I recently attended the Adelaide International Workplace Conference,
which offered some stimulating workshops and useful learning. One
topic, by Eric Lee from the UK, sounded curious on reading the abstract.
The pre-conference blurb described Eric as: “...the founder of LabourStart,
the online global labour news service... Based in London he works
as a consultant for British and international trade unions.”
This did not excite me – given my love of the electronic workplace
– but I decided against doing a runner and went to the session.
It provided me with an insight to a world of electronic control
and power. Clearly, many issues, which I had not considered, surround
the electronic workplace. I have written before about the use of e-mail
as a tool of bullying and poor personal management, but this session
focused on a very different level.
PASA has had debate for some time about having access to the SAPOL
Intranet as a communication medium with members. Arguments for such
access has been fought and won in America and European business houses
but, clearly, it is arguable whether access was the issue.
It was reported that, in many workplaces, the access to intranet
and internet via the workplace is standard procedure. The debate is
now on monitoring and surveillance of employees using the electronic
workplace. In some cases, employers have blocked and tampered with
messages between unions and their members.
I was surprised to hear that, in the US, laws (under the National
Labour Relations Act) exist to protect workers from surveillance by
employers. Surprisingly, the act was passed in the 1930s.
The cases raised by Lee in his address included more recent work
done in Europe and Britain to create a code of practice. This code
would make it clear to staff that they must be told if, how and why
their e-mail, phone calls, internet use and other behaviour is monitored.
Most in SAPOL are aware that all computer use can be audited and
every keystroke recalled. This is also the case with every electronic
message sent on the SAPOL system. This, in and of itself, might not
be reason for concern but, in the heat of an enterprise bargaining
campaign, it might be.
Consider, for example, the sending of a group e-mail during the last
campaign. A member sent an e-mail which was, at best, flawed or, at
worst, an attempt to mislead workers as to facts.
It would seem that the e-mail breached e-mail policy. What action
was taken? Now, if the e-mail had been negative toward the employer,
would no action have followed?
Of interest is that, during the recent public sector wages campaign,
the HR director and others in the wider government provided their
overviews on the state of the dispute via the SAPOL and wider public
sector intranet system.
Did the Public Service Association have the right of reply or to
put a contrary view? Is this a simple sign of the way the power of
the electronic message can be used, abused or even manipulated?
I left the session better informed on why codes of practice are
necessary for the electronic workplace – to ensure the potential for
abuse is removed.
In his summation, Eric Lee remarked: “If a worker wants to communicate
privately with their union there really is no secure way to do so
from the workplace.
“Even if employers promise not to snoop, or are legally bound not
to snoop, the very nature of the technology makes nearly all online
communications public. Whereas, previously, a worker could whisper
something to a union representative by the coffee machine or water
cooler and be relatively certain no one was listening.
“This is not the case with e-mail, or on the web. Someone is almost
always listening.”
