USA 
United Kingdom
Amazon workers at a warehouse in St Louis, Missouri, have filed an unfair labor practice charge against their employer for surveillance which they allege is excessive and intrusive.
The charge, filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), claims that Amazon has “maintained intrusive algorithms and other workplace controls and surveillance which interfere with Section 7 rights of employees to engage in protected concerted activity.”
Speaking to the Guardian, an Amazon spokesperson stated that as of yet, “there’s been no finding of unlawful activity by the NLRB. The fact is this charge, which was just filed, has yet to be investigated or proven.”
However, Wendy Taylor, a packer at Amazon’s STL8 fulfillment center, accuses Amazon of excessive monitoring. “We have an injury crisis and we’re being watched and you feel like you’re in prison,” she told the Guardian. “Every move you make is being tracked, so you feel uncomfortable, and you’re not able to really communicate with your co-workers about the unsafe work environment you’re in, or the inhumane working conditions because of the dangerous rates that are so high that we must meet quotas.”
Moreover, it’s far from the first report of excessive surveillance at Amazon warehouses. In 2020, Amazon listed a job posting for two intelligence analysts with the desired skills including someone who could monitor “labor organizing threats.” It later removed the posts claiming they were inaccurate.
There have been further reports of surveillance including HR teams monitoring employee message boards, and a memo that suggested the company hoped to make a major investment in software designed to monitor and track unionization.
As recently as earlier this month, over 20 leaders of major trade unions across Europe called on data protection authorities to investigate and crack down on Amazon’s “pervasive” data surveillance practices and algorithmic management.
Employees everywhere are fed up with excessive surveillance
But it’s not just at Amazon where employees report they are unhappy with the level of surveillance they are subjected to.
Particularly with the capabilities that AI-enabled technology brings, workers are increasingly uncomfortable with how their employers achieve employee surveillance in practice. A 2024 Forbes Advisor survey finds that 39% of workers report that their employer monitoring their online activity negatively impacts their relationship with the company, and 43% say it negatively affects company morale.
In fact, some 78% of employers use some type of surveillance software. However, at the same time, 83% cite ethical concerns with employee monitoring.
So, why are workplaces still not learning the lesson that short term gains from surveillance may be outweighed by the long term damages of breaking trust?
Well, to begin with, in many forms, it’s legal. Email monitoring has long been an established practice, and most companies have policies that allow them to monitor messages and screen contents taking place on a company-owned device.
And, provided there is a legitimate business reason, such as the safety of workers, security cameras and video surveillance in the workplace are legal according to US Law.
However, like most employment practices, the result entirely depends on the execution and how far the surveillance goes.
It all comes down to trust
It’s clear, from the lawsuit, that Taylor and her peers strongly believe that Amazon has gone too far. Amazon has failed to sufficiently communicate to employees why the surveillance is necessary and the workers feel that it is wielded as a tool for retaliation and intimidation.
Wherever your judgment lies on whether Amazon is entitled to surveil its employees to this extent, there is no doubt that the trust between employee and employer has been broken.
Matthew Castillo PhD, Head of Employee Listening at Whole Foods, has previously told HR Grapevine that the impact of employee monitoring will depend on its execution, including levels of trust and psychological safety.
“There are more opportunities to misuse employee monitoring data than not which is why it is critical to be transparent with employees about how they are being monitored, why, and how the data will and will not be used,” he explains. “Managers must ensure that employees trust them and feel empowered to share their opinions and feedback without fear of retaliation to ensure that employee monitoring does not hinder the employee experience.”
When the trust is broken, employers will, in the long term, pay the price. It could be lawsuits such as this; disengagement and demotivated employees who end up leaving, with a 2023 survey revealing that 63% of respondents would consider the use of tracking software for productivity checks as a reason to quit; or long-lasting damage to the employer brand making it tough to attract talent.
The latest complaint from Amazon’s workers should be a further reminder, if it is needed, that employers must be more cautious with their execution of employee surveillance. A workplace where employees feel like they are “in prison” is simply unacceptable.
