Workplace surveillance is rising with the expansion of technology, but the practice is unethical and treats staff with a lack of dignity, University of Newcastle Professor Daniel Nyberg says.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Supermarket workers have told the Newcastle Herald they are being watched on camera to make sure they're smiling, bag checking and offering catalogues.
Store managers are conducting this random surveillance of checkout operators from the back rooms of stores with "box-ticking lists".
The staff have been told that failing these tests will go on their record. If they fail repeatedly, they face punishment and possible dismissal.
Several supermarket workers have contacted their union to raise concerns about this practice.
"It's hard to smile at someone who is ignoring you, talking on their phone, engaged in a conversation already with another customer, or just being impatient and rude," said one worker, who could not be identified due to fears of being sacked.
The worker added that it was difficult to meet all the requirements being checked with surveillance "when you are serving 400 people a day or there are distractions and interruptions from staff or other customers".
"We are not robots."
The NSW Workplace Surveillance Act allows companies to conduct surveillance of workers with 14 days' written notice. This notice must state the type of surveillance device, the manner in which it will be conducted, who will be subject to it and its duration.
But Professor Nyberg said this surveillance was unethical "even when the employees are aware of it".
"It leads to stress and anxiety, generally due to the lack of autonomy and the employees feeling like robots. The employees are purely treated as a means to an end of store profits."
He said managers have an "ethical responsibility to recognise staff and treat them with dignity".
"This surveillance does not. This power and control at a distance from a monitoring room has the purpose of judgement and punishment."
Professor Nyberg, of Newcastle Business School, said this type of close surveillance "rarely has long-term benefits for the company".
"While they can 'spot' some under-performing personnel, it is likely to lead to worse performance over all.
"The surveillance signals distrust, which will lower morale and effort. Instead of engaging staff in productive and friendly service to the customers, this will over time lead to disengaged service with the focus on compliance to the rules."
Furthermore, he said a requirement such as smiling doesn't take into account the situations that employees face.
"Most service is based on reading the situation. That is, knowing when to smile and when to offer a catalogue."
He said workplaces like this can "hamper collegiality, since assisting a colleague is not one of the boxes to tick".
"The paradox of control and surveillance is that it leads to more control and surveillance," he said.
"Companies increasingly need more systems in place to undertake the surveillance, since employees are likely to develop subversions and try to trick the system."
One supermarket checkout operator said she was refusing extra shifts to fill in for co-workers because "the more I work, the more chance I have of being punished and losing my job".
Professor Nyberg said building trust was "cheaper and more efficient".
"Instead of monitoring the employees, the manager can help staff, show role-model behaviour and build collegiality that would benefit staff and customers."
Barbara Nebart, secretary of the Newcastle and Northern branch of the SDA [the union for retail workers] said surveillance shouldn't be used as an "over-monitoring tool".
Ms Nebart said managers should have discussions with workers consistently not meeting requirements, rather than issue warnings.
Professor Nyberg did a large study of a call centre using surveillance, with supervisors listening in to workers' phone conversations.
"It was clear that this type of close surveillance leads to anxiety and stress," he said.
"The employees develop ways to get around it and, paradoxically, it leads to worse behavior since employees develop an ironic and cynical stance to their jobs."
At a supermarket, for example, "we can expect staff to give customers fake smiles and ironically perform their tasks, which will lower the standard of service and customer satisfaction".
IN THE NEWS:
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark: newcastleherald.com.au
- Download our app
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter
- Follow us on Instagram
- Follow us on Google News