1984 is not an instruction manual
January 20, 2012 8:30 PM Subscribe
I am a staff member of an Australian courier company. The company is in the process of introducing a GPS system for the purpose of tracking the movements of its couriers, and I've been tasked with implementing a phase of the rollout. I'm interested in exploring the ethical dimension of this task.
The practical advantages of the system are clear enough. Knowing where each courier is without the need to ask (which takes time, and the information can be unreliable) allows the company to allocate work more efficiently. In theory this will advantage the couriers in the sense that more efficient routing will enable to complete more work and so earn a higher commission.
However, I am uncertain about the ethical implications of the system. For instance:
- Should it be required that explicit consent is provided by each courier to have their position electronically tracked, or does the company have the right to assume that any courier working for them has implicitly agreed to be electronically tracked as a term of their employment? (Incidentally, the company has a mix of employees and independent contractors on the courier staff.)
- Is there a potential for couriers to have their movements tracked outside of their strict working hours? My understanding of the system is that the GPS feed stops as soon as the courier's PDA is logged out of the system, but concerns have been raised to me that data outside of those hours might be retained and potentially mined.
- It is already a necessary condition of employment that couriers report their positions during work hours, as it would be impossible to coordinate the task of allocating them work without that information. What are the implications of collecting that information automatically from an electronic system vs. requesting it verbally, e.g. by radio, as needed?
I am also interested in hearing of implications to introducing this system that I may not have thought of. I appreciate your input, thanks.
The practical advantages of the system are clear enough. Knowing where each courier is without the need to ask (which takes time, and the information can be unreliable) allows the company to allocate work more efficiently. In theory this will advantage the couriers in the sense that more efficient routing will enable to complete more work and so earn a higher commission.
However, I am uncertain about the ethical implications of the system. For instance:
- Should it be required that explicit consent is provided by each courier to have their position electronically tracked, or does the company have the right to assume that any courier working for them has implicitly agreed to be electronically tracked as a term of their employment? (Incidentally, the company has a mix of employees and independent contractors on the courier staff.)
- Is there a potential for couriers to have their movements tracked outside of their strict working hours? My understanding of the system is that the GPS feed stops as soon as the courier's PDA is logged out of the system, but concerns have been raised to me that data outside of those hours might be retained and potentially mined.
- It is already a necessary condition of employment that couriers report their positions during work hours, as it would be impossible to coordinate the task of allocating them work without that information. What are the implications of collecting that information automatically from an electronic system vs. requesting it verbally, e.g. by radio, as needed?
I am also interested in hearing of implications to introducing this system that I may not have thought of. I appreciate your input, thanks.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's request -- taz
Response by poster: Etrigan - yes, "the courier's PDA" means the company's PDA which is supplied to a courier as standard equipment. General practice is not for a courier to hand the PDAs in at the end of a shift, but to take them to their home and charge them there. The company office is not located in the CBD, and couriers can sometimes go for months at a time without visiting the office. It's not likely that most couriers would want to visit the office on a twice-daily basis to pick up and drop off a PDA; however, you're right that making it clear that that option is available for those who are particularly concerned about the GPS system.
Most of the staff seems to be indifferent as to whether or not the couriers are aware they're being tracked on GPS. I've always intended to be up front about it with them as I activate the system. I don't see any advantage for anyone in being underhanded about it.
The thought of the information in the system being requested by the authorities (or a courier for an alibi) had not occurred to me. I'll consider that, thank you.
posted by chmmr at 8:52 PM on January 20, 2012
Most of the staff seems to be indifferent as to whether or not the couriers are aware they're being tracked on GPS. I've always intended to be up front about it with them as I activate the system. I don't see any advantage for anyone in being underhanded about it.
The thought of the information in the system being requested by the authorities (or a courier for an alibi) had not occurred to me. I'll consider that, thank you.
posted by chmmr at 8:52 PM on January 20, 2012
I don't know what the laws are like there, or if these couriers have a union, but ethically I think you are certainly obligated to
a) let them know they are being tracked
b) let them know to what potential uses the information will be put. ie, is it strictly for better routing, or will it be used to check up if people are late, stopping for coffee, speeding, etc etc.
In a perfect world the information would be used only for routing, but I don't see that as very realistic.
posted by drjimmy11 at 8:55 PM on January 20, 2012
a) let them know they are being tracked
b) let them know to what potential uses the information will be put. ie, is it strictly for better routing, or will it be used to check up if people are late, stopping for coffee, speeding, etc etc.
In a perfect world the information would be used only for routing, but I don't see that as very realistic.
posted by drjimmy11 at 8:55 PM on January 20, 2012
Response by poster: ("... particularly concerned about the GPS system is a good idea" that is, /edit window)
posted by chmmr at 8:57 PM on January 20, 2012
posted by chmmr at 8:57 PM on January 20, 2012
I think the main problem is that you may have people who just object to being tracked electronically, maybe not for any "good" reason, but just on principle, and that they signed on to work for the company when there was no electronic tracking. Telling these (admittedly hypothetical) people now that it is a condition of their employment seems a bit unfair. It's one thing to tell someone when they apply for a job that "we do X: if you don't like it, don't work for us", but I think it's a different thing to tell someone who is already employed for you "we are now doing X; if you don't like it, you can quit". Some sort of opt-out option would be fairer, but I guess that might be impossible to implement without incurring extra costs and difficulty.
posted by lollusc at 9:00 PM on January 20, 2012
posted by lollusc at 9:00 PM on January 20, 2012
ps does your company have a lawyer? You probably need to consult him or her if you haven't already.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:00 PM on January 20, 2012
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:00 PM on January 20, 2012
It seems like there might be some possible legal / compliance aspects to this, depending on privacy laws. If you're not confident that somebody has vetted all of this already, you might want to raise the question (preferably in writing and on the record somewhere) prior to the rollout, just in case it happens later that you're in violation of something.
In general though, if I was in your shoes, I'd be looking to study similar rollouts in other industries. What other industries (in your jurisdiction) use similar tracking technology? In some parts of the U.S., taxicabs use GPS tracking systems for dispatch purposes -- that seems pretty similar -- and drivers often own and take their vehicles home at the end of the workday. How do they manage the privacy of the data feed when the driver is off the clock? (I have no idea what the answer to this is, but you could probably find the answer pretty quickly.) Some over the road truck companies use GPS tracking for logistics-management purposes as well. There would seem to be some similar concerns, though perhaps not at the same level.
Anyway, the key phrase here is "best practices" (personally, I prefer "established practices," because who knows if they're really "best" or not...). What are the established practices for using this sort of technology? In the absence of any explicit regulatory guidance, that's what I'd want to look to, and build my policy off of. Start from the most closely-related industries you can find, and search out from there.
The vendor providing the GPS equipment/software should be able to provide you some help in this regard, particularly if you're one of the first companies in your sector to implement (i.e., meaning they care about the success of the rollout). They may be able to point you to other implementations that would provide an idea of what constitutes established practice.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:01 PM on January 20, 2012
In general though, if I was in your shoes, I'd be looking to study similar rollouts in other industries. What other industries (in your jurisdiction) use similar tracking technology? In some parts of the U.S., taxicabs use GPS tracking systems for dispatch purposes -- that seems pretty similar -- and drivers often own and take their vehicles home at the end of the workday. How do they manage the privacy of the data feed when the driver is off the clock? (I have no idea what the answer to this is, but you could probably find the answer pretty quickly.) Some over the road truck companies use GPS tracking for logistics-management purposes as well. There would seem to be some similar concerns, though perhaps not at the same level.
Anyway, the key phrase here is "best practices" (personally, I prefer "established practices," because who knows if they're really "best" or not...). What are the established practices for using this sort of technology? In the absence of any explicit regulatory guidance, that's what I'd want to look to, and build my policy off of. Start from the most closely-related industries you can find, and search out from there.
The vendor providing the GPS equipment/software should be able to provide you some help in this regard, particularly if you're one of the first companies in your sector to implement (i.e., meaning they care about the success of the rollout). They may be able to point you to other implementations that would provide an idea of what constitutes established practice.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:01 PM on January 20, 2012
Response by poster: I do intend to inform the couriers that their positions are being tracked as they are added to the system. To be honest I'm not certain of what the limits of the use of the system will be. The principle use will be for improving routing. If a PDA isn't logged into the system it wouldn't be possible to check someone's position if they're running late. I don't believe the system is presently sophisticated enough to detect whether someone is speeding, however I suppose that couldn't be ruled out in the future (and that said, speeding isn't something that tends to be discouraged by courier companies, even if it can't be explicitly encouraged.) If a courier stops for an extended period for no apparent reason, especially during a busy period, it's likely they would be questioned as to why. A crash? Pulled over by the cops? Yes, stopped for coffee?
posted by chmmr at 9:04 PM on January 20, 2012
posted by chmmr at 9:04 PM on January 20, 2012
Big question:
Are you saving the data, or erasing at the end of every workday? The huge difference as somewhat noted above, is between
1) "we know where you are today, just so you didn't have to radio in. At the end of the day we erase this info and start over tomorrow"
2) "We know where you have been every day since you worked here. We're going to save, use and analyze this data to check how often you're late, milk more work for less pay, and maybe turn it over to the cops at some point."
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:04 PM on January 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Are you saving the data, or erasing at the end of every workday? The huge difference as somewhat noted above, is between
1) "we know where you are today, just so you didn't have to radio in. At the end of the day we erase this info and start over tomorrow"
2) "We know where you have been every day since you worked here. We're going to save, use and analyze this data to check how often you're late, milk more work for less pay, and maybe turn it over to the cops at some point."
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:04 PM on January 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
especially during a busy period, it's likely they would be questioned as to why. A crash? Pulled over by the cops? Yes, stopped for coffee?
Even if they still made all their deliveries on time? Even if they stopped because there was an emergency at home and they had to call their spouse? To me this is where it crosses the line into Orwellian and immoral, because you're demanding an account of a worker's every second, EVEN IF HE IS PERFORMING HIS JOB AS REQUIRED.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:06 PM on January 20, 2012
Even if they still made all their deliveries on time? Even if they stopped because there was an emergency at home and they had to call their spouse? To me this is where it crosses the line into Orwellian and immoral, because you're demanding an account of a worker's every second, EVEN IF HE IS PERFORMING HIS JOB AS REQUIRED.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:06 PM on January 20, 2012
I don't want to get emotional about this but to me this is similar to bosses who pop their head in my cubicle and sometimes see me using Facebook.
Many people would say, "oh you're goofing off at work you deserve to be fired."
a) I always complete all my work on time
b) a short break helps me work better
c) I could be sending a message to a family member about a serious illness in the family (literally the case recently)
d) testing how things work on FB is often part of my job
When you start playing "gotcha" with workers even though they're performing well you at the least waste your time, and at the most make their life hell and drive them away for no valid reason.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:10 PM on January 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Many people would say, "oh you're goofing off at work you deserve to be fired."
a) I always complete all my work on time
b) a short break helps me work better
c) I could be sending a message to a family member about a serious illness in the family (literally the case recently)
d) testing how things work on FB is often part of my job
When you start playing "gotcha" with workers even though they're performing well you at the least waste your time, and at the most make their life hell and drive them away for no valid reason.
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:10 PM on January 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: If everything was on time, chances are they wouldn't be questioned. When there's excess time remaining on work it's common practice for a courier to stop and wait on the assumption that more work will be generated in a particular area before they leave it.
It can be difficult for a courier to tell how busy the company is overall just from the work that's on their screen. Sometimes a courier might be in a dead area with a single job with three hours remaining on their screen, and that's all they see, where the next zone over is overloaded. So it's possible they might make the assumption that the company's quiet when it actually isn't. It's necessary in cases like that for the fact of the matter to be communicated to the courier, to get them to the area they need to be in.
If they'd stopped because it's an emergency at home and they had to call their spouse, of course that takes priority over work. However the only way for the base staff to know that that's the case is by asking.
posted by chmmr at 9:14 PM on January 20, 2012
It can be difficult for a courier to tell how busy the company is overall just from the work that's on their screen. Sometimes a courier might be in a dead area with a single job with three hours remaining on their screen, and that's all they see, where the next zone over is overloaded. So it's possible they might make the assumption that the company's quiet when it actually isn't. It's necessary in cases like that for the fact of the matter to be communicated to the courier, to get them to the area they need to be in.
If they'd stopped because it's an emergency at home and they had to call their spouse, of course that takes priority over work. However the only way for the base staff to know that that's the case is by asking.
posted by chmmr at 9:14 PM on January 20, 2012
Response by poster: To be clear, I don't foresee using the system to play "gotcha" myself. I was a courier for many years before moving over to the administration side, so I'm pretty in touch with what it's like on the ground. I took breaks at my own discretion and, yes, used FB plenty enough while working. I can see the "gotcha" potential of the system, and I am concerned not to let it turn into that. However I can also imagine future users of the system who may not be so concerned.
posted by chmmr at 9:17 PM on January 20, 2012
posted by chmmr at 9:17 PM on January 20, 2012
Is this something you have discussed with your manager? Or is it management's intention that there be no discussion/announcement/advice of the implenetation of the tracking?
First step would be to raise it as an issue, and it may turn out to be no big deal for management. If it is a big deal, you look like having an interesting time ...
BTW, would your management recognise you if they read this thread?
posted by GeeEmm at 9:25 PM on January 20, 2012
First step would be to raise it as an issue, and it may turn out to be no big deal for management. If it is a big deal, you look like having an interesting time ...
BTW, would your management recognise you if they read this thread?
posted by GeeEmm at 9:25 PM on January 20, 2012
Response by poster: Hmm, I think you're right GeeEmm, I may have underappreciated the risk of that. I've memailed mods to request thread deletion, thanks for the heads up.
posted by chmmr at 9:31 PM on January 20, 2012
posted by chmmr at 9:31 PM on January 20, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
2 - When you say "the courier's PDA," do you mean "the company's PDA, which they give to the courier"? Does the company give couriers the option of handing the PDAs in at the end of a shift?
If not, they really need to offer that option.
3 - I see no particular ethical differences between tracking and asking for reports -- again, as long as people know they're being tracked.
Other implications -- the company having this information means that it almost assuredly will eventually be asked for by authorities. One of your couriers will need it for an alibi, or the cops will want it to rule out an alibi, or someone will sue you for it. And you'll realize that your couriers break traffic laws more or less constantly ("Is he going the wrong way on a one-way street?" "Yeah, Ted always does that.").
Overall, is it Big Brother-y? Nah. It's the modern equivalent of the time clock or whatever they call those boxes that security guards have to key on their rounds. The company pays people to go from Place A to Place B quicker and/or cheaper than other people can -- knowing where they are is part of that.
posted by Etrigan at 8:44 PM on January 20, 2012