l properly? \-;,, l)
PAGE 180
Rental by the telephone companies of various kinds of key equipment, and special switchboards to organizations for monitoring their own telephone operators was done in this period under a set of explicit 17 rules, agreed to in writing by the customer. These provided that employees of the custocer CNSt be infon:1ed that their business telephone. contacts are subject to observation; that such service 1s provided "solely for the purpos~ of determining the need for training or it:1proving the quality of service rendered by employees in the handling of telephone calls to the subscriber of an impersonal business nature;" and that, when used by hotels, motels, and clubs, observing cay not be d.one in conversations between guest rooms. Representatives free business and governaent organizations using t~lephone service monitoring testified before various hearings that they abided fully by the rules set by the telephone cocpanies, and that conducting such observations where the telephone was the key to their operations was a vital part of assuring that their customers received efficient, correct, and courteous service. The position of Pan Acerican World Airuays and the sample of a telephone monitoring report that they used will illustrate the business and sovernment descriptions of their purposes and 18 practices. Pan Am maintains Qualitf Assurance programs in all facets of its operations.to assure safety and service, convenience, and economy for both the company and its customers. Telephone call observing is part of this quality assurance program, but is confined to cur Telephone Sales Departments, or, as commonly known, "Reservations". The company policy is that eac:h cf our employees, whose job function is selling or servicing Pan Am's product by telephone, shall be observed a minimum of two times
PAGE 181
per week, and 'that observations shall, on each occasion consist of a complete telephone call. The purpose of this call observation is d~fined in our Reservations Manual which outlines the policies governing our reservations offices and_I quote, "The primary purpose of the Quality Analysis program is to give supervisory persoMel tbe tool.with which to ensure tbat they and their personnel are performing their funct:i.ons in the prescribed manner. Properly conducted, the Quality Analysis program will enable the supervisor to pinpoint areas where additional training and/or supervision is required in the day-to-day operation. Its end result should be to raise personnel efficiency to the level where Pan Am will realize greater economies and revenues through the minimization of errors which cause Misunderstandings, Noshows, Norecs, Late. Cancellations, Misconnections and Mishandled passengers." Ne employee of Pan American has ever been terminated, dismissed, or suspended on the basis of a supervisor's observation through the use of ~elephone call observation. An average employee assigned to a telephone sales position in the course of a month will handle in excess of lSOO incoming calls, and the average'. number of observations for that employee during the month is approximately 8 incoming telephone calls, making the number of calls monitored less than 0.005%. The size of the sampling for an entire office provides meaningful information as to what areas of additional training are necessary and whether we are providing adequate reference materials to our employees. The call sampling as related to the indivi~ual employee has l.i.ttle or no significance as a disciplinary tool A copy of the sales quality monitoring form used in our Quality Analysis program is enclosed. In Pan American the telephone sales personnel are unionized employees. The employees who do the majority of the call observations are in the "Lead Agent" category and also members o.f the union. The "Lead Agent11 by contract definition, cannot discipline other employees. I mention this only to emphasize that monitoring is primarily used to improve the quality of our service, not to entrap employees. \11 n ... ___ ....
PAGE 182
W'here call monitoring equipment is i~stalled and used in ou: reservations offices, it is done so only in compliance with the existing communications regulations governing the use of such equipment. We have experienced no strong animosity on the part of our employees directed at the practice of monitoring incoming reservations calls. our employees are aware that monitoring is conducted and the procedurej for monitoring are published in the Reservations Manual under the section entitled "Passenger Reservations Proceudres, Reservations Policies". We feel that th~ vast majority of our employees recognize the need for Quality Assurance and understand that in a high competitive industry such as ours that failure t~ provide quality can only result in a deterioration of our markets, with the subsequent necessity of reductions in our work staff. For this reason, we believe our.employees accept monitoring as a necessary supervisory tool.
PAGE 183
PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, Quality Analysis Program, 1974 SALES QUALITY POTENTIAL SALES CALL? WAS A RESERVATION MADE? DID THE AGENT DETERMINE: Yes 0 v. D WHERE? (Specific City) ...... WHE~" (Specific Dattmme) ....... WHICH? (Choice of Oaa) .................. HOW MANY? No D No D v. No I 0;0 THE AGENT OFFER TO BOOK? ......... I I DID THE AGENT SHOW SALES SKILLS BY OFFERING THE. FOLLOWING: Yes No Continuing/Return Reservation? .............. Protective/Tentative Reservation? ............. IHC? ................................ Pan Am Ren,-A-C.r? .................... Tour? ................. Special Service Require~ents? .... : .......... Mail Out Literature? ...................... Mail Ticket Delivery? ........ 010 THE AGENT SHOW PROFESSIONALISM BY Yes No Giving Friendly Greeting? ................ Using Customer's Name? ................... VoluntNring Information? ................. I Using Positive Terms? .................. Exprnsing Appreciation for. C~ling Pan Am? ..... Pr1n1ea '" U.$.A. ,.1, I NA NA 0
PAGE 184
IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT WERE THE MOST POSITIVE POINTS OF THE CALL? BE SPECIFIC AND LIST AT LEAST TWO POSITIVE POINTS. IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT ITEMS COULD BE IMPROVED? BE SPECIFIC. HOWi REMARKS NOTE TO SALES AGENTS: THIS FORM WILL BE USED BY YOUR LEAD AGENT ONLY AS A TRAINING AID. IT ~ILL NOT BE USED TO DISCIPLINE ANY EMPLOYEE. AFTER COMPLETION AND REVIEW WITH THE OBSERVING LEAD AGEN1: YOU MAY RETAIN IT FOR REFERENCE. DISCUSS IT WITH YOUR MANAGEMENT SUPER VISOR, IF DESIRED, OR, IT MAY BE DISCARDED. SALES AGENT _________ OBSERVING LEAD AGENT. _______ DATE ________
PAGE 185
Overall, ecployer monitoring of telephone service workers was used in this period as an occasional sampling technique, rather than a continuous oversight. It also did not seem to have been used as an instrw:ient for increasing the pace of work in a way that set off employee or union protests. For example, in recent interviews with telephone company operators vho were working in such jobs in the 1960s, employees remember company-practices in that era as being "quality oriented," with the company's focus genuinely on insuring that good service was given to callers seeking dir"ectory assistance, equipt:ient repair, or new telephone 19 installations, or reporting emergencies to the telepho~e com,any. C. Unions, Collective Bargainin5 and Arbitration In our baseline period, the overwhelming majority of office and customer-service workers, between 90-95%, were not represented by unions. This ~eant that most managements were free to apply work aonitoring techniques as they wished, subject only to compliance with general laws, such as those relating to monitoring employee telephone calls with the public. (See section D.) In the industrial sector, a few unions were able to obtain clauses in collective bargaining specifying the way in which new technology-based monitoring would be conducted. In a "memorandum of understanding" negotiated between the Uachinists Union and Cutler-Hammer Company, it was specified that a productivity recording device known as "Telecontrol" would not be used as a disciplinary tool, could not be used to establish "production demand" standards, and could not be used to require day workers 20 to work at an incentive pace. /~ / -. ) /
PAGE 186
Several unions representing office workers raised anti-monitoring protests in this period, primarily involving telephone service monitoring. In 1967, the Utility Workers complained about Comoawealth Edison Company's shift from an older "double jack" system of supervisors plugging into a I clerk's desk to listen to conversations with utility customers to a new telephone-company-provided system that permitted monitoring to be done from a remote location. Employees were told that "random listen:f.ng-in" was used by the company, for what 'it said were
PAGE 187
"training and overall supervision purposes," but employees would no longer know when their calls were being listened to. The arbitrator held that the use of "undetected monitoring" was not a violation of the exi_sting labor contract, nor did it represent a change in "working conditions" to 21 which the union bad to consent. A similar arbitration decision involved a grievance filed by the ~2 Newspaper Guild against the Boston Herald Traveler. The newspaper had used telephone monitoring for its "inside classified solicitors" selling classi.fied ads ever since 1934. This was done with equipment rented from the telephone company that provided a toggle switch at the sup~rvisor's telephone, with which he could listen in on calls being made by each of about 30 classified-ad salespersons. The union maintained that an audible click and a lowering of sound volume let employees know when this =onitoring was taking place, though this was not intended to be so by the manasement. In 1966, because of a public inquiry in Massachusetts into telephone tapping and recording of conversations, the newspaper suspended its use of service monitoring, to exai:iine whether its use of the practice was legal. {Massachusetts enacted a statute in 1968 governing wiretapping, which specifically excluded monitoring for customer-service-employee supervision from the prohibitions against unlawful wiretapping in its statute.) In 1968, the newspaper resumed monitoring, but now it installed new console-based telephone company equipaent that did not provide the classified ad solicitor (or the customer on the line) with any audible clue that anyone was listening in. All solicitors were notified of the l \3 n I ) I ''-.../
PAGE 188
installation of the equipment and told_how it would be used. Management stated in the arbitration proceeding that the monitoring enabled the unit supervisor to observe and train nev solicitors, evaluate the performance of experienced solicitors, and learn about the effective-. ness of particular "ad sales" being offered, including both the employee's "sell" and the customer's reactions to the offer and the presentation. It noted that such service monitoring had been used for several decades and was widespread in the newspaper industry, was supported by "legal and arbitral authorities," and had not been the subject of "contract restrictions" in the newspaper industry. The Newspaper Guild argued that installation of the new monitoring system improperly changed working conditions set by the contract. However, even if it was held not to offend any specific provision, the union asked the arbitrator to rule "as a matter of equity," that the publisher should either stop monitoring or limit its use to trainingnew employees. The Guild argued, as summarized by the arbitrator, that "the sclicitor's inability to tell under the present equipment whether or not she is being monitored has inevitably given rise to feelings of concern, nervousness and insecurity and has made the job of solicitor additionally and unnecessarily burdensoce." However, the Guild could not point to any pattern of contract restriction at any other newspapers, or in any other industry using-such telephone monitoring. Tr-e arbitrator upheld the newspaper's use of telephone monitoring. The opinion explained: The very essence of the work of a solic:Ltor is talking on the telephone. As the employer, the Publisher is, of course, entitled not only to supervise the work of its eoployees but to adopt reasonable measures which will best effectuate that supervision. In general, such supervision would necessarily entail the training of new and inexperienced employees, observing the day-to-day perform-
PAGE 189
ance of both inexperienced and experienced employees, evaluating their performance and determining ways and means for improving it. In the context of the particular type of work being done by inside solicitor~, nacely, telephone soliciting, the essence of the performance is a matter of technique -how best to accomplish the selling of the Publisher's product,in this case classified space, under the limitations imposed by the use of a telephone in contrast to a face to face confrontation. It would seem.that, of necessity, the only reasonably effective way in. which telephone work can be supervised is by monitoring the calls being received or made by solicitors. It obviously cannot be done merely by visual observation for clearly it is the content of what is said and how it is said that deter mines the effectivenss of the solicitor's technique and performance. tThile especially true in training and supervising inexperi enced eaployees and in the case of special proootions, it.is no less valid in evaluating the overall daily perforciance of each solicitor. The arbitrator noted that telephone service monitoring was specifically exempted from H.assachusetc's new anti-wiretappins statute, indicat ing a legislative approval of such employer practices. In addition to citing the earlier ruling in the Commonwealth Edison case approving exactly the telephone monitoring protested about here, the arbitrator cited a 1966 decision allowing an employer to install closed circuit television for personnel supervision, and quoted approvingly from the opinion _in 23 that case: The use of television to watch ei:iployP.es concerns the subject of supervision. A decision as to how employees are to be supervised and what are the proper methods of supervision is a normal function of Management. Nothins in the Agreement suggests that this function can be exercised only with the prior consent of the Union. Management has the right to change its methods, procedures and operations without "mutual agreement" so long as the change does not result in a contract violation. In ~losins, the arbitrator stated: If there are particular considerations in the circumstances of the instant situation which might suggest soge restriction in the way in which the Publisher exercises its right to monitor calls, we do not believe that they are sufficiently compelling to warrant their being imposed by arbitral decision. They are more properly addressed to the bargaining table. \ 't:-5
PAGE 190
--------------------------. In case of physical observation of workers, rather than telephone monitoring, union protests and arbitration cases in this pP.riod involved industrial rathei:: than ~ffice sites. The general rule adopted was that employers could under the manageaent rights doctrine install closed circuit TV, either for general supervision, to study the performance of incentive worke~s, or when thefts and inventory shortages made such .use i.J:lportant to the employe~, as long as this was not expressly 24 limited in the contract. In one case during this period, however, an arbitrator held that the employer had violated a "maintenance of working conditions clause" by installing a closed circuit television systec on the production floor, where no specific problems of supervision or opera25 tions had arisen to justify such a change in observation techniques. Another area of controversy in this period.involved the special situation of postal workers. The Postal Workers Union protested the continuous use of hidden "lookout galleries" in U .s. Post Offices; these were justified by postal authorities not for work supervision but as a long~ standing measure necessary to prevent theft of valuables in the tnails. Postal Union complaints were not successful, and the lookout galleries 26 continued to be used. (In Canada, the Canadian postal uniou won an agreement in their 1964 contract that the post office would not use individual work monitoring for full time eciployees, but would lL:a.it this 27 to trainees. This was not achieved by the Postal Union 1n the U.S.). In only one area did arbitration decisions in the industrial secto~ hold out a prooise of useful doctrines for unions in the office sector. Under federal labor law, it was an unfair labor practice to use perform ance monitoring or observation in a discriminatory way against union
PAGE 191
members or officers, or employees trying to organize a union; attempts to use such monitoring to justify discipline or discharge of those employees 28 for failing to performadequately were struck down by arbitrators. Where work aonitoring was believed by office-worker unions to have been applied 1n such a fashion, grievances could be filed and there would be relief in arbitration if the facts supported that contention. Sw:aing up the situation in our pre-OA period,"collective bargaining patterns and arbitration rulings gave manageJ:ients almost unlil:iited rights to employ work monitoring as they saw fit. A few office unions tried to negotiate contraet.lilzlitations or convince arbitrators that oanagement should consult with unions in their monitoring practices, but these were unsuccessful.* D. The Judicial, Legislative, and Regulatory Setting There were no constitutional limits placed on either governmen~ or private-employer uses of work monitoring in this era, and no cocmon law doctrines gave employees legal recourse against such employer action. Legislative consideration came in one area, telephone monit-oring. Because of widespread public concern over wiretapping, Congress and half a dozen state legislatures included in their examination of how to deal with tele~ phone tapping a consideration of whether the random and unrecorded listening in by employers on customer conversations threatened public rights to the privacy in such telephone use. In Title III of the Omnibus CriI:le Control and Safe Streets Act, and in state anti-wiretapping laws, legislators decided that such employer conitoring was not an unreasonable intrusion, ~nd 29 service conitoring was expressly authorized in all such statutes. .. ) In 1967, the Newspaper Guild adopted a collective bargaining demand for "elimination of secret surveillance of employees as well as the use of elec tronic: supervisors, tape recordings, telephone monitoring sys tens, and siMi lar procedures and devices." Testimony and Exhibits of the Newspaper Guild, U.S. Department of Labor, Uorkplace Privacy Hearings, December, 1979. This U does not seem to have been achieved in any contract negotiated by the Guild.
PAGE 192
Two state public utilitiu in California and Georgia responded to anti-monitoring campaigns by the Communication Workers of America by issuing regulations in this period governing how telephone monitoring could 30 be conducted by employers, including the telephone companies. In ita 1974 convention, the CWA had reviewed what it considered a long history ("6S years") of "controversial" service monitoring, cited recent abuses of this for disciplinary and termination purposes, and noted the inability of the CWA to do much about this through repeated grievance filings or callee-tive bargaining demands. _,, Therefore, the C'WA. resolved to strengthen the campaign it had begun in the late 1960a to get public utility commissions to issue regulation~ on service monitoring; to seek intervention by the U.S. National Wiretapping Com.ission (then holding hearings on administra-. tion of Title III); and also to seek state legislation banning or limitin~ monitoring. C'tlA's first partially successful effort at regulation had come in 1968. l
PAGE 193
formance obtained by supervisors through monitor~ng could be used for discipline only if the employees involved were given notice of monitoring procedures. In 1974, Georgia's PUC held hearings in response to CWA complaints. It ruled that employee monitoring could be done only if a visible, bright orange label was placed on the monitored phones of employeesand an asterisk was placed in the telephone directory indicated that service monitoring was 32 being done on that line, to inform c:!ustomers of such conduct. E. The Social Climate and Public-opinion Orientations Though concern about invasions of privacy had begun to rise.in the 1960a, with exposure of new technologies for physical, psychological," and record-surveillance and their growing uses by organizations, public opinion surveys showed that only a third of Americans were concerned before 1975 33 about threats to their personal privacy. In addition, the emplo)'?'lent re-lationship was still treated in public attitudes as one in which employers had I~ / ........
PAGE 194
very wide and legitimate latitude to set work standards and performance measures as they wished. The only limitations in this period were the rights of uorkers to join unions and compliance with new equal employment opportunity laws (such as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act). Individual-employee rishts -separate from collective rights for union members or group rights for members of ainorities had not yet moved into public or lesal recognition, as they would in the next decade. Some social critics and unions attacked exploitation of clerical workers by employers who paid low wages, set high production quotas, and supe:rvised their employees in "oppressive" ways. Judged by the actions of society in this period low unionization of such ecployees, despite union organization efforts; the absence of regulatory or legislative intervention; and non-intervention by the courts under common law or constitutional authority -it seems accurate to_ say that dominant public opinion be tween 1945-1975 assumed that oost office work was being aeasured and aost individuals were being evaluated in ways that did not call for social interventions against existing employer practices. V. A TRANSITION PERIOD, 1975-1980: NEW TECHHOLOCY, HEW EMPLOYER P?'~CTICES, AND NEW SOCIAL VALUES A. Introduction The late Seventies was a time of significant change in how work was managed and technologies were applied, along with powerful changes in social attitudes toward individual-employee and women's rights, and toward the use of social interventions to protect such rights. Had OA unfolded in the Eisenhower era, the interaction of technology and society would probably have been tranquil. However, the fact that it was the end of the Seventies and the early Eighties when OA moved sir,nificantly into office work helps to explain much about the current controversies over VDT work aonitoring.
PAGE 195
B. Technological Changes and Employer Practices By the late 1970s, automatic call distributing systems (ACD) made on-site, silent monitoring of telephone-based office work cheaper and easier. Simultaneously, 'introduction of touch-tone dialing allowed the telephone company to listen in on operator performance remotely, from offsite telephones dialing up a secret access code. Federal and state govern ment agencies, business employers, and non-profit organizations whose operations depended on high-quality customer service bv telephone continued to be active service-monitoring users, and newspaper stories periodically featured accounts of 4 to S thousand known employers engaged in such activity. JJ we will see, this produced union protests, arbitration rulings1 and some governmental activity. Concern over the use of monitoring to speed up telephoneoperator performance unfairly paralleled factory-union protests in this period over the use the new num~rically-controlled machine tools in industry to pace and monitor production work in ways that industrial unions said were "unfair 3S speedups." In non-telephone office work, large non-union companies and governcent agencies split into two camps in this decade in their administrat~on of ~epetitive clerical and white collar work. The dominant trend remained the Taylorbased close super~ision approach applied to production-based office operations, such as data entry, units, typing pools, and customer-call work. However at a minority of organizations, new "human resources" approaches to administer ing office work were beginning to be adopted that downplayed close visual supervision and recording of production output. Rather, employee-manager pern J ) formance appraisais were developed that identified quality as w~ll as quantity 0
PAGE 196
goals and used these to determine individual merit pay and promotion decisions. In his study of Personnel Policies in Large Nonunion Firms, in the late 1970s, Fred Foulkes documented the trend to such approaches 36 in the "progressive" manufacturing and non-manufacturing firms he studied. Some idea of the distribution of employer practices in the 1970s can be inferred from a national opinion survey on productivity conducted by Louis llarris and Associates in 1979 for Steelcase, the office furniture 37 mnufacturer. 1,004 workers in offices with more than 25 employees were interviewed, with 50% of t~e sacple consisting of clerical, secretarial, accountL~g, bookkeeping, and similar support-worker mplo7ees. (The remain ing 40% were professionals, managers, and.executives.) One question asked: "As you.may know, for many years people in jobs like l:\&nufacturing, farming, sales, and construction have had their productivity measured by how much work they produce in a given period of time. Rave you personally ever had a job where how much you produced in a given period of time was CLeasured?" Among secretaries, only 27% said they had been in such a job, while 73% answered that they had not. Among clericals, 43% said they had been measured and 57% said they had not. The executives in the survey were also asked whether their cocpany "has attempted to meaaure how much work is produced in a given period of ticae by its office workers?" 45% of the executives said their company had done this, 50% said it had not, and 5% were not sure. rhese responses do not clearly distinguish occasional produc-tivity studies or setting general work standards from continuous monitoring. Nor do they tell us how such measuring was tied to pay, promotions,
PAGE 197
or discipline. However, Harris-Steelcase survey is useful in suggesting that less than half of clerical workers and only about a fourth of secretaries 1n business offices seemed to be working under any form of for=al out-put measuring systems in this period. C. Changing Social Attitudes Major changes in s~cial attitudes-took place in the late 1970s related to our topic. After Watergate, exposures of Army, FBI, and CIA surveillance of dissidents, and concern over dat~bank developments in handling citizen and consucer records, Americans stating that they were concerned about invasions of their privacy rose from a third in 1970 to 64% in 1978, aa reported in a large-scale privacy survey conducted by Louis Harris and .Dr~ 38 Alan F. Westin for Sentry Insurance in 1978. In the area of employment and privacy, the Sentry survey found that strong majorities of the public and of full-tixile employees -believed that it was no longer proper for employers to ask job applicants about many topics that had once been traditional to c~llect. These included! information about an applicant's spouse; the applicant's neighborhood; membership in organizations; whether applicants own or rent their residence; whether applicants have been ar-39 rested but not convicted; and similar matters. On work monitoring, 66% of the public and 69% of employees believed that "installing closed circuit television to obtain continuous checks on how fast workers perform" should be forbidden by law. (51% of employers believed it should~ be forbidden, 451. felt it should, and 4% were not sure.) However, only 42% of the public and 43% of employees believed that such closed circuit TV should be forbidden when ecployers use it "to prevent theft and pilfering by employees." 77% of employers believed such use ,J
PAGE 198
should not be forbidden. When asked about employers "listening 1n on the conversations of employees to find out what they think of their supervisors and managers," 83% of the public, 84% of employees, and 70% 40 of mployers believed this should be forbidden. Reflecting such concerns and attitudes, the 1970s brought oajor federal privacy legislation (the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, the Financial Right to Privacy Act of 1978.); similar fair-infomation-practices laws in half a dozen states; laws 1n sixteen states forbidding employers to use polygraphs for hiring or as a condition of continued employaent; and legislation in half a dozen states giving employees the right to ex amine their personnel records and setting rules for disclosure of employee personal data to third parties. Simultaneously, the women's rightscause became a growing, organized movement in the 1970s. Fair employment practices, the treatment of women in cleric.al jobs, and the impact of _office automation on women's economic and social interests became central themes on the vomea.'s rights agenda. In 1978-80, articles, monographs, and public testimony by leading women's activist groups zeroed in on office automation as a menacing trend for women. ThQ leading publication in this critique was Race Against Ti.Cle: Automation of the Office, by Judith Gregory and Karen Nussbaum, issued by 41' Uorking Women, the National Association of Office Workers, in 1980. Uachine monitoring was a key issue discussed in this report: The first step towards the office of the future is to apply the principles of factory production to office work. The move to electronics finally gives managers "a way to enforce discipline and standardization in the office," explained one participant in a recent brainstorcing session of :omputer vendors, users and consultants. A "bonus" of II
PAGE 199
office automation is that "business can finally monitor and measure the clerical func~ion," according to Donald C. Vednais of the 3M Corporation's Business Communications Products Division. In fact, companies can "eliminate unnecessary manage rial layers" of supervisors "whose primary activities are monitoring others" by using machines designed to ceasure the output, speed and errors of each mployee. "The real payoff comes because managers are able to widen their span of control" to increase the number of subordinates they can manage. Many computerized systems are designed to make it easier to enforce production quotas and the speed of work. "Automatic call distributor,-", for ,example, are widely used in the insurance industry and in other companies with departments where clericals "process" phone calls from customers. The device simultaneously tallies the number of calls each clerk handles, *usures the average delay in answering calls, and counts the calls lost by the switchboard after 30 seconds of ringing. Time standards often set the pace for every clerical job within the insurance company: "coding each A-type claim is allotted 4 minutes," a B-type claim 4.7 minutes. Each clerk keeps a running record of the work she does on a production sheet" by task and day of the week. Computer teminals used by data entry operators.record the number of keystrokes per minute and lines processed per day. Many of these "input typists" are paid piecework rates rather than an hourly wage. For claims processors, each claim is coded with the employee's name. The computer rejects any inaccurate f oms, keeping track of the number of mistakes along.with volume and speed. All of these measurements become part of each employee's work record, often without his or her knowledge. While many clericals today have to vrite down what they do on weekly clipboards, moreand more of these time-study calculations will be computerized. Many more clericals will be monitored and measured for the first time.in the near future. The significance of women's activist groups taking up the office automation issue was that it brought a potentially powerful ally to the union cause. Since unions had enjoyed limited success in organizing women clerical workers, and moit organizing was still the male-dominated, old-line-issue approach that had not a~pealed to most women clericals or professionals in offices, the joinder of women's activist groups in protesting against what they considered harmful uses of office technology
PAGE 200
------------. including work monitoring practices --broadened the "union case" into a protest that would reach the mass media in the early 1980s Finally, American attitudes toward the employment relationship itself underwent major change in th late 1970s. With employment the key to health insurance and ~etiremant benefits in a non-socialist society, with EEO enforcement and occupational health and safety protection now major public programs, and with an awareness ~hat union representation covered only one ployee out of five, and was not expanding, employees and the public began to be concerned that employers would not treat workers in arbitrary and authoritarian ways, and that there should probably be "some remedies" against employers who did so. As we will discuss in the next three sections, this shift from support of employer prerogative to an expectation of employer re&pon~ihility would begin to affect em ployment law and regulatory trends in significant ways. D. Union Positions, Collective Bargaining, and Arbitration Union activity in the late 1970s reflected labor charges that managements in many industries were increasingly using machine-hued pressures to produce faster work. The position adopted by unions was that speedups, enforced by close work monitoring, were had because this created harmful stress among employees and also compromised the quality of work provided to the public. More than a dozen unions representing employees in private-sector offices and customer service work took such stands. These included the Airline Employees, Communication Workers, Auto Wo~kers (white collar division), Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, United Electrical Workers, Machinists, Newspaper Guild, Office and Professional Employees, Service Employees, Teamsters, Tele communication Workers, and typographers. They were joined by such public-sector
PAGE 201
unions as the Postal Workers and the State, County, and ~tunicipal Workers. By the end of the 1970s, the "unfair stress" theme had been joined by explicit privacy claics. This was aptly symbolized by the labor-supported Congressional hearings held in 1979 by a House Education and Labor Subcom mittee, into "Pressures At The Workplace." A stream of union witnesses de-43 nounced industry work monitoring practices at these hearings. Then, as part of the Carter Administration's "privacy initiative," responding to the U.S. Privacy Protection Study Commission's recommendations, the U.S. Department of Labor held hearings in 1919-80 into "Workplace Privacy." Union representatives testified at length about work monitoring pract~res as impropeI invasions of privacy. By 1980, the union position on work monitoring included the traditional "intrusive" aspects on close work monitoring, but had added a newer concern which criticized the failure of many manage ments to let workers see what records were being collected about their work performance. As students of privacy issues are aware, "limiting intrusiveness" and providing data subjects with "right of access'~ were key elements in the concepts of privacy and fair information practices that had been developed from the Hational Academy of Science's Databanks in a Free Sociecv Report in l 9; the HEW Report in 1973; the Federal Privacy Act of 1974; and tbe report of the U.S. Privacy Protection Study Commission in 1977. though many unions protested in labor negotiations what they considered unfair uses of telephone-service monitoring, the only clause obtained in~ major collective bargaining contract involving office work in this period was one obtained by three major telephone unions in the Bell System contract of 1980. This eliminated "diagnostic remote monitoring" as a management practice, but 44 did not limit the main on-site monitoring of service operators. n /
PAGE 202
Arbitration rulings between 1975-1980 continued the basically "manage ment prerogative" orientation of our baseline era. A series of decisions held that employers could use closed circuit TV cameras to record employee at work, whether a1 part of time-and-motion studies, to observe productivity, 45 or to police high-risk areas for theft or misconduct. Challenges to telephone service monitoring as a violation of state anti-wiretapping laws were also rejected by arbitrators. The failure of union to win such grievances in arbitration, or to get monitoring addressed in collective bargaini~g led unions such as the CWA, the.Teamsters, and others to concentrate in this period on efforts to ob tain action by regulatory agencies or legislatures, to which we now turn. E. Public Forums: Legislatures, Executive Agencies, and the Courts At the federal level, the lleport of the National Wiretapping Commission in 1975_ recommended that the issue of employee service monitoring be left to private labor-management relations, thereby leaving intact the legal authority of the telephone company and employers using telephone equipment 47 to engage in such conduct. The use by Federal agencies of employee service monitoring became the subject of public controversy in several Congressional inquiries in the late 19701, with newspaper stories documenting such activities by the I.R.S., So-48 cial Security Civil Service Commission, Justice Department, and others. Th IRS, for example, disclosed that it monitored 325,000 calls a year out ~f soma JO million calls received, to determine whether tax advisors are 49 giving the public "accurate information courteously." A small-print notice on IRS tax-return forms and manuals informed recipients that the IRS might
PAGE 203
be conducting such monitoring when taxpayers called in to IRS service centers. In 1978, the General Services Administration issued for comment a proposed regulation that would have barred federal agencies from listening in on such calls, even where advance notice had been given to customers (a la the ms notice) and to employees. Protests by agencies and some government con-50 tractors led the GSA to shelve this proposal, and federal-agency use of monitoring has continued down to the present. At the state level, several other jurisdictions joined California and Georgia in setting rules and procedures for notifying employees or customers about the use of such monitoring, or requiring employers to register in advance with the state public utility commission before conducting such monitor-Sl ing. Under such a regulation issued in New Jersey in 1977, 177 employers registered to use employee service monitoring in the first year of the regu52 lation' operation. In the judicial arena, a ~lorida Supreme Court decision interpreted that state's wiretap control law to forbid any taping of telephone calls unless _!!l parties gave prior consent. This led employers such as Florida Power Corporation and the St. Petersburg Times to stop tape recording employee calls, for later discussion with employees about service quality and courtesy. Employers in Florida could and did continue ~o listen in and take notes for 53 service monitoring purposes, as long as they did not make recordings. F. Summary In the transition period of 1975-1980, management retained its broad legal right to set levels of satisfactory production for both factory and office employees, and to engage in various forms of visual or machine monitoring to see that employees met standards of quantity and quality. ,-, ,, I Several federal agencies operating local offices in states regulating employee 10 service monitoring statedthat, as federal activities, they did not have to register with state public utility agencies and follow their regulations. See Wall Street Journal, March 12, 1974.
PAGE 204
~00 FOOTNOTES FOR APPENDIX ITEM 1 1. Alan F. West in, Privacv and Freedom (N. Y. 196 7) 2. For Taylor's concepts in industry, see Frederick w. Taylor, Principles and Uethods of Scientific Management (N.Y., Harper and Brothers, 1911). For "Taylorism" applied to office work, see \1illiam H. Leffins;well, Scientific Office ?1anagement (A.Y. Shav Company, ?Jew York and Chicago, ,1917) and Lee Galloway, Office Management: Its Principles and Practice (Ronald Press Co., New York, 1918). Standard works reflecting critical views of "Taylorisr:1" include: C. Wright Mills, Yhite Collar (Oxford University Press, New York, 1956); Stanley Aronowitz, False Proaises (UcGraw-Hill, ?1ew York, 1973); Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopolv Capitalism: The Desradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (Monthly Review Press, New York, 1974); Richard Edwards, Contested Terrain: The Transfomation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Centurv (Basic Books, ?iew York, 1979) ; David Noble, America By Design W. Y. Alf red A. Knopf, 1979) ; and Dan Cbwsnn, Bureaucracv and the Labor Process (U. Y., Monthly Review Press, 1980) 3. George Stelluto, "Report on Incentive Pay in Hanufacturing," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 92, No. 7-(July, 1969), pp. 49-53. See George Strauss and Leonard R. Sayles, Personnel: The Hu1!1An Problems of ?1anasement, Third Edition, {?1.J. 1972), Chapter 27, "Incentives and Performance Standards; pp. 613-63S. 4. Mills and Braverman, note 2 supra: 5. David :tontsocery, Yorkers Control in America: Studies in the History of Uork, Technologv, and Labor Struggles (~.Y., Cambridge University Press, 1979). 6. Donald Kennedy, Charles Crayp9 and Hary Lehman, l.abor and Technologv: Union Response to Changing Environments (Phila.: Pennsylvania State University, 1982). 7. Sumner Slichter, Jmes J. Healy, and Robert Livernash, The Icpact of Collective Bargaining on Management (Wa~h.: Brookings, 1_960), Chapter 12, "Union Policies Toward Technological Change;" Harkley Roberts, "The Impact of Technology on Union Orsanizint and Collective Bargaining," in Kennedy et. al, note 6 supra. 8. ~9. Strauss and nayles, note 3 supra. 10. Frank Elkouri and Edna Asper Elkouri, How Arbitration Uorks (Wash.; Bureau of National Affairs, 3d. edition, 1973), Chapter 13, "UanagerJent Rights." 11. See narbara Garson, All The Livelons Dav: The :1eaninr; and Demeaninc of noutine (::.Y., Doubleday, 1975); Louise Kapp Howe, Pink Collar Workers o:.r., C.P. Putnam's Sons, 1977); Jean Tepperman, Not Servants, Not :iachines (Boston: Beacon Press, 1976).
PAGE 205
12, 13. 14. 16. 17. 18. 19. 2 0. 21. 22. 23. 25. 26. Letter of H.W. William Camins, Attorney, American Telephone & T-?lesraph Company, September 8, 1975, printed in ?n~c Staff Studies and Surveys, national Commission for the RevieY of Federal and State Laws Relating to Wiretappins and Electronic Surveillance, llashinston, D.C., 1976, pp. 500-514. In addition to Caming, note 11 supra, see: Re Investigation of Offering Uonitoring Equipment bv Telephone Cocpanies, 70 PUR 3d 498 (1967), California; and notes to Section V, infra, on Georcia, West Virginia, and new Jersey State Public Utility Commission proceedings. Caming, note -11 supra. ~ Id. -Id. -Letter of D.F. HcLeod, Vice President, Communications, Pan American World Airways, August 18, 1974, in WC Staff Studies and Survevs, note 12 supra., PP 527-529, 533. n -~ I See the filJs of the Connecticut Workers and Technology Oral History Project, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Conn, 1981. Testimony of IAM by George J, Poulin, Vorkplace Privacy Hearings;._) U.S. Depa;tment of Labor, January 28, 1980. Commonwealth Edison Companv, Grievance No. 27-235, May 21, 1967. Boston Herald Traveler Corporation, Case No. 1130-0291-68, arb. award, November 12, 1969. FMC Corp~ration, 46 L.A. 335 (1966). An individual's right of privacy held to protect him against publication of private statements or action, but employee's actions at work are not private actions. See Caproco, Inc. and Upholsterers, Local 25, 56 L.A. 65; and Cooper Carton Corporation and Printing Pressmen, Local 415, 61 L.A. 697. Eico, Inc., 44 L.A. 563 (1965). For a general discussion of arbitration rulings on monitoring, see Elkouri and Elkouri, .!:!.E.ill note 10, pp. 283-289 and 729-733. Testimony of APWU, Daniel B. Jordan, Workplace Privacy Hearings, llill, note 20, January 29, 1980. 27. See Ken Rubin, "Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace", Perception, March-April, 1983, pp. 25-27.
PAGE 206
28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. For decisions involving a variety of challenged techniques alleged to be improper surveillance of protected union a c t iv it i e s see C arid J Man u fa c tu r in g Co 2 3 8 NLRB l 3 8 (1977); N.L.R.B.v. Medley Distilling Co. 483 Fed. 2d. 374 (1971); and Steelworkers v. N.L.R.B., 405 Fed. 2d. 1373 "(l 968). See the discussion of service monitoring under Title III in Electronic Surveillance: Report of the National Commission for the Review of Federal and State Laws Relating to Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance, Washington, D.C., 1974, pp. 28-29. See Testimony of CWA, James Webb, Workplace Privacy Hearings, ~-.5.il. note 20, January 29, 1980, and NWC Staff Studies and Surveys, ll.5.il., note 12, "Service Quality Monitoring," pp. 496-499. Jim Montgo~ery, "Concerns Eavesdrop on Employee's Phone Calls; Firms Defend Move, But Workers Are Angry," Wall Street Journal, March 1 2 1 9 7 4 Ibid. See Alan F. Westin and Michael A. Baker, Databanks in A Free Society (N.Y., Quadrangle, 1972), Appendix B. "Concerns Eavesdrop ," note 31 supra; Ronald Kessler, "A.T.&T. Monitors Some Phone Calls," Washington !.2..!.!, August 25, 1974; Spencer Rich, "U.S. Agencies Defend Their Monitoring of Citizens' Calls, Wash~ngton1 !.2.!,!, October 18, 1978; "Customer Calls Were Tape Recorded to Study Employees, Power Firm Says," Miami-Herald, February 5, 1978, Richard H. Meeker, "Local Businesses Eavesdrop (on) Calls," Willamette (Oregon) Week, May 9 1 9 7 7 See IAM Testimony, Workplace Privacy Hearings, ~-.E.ll note 20; also Testimony of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Hugh Harley, Ibid, February 19, 1980. See also Braverman, Edwards, and me, note 2 supra. Fred K. Foulkes, Personnel Policies in Lar\e Nonunion Firms, (Englewood Cliffs, N~J., Prentice-Hal~, 19 O) Comfort and Productivity in the Office of the SO's, The Steel case National Study of uffice Environments, No. II, Conducted by Louis Harris and Associates, report published 1980. The Dimensions of Privacy: A National Opinion Research Survey of Attitudes Toward Privacy, Conducted for Sentry Insurance by Louis Harris and Associates and Dr. Alan F. Westin, 1979. Ibid. Page 33. Ibid. Page 35.
PAGE 207
41. Judith Gregory and Karen Nussbaum, Race Against Time: AutomatioO of the Office (Cleveland: Working Women, National Association of Office Workers, 1980). 42. All of these unions testified at the Carter Administration's Workplace Privacy Hearings, note. 20 supra. 43. Pressures At The Workplace, Hearings before the Subcommitte on ________ Bouse Education and Labor Committe~'---Congress,_Sesaion, 1979. 44. George Kessler, CWA, fhanging ~ompetitive and Technology Environments in Telecommunications," in Kennedy, Craypo and Lehman, note 6 supra, page 72. 4S. In addition to rulings in note 24, see Hobart Manufacturing Co. and Electrical Workers, IVE, 62 L.A. 128S and Colonial Baking Co. and Bakery and Confectionery Wor~ers, 62 L.A. 586. 46. Casting Engineers and Electrical Workers, UE, Local 1114, 76 L.A. 939. 47. Electronic Surveillance, note 29 supra. pp. 28-29. 48. See the Washington Post, October 18, 1978, note 34 supra.; David H. Rothman, "Jig Brother May Be Listening In," Washington Po st June 3, 1 9 7 9 -) l .. ~ 49. Washington !2.!.!,, October 18, 1978, note 34 supra. 50. "GSA Acts to Block Listenin.g Devices on U.S. Agency Phones," Washington .!.2..!.!, July 6, 1978; Washington !2.!.E,, October 18, 1978. 51. New Jersey, Wisconsin, Massachusetts. 52. Report of New Jersey Public Utility Commission, 1977, Trenton, N.J. 53. Quoted in Miami Herald, February 5, 1978, note 34 supra.
PAGE 208
----"---WWW~-------~--,-..--.. -----. I I I I I 204 Item 2: Two articles from the Communication Workers of America on a joint Company-Union experiment with "no monitoring" work settinas. GEST COPY AVAILABLE THE BOSSLESS OFFICE .,,,,,.,,.~ ,, ... ... '4 j .. '' i 1 ... :~: ::,t .. ,:~~ .. .,. ... ~:r.~ .. .. : ..... A brrgnt. soacious work setting .'e3::.ues ,-::,w dividers between staticr.s because HOBIS Norkers ;r,fer to be able to .see each other and have a full view of the room and electronic message board. It sounds like every worker's dream: a bossless office. These are telephone operators at w:>rk. But here :hey are relaxed, smiling, joking with each other, giv ing customers as much time and attention as they need. They get up from !heir stations freQuently and mvve around. Their Nork area is ooen. spacious, decoratec with br:ght Southwestern art the workers have chosen the~selves. It is HOBiS, the AT&T hotel billing and informatior system office in Tempe, Arizona, near Phoenix. one of only a handful of auton:>mous work group experiments :n the wor: :t-and certainly one of the most successful so far. The uni~. exa:tly a year old, handles ;1.:est long-oi:;tance b:lling inqudes ~r.:im hotels and mot!ls :hrougnou! ,"w~ounta:n Bell T31e phone's vast service Area, a function ., -----------..... -----~--
PAGE 209
' I : ~: previously performed by TSPS operators {traffic service position systems). No supervisor ever 'Nalks the floor at HOBIS, nor monitors their conversations with customers. There is no need to, for the workers are their own bosses, and 11they police themselves as well as any management team could.'' says CWA Local 8519 President Reed Roberts. Decision making, both short and long term, is made through a Quality of Work Life (Q\A/L) committee. What it means for the 130 operators is that 11this is our office, not management's. We are proving that you can have a good working onvi ronment and still get the job done, and done even better," says Marilyn Stancliffe, who served on the original OWL ;ommittee that designed HOBIS in January of 1983. Those operators who formerly worked in the direc:ory assistance (DA) and TSPS units which share the same building with HOBIS are acutely aware of the contrasts in job settings. 111 was ready to give it all up, despite the '/ears I had put : n," says Geraldine Heller. She had transferred to a directory assistance job in Phoenix after hav:ng worked ;or 12 years as a supply clerk for Illinois Bell. 11Working in supplies was okay," she says, "but as a DA operator I decided I was too old to have someone looking over :ny shoulder 311 the time and telling me when I could take a potty break." When plans for the HOBIS experiment were announced in late 1982, Heller and more than 300 operators immediately applied for the new unit. "We still have enormous pressure from operators wanting to join HOBIS," according to Chief Steward Dennis Couture. "But we can only add people slowly, as we grow, be cause no one wants to leave this place." A jutsy Oeclaior.' ::-:rs unique autori-:,mous work group .._-as born ot.:t of :o,cern by :ompany J1strict Manager Ed Murdock that supervisors were spending !oo much ~ime with operators who :idn't need attention, Jnd a hunch on his part that worke~s with ;:>od work records are motivated enough to perform at least as well without supervision. Plans to create a new hotel billing office in Tempe gave \#1urdock an opportunity to think about imple-.. t' ,. ff ~enting his idea-provided that the union would cooperate and help develop the program through :he OWL ;,recess. Few union leaders were likely to be more responsive to ~he proposal than CWA District 9 Vice President Walt Maulis. a believer in OWL. 3nd local leader Roberts, who wor:-ies that "unions just have to find new ways to rec :-esent people and attract mer-ibers, especially in a ri;ht-towork envi ron:nent." -z.os Says ~-1aulis: "We .vere more willing to :aKe the risK. T~r see~-ed s,r.cere about w~ }; us. J;,c : -;e 3hvays beiieiW.h :-nuc~ ::)l..1,.: ::,e ac:ompl1shec through a ~::-e coooerative a: proacr. ... 3es:=:es. he ados. .v been tel i: ~; -i-:-for years th, they .ve~e ~o;:,-heavy in manag Rooe~s ~ou~ts out that :d dock made a gutsy decision t propose tn1s :oncept. You car. imagine wnat his fel!ow mana~ t ,;. .. thougnt of it-workers runnir own office ... no supervisors. had flocoec. it woulc:n't have his career ..., .Jch good.'' As it :iaooened. ~he distric: ager 'ooks like a hero. The i~ HOBIS is :he most ~rafitable hotel oilling units throughout country. wi:h an astounding~ cent ;:,refit margin. Contributing to efficiency; rec;acement of su;:,ervisors ..,. enue-generating operatqr./f 0 BEST C( ~v i,
PAGE 210
r,ate.: :ost savings of 35 per__ ,,: .. a~= .1 low absentee rate of .3 )er:er.~ as compared with .A. r & rs ,atror,w,ce :-ate of a::>out !hree per:ent. lr. adoition, the operators have ::,r:>Ven to t>e super-salespeople. we are very much aware that our oos, anc the :ontinuation of HOBIS. :eoenc i.;~on running a profitable :>peration. especially with growing :ompetition.'' says Marilyn Stancliffe. 3:;oing; "Ir. that sense. the workers I I -1 .. -York. we were missing out on !his additional revenue: says Alice Her :iande:. who worked out the techni :ai oifficulties ,n oroviding the service. 'Also. we can place the calls ~as:er which makes both the callers Jnc tne 1ote! personnel haopier," she ~otes. -The operators send letters of :ommendation !o customers who are especially ~riendly and helpful-a tur:iaoout that has helped solidify business accounts. I A -~ ... ;,-A-~:.::....::,:::, are :h,nking like managers. And !hey :ome .JP with some geed ideas tor imcrov,~~ service because they are :iose to :he customers on a daily ::>asis." Some of the innovations HOBIS operators have introduced to im prove customer relations and build their business: -The Tempe HOBIS ,,ow ~iaces --,overseas long distance calls tn:hotel guests. which previously was handled by AT&T Long Lines in New -....... '"'I: -Customer complaints "have dropped ~o =~r:)," says :hief Steward Coutu;s, :,ecause of a new system of checking back with customers and following up immediately on re por.s of poor service. How 80s1lesa Management Works "Peer ;:,ressure. that's what keeps 'NOrkers-especially new arrivals -from abusir:~ the freedom of an office without supervisors, according to Ed Murdock. The union's Dennis Couture likes to modify that expression and call it .. peer support." He says: 11We try to be positive about it and persuade fellow workers, if they aren't pulling their weight, ~hat they must support the group. The key thing is, we are not evaluated as individuals but on the basis of group success. When people understand this, they re spond. They want to contribute to the group rather than drag it down." Even in an office without supervis ors, someone must hand out daily assignments, but the HOBIS group has worked out a system that keeps "bossism" at a minimum. The workers take turns functioning as the "line person," who makes station assignments and generally directs traffic for the office. The unit has experienced only one non-strike-related grievance over the past year, and that dispute was amicably settled in less than eight hours, according to Local President Roberts. "The OWL committee doesn't get involved with disciplinary matters-that would destroy the whole concept," he stresses. Griev ance matters revert to the traditional labor relations process and are handled by a second-level su pervisor who is designated as the management "resource person" to HOBIS. That resource person also serves as the company's representative on the seven-member OWL committee but has no authority other than as a group member. The HOBIS workers serve on the committee according to a rotation system. The QWL committee, which meets weekly, determines force needs and scheduling, makes decisions on financial expenditures, and generally deals with all problems that normally would confront flrst-iine supervisors. "One of our biggest concerns when we began this program was to make sure that our committee didn't
PAGE 211
and participate i :i the discussions. Participation in the HOBIS pro gram also is broadened through the work of other committees that deal with customer service, safety, office decorating, and special projects. Is HOBIS Unique? Clearly, the autonomous work group at HOBIS had every advantage from the start: committed and progressive company and union leaders to launch it, and the opportunity to design a new program from scratch. staffed with workers ha,,d-picked for ~heir good work records. How widespread can the HOBIS pattern be extended? Can it be introduced in existing work places with a history of poor human relations? "This program shows that ~hen labor and management work together, they can make tremendous changes in the work place to eliminate unnecessary pressures and -improve conditions." said Vice mitment from both s:des and a lot 0resident Mauiis. "! think this kind of trust. :f ~~at's lacking or if it of program can be put in ~lace in all breaks dowr1. then r-,, very com-kinds of offices, not :ust in operafortable with going oack ~o a trator services," he said, noting that ditional, adv~rs;..rial, ela:ionship newer experiments with other tete-with management." phone industry units in Colorado For now, HOBIS is a shining sueare working well so tar. cess. The program survived the Ed Murdock, who went wi!h three week national CWA-AT&T Mountain Bell in last month's reor-strike last fall, and it looks like it ganization while the HOBIS unit will survive the Bell System breakup shifted to AT&T Communications, as well. Ed Murdock. while rio longer looks forward to introducing similar on the scene to nouris'i tne program programs. in conjunction with the from management's end, is con-union, among groups of directory vi need that the new managers at assistance operators in his new area AT&T ~ommunications share his of responsibility. ''1 think we can determination to keep this unique transplant many of the same ap-and successful prograr,, working. proaches," he says. For their part, work~rs iike Ger-The local's Reed Roberts is aldine Heller are determined to proud of HOSIS, but r-main~ cau-make HOBIS continue to flourish be-tious about Quality of Work Life as cause: .. They treat you like a human a widespread phenomenon. being here and you go home at the '"When it works, it works," he says, end of the day feeling good ab"ut adding that, "we did it right at your job and about yr,u.-se,t." .. .) I l ) I I HOBIS. You have to have a com~-. ,. 0 1 .... !fF"'.:-:-,'=":.:.~'""" "":,-, (J. G i .. I I I --.......... APe CWA NEWS FEBRUARY 1984 I I I Tl I I .-, t \.J j I .. ""' .L.,) > ""' .,. I .--. .JE~~~J~~=~l!Jl]l:.0.i!:lll~-~-~-~-\~-~-! .. ... :lftlitQ_..s .. atll!IIO-&!SiWlli: n-llllllliE __ !_.,! :
PAGE 212
--------------------------------A. HOBIS Two years after CWA negotiated a national QWL program with the Bell System, a Mountain State Bell District Manager contacted the Union to determine if they were interested in jointly designing a Hotel Billing Center for the Rocky Mountain States region. The Union weighed the risks of such a proposal and decided it was worth pursuing. The offices consist of over 100 union represented operators working in a seven day, twenty-four hour environment that handles 11,500 calls per day from a seven state region with an annual budget of $2.4 million. Th, o~erators provide charges to hotels on customer dialed long distance calls; arrange refunds for customers who lose money in pay phones; and give credit on incorrectly dialed long distance calls. In December 1982, a local QWL committee met to define their objectives. They established a successful, self-managed office as their goal. Five objectives to achieve the goal were stated: effective communications with the entire workforce fair and satisfactory working conditions self development of all employees team work and participation by all employees efficient office-management methods By February 1983, the local QWL conunittee (managers and union operators) has designed a unique HOBIS office. It was a HOBIS office without any first level supervisors. Operators would be responsible for office productivity training; quality of service, miscellaneous expenses and overhead. office practices and procedures, and attendance.
PAGE 213
The joint office design connnittee eliminated the two most n odious management control mechanisms in Operator Services: Average Work Time and Remote Observation. Service monitoring is done by peers who are able to offer advise on how to handle difficult situations, while AWT is measured for the entire office, not for each operator. The HOBIS office saves $200,000/year in management salaries. The savings are primarily used for extra training. Average work time for the office as a whole is equal or below the other 14 HOBIS offices in the U.S. despite the fact" that only the QWL designed office handle time-consuming coin-refund calls. There-were alsc:fewer customer complaints and union grievances than other offices. Absenteeism was ten times lower than the system at .3%. The Operators have modified various operating procedures to make work better and provide higher customer satisfaction. Following internally devel~ped recommendations Operators now place overseas calls directly and check back with customers to see that they've received service. To prevent a return to "bossism" all operators rotate assignments to sit on the QWL cotmnittee which meets weekly and some forty operators volunteered to take turns to make up the daily schedules. Committees and subcommittees have been formed to develop solutior to specific problems and formulate policy. For example, the governint QWL committee formed a customer-contact task force to study customer satisfaction. Their policy and program recoimnendations encompassed developing a customer-contact seminar; giving recognition to hotel.-. clerks who are helpful; fostering moreopen communications and assb..J
PAGE 214
tance among operators while working their positions and being more flexible with work rule in order to satisfy customers. Could this system be prepackaged and moved elswhere? It's not that simple. The development of an autonomous work group required time, training, resources are available. Out of the HOBIS experience comes the emphasis on total system design which must guarantee that: decisions are made at the lowest level possible self management for individuals and groups is maintained as a basic tenet there is end-to-endresponsibility for the job hierarchies are flattened the potential of all individuals and groups is developed to the fullest extent possible quality and efficiency are the primary goals creativity is encouraged. purpose and goals are clearly defined and understood by everyone health and safety measures are designed into the system Where this kind of commitment is present, there are benefits for everyone involved.
PAGE 215
Item 3: Survey and findings by ConnectiCOSH and the CUTW of Southern New England Bell VDT operators, on the relation between monitoring and stress z_t l n -....,_,./ .. ,-) ; \. .. ........ \ u
PAGE 216
The Coqnecticut Council on Occup~tional Safety and l!calth ~ru:iertdk.;S re::carch. educ"uiun and other projects dc~igned to prevent job related illness and 1njury. As someone using a video display terminal (VDT) you hc1ve j\lincJd the r3nks of a J.urge and gtowin~ work force. There are a.1Jny una~aswured c:uesc:ictns ab(,ut the W(:rk }'<'U perform. Fer inst;inte: Do VV'fs ,~ausl! eye strain. stres:, ~nJ other problems? Are jobs improved or made more boring? ConnectiCOSH is uraclertaking th:i.s statewide survey to detern:~.ne what, if any. probl~m~ 8re related to VDT use, end to determine whether e~ployers are meeting the challenga of this new technology. Your help is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, you can call either: Sue s~artz at 278-435], Chairperson, Women's Committee on New Tech nology .. Jane Fleishman at 1-800-223-WORK, Coordinator, Division of Worker Education, Workers' Co~pensation Commis sion '111ank you. BEST COPY AVAILABLE
PAGE 217
Pleas~ an$~er ao honestly as possible. All answers w~ll be kept confidential with ConnectiCOSH. General Infonnation 1. Age __ 2. Male ---Female ---3. Naae of Employer. _________________ 4. How long have VDTs been used at your company? ___ 5. :fo\.: long have you wc,rked on a VDT? ________ 6. On ihe average, how many hours a week do you use a VDT?_ ____________________ 7. Wh1tt is your job title? _____________ Office Design 1. Were you consulted on any of tha following: iy?c o( equipaent to be installed ________ Arrangement of the room _____________ Lighting& noi!le ________________ 2. Did you receive propor training on the use of the machine? ---------------------3. How many other employees use VDTs in your office? 4. Do you perform duties other than those requiring a VDT?___ If so, how often? __________ S. Are you entitled to rest ~reaks? _________ How often? --------------------6. ls.your VDT used to monitor your produ~tivity or job performance? __________________ If yes, is the information used to discipline employees? ___________________ 7. Pleaae anuwer yes or no to the following: Yes No A. DoJs your VDT have a detachable keyboard? __ 8. Is your chair adjustable? C. ls the VDT screen adjustable? D. Is the lighting adequate in your.officet .--E. Is there glare on your VDT screen? Health Concerns 1. Do you experie~ce any of the following? How often? Dizziness Difficulty focusing eyes Headaches Muscle aches --__ Feeling tense Stomach problems __ High blood pressure Vision Problems with pregnancy ---------------------~-------~---------~~-------~-------Optional: Complete the following if you want more information: ?~AME ----ADDRESS -----------------------PHONE --------------YES, l'D LIKE TO SEE THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY. YES, I'D LIKE SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT VDTs. YES. I'D LIKE SOME IDEAS ON WHAT I CAN DO ABOUT VDTa IN MY OFFICE. ; I I :<') .......
PAGE 218
PREL IM rn/:d~V P.ESUL TS OF THE VDT SURVEY ON cun-, MEJt[,(ERS AF'F'F:OX IMATEL Y 6. 400 SUF:VEYS lJEBE SENT TO ALL curn MEMBERS HORI-.: It-JG IN TITLES THAT INVOLVED VDT lJORl(. 9::6 COHF'LETEO SURVEYS lJl!F:E F:ETUF:MED, A r,ESf-'ONSE ~:,;n;: or-1-1. ~'l. Fr::t::C!UENCY ..3i::MEr::.:.L IMFORMATION < 1 i ,~GE Uf.fCER 3( ~,:,-39 4(-49 SO-S9 o(I+ ,:: :, GEMOER 11.:.LE F'EM,1LE ( .t l HOUr-:S PER lJEEI< UNDER 10 1019 20-29 30 + ::5> JOB TITLES .:.ccourns INVESTIGATION CLERtt. ADMINISTRATIVE SEF:VICE CLERt( ,-:,r ,IAL \'S I S CLERI< BENC::FIT ANALYST CENTRAL OFFICE TECHNICIAN Cl.ERi< COMF'UT~F~ OF'Er,r.. TOR CONSTRUCT I ON OFF I CE CLERt( CUSTOMER RESPONSE CLERK DATA ENTRY OPERATOR DIRCCTORY ASSISTANCE OPERATOR Ef.lGJMEERilJG ASSISTAJ.JT n.aG r r IEC::R I NG ASSOC I ATE l!MG I MEER I MG CLERI< E.C!U I rrtEI.JT CLERf( F~CILITIES ASSIGNER F 1 MAL ,-:.ccour~TS CLERf( GEMERAL CLERt( LIME ASSIGNER 11.=, I I JTENt":tMCE ACM IM I STRt':t TOR MAJJITl!r-JAMCE TECHNICIAN Ml:TI IODS ,.'\f-JAL ,sr 1-IIZTl 10Rf:.: ,-:.r,111,,mrmATIOr.r CLl!RI( F'Lt,MT l!f-1'.-, I l-l~EF: I I-IG CLERK F"r,C:Ct. SS C'LCl'W~ ~~P~IR StRVICE CLERK SEl.fl OR Cf .ERi< sr::r-:v I CE ASS I ST .:.NT SE~VJCC ORDER CLERK ~13 ~55 163 148 23 197 719 54 74 141 c;,l l 4 10 3 4 43 23 14 4 11 ~(IC, 11 27 8 17 20 6 8 7 8 4 4 17 s q PECEMTAGE 23. (10i~ ~B.3l7. 17. 6(1'l. 13.9B7. 2.487. 21. 27i: 71. 641. s. s;: 7.9 1s.2 69.S BEST COPY AVA1LABLE
PAGE 219
. ............ -.~.. .~ ... ... HEALTH CONCERNS DI ZZHJESS 195 365 593 560 616 172 132 D l FrI CULT\' r-ocus I I.JG E','ES I l!!A0,1CHES MUSCLE ACHES Fl!ELIMG TENSE STOMACH PROBLEMS Ii I GH BLOOD F'RESSURE VISIOl-l F'ROBLEMS leJ I Tl-I Ff.:EGM;1NCY < J 3) wnCHING YES TO MONITOrilNG YES TO WITH YES TO HEALTH CONCERNS BOTH DIZZINESS 150 OIFFICULTV FOCUSII-IG EYES 40: HEADACHES 433 MUSCLE ACJ-IES 4 15 FEELING TENSE 461 STOMACH PROBLEMS 125 HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE 98 VI~lON 335 PROBLEMS lJ I TH Pf~EGNAMCV 21 ~LO 61. () 64.0 6().5 66.5 113. 6 14.::: 49. 1 3.0 HEALTH COlJCEF:NS 1c;'5 565 59::, 560 616 172 132 l55 28 ,, 1..,., F'ER CENT 76.9 71. 3 73.1) 74.l 74.8 72.6 74.2 73.6 iS.O () ...,_
PAGE 220
. .. .... .. ._ .' ... -.. ... ... .. ............. .. -. -.. DERVICE ORDER REVIEWER SERVICE REPS ~P~ClAL SE:RVICE COOROIMATOR SPECIAL SERVICE TECH t;r~c I AL 1-YP I ST TE:CJ-11-1 JC J .:.N _;f: F 1 CE DES I GM (u loJ.:.t: C::lULO','EE COMSUL TE;:, ON FOLLOlaJ I l-lG TYP~ OF ~UUIPMENT ,,rm,114GC::MEM1" OF ROOM LIGllTIHG OR MOISE 7; F:CC l EVE F'ROF'ER 1 F:A I l-1 I f-lG VES r.ao HOlJ MANY OTHER EMF'LOYEES USE VOTS Ir-, YOUR OFF I CE UMDER 1,:1 1)19 ~(1-;,:q :::1:.+ 11 ;:44 113 3 6 5 ;;:9 37 6S 726 161 106 99 493 i'?) ;1-DO YOU PEr::rORI I OTHER T.-1SVS BESIDES VDT lJORK YES f.JO [-'I fOl.tJ OFTElI IJf.JDE~: 10 HOURS ~')-30 3(+ 10.:1 > VDT laJOF:K I 5 MON I r OREO I-IIJMITORING IS USED FOR DISCIPLINE J 1) EHGONOMlCS A-rs f::]:."','BO.:.Ro OETACHAl!lLE 'i'l!S (..:CHO IS ,'ES f.10 IS Y~S 1 Cl-l.:'11 R AO,JUSTt''..tlLE SCRE:EN ,:.DJ US TABLE 0IS l. I GHTI NG 11DEC!UATE rm EIs TI-IEF:E GL:":RE ON scr~EEt-1 ,c:s f.10 193 :59 87 44 466 7c;-1 121 768 15(1 728 19(1 505 l09 6l6 ::7(1 3. 13'1. c;. 3c;''1. 7. <)17. 78. lOi~ 17.38 11. l4 1().69 4.96 -=~ ..,.,, W. ~._. ::;:;.45 43.73 19. 76 6.:.7 9.39 4.31 67.5 5(). 3 a::;. &.;: 1:.. )6 E:2.93 16. 19 78.61 20. 51 54.53 l4. 16 69.9i ~9. 1~
PAGE 221
Item 4 9to5 Newsletter May/June 1986 :. .. ,. .. .:. Computer Monitoring and Other Dirty Tricks "I can't even go to the bathroom without being watched. 1 have to put up a flag at my terminal. wail until the restroom is empty. sign out. sign back in. and remove my flag." "When people call you feel really guilty U you stay on the line. That conversation means seconds to you. and you don't make quota that day. So you end up withholding things that might help people.' Absurd and Slnlster 9to5 has released a new report called computer Monitoring and Other Dirty Tricks.' which gives an overview ot the methods and scope ol electronic surveillance. an analysiS ot the problems. and recommends allemattves. "'From counting trips to the restroom lo keystrokes per second. oUice Ct"-ipulers are being used in absurd and even sinister ways. says Karen Nussbaum. executive director of 9to.5. One state-of-the-art monitor ing system can be programmed lo listen in on employees and pick.up key phrases trom their telephone conversations. Depending on management s motives. the technolo gy can be used to detect a worker's political involve ment. 9to5 or unton ac!~ vity. or personal problems. .. There's a host ol computer accessories that are now being used by managers to watch over and control omce workers lo an extent that was never possible before. The goal is higher productivity. but the result is miserable working condllions tor omce workers." Karen says. Bad Management There are now 15 million video display terminal (VDT) operators in this country. The National Institute ol Occupational Safety and Health (NlOSH) estimates that two thirds ol them are monitored. computer monitoring is a bad idea. ll invades workers pnvacy. and it ollen results in unfair. arbitrary evaluation ol a persons work. ll reduces the workers control over his or her work. and it cuts down on 217 human contact. And it great ly increcses stress and the potential tor stress-related diseases: says Karen. ''When you examine computer monitoring carefully. as 9to5 has done. you real ize that it is not only bad tor workers. it is also bad man agement: Karen says. "In the lono run. it ends up cut ting into productiVity instead of increasing it. There are al ternatives to computer monitoring. We think managers should take advantage of them. and stop playing dirty tricks on their workers." ....... ) Copies of computer Monilo~ ~-,. ing and Other Dirty Triclcs" are available for $4 (members) S5 (individuals) and $8 (institu tions) plus $1 .50 postage and handling. from 9to5. 614 Superior Ave .. N.W .. Cleveland. OH 44113.
PAGE 222
.......... ;: ....... \ .:.... Video Views May/June, 1986 Service-With-A-Smile Airline Worker Speaks Out About Her Job By A11ne Gordon Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) spends over one million dollars a year to convince consumers that they arc purchasing service-with-a-smile, but that cheery maxim is not quite true, as Toni Watson reported at the recent VDT Coa lition Speak Out. Watson is a PSA re servations sales a.sent. "To tell the truth:' said Watson in her moving and at times horrifying testimony, "we don't feel much like smiling at all in the reservations center: Each day Watson and her co-workers plug into a computer S)'Stem which monitors many aspects of their performance for the entire day. ln fact, says Watson, .. We punch in and out of three units: the timccloc:k, the VDT, and the telephone keypad known as 'Collins: We plug a phone jack into Collins which is attached to our headsets and receive telephone calls. The VDT and Collins track every micro-second of our workday on com puterized performance records!' Daily print-outs arc produced on each worker's performance. Weekly print-outs map each agent's sales and production quotas as well. In addition, agents arc monitored on their "call length time!' Watson described the meaning and process of this measurement. "When someone calls PSA, we have 106 seconds to process your call, complete business and take the next call on hold. This is the office standard. To the salesperson who was hired because of people-oriented abilities: this docs not give one a lot of time to be friendly and personablC:' To insure that this procedure is complied with, there is a 11Quality Assurance" staff. These people secretly monitor the calls between the agents and the customers. If they don't like the way a call is handled, they write you up: Agents arc written up if they do not pursue a sale ag gressively enough or do not take enough calls per hour. Watson explained, 11Thcy continue to monitor your pcrf ormance and if you do not improve to their satisfaction, they stan issuing warnings which can lead to job loss!' This type of Orwellian nightmare is only half of the story. Workers are also checked for 11unpluggcd timC:' Watson described the typical workday with two paid 15-minutc breaks, and 30 minutes, unpaid, for lunch. For the remaining sev en and one half hours, employees arc 11only allowed to leave their positions for 12 minutes per day. 11This includes bath room breaks, rest breaks, walking breaks, talking to co-workers everything! We arc expected to be seated, processing phone calls for the entire remainder of the day.' Watson described her personal episode with monitoring and unplugged time on the job. 11After four years on the job, I was told I would have to improve or lose my job. I did improve, but it was not enough -I was still three minutes over standards. The job stress became un bearable. One day my supervisor stood over me with a performance report and I knew what was coming. They were again dissatisfied. I tried to work; I felt com pletely dehumanized. I was mechanically typing and talking but part of me felt deadened. The voices around me were hollow sounds in my head and I could barely function. I looked at my supervi sor and said 1 could not continue to work. She said if I was sick, to go lie down for ten minutes, pull myself together and finish my shift. 11My mind snapped. I said that I did not know what was wrong with me, but I had a feeling that it would take me longer than ten minutes to get over it. I called in sick for the next week and wept every day. I couldn't function and couldn't relate to my family. 1 finally went to sec a counselor through the union employee assistance program who worked with me for eight months to help me recover from a work-related, job stress nervous breakdown:' Toni Watson's story is only one of many. Monitoring is one of the more insidious VDT-related health hazards and it is being used more and more f requcntly to track worker performance levels. As Watson advocated in the final moments of her testimony, "The need for legislation to protect all VDT workers is essential. The need for regulation of the automated office industries is great:' At the end of her moving testimony, almost in tears, Watson th:inkcd the au dience for listening so attentively to a story that was clearly difficult to tell. But for delivering such an honest and impas sioned pica, clearly the thanks go to Toni Watson.
PAGE 223
-. ........ .. :.;..;. ._ ... The JUE News June 1986 .,; "' ,-... .. .. 'D' FOR DISTRES5-A survey of over 900 VDT workers suggests a strong link t,~:twNn health complaints and tfectronic monitoring through the terminals. In the survey, conducted by the Connecticut Union of Telephone Workers, em ployees identified tension, headacHes, trouble in focusing and muscle aches as the most common health proble~s on the. job. And more than 70% reported their work was electronically monitored. Since most of the workers had ergonomically correct terminals and equipment, the union said the monitoring itself was the main problem. u
PAGE 224
CWA News July, 1986 .. .... _, ........ ..... .._ ... ~ .. __.. .......... -. .. ..... ... ~ -. "AT&T Strikers Beat Back Takebacks, Win 10.2% Wage-Benefit Gains" After striking nearly a month, CWA members at AT&T won a three-year settlement featuring wage and benefit improvements valued at 10.2 percent and an employment security package that President Morton Bahr described as "a quantum leap toward our ultimate goal of guaranteed lifetime employment." The pact. subject to ratification by the 155,000 CWA-represented members. contains improvements worth nearly $750 million. Settlement at the national level came June 17 when AT&T agreed to keep cost-of-living language in the contract (although COLA application is deferred during this agreement), to give CWA assurrances that subcontracting won't take place during layoffs or in areas where surpluses have been announced. to improve protections for systems technicians at AT&T Information Systems (ATTIS), to remove its demand for-eliminating percentage differentials, and to protect the lifetime earning potential of wage incentive workers. Dozens of problem issues that remained on the local bargaining unit tables took days of marathon negotiation to resolve and prolonged the strike until June 26. The walkout began on June 1 -Average Work Time There will be no discipline solely on the basis of Average Work Time (AWT) of operators. New productivity measure will be developed to measure operator performance. and local union-management teams will work together on programs regarding generation of revenues and customer satisfaction. 2.Z.0
PAGE 225
Poiicy Statement adopted at Seventeenth OPEIU Triennial Convention, 1986. Wh i te Co 11 a r July-August-Sept. 1986 New teehnology Delegates expressed their concern with "uncon: trolled use of technology to raise productivity" and pledged local unions to pursue safeguards for workers at the bargaining table and through legislation. Just a few of these are: union participation in the planning for and introduction of new technology; company training policies that benefit workers; flexibility be tween occupations; ban of m90itntj~ machine-n,ced and electronic homework;e and healthy working conditions, and a protection against dismissal. ? 7 I ._.... .:,_.,. 0 ..... ) u
PAGE 226
..... ..... ,,: ..... ...... : __ .;..,... ... ,.,, .... -.. .; .. ""' Automated Times vol. 2, No. 2, Fall 1986 911 Is Watching You "Monitoring is fine --up to the point of timing our bathroom breaks. That's @#1!" "It's a two-sided thing. If someone's not doing their share and causing more work for the others, it's good to have the computer to prove it. But with bad managers it could be a tool to get rid of someone they don't like. It's all in how it's used." "It's like having your boss standing over your shaulder every minute. But it's a necessary evil." These are some reactions of S11 (emergency dispatch) operators at the Boston Police Department to the monitoring system that connects their telephones with a computer. T~e computer keeps track of each operator's average call length, time at lunch and on breaks, and any outgoing calls. Supervisors receive printouts of each individual 1s hourly and dai I y "statistics". This is the firat of a series of artictes on computer monitoring -where is it happening and how is it being used. 911 operators we interviewed seem to agree that some monitoring helps to insure everybody is covering their phone, which is critical to their job. But the affects of monitoring depena on how the information collected by the computer is used. Operators fear that their newly upgraded monituring and taping system may be used unf ai rl y to discipline workers. Some feel that unnecessary stress has al ready resulted. Discipline By Computer In 1984, employees obtained a "verbal agreement" from management that the new Horizons monitoring system would not be used for disciplinary purposes or pay adjustments. This agreement was made possible by a union contract which guarantees the right to nego-. tiate when any new technology is introduced. Just last month, however, David Kitchen, a union steward for the department, overheard a conversation indicating supervisors were considering using the information collected to take disciplinary action against 911 operators. Kitchen is now negotiating to secure a written policy to prevent discipline based on computer statistics.
PAGE 227
The 911 department is di ff eren t than a lot of office work, because many calls are life-or-death situations. So operators being away from the phones too much or making outgoing calls ~an have serious consequences. Especially during the night shift, when there is little human supervision and when most of the emergency calls come, computer monitoring is a way of knowing who leaves their stations too often. The operators interviewed agreed that monitoring was a valid tool in this instance. According to Nancy Sable, a 911 operator for 12 years, "Operators who aren't by their phones make the job harder for the others, and it 1 better to have a supervisor mention excess break time than to have to talk with a coworker yourself." 0
PAGE 228
40 ......... t .... 0 ..... _.. .... ,-. -~ .. Blind Ta the Human Side But operators worry that supervisors evaluating them by the numbers might not understand valid exceptions to the computer's rul_es. For example, a longer average call length could mean that an operator got one or more suicide calls, says Kitchen. Or someone might need to use the bathroom a lot because they are sick. Operators agree that current supervisors are reasonable and understanding of such excuses. But some feel that having to explain is demeaning. "The system is babysitting you", says one operator who asked not to be identified. "I stopped being babysat when I was three years old. Whether you' re gone two minutes more shouldn't matter." She admits that supervisors haven't made a big issue of extra breaks "yet! The system was put in for a reason --to keep us under a big thumb." All calls are tape .recorded, even those on non-911 phones. Another operator felt that "You have to watch everything you say", because the headsets are so sensitive that they can pick up conversations around the office. "They know everything we do, say, or eat." Many operators are hopeful that throu, the_ir union, SEIU Local 285, and a 101 labor/management committee they can preve abuses of computer monitoring. Kitche for instance, feels confident he wi II be su, cessful in preventing disciplinary action basf on monitoring (although he says the lessc he's learned is to get everything in writin, Still, the concerns remain. "It's mostly our heads: nothing real bad has happen ( yet", said one new employee. "But it fee like someone's standing over our shoulder Is this 1984?"
PAGE 229
The Guild Reporter Sept. 12, 1986 -~4- :~'"--4.Jit ..... Report warns of(nonitoring pitfCJl/i\ Washing ton-" Appearing to drive employees faster and faster to the point where they become angry and quit is a poor manage ment technique. a computer trade association cautions in suggesting how employers can make the best : use or computer monitoring sysrems. While managers that "inch-up on production standards so that employees .. have to work harder and harder to :ichieve the same rate of pay .. run the risk of dainpe~ing morale and causing employees .. undue distress." a computer's automatic monitoring capability can be rewarding to both employers and their employees. the Computer and B~siness Equipment Manufacturers Assn. said in releasing its' list of suggested monitoring techniques. Monitoring production can be rewarding to 11high-achieving employees," CBEMA said. counselling employers to reward individuals with "incentive pay for work done above a certain lever or through "verbal or promotional rewards.'' Computerized tracking of output can also help employees meet their goals and those of their employer, the association said. It added a warning about .. using t statistics to inspire competition, .. } however, noting that while public recognition of high achieving employees can be positive, "most employees resent receiving public criti~ism." Posting all individual scores ucan backfire by making that half of employees who are ... 'below average' angry and tense," it said. : The release urged management to measure individual employees' progress against goals and de--'; panmcntal averages and to advise employees when their work is being monitored. "Measure only those items that are essential for meeting organization goals, the release suggested, adding that if keystrokes are "the only relevant statistic, don't collect infonnation on the number of .breaks" an employee takes. CBEMA President Vico Hen" riqucs, meanwhile; suggests that: employers .. can capitalize on the : entrepreneurial spirit of many : workers by using measurement to 1 foster individual initiative and a : spirit of competitiveness." Legislation to limit workplace monitoring, like that in place in several European countries. would thwart the "initiative that can lead employees to such benefits as higher earnings, .. He.~riques said in response to questions on the topic posed by the Bureau of National Affairs' Employee Relations Weekly. Proposals to limit computer monitoring have been introduced in sev~n state legislatures in recent years though no such legislation has been adopted. CBEMA said. Both Henriques and the association he heads have been vigorous in their opposition to legislation to : establish standards for the design of video display terminals and their use in the workplace. TNG's Collective Bargaining Program requires Guild locals m seek contractual guarantees against the establishment of speed or accuracy standards for employees working on automated equipment. including VDTs. 0 -
PAGE 230
The Guild Regorter Sept. 12, 19 6 ..... .. '-. .:.: : .. .,,;, .~. ...... .. .. .... -. .. BILL CROW/CALM/acps Graphic Service
PAGE 231
... \ .......... :. .. .:.. CWA News October 1986 BIG OTHER IN THE WORK PLACE The year 1984 came and passed, and it was generally acknowledged that we have so far been spared George Orwell's nightmare vision of complete government intrusion into our homes and private lives. The technology that would make possible a real life .. Big Brother" exists today, however, and it isn't stretching things too far to say that the potential of 1984 is being foreshadowed in today's Information Age workplace. 1 An MCI sales representative in the midwest phones the state wage and hour board to ask how she can file a complaint against the company to collect commission money she believes is owed her. Two hours later, her supervisor grills her about the call and smugly plays a tape of the whole conversation. 2 At Air Canada in Toronto, a female reservations agent confides to a friend at the next station that she has cervical cancer; meanwhile, a gay male agent nearing the end of his shift tells a co-worker about his planned afternoon at a nudist beach. Both are surprised at how widely known are their discrete revelations. The woman soon is consoled by her supervisor about her disease and the male is questioned about his sexual habits as he hears a tape of his statement at a performance appraisal. 3 An AT&T long distance operator is fired for improper job attitude" when a supervisor, listening secretly to her calls, notes that she disconnects a customer. The facts as presented to the arbitrator later on: While the operator repeatedly asked the caller to put money in his pay phone, no money was deposited, he called her "a goddamn fool," and aughing and giggling" by several people was heard from the pay booth when the secret tape was played. These are real, and recent, cases. In the first, while MCI so far is not unionized, the worker nonetheless notified CWA which now is investigating legal action on her behalf. In the second, the workers were reluctant to pursue action for invasions of their privacy, though they are represented by the Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks, because of the embarrassing nature of the information gleaned through electronic eavesdropping. In the third, arbitration of this case by CWA resulted in the operator's reinstatement to her job, though she suffered a two-week suspension for "violating company policy." These are among the more dramatic examples of abuses of on-the-job surveillance, which goes by such names as "monitoring," .. service observation" and "productivity measurement." Surveillance and Stress Less dramatic, mundane even -and perhaps most insidious of all -is the constant pressure of voice and electronic monitoring directed at three-outof four CWA members and the growing numbers of other workers who regularly use telecommunications and computer related technology. "Tension and str:ess have reached horrible levels" as a result of systematic monitoring of directory assistance operators at Southwestern Bell in lnd~pendence, Mo., according to Yolanda Tolbert of CWA Local 6321. Subjective management interpretation of intercepted operator conversations is "unfair to workers" and has contributed to high rates of anxiety, ulcers, back and neck pain, and nervous disorders among her co-workers. "I know more service reps with high blood pressure than without," said Kevin Mulligan of Local 11n, Denver, in describing the way remote phone surveillance affects his office. While monitoring is supposed to provide positive feedback," the workers only hear about "things we've supposedly done wrong," he says. CWA is concerned both about the threats to the privacy as well as the health of workers who are subjected to the pressures of computer monitored work quotas. Stress and health related complaints have increased dramat ically" in CWA's ranks, according to President Morton Bahr. ,.We believe these complaints are related to increased job demands, decreased job controls, and the stress of electronic monitoring which often accompanies the penetration of the workplace t-'\ computers and VDTs." .. .,../ Bahr directed this statement to the head of the congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) after CWA reviewed a draft report of the OTA on workplace monitoring which concludes that the issue isn't one that Congress should worry about. The CWA leader urged OTA to take a harder look at the relationship be~en stress and disease, and he forwarded CWA's study of VDT (video display terminal) operators in North Carolina which suggests that VDT use in high pressure jobs contributes to chest pain symptoms. Plight of the Operator TelephQne operators have been the prime focus of CWA's campaign against job pressures because they are the most intensely monitored work group in America. From the second an operator plugs in at the start of a shift. computer equipment records the .. number and duration of cans han,.~ ) how many keys were pressed to t,m:r directory listings, and when and how long the operator unplugs for breaks, meals and trips to the bathroom. Suoervisors listen in randomly to checl-<
PAGE 232
a long list of performance factors ___ including "voice impression" and pro,ssionalism." All the while, the operator struggles to maintain an AWT { average work time) standard of so many seconds per call throughout the shift usually between 20 and 28 seconds depending on the office. Operators generally agree that the customers also suffer as a result of this pressure to process calls. tt an operator spends too much time with a customer, she's in trouble, and because so little time is allowed, operators occasionally may provide the wrong number," says Annette Duncan, a directory assistance operator at Southwestem Bell. vou feel guilty if you stay on the line -that conversation means seconds to you -so you end up withholding things that might help people," says Maevon Garrett, an AT&T long distance operator in Baltimore. At any time, an operator may be called on the carpet because a supervisor listening in may have judged that the worker, say, used a "discourteous ,tone of voice." Such subjective judgements are infuriating to operators. "It's the supervisor's word against yours when the nature of the conversation is discussed later on," points out AT&T long distance operator Lanell Piercy of Downers Grove, Ill. Monitoring "harass ment" results in a high rate of headaches and stomach disorders among operators, says Piercy, who is an assistant shop steward for Local 4211. It isn't just operators who are spied on, recorded, timed and pressured among CWA's ranks. Almost every worker who uses a VDT is subject to computer monitoring and meeting a production quota," notes David LeGrande of CWA's safety and health office in Washington, O.C. Including clerical workers both in telecommunications and in the public sector, some 400,000 members use VDT equipment, he estimates. Among New Jersey state workers represented by CWA, hundreds of tax auditors and data entry workers in the treasury department are routinely ... monitored and evaluated based on computerized production records that track each keystroke. Similar methods ;,.:1,1-., ~-~-............. arc spreading throughout federal and state bureaucracies, reports CWA Pub lic Worker Director Connie Bryant. Even outside craft workers in telecommunications are being subjected to computer monitoring more and more. Some ATTIS technicians now receive assignments and punch in work reports on hand-held computers. Commenting on this self monitoring," Bill Lewis of Local 2336 in Washington, O.C. noted: Toe computer record just shows how much time you took, but later theres no record of whether you had to run all over town from one assignment to another or handle an especially difficult problem." Inside craft workers, such as those in switching centers, routinely are subject to employers brousing through printouts and questioning you later, and the problems you faced at the time don't show up in the record," notes Howard Barnes of Local 3806 in Memphis. "They (supervisors) use these computer records to improve their 20-20 hindsight, and sometimes you can't even remember the unique situation you are forced to explain." Monitoring Methods Evolve When CWA first alerted Congress to the growing menace of workplace surveillance more than 20 years ago, the methods of surreptitious monitoring described by former union President Joseph A. Beirne in Senate testimony seem crude in comparison to the management tools of today. Beirne pointed to examples of hidden microphones in desk calendars used by telephone sales representatives, and hidden closed-circuit cameras discovered in Bell System bathrooms. He described the practice of tapping in to operator conversations, but the pervasive computer tracking of the operator's every activity and key stroke wasn't yet a technological possibility. In 1965, CWA members were the only workers systematically spied upon and CWA was the only union voicing much concem about the matter. Today, CWA is being joined by a growing coalition of unions in calling for worker protections against the pressures and abuses of indiscriminate monitoring. Today's computer technology allows the tracking of keystrokes and timing.~, output for virtually all clerical workers using VOTs and personal computers t. enter data millions of people. In some cases, supervisors can call up information on the worker's screen at will and observe on another VDT screen the work in progress. Supermarket checkout clerks use: electronic cash registers that record how many items a minute are processed, errors committed and time away from the counter. Fiber optic TV cameras with lenses no bigger than a pencil point provide constant, and hidden, observation of many worksites (usually justified for "security" reasons). Actual bugging" or installing recording devices in telephones is rare today. There s no need. Technology for "remote observation," eavesdropping, on telephone conversations is availabl1 ~ to employers and is considered justifi& ble as a means of finding out if workers are making personal calls on the job. Laser technology developed by Bell Laboratories made the room bug or martini olive transmitter obsolete. Conversations now can be intercepted and recorded from remote sites over a distance of several blocks, and it isn't just the CIA and FBI who are using this technology. While observation of workers in "private places" such as bathrooms is generally considered illegal, there is nc outright ban and few restrictions at the federal or state level over surreptitious monitoring and recording of workers or the job. Even such actions as requiring brain-wave analysis to detect drug abuse and random search of workers' computer files is generally allowable under law.
PAGE 233
Action to Limit Abuses CWA for years has pushed for legislative restrictions on monitoring, and currently active union campaigns are underway in New York, New Jersey, Iowa and Michigan for laws to curb abuses and require beep-tones when workers and the general public are subjected to electronic eavesdropping. While mobilizations tor legislative restrictions led to the passage of only one state law (in West Virginia, where a monitoring bill was passed in 1982 but repealed this year after lobbying pressure from AT& TI, they have often set the stage for collective bargaining gains. "Increased concern by other unions and organizations such as the ACLU should help generate public support in the future, .. says CWA Executive Vice President Barbara Easterling, who directs the union s government relations program. -~-.. r~ A coalition of unions was recently formed at CWA's initiative to gather more data on monitoring and focus public attention on the issue. Other unions participating in the effort include the Govemment Employees, Service Employees, AFSCME, Graphic Communications, Newspaper Guild, and Railway and Airline Clerks. The AFL CIOs Department of Professional Employees also is involved, as well as the American Civil Uberties Union. Most progress in limiting monitoring and arbitrary productivity pressure so far has C'tlme through collective bargaining. In 1980 negotiations with AT&T, CWA won a restriction of "remote diagnostic monitoring" of operators, and in 1983 and 1986 negotiations, most contracts saw limits on use of AWT for disciplinary actions. CWA also won in several agreements an understanding that monitoring should be used for training purposes only rather than for discipline of workers. n .I ... / ~Its been a gradual process of tyin~ down contractual protections each tirT we negotiate, and working to ease jot pressures on the job, every day, at thE individual worksite," comments Jame: Irvine, CWA vice president for AT&T Communications ... We're definitely making progress, but we have to just keep hammering away." President Morton Bahr notes: .. Our position on this issue really hasn't changed over the years. Electronic surveillance simply isn't necessary to maintain productivity and service quality, and in fact systems of gatheri: information from customers on the quality of service have been used by the telephone industry for years and have proven quite adequate." Bahr points out that: The threat to the privacy and dignity ci our mr --~ is a threat to workers and citize; ) throughout America. We have today the same philosophy that Joe Beirne articulated for CWA in 1965 -'A free society and unbridled eavesdropping cannot exist in the same framework." u
PAGE 234
...... :i ..... ..:. ...... ... .... -"I -Sol i da r i t.1_ BEST COPY AVAILABLE Oct. 1-15, 1986; Vol. 29, No. 8 STOPWATCH IN THE OFFICE How the Union can help protect workers against office s eedu __. .... ..;...;...;_,;;-a;;;..;.. __________________ ly DICK OLSON T ime and motion studies and the stopwatch have long been used lo set the pace of work for industrial workers. But to day. they're being used in offices. banks. and even hospitals. as management tries to increase the productivity of white collar workers. And as such pressures build .. the UAW. which represents thousands of white-collar members across the coun try. is working to insure their right to a safe and humane pace of work. The 22-storv Blue Cross-Blue Shield huilding in downtown Detroit, where hundreds of UAW Local 2500 members ., work, has been the site of one key struggle. For years before the union arrived. Blue Cross keypunch opera tors were downgraded in pay if they did not maintain a work standard of 12. 74 7 keystrokes an hour. The pres sure grew so intense that in I 980 over a hundred keypunch operators walked off their jobs one afternoon in protest. That was over a year before they joined the UAW. Today because of UAW contracts. that standard has been eased. Not only keypunchers. but many other kinds of office workers have been helped by union intervention. savs Prudence Humphrey. a trained union time-study representative-the first in a white collar local in the UAW and likely in the country. Humphrey's tasks include using her skills and the resources of the UA W's Time Study and Engineering Dept. to help workers win relief from unrealistic production standards. to assist them in learning how to properly report their productivity. and to challenge manage-ment errors. Drawing on long experience and expertise in the blue-collar area, today the UAW is virtually writing the book on how unions can represent office workers faced with the challenge of production standards. The union's role begins with nego tiating fair standards based on the U A W"s philosophy that workers should put in a fair da)s work for a fair day's pay. When management demands more. union intervention is needed. COMPUTER AS IIG BROTHER: One of the major challenges facing workers as well as their unions is the increasing use of computers to measure work productivity. For Betty Kimbel. also a Local 2500 mt:mber. such practices mean that all the time she spends an swering telephone inquiries. a computer system keeps track of her time at her desk. the length of her calls. the number of seconds between calls. and the number of calls she handles. "If the telephone representatives wait more than JO seconds between calls on a busy day." she says. they can be disciplined. And if you have just been dealing with an angry or rude custo mer. sometimes it's difficult to com pose yourself for the next call. .. A few noors away. Dorothy Ward almost wishes she had an impartial counter measuring her work as she enters claims data into a computer. She's supposed to enter 81 an hour. but sometimes they're one line long and sometimes six. ''Bv the end of the day." she sighs ... I am exhausted." Customer-service representatives at Blue Cross also arc measured for pro ductivity. If they don't make 95 per cent of their rate in a job that calls for
PAGE 235
continuing good judgment and accu racy. they can be disciplined." It's these kinds or problems that the UAW seeks to address in its role as protector or workers rights. Prudence Humphrey says that when a worker can't meet his or her standards, the problem sometimes is because the work er had never been taught the right method or how to properly count all the work he or she is doing. I nvestigat ing one disciplinary case. Humphrey found that the worker had not been giving herself credit for reordering data. "When she did. she met her standard.'' Humphrey recalls. ALIENATION: Humphrey believes that work standardization can alienate workers from each other as well as from management. But there is no doubt that management will keep up its efforts to get the most production it can out or workers. And unions will have to be as vi2ilant in the white collar sector as they have been in blue collar fields. 1\,.., L .. -I "Clearly the measurement and im provement or white-collar productivity is one or the single largest challenges facing our economy today. says Ches ter L Brisley. a retired productivity engineer. Such messages arc being spread into banks. hospitals. and into every depart ment of modern industrial corporation. At Hughes Aircraft. for example. a company recently purchased by General Motors. management decided that "if we can measure our project coordina tion function. we can measure any thing ... At the end of its study. the company claimed success and reduced the project coordination staff 38%. As corporations redirect their attention and their work-measurement specialists to clerical and service industry settings. '"They seem to be repeating many of the same mistakes made with 0 BEST COPY AVAilJ\BLE factory production worker~. warns John Zalusky. an AFL-CIO !,rccialist. "It is important that unions representing white-collar workers learn from labor's earlier experience. Todav. white-collar workers account for nearly 53 percent of the adult work force and ncarlv SI trillion in annual compensation. i'hat could ri~c to S 1.5 trillion by 1990. DRESSING-UP SPEEDUP?: One hun dred years ago. w~en Frederick T~ylor first introduced tame study technaques to industry. the American Federation of Labor won legislation prohibiting the use of stop watches in federal industrial establishments. _,.-) But the approach didn't worl-. Unions concluded that. like them or~ not. time-studv svstems weren't going to disappear. So labor began to develop the expertise to counter claims of management. and "to knock the props from under elaborate time studies which were in reality only dressed-up speed up." as described by former UAW Presi dent Walter P. Reuther. In 1948. the UAW set up a Time Study and Engineering Dept. we don't believe time study is scientific fact." says Tom Cichocki. who directs that department today. "But we can only represent our members if we understand how it works ... Now. training courses in time study for UAW members go on continuously. While Prudence Humphrey received her training at a private institution. the UAW recently held its first time-study training course for white-collar mem be!rs-all union officers from Blue Cross-Blue Shield office:; outside Detroit. As white-collar work becomes an increasingly important part or the economv. the union will continue to performits job of protecting w~rkers ... against speedup ~nd other arb1tra: ) management practices. t:,___./
PAGE 236
-----------......... _...-... ~--__,_._ ... ---The Guild Re_EP.!te~ October 17, 1986 'SNEAKY' TACTICS SCORED ..... ,r., --.__. Monitoring methods seen as hinderance Washington-While electromc monitoring of employees performance could play a key role in management effons to improve productivity, current methods arc counter productive. an academic panel has concluded. Employees feel frightened and pressured rather than motivated by monitoring systems. according to a report prepared for the congres sional Office of Technology Assessment. ln that report. Dr. Michael J. Smith of the University of Wisconsin's Dept. of Industrial Engineering and a pair of col leagues cite the failure of today's computer-based monitoring techniques to measure quality of work along with quantity. .. Those few electronic monitoring systems that do examine qual ity" use such .. objectionable. sneaky" approaches that they ~erve .. as a dcmoti vator to workers rather than as a source of helpful informa tion... the paner s report said. It cited. as examples. unannounced eavesdropping on telephone solicitation5 and counting corrections in typed material. The panel drew its findings from published research is:, the area as well as its own survey of 41 employees at five work sites, including classified advertising employ ees at the New York Times the St. Paul Disp3tch and Pioneer Press. The congrcssion31 agency com missioned the report as part of an e:
PAGE 237
CWA News November 1986 -'?-?-.> __ >;:, For Operators, the Bi~ Issue Remains ~, I' .. ,; \ ., ............ n ..... ,: \ .. } ...... BEST cnpy f,' ~ ii !. ~--' r:-
PAGE 238
Take three hundred telephone operators from around the country, put them together for three days to discuss mutual problems, and one theme keeps boiling up again and again job stress. The fifth annual CWA Operator's Conference, held late last month in Phoenix, focused not only on such long-standing concerns as AWT (Average Work Time measurement) and voice monitoring but also addressed new stress-provoking ~roblems result .. ing from the Bell System breakup and deregulation of the industry; problems such as: Dislocations and disruptions associated with .. reprovisioning" -the shifting of thousands of AT&T Communications operators back to the Bell operating companies (BOCs) as part of the divestiture process. New forms of sales-oriented work appraisal that are being applied un venly and sometimes subjectively to vperators in response to competitive pressures. The loss of non-contractual local work rules and privileges in many offices where former BOC operators were moved to ATT-Com. AT & T Officer on the Firing Line AT& rs new Vice President for Operator Services Paula Lance Gavin heard anger and I rustration in many questions fired at her during an intense two hour give-and-take session. Gavin, who pledged that her "Number one priority is people," was praised by several participants for her candor and for being "a sport" to subject herself to the experience. Nonetheless, Gavin was a handy target of abuse for AT& rs tough stance during the recent negotiations and 26-day strike. Questioned about AT& Ts national newspaper ad during the strike, which a CWA member charged was a distortion, .. Gavin responded .hat, didn't write it, and if I had it might have been different." Several participants described '"pref erential treatment of scabs" by managers since the strike and pointed out that this practice undermines Gavin s stated goal of building .. a team" within AT&T operator services. Gavin said such behavior would be against her policy and promised to investigate the charges in the cited locations, Houston and Akron. Questioned about the loss of such customary privileges as advance post ing of tentative holiday schedules and certain paid break periods that existed in various offices before BOC workers were shifted to ATT-Com, Gavin replied: .. We may want to go back and have every office use the rules they had before (divestiture). We're going to work on that together," she said, indicating she was discussing these problems with CWAs James Irvine, vice president for ATT-Com. Irvine, appearing with Gavin, also noted that, "The bargaining process never really has ended. The task of merging all the BOC contracts into one (CWA-ATT-Com) contract is very com plex, and we're still ironing things out." AWT-Still the Hot Issue AWT, by that name or any other (such as the new "Performance Development Plan," PDP) remains the telephone op erators biggest complaint. Virginia Iverson of Local 7200 in Minneapolis voiced the feeling of thousands of CWA members in the session with AT& T's Paula Gavin: "AWT's have been a sore spot in operator services for years. No matter how fast you are, the supervisors always want more from you. Our standard in Minneapolis was 96 ten years ago. The theme of the company today is customer satisfaction -yet our standard is still 96. You can't have your cake and eat it too! We can't give customers good service until we get a more realistic average to work with." Kevin McDermott of Local 7777 in Denver pointed out that the new PDP job performance program, which mea-.. V'-' -sures AWT along with other factors that supposedly take into account customer service, such as call completion, isn't popular in his office: "The performance development appraisal system has great potential for abuse because of the subjective way it is applied by management. It's administered differently in every office." He said, '"There is every reason to believe there is overmonitoring going on" to measure PDP performance. Gavin, in defending the system, asked how many operators now worked with PDP. About 50 hands went up. Then she asked how many liked the system. No hands went up. The room exploded in applause and Gavin scribbled another note on her legal pad. Bahr Warns of 'Sales Quotas' The new per1ormance standard also was addressed by CWA President Morton Bahr, who spoke to the operators and answered questions on the final morning of the conference. Bahr warned that operators may face the pressures of "sales quotas as the companies seek to measure the revenues gained by each operator's performance. "There's a simple reason for this and it's called the bottom line," Bahr stated. "The operator represents a $5 billion a year business. Americans place and receive 190 billion calls each year. "When we struck last summer, where was the first place management scabs were assigned? Operator Services," Bahr noted. "AT& T's 'Revenue Management Program' is being expanded to include operators," Bahr said. They are proposing that operators visit with customers, document visits and be come a personal point of contact with customers -all at no additional pay, of course."
PAGE 239
The conference later adopted a policy resolution noting that "the linking of operator services and marketing preord_ains that operators will be saddled with sales quotas as well as AWT's," and which concluded: "In order to achieve realistic and fair productivity standards they must be established through joint consultation with the union." Erasing 1Big Brother' from the Workplace Monitoring, another source of operator job stress, was also a major concern throughout the conference and the subject of Resolution Number One -"Erasing Big Brother from the Workplace." President Bahr pointed out that monitoring surreptitious electronic eavesdropping -in the sexist parlance of telephone management years ago used to be considered "a female problem," and wasn't taken seriously. wen, management was having the female problems," Bahr stated. "They were also having male problems, worker problems, and eventually CWA problems." Bahr described how CWA has addressed the problem in bargaining and has moved into the forefront in making this "a worker rights issue for all workers." "Your union has taken the lead in formation of an ad hoc working group on monitoring with other AFL-CIO unions," he reported. we are exchanging experiences and ideas for advocating workers rights issues in the Information Age workplace. And we're realizing that along with monitoring, polygraphs, brainwave testing, mandatory drug testing and computerized supervision and production controls are all part of the assault on workers rights." The conference-passed resolution on monitoring concluded that CWA must "vigorously pursue legislation at the national and state levels to eliminate and finally outlaw monitoring of all types. Other Speakers, Resolutions Other speakers at the conference, organized by Phoenix Local 7019 with support from other District 7 operator locals, included: Outgoing Arizona Governor Babbitt, who presented his proclamation designating Oct. 29 as "Arizona Operator Services Day." Carolyn Warner, the CWA-endorsed Democratic nominee for Governor of Arizona (who narrowly lost election a few days later). CWA Executive Vice President Barbara Easterling, who heads CWA's government relations department. She reviewed developments affecting operators and other telephone workers flowing from the Congress, Federal Communications Commission and the courts. Dina Beaumont, executive assistant to Bahr, who stressed that activists at the conference must become knowledgeable about the issues" in today's workplace, continue to n~twork" and sr.1are information, "and go back and get other workers and groups involved in solving the problems we're discussing here." District 7 Vice President Walt Maulis, who welcomed the participants to his district, and was on hand throughout the meeting to review operator service job issues and problems. n u
PAGE 240
SERVICE.~ EMPLOYEE :-.iQV[tv,U[:R/D[CCMf3E:? VOL%. NO. 2 '31RE5S IN THE OFFICE Secretaries a.re number two on t.he national stress list. Women clerical. workers arc su.ffering heart disease tWice as often as o~her work.ing women. One cause is the unbalance between being responsible for the work While havmg no control over it. Another is the repetition the pace, and the pey: What we can do about it, pages 617. For many SE'iu niember~i'. 'goodwill t~ all' _may take special meaning this year/p. 2 b .. '-. \ ................. _....._ -
PAGE 241
Service Employee November/December Vol. 46, No. 2 'The secretary's job was once full of challenge and variety and human contact. But all that has changed since the VDT was brought to her office. Now she spends hour after endless hourstraining eyes, back, and wrists at the terminaltrying to meet her computer-monitored production quota. All the while, a message she isn't even aware of is flashing on her screen: "Work faster." CLERICAL CONVENTION For the 'office, of the future,' SEIU has its own ideas about progress Doca.l 585 president Rosemary Trum.p chair.'; I.he co1iucntin1t (below), where delegates ponrlcr 11cw idea.,; for orga11izin.,: and bar gaim.ng (botlom), and hear from SE!U's Dislricl .?25 prct;idcnl Karen N11 .. ,;5bn.1Lm. (lmtlnm right) on whal thr. f1Llu.rc holds in. store for o{{t.ec worlicr.';. '"'"'" h\ M,,..,.,,., r..111,,,hv Thi~ as Lhe office of Lhe fuLure. And t.he delegates who came to SEIUs first full convention ofLhe clerical divh;ion caught more Lhan a glimpse of it. .. We're up against a technological t.ornado that is tearing through Lhc office landscape," SEIU prcsidenL John Sweeney told the delegates. They were a group of union officers and rank-and-file members, men as well as women, from the U.S. and Canada representing 125,000 office workers in universities, government. offices, schools, hospitals, insurance companies, and utilities. But for nll the diversity in t.heir backgrounds, the delegat.cs shared an apprehension about the future. A clear picture of the changing office and iti; impact on work, health, and family life emerged as they lis Lcned Lo experts from SEIU, univer sities, and other insLitutions. Today, office workers arc producing more and more work on new high-tech equipment that requires new and more complicated skills. And the work is physically demandingstraining Lhe eyes and Lhc body Lot.he point. of sheer cxhausLion. DEAD-END JOBS But. "some things haven't. changed much since I bc,;an organi1.in~ office worker~ l.wr.nl,.Y year~ ai.:o," said clivi ~inn chair Roscm:iry Trump, prcsi dcnl of I.,ncal 585. "The low pay, I.he heavy work loads, Lhc
PAGE 242
Corporate cxe I cs ilnd physicians don't suffer from the cnnclition. Dut office workers do. IL's stress, and it's com mi:; Lo light as i1 scriou~ occupational health hazard. As Lhc incidence of heart di~case rises rapidly amnng work ins women, more research on occupational sLrcssi::; heinr: concluded by such ,::roups a:; the Nat.annal In:;Lit.utc for Occupational S,ifct.y and Health (NIOSH) :ind Lhe Centers for Disease Control (CDC). And the rcsult.s arc coming in-st.rc.c;s is real, lifc LhrcaLening, and caused by factor.~ in the worhpln.cc. "Stress i::; not a personal problem," says Or. ,Jeanne SLclJman. "It's environment.al, and it needs action." What ingredient..'; make up a st.ressful job'! Hcaclinr; the list arc a heavy workload and loLc; of responsibility, particularly when accompanied by Lach of control over Lhc work-and lack of respect, recosnit.ion, and support from :;upervisors. Even worse is when the work is repetitive and f:isL-paccd, Lhc work environment noir;y and poorly-vcnlilaLcd, and Lhc worker under-paid and d i~satisficd. No wonder, then, thal sccrct.aries arc number two on the "stress list"-the l'!IOSH ranking oflJO occupations -second only t.o laborers. Dul because or auLomaLionwhich speeds up the pilce and Lakes out the challenge office workers arc gainini: .:round on the number one spot. In foct, anoLher NIOSH study show:; Urnt clericals workin~ on video-display terminals (VDTs) have more :-.l.rcs!-i than any oLher wnrker. Slre:-.~ is marked hy rcnl, physiological chani,:es LhnL occur in Lhc hody, in response Lo dcmnnds made or iL in Lhc nnicc. The stres~ react.ion, sometime:-. called I.he "fii:ht or night.'' ~yndrome. ch:1ri;c:,; up Lhe body's sources of cncri;y-adrenalinc. hcartbc:iL. cholc~Lcrnl, hloocl :,.ui,:ar, ancl hlnod Lo I.he heart .uuJ hrain. Thc:-.c ch.111~1:r-., occurrini; all clay Ion,;, t..1ke Lhcir Loll. ... .~., .... ....
PAGE 243
II. RENDS in the office lead to less satisfaction, less pay for workers. How will we feel about. our work in Lhe office .. or Lhc r uLure? I
PAGE 244
Service Employee November/December Vo 1 46, No. 2 Computers do it all ,_-like it or not i ------------l" Automation just evolved .... It took the challenge out of the job.,, -MARY LOUISE GARRO "Some people seem to enjoy workng wiLh comput.ers," says Mary Louise Garro. "But I find it.demoralizing t.o sect.he computer do what. I used Lo do." In Lhc fast-growing cit.y of Frccmont., California, Garro is a senior, account. clerk in the payroll department. and a member of Local 790. She and only one ot.hcr person process paychecks for more than 750 city workers. That. alone is a heavy workload, Garro says. But she also interprets provisions in 12 different. union con Lract.&-an overwhelming Lask. In the six years she has worked for t.hc city's payroll department., Garro's jnh has never been more strcssf u 1 t.han it. is now. 11The aut.omat.ion of my job just evolved," she says. "I don't. like it., but.I never had any choice." The machines t.ake t.he challenge and ment.-il stimulation ouC. oft.he job, she s:iys. Instead or doing Lhe actual accounLing hcrsclr, she simply rec ords t.hc information and looks up Lhe compuLcr codes. And she dreads t.hc four or five days each monLh she spends doing solid -~ daLa enLry at. a t.crminal for t.hc en Lire eight. houra. SEIU members speak out on M,1.ry Louise Gn.rrn IL's so physica11y draining t.hat when she ,;oes home, her eyes and head ache for hours. Dut because t.hc work is so monotonous, she says, the mental fatigue is even worse. Because the city's employment has gone up by one-C.hird since she's been Lherc, Garro says, no one fears losing their job to automation. But. knowing c.hac. eventually even more of her time will be spent on the computer docs make her apprc.hensive. Garro, a shop steward, knows that. many of the problems she and her coworkers face on the job arc not alwavs grievablc under the union contract. But she also knows t.hat it helps if workers have more input. into deci sions that affect their daily work lives. After at.Lending a workshop, as part of Local 790s new stress counseling program, she is exploring new ways of dealing with work-related stress. And management, she believes, rccoi: nfaes it. is to their advantage to listen to what union members have t.o say
PAGE 245
Service Employee November/December Vol. 42, No. 2 "w-hen I get home, I don't want to hear anyone elseS problems.,, -DENISE SOUSA "Why do you punish us today when you let us get away with it yesterday?" Denise Sou&as two young daughters want to know. The reason, Sousa readily admits, it that.she had a bad day at work. "You take it home with you," she says. Sousa has been working for Cambridge and Somerville (Mass.) Legal Services, Inc., for t.wo years. She is a member ofSEIU District 925, which represents t.hc firm's clerical workers. A Lypical working mother, Sousa juggles responsibilities at work with those at home-which is why she depends on her union contract. She says it gives her the flexible hours she needs, defines reasonable workloads, and enabled her to be promoted from reccpLionist to intake worker. All day long, Sousa screens calls from people who need free legal ser vices. If they do not. ,1ualify, Sousa is t.hc one who has to tell them-a job she doesn't relish. -But most of her day is spent. set.ting up files, filling out complicated forms, phot.ost.at.t.ing, indexing, coding, and-until she became prcgnantr-cntcring Lhe dat.a into a word processor. Sousa is bilingual, and she trans lates Portuguese documents under stringent. deadlines. The translations arc one of the most stressful parts of her job. She is the only one who can do iL, and t.hc aLtorncys expect. her to drop everything when t.hey need it.. At lunchtime, Sodsa drives nearly a half-hour each way to pick up her youngest.daughter and bring her back t.o work. Theres no one at home Lo take care of her, she cxplnins. "Jt.s a crazy life," she says. "My day has to be timed perfectly." Sousa is diabetic, and her blood sugar level socs way up on parLicularly had days. And though her doctor has told her the stress is caus ing it, she says she docsn 't want Lo look for another job. "This is ajoL where I can help other people," she says. r-. r,.._ "'T r ~. ~. .: ~) f' ,._ l \, n ._ .,.,, ;, ,' .. u
PAGE 246
Handling a big job with little control '" just keep reminding myself I do something worthwhile.,, -CHRISTINE ENRIGHT Christine Enright still remembers the names-and the children's n;1mes -of clients she had ten years ago. Now, increasingly overworked, she is hard-prcs.,ed Lo recall a single cli ent. she had last month. "It's become depersonalized," she says of her. job as a case worker in Philadelphia's inner city ... I'm respon sible for how people will live. But I feel like a billing clerk." Every month, the Local 668 member determines t.hc eligibility of 300 families for food stamps, cash, and medical assistance. And since st.ate f uncling has been drying up, the case workers arc severely understarTed. 0IL's a huge responsibility," says Enright ... With absolut.ely no authority or decision-making." They go by the regulations and proccd\lt"Cl' cont.ained in three "monstrous" vol umes and several binders full of pro cedural changes, which appear daily. The Lclephone rings all day long, and in between calls Enright. pro cesses lengthy forms, crossrefer ences, checks, and '1 mult.itude of what she calls "boring details." Most of the case workers, she ~i\Y~, have to pick and choose which dcacl li nei,; they nre going to meet .. "I t.ry to he pleasant wit.h the clicnLc:j," Enright says. But she says she feels angry all t.he time, and some Limes she jusL wants to scream. Her stomach has got.Len "rca lly bad" overt.he years. And she says she can't figure ouL, since she has l.o set. up early in Lhe mnrnin~, why she cnn'L Gr:ST COPY AVAILABLE Every month; tnc LOClll,000 am:m .. her clet.crmincs the eligibility of 300 families for food stomp~, cash, and medical assisLance. And since st.ate funding has been drying up, the case workers arc severely understaffed. "It's a huge responsibility," says Enright. "With absolutely no authority or decision-making." They go by the regulat.ions and procedures conLaincd in three "monstrous" vol umes and several binders full of pro cedural changes, which appear daily. The telephone rings all day long, and in between calls Enright pro cesses lengthy forms, crossrefer ences, checks, and a multitude of what she calls "boring details." Most of the case workers, she says, have to pick and choose which dead lines they are going to meet. "I try to be pleasant with the cli ents," Enright says. But she says she feels angry all the time, and some times she just. want.s t.o scream. Her stomach has gotten "really bad" over the years. And she says she can't figure out, since she has to get up early in the morning, why she can't foll asleep until lat.eat night. Last year t.hc union surveyed the case workers in Pennsylvania, and found a high level of stress-related ill ness. Now Enright. chairs a statewide committee of case-worker represen tatives, to work on ways of dealing with the stress. As a first step, they managed to equalize the workloads. But even better, says Enright, is t.he chance to discuss regulations that stopped making sense long ago. i 1/;, l "' .__ _____ __ ___. t Chri.sti11.c Enright
PAGE 247
,or AVAILABLE Employee Surveillance, Monitoring Increasing .. -r Drug testing is one aspect of a growing trend toward businesses playing "Big Brother" in the work place. Employee surveillance and performance monitoring have be come increasingly prevalent in recent years as the availability of sophisticated electronic equipment has enticed many companies to step up efforts to spy on employees. Computers are a key culprit. Th~ International Labor Organization's 1985 report on technological advances in the workplace observes, "The tremendous advance in computer technology has substantia11y contributed to developing [ employ ee] control techniques. Personnel control ... has become far more ef ficient." Computers are used to count keystrokes per second, record rest room visits, and in some cases are programmed to listen to employee telephone conversations, a study conducted by 9 to 5, the National Association of Working Women, reveals. About two-thirds of the 13 million video display terminal operators in the U.S. are moni tored, according to estimates by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. In grocery stores, laser scanners can monitor how many items cashiers scan per minute. Computers monitor how quickly airline reservation clerks enter informa tion-and how long they pause between calls. A number of major American corpor com panies, routinely listen in ations, notably long distance telephone on employee telephone calls. Employee monitoring causes high stress and low morale among many workers, experts note. Karen Nuss baum, director of 9 to 5, sums up the feelings of many workers, stat ing, "The potential for corporate abuse is staggering. It put-5 you under the gun in the short run and drives you crazy in the long run." zu3
PAGE 248
COMPUTERWORLO DECEMBER 22, 1986 Limiting worker information abuse Ron Schneiderman'.s article, 'Employee produc tivity: Big Brother is monitoring you" (CW, Nov. 10), misses the heart of the matter in dismissing worker objections to compute,m\initoring. Computer operators being electronically sur veilled are much different from sales representa tive&, who rm out reports, or football players coached from the sidelines, as Schneiderman disin genuously draws the comparison. With the computer, workers can be watched ev ery fraction of every second or their workday. More information, in greater detail, can be collected than ever before. 1'he potential for abuse is obvious. Schneiderman notes that the product of moni toring is information, and he raises important questions: Howimportant is the information? How relevant is it? Does it truly reveal the quality of the work being performed? In far too many cases, managers collect far too much information, without the employees know ing what is being collected or how it is to be used. To limit these potential abuses, 9 to 5, the National Association of Working Women, suggests the following: Ban the use of subliminal software programs. Notify workers when auditory, visual or computer surveillance occurs. Allow employees complete access to their per sonnel files and provide them with information on how the data is collected and used. Establish a grievance proc~dure so employees can appeal incorrect data, since the computer is not always right. In order to start out with the best foot forward, statistics shQ\lld be collected by work group, rath er than ~hy individual worker. Productivity stan dards or work quotas should be set with employee input t.o reflect system problems, such as down time and response lags, quality of service and work load variability. These are just a few ways to prevent some or the worst abuses and give employees a minimum of protection until, in Schneiderman 's words, employers can .. figure out what information is really worth and can evaluate its timeliness." Karen Nussbaum Executive Director 9 to 5 \ National Association of Working Women I Cleveland BEST rrtPY ~.t'r :i r-,. ,. '-. \ ... l } ,; \ ..
PAGE 249
Item 5 E-c-onoiiiy & Business 1...--------------------.. The Boss That Never Blinks Companies put l-Vorkers 011 the spot by using com1mrcr .\pcrvi.\ors S o Yllll think your boss is inhuman'? ,\ real autom:llon who never lets up. never rorgcts the slightest error you mnkc:'.> Then just wait until a computer takes over as mannger. For many U.S. workers. that day has arrived. In ncnrly any job in which computer terminals nrc a tool for workers. and thnt is:1 lllt of jobs in todayseconomy. the machines m:,w ha\'e the capability of nll,nitoring an empkiyces perform:rncc. Rc!sult millions of ~lintputcr users :m.: l'-'il111g under tht: rdentlcss gaze of clcctr",n1..: ~upcrvis1l1n In thous:rnds of U.S. l,!lil,,'.CS. stl,rcs aml fa~Lorics. wl,rkcrs who l,,11.c i:'-,ulll get :1way with gOl,fing around ~~rn seen hustling through their t:,sks :1s lhL,ugh the lx1sses were watching then, evcrv m 111utc 01' ~l,ursc. th;n is e:-;.:1~tly the idea. \llaJt.,r ~,.1rrx,r:1til',ns ranging frllll\ United Airlrnl!') t1 .. [quit;ibk Life have installc:d llll'lllitl,ring systems for some employees in tht.: hL,pt.: of bl'>Osting productivity. More than I; millilln Anieri~;,1ns use computer lt!rrnin=ils in thc1r jobs. ;tnd ~1b9ut oncthi:-J (11' these pcoplt! arl.! being scrutini,cd as the~ work. Sin~e the number of tcrrnina! usc:rs is l.!.,pci.:tcd to triple by the end of the: ,kc:-illc. ~omputer monitoring m:iy be t'!l its wJy tl'I bci.:liming the nc.xL big ma:iagl!rnl!r1l hull word. -Th1.: exact tci:hn1qt:I! depends on the Jl'l' l,' bl! supcrvist.:d. but nllllllLL'ring rcqtr::i.::.-. l,nly thl! inst~1llat1L'll L1f spci:iaily \\nt:1.:n Slllhvarc inlt' thl! i:entral Cl'ITIPllt-::r t~1;1~ h:111dlc:-; the \\Ork or many individ, u~li t~rmrnal llSt.:rs. Thus equipped. the masti.:r c(1mputt:r lht.:n wi!I nl1l only prl,<:css rn1\,rm:uio11 fnm, e:1i.:h cmpk,~ct:'s tt:rmi:i~d but alsl, me~1surc. record .1nu t~it,ulatl! dL'1cns of dct;\lis about how cnii::cntly the wl,rkcr 1s putting informatiL,n 1r.w the ma..:h1nt: Airlint:-rcscr\':tllon c:omputcrs. for c.,:-impk. closely mc:,stirc how long indivillual dl!rks take ll"' h:i.ndlt! each customer ~rnJ thl! amt,unt of time the employee wends bctwc~n i.:alls. The computer t:1ke~ nl,tC l,r ~Lnv iule m<.,mcnt :ind measures 1 lun..:h hour~. Cl,ffec bre:1ks and even trips ll'I the b:.ithr,Jom. Al grcxcry stores. optic:11 sc:111ncrs not only ring up prices but also tell ~\ ccntr,11 Cllmputer how many items per minute the ~lt:rk is handling. as well as other information. Even in factories where employees operate complex elec tronic machine tOlllS r:\lhcr than kcybo:irds. computers can monitor the equipment and alert mnnngemcnt &>.bout slow or absent workers. lnstc:id of supervising the old way, by peering over an employee's shoulder from time to time and trying to guess from ob serv:ition how well the subordinate performs. :i manager can now simply look into a worker's computer dossier :ind im-mcd1~1lcly sec. ll,r insl,ll11.:c. an c.,~1i.:l rc~lll'll ol'hl'l\1. many h.:ttcrs :L w1.:ck a sc~n.:lary h.1s hccn h,tndling on her word IH lll:C~sl,r. The manager c.rn l.:lllllp:1rc l,nc \\'lll"kcr objectively with :\II the lllhcrs. th..:n rcw:1rd the speedy ones .111<.J w:m1 the l.,g. r,:1rds. l'i:ot .111 cm,,loyccs lind tht: survcil-1.rncc opr,rcssive. In fa~t many. p,ll' ti~ul.,rly the hardest \\'l',rkers. prdl!r the nc-.1. C\'aluati\'c tcd1111ql1c bc..:;n1:,1.: they ~cc it as ;1 mattcr-uf-fa~t mc:isurcmcnt of Lheir <.,utput :1s 1.1pposi.:d ll'I a boss~ pcrsl,11:\1 l'Jlinil,n. Says R. DL1uglas Ma~lntyn.: .i scni<.1r vi~e president of Man~1r,t:rncnt S~ic:nc~ Amcri~:l. whid, dcvcl\.lps moniLllring pn,grams .. We arc letting man:1gemcnt make ~ttcr. quicker dci.:isiL,ns b:,s..:d on fo~tS. Ol't ClllllllOI\S ... DcspiLc those bc:netits. Cll:n:,utcr su----------. -----, __ _j I f't!I \ !\!\Ill ha, ;t d;11 \.: ,11.k tli.tl IS bl.'i.:l11111ng 1 a 1t1:i_1111 "'u1.: 1,r .,111;...1;1, :;1hl'I k:tdcrs ;111d ,1.:!1l1!~11, The ;1h!;1l) t11 rcl.'1.'1d S(l llllh.:h 111!,11m~1l1~11l .:h,11.1t ;111 t.:111pll,~Ct! ,.:11uld l1.::npl 111:111;1gi:1, l,1 ..,,11,l'I' l1.'l' di.:cp' ly 1ntl' J't.:r..,t,ri;d lii.:ha-.1t1: :ind rn\'adc prr' va1..y Ju..,t ;i.., omirh,l1s!y. thi.: pri.:,,un.: pf l'lt!ing 11wnit1.,rt.:d C\'l..'ry :.c~l,nd ,~ aln:ady 1'f"l"l\lu~1ng umksir:,bk s1uc l!ffccLs 111 Sllme ,H,rkcrs. not~1bly high stress and I lllW lllL'lr;ile. lkdarcs K;in.:n Nrn.sh:rnm. dm.:~tor of 9 w S. a national gr\lup of \\'l,rkingwt.,mcn "Thi.: J-'l'ltcntial for ~l,r-1 ,x,r:\tc :1busc 1s st:1g!~cring. It puts y1.,u unJ..:r lhc !~Un in the slh,n run ~1n1.I dri\'CS )1'll i.:r~\/Y 111 thc 1t,11g run Talcs or c:,,m. JllllCI' hllSSCS h.tn: :llrc.idy lX:ClllllC p:lrl l1f l;1bt,r r,.llklllrc When the New York T1111c., inst~1lle<.I ~, s<.,thv:1rc system to monlll'I" tht: P1,:l'fl,rm;rni:1.: or its clerks who 1 La kc c:1~1:;s1 ticJ :,ds ovc:r tht: telephone and type them intt.i lerminals. SC\mc employ ees d0nncd butt"ins that rc:u..l. IHG Olt0TII rn. IS W.-\TClll'.\:G. Fearful l,r :t ba.d:l;1sh. ~or(X'r:uions Tl ,\.IL. J lJ l. V ~S. I 9H6 /'\ :
PAGE 250
. -~ -----I _____ : ~:~'!.Y A'LAILABLE -tcnJ to be hesitant about d~scrib111g the puters keep a running record or c:i~h crn111ner workings cJf their mlinitoring pmployccs absences. Perfect allend;rn~c for grams. Says Dam,n Rcppc:rt. publisher of a year .:;rn bring a pri1.c of S500. lndustn-Oi/ict lhalrlt & Safiry Monitor. :1 ncwslct-al companies h:\Vc been less inclinc~l lh:rn tc:r: Many companies w0n't say anything service firms to impose stringent ~~,mput-in det:til about it. It's a very scns:tivc er monitoring of employee work. Tradesarca." Companies with thousands of men and other blue-collar workers tend workers doin repetitive jobs tend to opcrto be highly resentful of autom:lled superate some or the most stringent monitoring vision :rnd frequently find wa>s to cirsystems. At Pacifk Southwest Airlines orcunwenl or s.ibotagc it. Harley Sh:1ikcn. fo:cs in San Diego and Reno. the master associate professor or labor and tcchnolcomputer rc.:cords exactly how long the ogy t\l the University or California at San 400 reservation clerks spend on each call Diego. tells in his 1984 book Work Trcms-and how much time passes before they fol'flttd that in one particular factory. pick up their next one. Workers earn negworkers learned lo fool the computer ;Hive points for such infractions as repc:umonitor by lc:tving the motors on their cJly spc:nding in excess of :m :tvcr;lge 109 machines running even when the or,crnscconds handling :t c:111. and taking any tors were :iway on extended cofnh)rc than twelve minutes in b:llhroom foe brc:iks. In the enc.I. though. l wl,ike: lllllPlll. ~~me: 1.:nml'anies may hegin LO lWCl'll't'k a factlll' 11\l,rc \.li0icull L1..' mc;1surc:. qu~d1ty. Say, Terry ~fallhic. se~rctary-tn:;burcr ~,f lhC c~,rnrnt:111~;\lll'll' Workers uni1..1n lo..:;d in Land,wcr. Md.: "Tclt:phonc C.'pcratl,rs uscJ tl', he a \'l,icc with a smile. but :n1tl11Tl:ttilrn has ucpcr sonalized their Jobs." Courtesy and Clrc fulncss remain 1mpon:tnt bu~ clusi\'C factors in many service-industry t:tsks. 1':1..itcs Columbi,, University Prol'cssor Alan \.\'cstin. ;rn authority on oni.:I! ~\utoma, tion: ''In these types of jobs. ccunp;m1es who count numbers lO\.'l closch will lose their edge." Comp:rnics that h:t\'C :u.luptcd com puter sur,cr\'iSil,n m:,int:tin that it cn;,hlcs trq,s ~l!yonJ the hour a day they arc .1llotthe computer caught up with tcd for lunch and ..:~i!lce brl!:tks. Employthem by (.ktc.;ting th:\l the idling ccs ~.rn ll,sc: their j,:,bs i r they ra~k up m,m: m:lchines were using less clccthan J7 points in ;t yc.\r. tri..:ity than norm:ll. PSA. aftcr usi11L~ a mlire rcla.xcd rncmi' The mlWC: to,vard monitoring .. Not only will they see who's calling dial-a. porn, but also who's ,,,ring system for the p:1st six yc:us. 1m-, h:is ignited:\ boom for climpanies posed the point sys~cm !:\st t\farch. The th;ll produce the ncccss..,ry sorttcnsil,n immcdi:ncly went up. wl,rkers ware. A Utah-based firrn. Clyde cl:iirn One PSA dcrk. Judy Alexander. a Digit.ti Systems. makes a pro14-yc:tr vctcr:1n. tcx,k ;t dis:tbility lc:\\'c gr:un called AUDIT that rci:ords last month after ..:l,mpiling ~4 demerit every single keystroke by a tcr-po1nts. Says she: vou'rt: a nervous wreck. minal ol)\:rator. it permits tot~ll The stress is incrc:<.!iblc." Observes a fol-si1rvcilkmcc of all users. nil of the calling a union organizer; or the newspaper."_ -kw. .:krk anu loc~ll union onicial. Ton: time," bonsts company President Watson: It's a very oppressive way tc All:1n Clyde. Some software is work. To be plugged into that boob lube more manipulative. according to a rcf)Ort and not be able to move gets under your on computer monitoring issued last April skin sometimes: PSA defends its system by the 9 to 5 group. One such program be-as a productivity booster and says it is r:iles workers with mcss.'lgcs that say. no mlire severe than the monitoring :it "You're nol working as fast as the person other airlines. next lo you." One of the first industries to use comSince monitoring provides an exact putcr monitoring in,\ big way was lhc Leleme:1sure of a worker's productivity. severphone business. Operators at AT&T now al companies have combined the technolhandlc 600 to 700 customers a day, comogy with pay-for-performance progrnms. pared with I SO calls during the early At Automatic Dal:i Processing. a New 1970s. The difference. contends Charles Jersey computer-services giant. data-enThornton. AT&T's director of operator try typists who work efficiently can boost servicc:s. is that automation h:\S made each their salaries by as much as 40*. An employee typing I S.000 kcystn.ikes them to use fewer frontlinc bl,sses. MoniLoring programs can be dcsigneu lo high light problems to make them more ,lppar ent to human supervisors. Nonetheless. sonic managers arc getting enormous stacks of printouts on worker prouuctivity ,md finding Lhcm almost impossible tl, really m,lke sense of." :iccor<.ling to San ford Shcri;,.cn. :i. Massnchusctls c,msultant who is prcp;\ring :1 report c,n monitoring for the federal Offi..:c of Technology Assessment. 'The potential for an hour-or five per second earns a top pay of S20.000 to $~4.000. As technology progrcsscs. firins will h:wc ever grealcr c:1pabilitic5 to keep tra1.:k or cm ployec bcha vior. ~fany l:lrgc ccim['anics already monitl',r the rc~orus l,f : long-distance numbers dialed by thc.:1r wl,rkcrs in order tl' Ji,~l'llra1~1: \\:bl..:1\11 ;rnd PCl'Sllll.tl USC. In thl.! fulllrl.!. :11.!\\l.!f corporate abuse is staggering.It puts you under the gun in the Such incentives moli\':\lc many employees. bul other~ view computer monitoring as a thrnw ba~k to 19th century sweatshops. where \\,orkcrs were pai<.! ai:cl,rding lo their output. Today's ver sion of piecework comes into play when employers set quN:ls that they want workers to meet under the new monitoring sys tems. Labor leaders contend lh;\l 1 short run a~d drives you crazy in the-long run." ~;111 easier l"' hanuh:. Emph..,yccs. however. s~lY Lhat cl,mpuh:r supervision requires m~1chini:like performance from lhcm that takes no account or their person;\! ups and downs. Says one cight-yc:ir vctcrnn: If rm ever slow. the comp:iny will kmlw. It mc::tns I c:in't h:ivc a b:uJ \.fay."' Computer supervision h;\s maJc in roads in other businesses :is we!l. Al :i Ford ~1otor plant in n~u:1.via. Ohio. com-TIM(. JULY :s. 1986 the working speeds arc oflcn sel according lo how fast the equipment can go. rather than wh:ll 1>~1~c is comfort;1blc for :in average cmpluycc. Says Joseph Weizcnbaum. profcss<."lr of i computer science at M.I.T.: There 1s :1 widespread nolion among employers that I it is bad ever lo let Lhc compuler wait-! ever to let it sit idle. We should realize th;ll ;1 few seconds aren't going to maucr ;1nd J s.,y, Let's be human :ibout this.'.. i In theirze:tl to monitor the quantity of tl.!chnok1gy m~ty c1~~1bh: t'il,~")l.!S t1_, tra..:;.. i..,. I 1..'al ~alls :\S wdl. S;lc~uiatcs J.:rry nc.:rm:!n. <.lirc~tt.l: 1..'!" the :\m1..:ri..:~!:1 C:v:! Lib..::t11..:s l..inion:, Prnjc:...:t l'l! P:wa.:y ~ind Tc...:h:w:r1gy: .. :-,..:Lll only wil! thc.:y sc.:c wh1.,') l..'alling dial-a-porn. bllt :1ls1.' wh1.,) i:all1:,g a u1111.'ll Ng;tnii'cr (ll' the newspaper ... L=ibor g:\,ups han! l'lle l,n the 1..i!T.:'1-sive ;lgainst monitl';ing ~h.,rc than :?O unions. induding ~llltl'l\\1.'rkc.:rs am! l.!llll'l munic;\l1l,nS cmpll,ycc.:s. h~, \C.: rn:gl1l1alc.:d prlwisil.mS in lhc1r i:l.mlrach w limit the pra..:til..'c.: The lc.:gisl;lllll'cs l'r scvcr;tl st~ltes.11h:luding \\'is~lu1sin :rnJ lthnc.lc.: Is land. h:,vc reportedly discussed laws h) rcgul;\lc monitl,ring. Computer supervi sion m:ly h:,vc estahlishcc.l itself in lhe i workpla~c. but m.tny legal skirmishes will no doubl be waged Lo delermine just 1 how far it should intrude into people's Ii vcs. -By Stphn KHPP. Rportd by CIYrlH Pclton/Se1n Francisco and Sth Shu/m.,n/Boston
PAGE 251
Government Com~uter News November 21, 1 86 Employee Monitoring Attracts a Closer Look By Kevin Power GCN Staff For ycan; supervisors at the So cial Security AdminiRt.rat.ion's data opcmtions office in Wilkes Barre. Pa audit.cd worker output hy companng t.he number nf items data ~anscribers accurately en t.cred 1n card punch machines n~nim~t. a performance standard. When SSA and 01.her agencies u.pgraded I.heir computer operat.a~ns, productivity standards were raised and the work cawironment chan~. The new technolol?Y meant mnrc was cxpecl.ed of workers, and it made monitoring easier for supervisors. Long-unan ~~ered quest.ions about stress, fairness and privacy took on new urgency for people like Joe Corcoran. a data transcriber for the SSA in Wilkes Barre and leader of the union local there. .. Supervisors as part of the rou tine would get a printout. on an individual and show a chart, say f mm 8 lo 8:30 a.m., on Lhe number of keystrokes. It showed work done, work stnppage. and we were ra~ in part. on how welJ we fared on Lhe prinlout.s," said Corcoran prc~idcnL of American Federat.io~ nf Government. Employees Local 2809 ... It was many t.imes more st.ressf ul when you knew the mahinc monitored every move. The nonit.orin1t or employees by com,utcn; had taken t.he hu~n f acor out of relat.ionships." Now the congressional Office of Technology Asses5mcnt is taking a look at electronic monit.nrini: with particular em phasis nn LhP. tension between modern t.cchnology and individuals. .. One of the hardest thini:s of all is det.crmininf.? what is Lhc cff ect on attitudes. dignit.y and autonomy, OTA project direct.or Chuck Wilk said recently. "So much de-1,rnd~ on how it:s applied ... Appropriate Use The OTA study was begun last spring aft.er Rep Jack Brooks (D-Texni:;), chair man of t.he House Government Operations Con1miLt.cc. asked the office to study how mnnitorin,: is handled in the government, because preliminary investigat.ions indi cated there were no law5 to ensure it.s proper use. "D~pit.c Lhc existence of laws requiring court orders to tap and/or tape t.elephone communicaLions. there appear lo be growin~ capabilities for surveillance of r ederal phone calls and dat.c, transmissions, posing both security a., well as individual privacy snohlcnu;, '' Brooks Mid ... Alt.hough modern informaLion technology is an essential in~ient in today's envimnmr.nt. its misuse would pose grnvc threats tn our individual freedoms." Karen Bandy, director of the OTA study, snid elcct.ronic monitoring atrect.5 mosUy information production worken; who have "routine kind.Ci of jobs such as pmcessinl! insurance claims." She said that. while many federal oflicCJ\ were being monitored, the a~encic,; mny have hccn m~in~ the monitoring informa l.ion primarily t.o develop fair work mea surements for cnt.irc department...~. rather thnn to check up on indiviclunl~. The wny :m ns:cncy develops nncl employs work st.c,ndilrcls is one of t.he mnsL c~nntrovc~ial m--pecL'i or innnit.oring. l...abor unions nnd t.hc Amerir.an Civil 1.,ihcrt.ic,. Union hnve voiced the loudesL concerns ahouL the fairne58 of work standards and t.he impact on work cnvironmcnu;. "There was n lime in t.hc past when workers felt Lhnl those comments (clec t.ronic monitoring results] were more fair than subjective supervisory reviews. Al least the record wa~ nccurat.e and compared work in real terms," said .John Harris, aAAist.ant Lo the prc.liident of APGE. "Now t.he ~La i~ used t.o monitor rest. periods, breaks and when you come in and leave. It's rcachin~ t.he point where people r.an't take breaks or Lake short lunches in order Lo meet. the 1,.tcml ... I "As ynu arc. w?rkin~ nn line with a com put.er system ,t. 15 an internal clock thaL is !always on. It excuses management from do ing its job. said George Kohl, director of i;;pccinl project~ for t.he Communicntionr; Workr.n; of America. "They don't. deal wit.h people nncl cnn compile records easily." n Ka~n R~nJren, administrator of t,he AC::LU s pmJec~ c~n privacy and technology. smd workcn; d1shkc monit.orinK because of the st.res,;. She ,;aid workcB arc forced to surrender penmnaJ ri,:hls because computers can be used to continuously monitor work and phone conver:;.,t;0nr;. "The t.~chnolo,:.ry i~ just. heing u~d wh~l.her at s ncccs,.ary or not." Rin,:rcn said. nddm~ that. there war; no way to guarani.cc people would u~ the t.echnoloJ.?Y wiselv. But for every "horror story," there ~ems t.o he a a en~ where monitorini: has not r.c,uM:d nearly as much ire. Success at IRS The Internal ~venu_e Service currently empln~ electronic snon1loring as part. of itJ. nu~mar.ed collection service. At the 21 col lcct.mn sites throughout. the country, IRS employees m,c computer-assisted t.elep~ones t.o talk to taxpayers about problems with rct.urns I IRS supervison; monit.or the calls t/ ) ~akc i-.ure workers ask the right. quc1-t.ions: : / ,ttvc t.hc proper information m,cl handle taxpayers' problems courteously. Supervisors can intermpt workers if t.hcv detect an error and can lake over for suhordinalc if il problem is very compli cal.ed. The com1,u1.cr records how Ion,: a worker i~ on. the sy!;t.cm. the avera~e speed of an s~ermg call,; nnd t.he average conversation t 1mc nnd measures the time ,rap hclwccn hnngin1: up and workin~ a case problem. Variation Allowed Pau~ J:1arrin1,,rt.on. IRS deput.y a~"ist.ant cmnmu;saoner for collections. said sl.nndard~ arc measured in terms of system to tals at each oft.he silc~ nncl cmphasi1.cd that t.hc ni:cncy fully ex peel$ some otlices l.n foll below national nvcrm:es. "Evaluation is done on n ~yst.cm basis, and we wouldn't conclude because one sit.c is nut of sync that ~omcone's not dnini: the joh. A ~ilc wit.h hi(.th inventory or dealinJ;t with n cert.ain type of l.ax could take lon~cr," Harrington Yid. (\s for employee react.ion. Harrington said there have been no "widespread com plaints" because the supervisors have been p~omnt.cd from the ranks of t.clcphonc service workers at Lhc most succcKSf ul sit.c!ancl t.hc standards arc not strictly numrri.i.. j cal. '~
PAGE 252
~e standards t.h!: workers re,;pnna tn arc management. coUnRClin,r as oppo11ed meet.in,: Lime quota,;." Harrington said. "The 5t.andards meuure what. happci:,s in a ~~tem and causes workers to vary their in t.ervicw techniques." Evnluot.ing how an agency develops and implements its monitorini standardR iR an important part or the OTA study, but Bandy acknowledged it. iR a difficult task because not much research is available. "According to t.he experts or st.andardsset.t.ing. if t.hcy (workers] can't meet. them then 50mething is wrong with the stan dards, Bandy said. ..You want Lo have some goal or standard of what. t.hey can n1eet. but not. a whole lot of studies have been done on iL" Work Standards The Robert F. Nolan Co. of Simsbury, Conn.. is a management con5ulting firm that. speciali~ in improving office pro ductivity. Ben DiSylvester, Nolan Co. executive vice president.. said hi5 company de velops specific work standart.lA based on using time measurement. methods to d~tcrmine the number or it.ems a worker can enter into a computer over the course of a day. "We take a look at the nature of Lhe work and develop a specific work standard," DiSylvestcr said ... The advanced office con trols process takes in the basic met.hods and time measurement elements and builds t.hcm into bigger blocks of data. We can calculate performance by individual. hy de partment and by uniL" He said the calculations take in all t.he factors necessary to do a good jnb, such as allowing for workers having to leave their t.crmina),; to &?Ct more file,;. DiSylvcidc; nb> st.rcAACd t.hat. unlc.~ t.he 1roal1; or n work standard program are ~learly communicat.cd. worke~ will be J>ressurcd and conf uscd. He said cm1>loycc.c; i;hould not. have to worry about. t.he standards hut rat.her be "riven rc"'alar feedback so they can reach as hii:h a standard as J>()Mible. '"Whal we find is that. unle.-;s t.he syi;l.cm is explained lhere will be problems. You don't want lo wail till the end of t.he year and have employees see it. as a club or a whip," DiSylvCRtcr said. 0You must. provide rc1-rular f ecdback on performance." OTA 's report. on monitoring is ,;chedulcd to be released in February. Bandy said it would include more data about st.res& and quality of worklifc aspects than did a m idt.crm report issued during the summer. "In some sense the tone changed a little biL Monit.nring is only one part oft.he job design picture and it's hard lo separate r rnm nt.her aKpect.s." she said. ;~OPY AVAILABLE
PAGE 253
--------. Government Com~uter News ~bvemBer 21, I 86 I I I ~-,--............. ~.. ---1 \, A\ lV\Sf 1\\ CM\~ A
PAGE 254
COMPUTERWORLD DECEMBER 22, 1986 Limiting worker information abuse Ron Schnciderman~s article, 'Employee produc tivity: Big Brother is monitoring you" [CW, Nov. 10), misses the heart of the matter in dismissing worker objections to computer monitoring. Computer operators being electronically sur veilled are much different from sales representa tives, who rm out reports, or football players coached from the sidelines, as Schneiderman disin genuously draws the comparison. With the computer, workers can be watched ev ery fraction or every second or their workday. More information, in greater detail, can be collected than ever before. The potential for abuse is ob vious. Schneiderman notes that the product or moni toring is information, and he raises important questions: Howimportant is the information? How relevant is it? Does it truly reveal the quality of the work being performed? In far too many cases, managers collect far too much information, without the employees know ing what is being collected or how it is to be used. To limit these potential abuses, 9 to 5, the National Association of Working Women, suggests the following: Ban the use of subliminal software programs. Notify workers when auditory, visual or computer surveillance occurs. Allow employees complete access to their per sonnel files and provide them with information on how the data is collected and used. Establish a grievance procedure so employees can appeal incorrect data, since the computer is not always right. In order to start out with the best foot forward, statistfos should be collected by work group, rath er t.l)an by in.dividual worker. Productivity stan dards or work quotas should be set with employee input to. reflect system problems, such as down time and response lags, quality or service and work load variability. These are just a few ways to prevent some or the worst abuses and give employees a minimum of protection until, in Schneiderman's words, em ployers can figure out what information is really worth and can evaluate its timeliness." Karen Nussbaum Executive Director 9to 5 National Association of working Women Cleveland ;_ ;' 1' 1 .~ o t E I \,_{~, -_J -
PAGE 255
zs, THE NE.W YORK TI,'WS. MONDAY. APR:L l-1, l9Sr .1"Iore Workers' Terminals Are Staring Back By WILLIAM SERRIN the effect of computer tecbologies on ID the long nm computer monitoring Finger strokes, anxiety levels. ba workers, wu based on su.rnys of !t LO 5 would be inefficient and "end up cutroom bre.au and ocber actions of work members and ocher c1encaJ workers ting into productiVlty instead of iD-ers at video disl)lay tennin:ils are i and cited a study by the National lnsti creasing iL" c:rcasingJy being monatored bycomput tute of Occui,atianal Safety and Health "When a machine warns a secretar/ ers, according to a croup rcpresem.tn1 esumating tbat two-lbi.rd.1 of V.D.T. the moment she is sloWing down. disci-offlce workers. workers are monitored by employers. plines a clerk when he makes a mis. Computers can prompt workers m Karen Nussbaum tbe executive di-take, and coowsually tallies a worker's work l&ster, automatically presen recu,r of 9 LO 5 told a conference on performance. it is impossible for the thear nc.~ piece of work. a.ad wam work and techncilogy over tbe weekend employee to control his or her workload tbem wh~ tbey"re _fall.Ing in Teaaeck. N.J., that new programs or woz:t pace." ~d repon. adding predetermmcd producuon standards, enable companies to provide on-screen tbat V1deo tenmnals m the automated saJd a repon released yesterday by 9 to jokes to relieve su-ess or Oash sublimi-office have largely replaced personal 5. tJae National Assodaeion of Workin~ naJ messages telling employees. interaction with managers. Womm. '""Ibe computer can n!CDrG You're aot working aa fast u tbe t can't even go to tbe bathroom when an operator turns on or off h worker nat ta yau... Witbout being watched." said one teJe-V .D. T~. count keysu,,kes. by tbe Shesaid wuons should, ill barpining com~~cations warkerdted iD the re-ond. time customer semce transac-With employers, iDvoJve themselves po_n. I ~ve to put U1) a nag ~t my tertions and tradt ~a number ol operaCG With the growing use of computers in ~. ~t r1U the ~troom as empty, errors. per day. the workplace. Her orgamations re-sap ~t, sagn back m. and remove my E"lployers say V1deo terminals and port said that derical jobs "are deJit,. Dag. ~ther computer te_cbnolog1es ma.Ice for erateJy broken down into one or two ~ere are. 12,000 ~embers o~ 9 to 5, increased producuvuy and better con-repetitive tasks in order to mue com-which is alfliated wat.b the S_erVlce ~troJ aver coses. "Ibey add :bat man~ puter traciung easier... playee:s lDtemational Uru~. ta ::5 workers prefer the use of advancea To meet 1>roduction goals the repon cnainers around the counuy. ~3n-metbods and eqwpment. 'd .. f f ference over the weekend was si,on-n I Sut 9 to 5 maintam.1 t.bat compute sai some workers eeJ orced CG cut sored by thehei,artment for Prdf es. off customers. enter mcomplete data. .. -~ ,. ..... ) morutonng m~ades workers pnvacy, delete documents from other workers -s10 iU c.mpaoveesouneA.( .t...~ .1..0. l~ads to unfair performanct: ev:uuafiles. or even drop paper clips into the '' t1ons and work speed-ups, ancreases machinery CG slow it down... -~-st.n:sS, ~d reduces buma.n contact and But another speaker at the conler-workers control aver their work. ence, Kristin Nelson of the geography U M1Jlloa Work ac V.D.T. depanment at the University of ~,. Thirteen million Americans, 11 perfo~a at Ser~eley. sa1d that ln her cent of civilian employees. worlt ac stud&~ of clencaJ workers in the San vtdco display temunats. the repon. Francisco area. she round that new s.ud. adding that airline, insur:ance and computer _technologies did _not reduce aeQjt-card compamcs. among others, w~rker skills. Otten. she said. it any. are using tbe computers to momtor thing, automation led to greater ra--thesr em1>1oyees. spons1bilities per worker .... The group's repon. an overview o ~e 9 to S repon. however, said t)iat ,jpy AVAILABLE \ I \._,I
PAGE 256
WoriaCAwortersrwarned to factor in computers By Jame~ Warren TEANECK, N.J.-Kristen Nygaard, who easily could fit Hollywood's. v~ion of a twccdy Scand1naV1an academic, absolutely adores com puters. But after 40 years of using them, he frets about afuture as cold for workers as winter in Norway. .. assure you," he says, theatri cally wavinJ an arm above his shock or whnc hair, "one can be a strong believer in computers and still be a pessimisL The stake:. are heavily against us but we have no option other than try to win." Nygaard, a flamboyant star of the Institute or Informatics at the University of Oslo, was urging American workers to demand a role in the introduction of new technologies in the workplace. If they don't, he wamed. they will find their power over daiJy decision-making radically weakened. His vision pervaded a two-day conf crcnce here last week, spon sored by the AEL-CIO's dcpnamcnr nr ... l"!"rc:~,.1nnnl _cmplo~cc~ grows, so may ccnain myths. The Big Brother oversight and control feared by unions and the easy re placement of people by machines being embraced by companies could be in greater doubt than ei ther side admits. The anxieties nagging worker representatives were clear. They include loss or jobs, growing cm : ployer preference for mostly female pan-time employees, the ~de-skilling" or clerical workers, loss by workers of many traditional responsibilities and even the arowth or computerized diny tricks" by employers. -. .. Technologies arc not inherent ly evil or good," said Dennis Chamot, a former research chem ist at DuPont and associate director of the AFL-CJO department of prof essionaJ employees. "For many professionals, technology is incredibly positive," Chamot continued ... But one purpose has been to eliminate direct labor and increase managerial control." Such alleged control was the subjCC! of cl rcpol1 ~i!!C~ 11S~~--
PAGE 258
() BEST COPY AVAILABLE Co1nputei-s who once dcall directly wilh the engineer and his bluri1rint but no,v merely watch as the design is Conlinul'd frum pnge 1 rctnn who heads 9105. N,is!lbaum estima1es there arc 13 million oOicc workers using video di~pln)' terminals and as many as two-third!-IHl\'C their terminals or their telephones regularly moni-.. uansfctred. automatically to the machine t~ol, then proceeded lo manufacture an ignatcr plug 10 times biHcr than normal. tored by thrir bosses. She maintains that monitoring is u~cd to determine how fast people work, how often the)'ve leR their. dr.sks and how many personal.' phone calls thcy'\e made and can even pick up and anal)'ze key: phrn~es in lheir telephone comer-i sat ions. "l~epcntling on management's mot1\es, the technology can be umJ to detect a worker's political in\'Ol\'cmcnl, union ncti\'ity or personal problems.'' Nu~sbaum said. Barie)' Slmikcn, an automation specialist at the Unhersily of California at San Dirgo, raised a related kc)' question: Wall new S)'Stems be a supplement to or a total re plnrcmcnt of human skills? lie su[?gcsted that emplo)'ers' rcnl goals, hidden behind the guise of inrrcn~ing eflicicnC)', arc to reduce 1hcir labor force nod install systfms thal wrest decision-making from milland lowcr-lc\cl em-. ployccs. Coll\erscly, "loo much tcchnolofY too soon," he said,. cnn result m unforc~crn brcnkdo\\'nS as S)'S 1ems brromc ncedlcs5ly complex. As ;m ex:unp!c, he cited an engincrr at n 1Jnt1sh acrospnce firm who mi~placed a dcrimal whcri using n computer 10 help design a. new igniter plug for a Jet engine. .The company's skilled macJ1inis1s,' Experts from Europe, where unions generally hl\'e played a more aclhe role in tr')'ing to accommodate 10 technologf, also warned of the dangers o rapid technological change. Paul Jennings, an official of a union confederation with 3.5 million bankjhg and insurance office .workers in Europe, admitted that opinion was divided on whether technology was a "job killer." Al the same time, he claimed that as many as 800,000 white-collar jobs in bankin& will be lost in Europe by 1995.: He said lh~t new technology has caused empld)ee ta~ks to be more narrowly defined, &tining iniliathe an~ leading to an in~reasc in early retuemcnts. Full-time workers often are replaced with part-time employees, who r~ceive fewer benefits. Jennings said his union has been forced to negotiale limits on the number of part-timers while, al the same time, trying to convmcc companies to mcrcRSe the number of full-time employees by shortening the average week to 30 hours.."We, as unions,, htve had to fundamentallJ re-examine our obj cc ti ves," ennings admitted ruefully. Another. conference participant, lngelR Joscfson, of the Center for Working Life in Stockholm, said that many office workers now be lieve the. skills needed today may be lest .than,,thos~ formc;rly re-quired to hold lhe same job. A study of 9,000 office workers in Sweden's social insuaancc of fices show lhat 60 perrenl believed their "~kills hnd drgeneratcd" wilh the introduction of computeriza tion, she said. Joscfson's conclusion touched on what some work exprrls dcrm to be 1he not-incompatible trends of emplo)ee 0de-skilhng" and 0up skilling," trends lhat Affect nn esli-, ma1ed 21 million clcricnl workers ranging from execuli\'e srcrclaries to entry-le\el clerks and kc)-cntry operators in the United Slates. One one le\'el, skills ac111nll)1 are expanded as emplo)'ecs learn to use word proceuors and com puters. For an elite group, in cluding exccu1ive secretaries and uni\'cnit)' secretaries, these new skills may broaden th<'ir johs to include such la!iks as writing re-. ports-often without a commen surate rni~e in pa)', On anolher lt~\el, the aulonom)' of many workers is cut as lhey do ever-smaller tasks. For example, an insurance claims proceuor once inay ha\'e had sut.,s111otial lecwa)' in processing a claim; now, the processor merely punches in a few codes and a computer deter mines the claim. Many experts warned that in programming computers, companies nccessaril)' may lca\'C out intangible, unprogrnmma~le human skills. The insurance processor might know small, subtle wa\'S to speed a claim, but tl10~e me not pa~scd on lo the computer and 1hc payment process becomes longer, nol shorter, for the consumer. Terry Winograd, who teaches in Stanford Uni"rrsil)''s dr1iartmrnt of computer science, said that 0get1ing human undcrstaotling into a machine" still is a long ,\a~ off. "The problems come when )'OU try 10 rcplncc an cxperl with an expert S)'Slcm," Winograd said. "What an expert docs is not something to lay down in a set of rnles. Expertise ,met experience is something that emerges from people talking, not out of a book.'' Robert Howard, R Cambridge, Mas~., !-pccialisl in wo1 k and tech nolog)', cautioned 1ha, the tcchno logicnl debate is awash in lll)'lhs rcsulling in part from an exa~geralion of what technology can do anti lhc pc1haps too-easy assump tion I 1ml de-skilling is inc\i1able. Companies can he as short-, sighlcd as unions, lfoward said, and miss the fact that "a 101 of what pa~ses for rouline work is' not rrall)1 that routine 1ind can'l be easil)' automated. There iuc often informal comcr~alional Rnd neeotiation skills workers ha\'e winch aren't neccss:uily recognized by people who want to Bltomale a job." Al the end of the conference, p:srticipants mifht ha\'C lcR wi1h a suitcase full o academic papers pntl nup1crous questions. Jnck Uolodncr, 11 Yale I.aw gradun1c who heads the AFl./(]O dep;ut mcnt of employee~, ~aid he can}e awa}' informed and nnxious. .. ..... "l'\'c got lhe increa~ing scns.c that changes arc occunmg so r11p-. icll)1 nnd so ,1ualitati\'cl)'. 1ha1 the abili1)' 10 measure, gauge and mn}'hc ront,ol the r"lcnt of the chnnr-es and react is hopclc~s." "I li~ten to lhr~c people, sec their concern nnd 'thrn return .to Washington, where I see ,en little being done 10 adapt. A~ George O1wcll wrote. wr nmM nccrpl the nrnrhine, but grudgingly end suspiciousl)'.
PAGE 259
Item 6 June 10, 1986 TO ALL PRESS COVERING HEALTH AND LABOR ISSUES: In the past few weeks, there have been a number of new claims about the negative effects or monitoring work by computer. This could indicate an escalation in the campaign or some labor groups to have states outlaw computer monitoring; over the past several years, seven states have considered such bills, though none has passed. The Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (CBEMA) believes strongly that the measurement or work by computer is a legitimate management tool that should be used wisely, in support or the mutual goals or employer and employee. Used appropriately, monitoring and related techniques (such as incentive pay or promotion based on productivity) can increase both an organization's competitiveness and an employee's ability to advance and improve his or her standard or living. But, like any management tool, the key to the successful use of computer monitoring is informed, intelligent use. To that end, we are circulating the enclosed set of monitoring suggestions. Our aim is to help managers use monitoring in ways that help both organizations and employees meet their mutual goals. As you develop stories on this timely subject, our president, Vico Henriques, and I will be available to talk with you. Please let us know if we can help. Sincerely, .. Dr. Charlotte LeGates Director or Communications /leg Computer and Bus mess Equipment Manufacturers Association 311 First Street,_N .W .. Suite 500, Washington, O.C.20001 (202) 737-8888
PAGE 260
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE EFFECTIVE USE OF COMPUTER MORITORDG Automatic measurement or work done on a computer can be an effective management technique. It can help managers set reasonable goals, identify problems and reward high-achieving employees. It can help employees meet their own and their employers' goals. But like any management tool, computer monitoring can be used in ways that decrease workplace morale or cause employees undue distress. To avoid those problems and get the most out of your computer investment, the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (CBEMA) suggests the following techniques: o Make sure employees understand how and when their work is being measured, and why measurement is necessary. o Give employees access to their records and regular, supportive feedback. Some organizations permit employees to access their records at will, through the computer. Others make weekly or monthly totals available. Make sure employees understand how to correct any erroneous records. o Measure only those items that are essential for meeting organizational goals. If, for instance, the number of keystrokes per month is the only relevant statistic, don't collect information on the number of breaks. o Use statistics to spot problems early. Low productivity could indicate a need for more training. A sudden productivity drop could mean a physical or personal problem that a manager could help solve. Z.55 Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association 311 First Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 737-8888 n I ./ \ I ~ _.,,
PAGE 261
0 -2 -Anticipate individual differences in needs for length and number of breaks or in work speed. Try to establish goals that allow individuals to regulate their workday as much as possible. o Reward individuals appropriately. Some organizations use incentive pay for work done above a certain level. Others use verbal or promotional awards. But be alert to the occasional employee whose need for such rewards might lead him or her to work for excessive periods without breaks; sitting for long periods or time, especially when the task is physically repetitious, can cause discomfort or even pain. o Be careful about using statistics to inspire competition. Employees should know how they rate against their goals and against departmental averages. And publicly rewarding high-achieving individuals can be very positive. But most employees resent receiving public criticism. Systems in which all individual production scores are circulated or posted on bulletin boards can backfire by making that half of employees who are by definition "below average" angry and tense. o Once reasonable rates are established, employees tend to resent managers who "inch-up" production standards so that people have to work harder and harder to achieve the same rate of pay. Changes in production goals may at some points be necessary; new software, for instance, may speed the work, or an organization in trouble may have to change standardsas part of a company-wide pay decrease. But appearing to drive employees raster and raster, to the point where they become angry or quit, is a poor management technique, leading employees to feel that they are working under "sweatshop" conditions.
PAGE 262
Z.57 FOOTNOTES 1. Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (N.Y., Atheneum, 1967), Chapters 4 and 5. n j 2. Ibid., p. 107. 3. Ibid., Chapters 5 and 8. 4. Alan F. Westin, Privac Issues In The Monitorin of Em lo ee Work On VDTs In The Office Environment: Practices, Interests, And Policy Choices December, 1984 hereafter "Westin-OTA, 1984." 5. Conn. Gen. Stat., Sec. 31-48b(b). 6. See Westin, Privacy and Freedom, note 1 supra, Chapter 8. 7. "Use of Electronic Surveillance Dsvices By Employers Limited. Prohibition on Recording Negotiations Between Employers and Employees." Conn. Gen. Stat., Sec. 31-48b(c). No reported cases under either sub-sections (b) or (c) of this law appear in the Annotations or pocket parts of the Connecticut code as of 1986. 8. 18 U.S.C. Section 2500 (1968). 9. For a listing and analysis of state statutes, see Electron~c Surveillance: Report of the National Commission for the Review of Federal and State Laws Relatin to Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Washington: GPO, 1976. 10. For a listing and texts, see Robert Ellis Smith, Compilation of State and Federal Privacy Laws, 1985-86 Edition (Washinqton: Privacy Journal, 1986). 11. For the 1978 survey, see The Dimensions of Privacy: A National Opinion Research Survey of Attitudes Toward Privacy, Conducted for Sentry Insurance by Louis Harris and Associates and Dr. Alan F. Westin, 1979. For the 1983 survey, see The Road After 1984: The Impact of Technology on Society, a study by Louis Harris and Associates for Southern New England Telephone Company, 1983. 12. This literature is summarized well in Michael J. Smith, Pascale Carayon, and Kathleen Miezio, Motivational, Behavioral and Psycholoaical Implications of Electronic Monitoring of Worker Performance, Contractor Report to OTA, 1986. 13. "3ig Brother in the Workplace, 11 Transcript #2153, The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour. December 28, 1983. 14. "Work Monitoring," Transcript, ABC-TV Nightly News, May 29, 1984. 15. Robert Howard, Brave New Workplace (New York: Viking, 1985). 16. See, for example, "Workers Pay Price for Automation," Kansas City Star, July 11, 1982; "Area Office Workers Suffer From Job Stress, Group's Survey Finds," Baltimore Sun, April 20, 1982; "VDTs: Visual Distress Terminals?" Miami Herald, Sept. 3, 198'!; "Stress: The Wages of Automation in the Modern Office," Seattle Times, Jan. 30, 1984. 17. See, for example, "Corporate Big Brother Is Watching You," Dun's Business Month, January, 1984. ) \ 18. See sample cites in note 16 supra, and "Legislator Says VDTs Peril Workers' Health. San Francisco Chronicle, May 16, 1984; "Productivity Spies: Computers Keep Eye On Workers And See If They Perform Well, 11 Wall Street Journal, May 5, 1985. \ ) '~--
PAGE 263
-19. OTA, Automation of America's Offices, 1985-2000 (Washington, D.C. GPO, OTA-CIT-287, December, 1985), pp. 129-132. 20. U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Women's Bureau, Women and Office Automation: Issues for the Decade Ahead (1985), pp. 25, 27, 28. 21. See the discussion of the U.S.D.A. system in Westin-OTA, 1984, note 4 supra. 22. The case in which this record was generated is also discussed in Westin-OTA, 1984, ibid. 23. "When Machines Monitor Work,11 World of Work Report, Work in America Institute, Vol. 9, No. 5, 1984. 24. Telephone interview by Nancy Warren, Educational Fund for Individual Rights, November 8, 1984. 25. The study is fully described in Alan F. Westin, Heather A. Schweder, Michael A. Baker, and Sheila Lehman, The Changing Workplace (Westchester, N.Y., Knowledge Industries, 1985). 26. See forthcoming "VDT Update Report; 1985-1986,11 available in February, 1987 from The Educational Fund for Individual Rights, 1100 Trafalgar Street, Teaneck, New Jersey 07666. 27. Published by 9to5, April, 1986, quotation at page 2. 28. Ibid., note 25 supra. 29. "Work Standards and Performance Monitoring," (Chapter 6, page 2). 30. Ibid. 31. "Campaign on VDT Risks: Analysis of VDT Operator Ouestionnaire of VDT Hotline Callers," 9to5, February, 1984 .. 32. See "National Survey on Women and Stress," prepared by 9to5, the National Association of Working Women, 1984. It appeared in Working Women, R. Chris Knight, 11Can Stress Make You Sick?", April, 1984, Ms., "Stress On Your Job -A Major National Survey," April, 1984; and Essence, Julianne Malveaux, Phd., "Black Women and Stress," April, 1984. 33. See "The 9to5 National Survey on Women and Stress -Addendum," 9to5. the Nationr1l Association of Working Women, 1984. 34. Peter Perl, "Rising Performance Standards Keep Some in Agency on Edge," Washington Post, September, 1984. 35. Office Safety, American Federation of Government Employees, 1983. 36. Interviews by Nancy Warren, Educational Fund for Individual Rights, with staff of NAGE, 1984. 37. Ibid, Interviews with NAGE, AFGE, and NFFE staffs, 1984. 38. Interviews by Heather Schweder, Educational Fund for Individual Rights, with Czarina Palting and Paulette Van Norman, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, October, 1984.
PAGE 264
39. Interviews by Alan F. Westin with Mary Anderson and Jack Connors, U.S. General Services Administration, December 7, 1984. 40. Interview by Heather Schweder with Joseph Young, Chief, Data Processing Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, October 25, 1984. 41. Letter to Alan F. Westin from Edward J. Minbel, Managin~ Director, Federal Communications Conrnission, November 2, 1984. 42. Letter to Alan F. Westin from D.K. Stephens, Grants and Information Management Officer, National Endowment for the Arts, October 30, 1984. 43. Letter to Alan F. Westin from Paul G. Swope, Director, Office of Computer Sciences, U.S. Small Business Administration, November 6, 1984. 44. Letter to Alan F. Westin from D.E. Lemmon, Director of Management Policy and Systems, U.S. Department of Labor, November 6, 1984. 45. Interview by Alan F. Westin with Steve Matthews, Federal Reserve Board, November 29, 1984. 46. Enclosed with letter to Alan F. Westin from Glenn P. Haney, Director, Office of Information Resources Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture,. November 9, 1984. 47. Letter to Alan F. Westin from William M. Hunt, Associate Director for Administration, U.S. Office of Personnel Administration, December 6, 1984. 48. Interviews by Nancy Warren with NFFE, AFGE and NAGE staff members, November-December, 1984. 49. Peter Perl, cited in note 34 supra. 50. Interviews at SSA and with AFGE by Alan F. Westin, 1984-86. See also "SSA and Its Employees: Labor-Management Relations," in OTA, The Social Security Administration and Information Technology-Special Report, OTA-CIT-311 (Washington, GPO, Oct. 1986), pp. 61-63. 51. Peter Perl, cited in note 34 supra. 52. Interview by Nancy Warren with APWU official, October 31, 1984. 53. Statement of William H. Burrus, Executive Vice President, American Postal Workers Union, before the Hon. Parren J. Mitchell, Baltimore, MD, February 14, 1984. 54. Interview by Alan F. Westin with Peter Jones, Director, Justice Employee Data Service, U.S. Department of Justice, December 7, 1984. 55. Ibid. 56. Interview by Alan F. Westin with Ed Moriarity, Chief of Manaqement and Resources Branch, IRS, October 3 and 4, November 11, and December 3, 1984. 57. Union interviews were held by Alan F. Westin with staff at National Treasury Employees Union, June, 1984. 58. 11Corporate Big Brother is Watching You," Dun's Business Month, January, 1984. < __ ) 59. "AWT -A Real Stress Point," CWA News, April, 1984.
PAGE 265
--,,~ 60. See the account in Peter Perl, note 34 supra. 61. Testimony of Rebecca Alford, Service Employee International Union and 9to5, the National Association for Working Women, before the Hon. Joseph Gaydos, Subcommittee on Health and Safety, House Education and Labor Committee, Hearin9s on Video Dis play Terminals, February 28, 1984. 62. Quote on MacNeil/Lehrer program, note 13 supra. 63. This account comes from a class report written by the loan officer in a business school management course. To preserve confidentiality to the fullest extent, no further identification is made here. / 64. Craig Brod, Technostress (New York, 1984), page 64. 65. "District 925 of SEIU Ratifies First Contract With Equitable," Bureau of National Affairs, White Collar Report, November 14, 1984, pp. 593-594. 66. Allied Industrial Worke~ December, 1984, pag~ 10. 67. "The Bossless Office," CWA News, February, 1984; "HOBIS,11 Report furnished by CWA, }Q84. 68. Union Times, New York Times Unit, Newspaper Guild of New York, Vol. 19, No. 23, July 18, 1983. 69. Documents in this case were furnished to us by Katherine A. Black, Business Agent, Oregon Public Employee Union, Local 503, SEIU, in March and June of 1984. We express our appreciation to Ms. Black for this assistance. 70. See, for example, "Putting Social Calls on Hold: Bosses Have a New Weapon in Fiqhtin9 Phone Bills," U.S. News and World Report, Sept. 29, 1986. 71. Office of Management and Budget, "Telephone Call Reduction Initiatives, 11 News Rel ease, March 19, 1985, 1 page. 72. Letter, Representatives Don Edwards and Patricia Schroeder to Joseph R. Wriqht, Jr., 0MB, March 13, 1985. 73. Letter, Joseph R. Wright, Jr., 0MB, to Representative Don Edwards, April 1,, 1985. 74. Letter, Representatives Don Edwards and Patricia Schroeder to Joseph R. Wriqht, Jr., 0MB, May 2, 1985. 75. Douglas H. Ginsburg, Administrator for Information and Regulatory Affairs, 0MB, Memorandum for the Chairman, President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, Aug. 8-:-T9". 76. Telephone interview by Alan F. Westin with Benjamin H. Friedman, General Services Administration, April 1, 1986. 77. Telephone interviews by Alan F. Westin with J:erry Berman, ACLU, May 1, 1986; with James Dempsey, Congressional Committee staff, April 3, 1986. 78. Ibid. 79. Karen Nussbaum, "Limiting Worker Information Abuse," Letter, Computerworld, December 22, 1986. (This is reproduced in the Appendix, in Item 4.)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ERGGOWZ6N_G9LYK4 INGEST_TIME 2017-06-05T16:46:39Z PACKAGE AA00055670_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
|
|