You have rolled out a new productivity tool to your customer service teams. It logs keystrokes, flags long idle times, and uses webcam verification to confirm who is at the desk. It is billed as ‘smart management’.
Then someone notices a pattern. The system alerts seem to cluster around a small group of employees, many of whom are black. One is formally warned for ‘low engagement,’ despite spending much of her shift on the phone. The webcam did not see her typing, so the system counted her as inactive.
This is not an outlier. A new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) warns that surveillance technologies disproportionately affect black workers and that, without reform, the gap is likely to widen.
What does the report say?
The IPPR found that black workers are
- 26% more likely to be in low-autonomy roles.
- 46% more likely to be in lower-skilled jobs.
- Far less likely to be in a union.
That matters because surveillance tools such as facial recognition, biometric scanning, algorithmic management, and keystroke tracking are more prevalent in those jobs. And without union backing, workers are less likely to push back against intrusive monitoring.
In short, the people most watched are often those least able to object.
The report links surveillance to a range of workplace harms, including privacy breaches, anxiety, loss of trust, and reduced productivity. It also notes the impact on wider rights, such as freedom of expression and association, which suffer when people feel constantly watched.
Legal protection: patchy at best
The current legal framework does not do much to prevent this. Yes, General Data Protection Regulation and the UK Data Protection Act require transparency and proportionality. Yes, workers can object to excessive data collection.
But:
- There is no general right for workers to shape how surveillance is used.
- Enforcement is weak and often reactive.
- Consultation duties are narrow and rarely bring about practical change.
The law is not designed for algorithmic gatekeeping or artificial intelligence that interprets your facial expressions.
What is the IPPR’s fix?
The report recommends a legislative overhaul, including:
- A legal duty to consult staff (or their representatives) 30 days before introducing or changing surveillance.
- Making surveillance a mandatory bargaining topic under collective bargaining law.
- Greater transparency, including impact assessments and clear justifications.
- A ban on specific ‘automatically unfair’ practices such as emotional profiling or union monitoring.
There is a nod to this in the government’s ‘Make Work Pay’ proposals, which promise consultation rights. But for now, it is just that – a promise.
What should you do?
While we wait for legislative reform, nothing is stopping you from getting ahead of the curve. Here is how:
Do not wait for complaints
Regularly review your surveillance systems to test for indirect bias. Are some groups flagged more than others? Why?
Test before launch
Before rolling out a new tool, run it on a cross-section of staff. Look for patterns. Consider getting external help to audit for bias.
Be clear on ‘why’
Every surveillance tool should have a clear, lawful purpose. Communicate it. ‘Just in case’ monitoring will not cut it if challenged.
Make transparency routine
Do not just include it in a policy nobody reads. Explain what is monitored, how, and why – in onboarding, staff briefings, and consultation sessions.
Create space for challenge
A staff technology forum or working group is not a legal requirement, but it can show that you take employee opinions seriously and flag issues before they escalate.
Finally
Not all surveillance is bad. But bad surveillance – unchecked, unexplained, and unequally applied – erodes trust and puts your business at risk. Especially if it reinforces systemic inequalities.
This is not just about compliance. It is about fairness. And fairness, as every good HR team knows, pays off.
Source: Read the IPPR report here
