Comment on GPS in the workplace

The proposal by Council management to extensively use GPS tracking devices not just on vehicles and other such assets; but on the person of individual employees has understandably aroused a lot of concern. Not only are many Council employees and their union opposed to the proposal, but so too is a broad cross section of community opinion.

It is fair to say that the use of GPS tracking devices in this manner is completely out of step with contemporary community values. Recently the Fremantle Port Authority proposed a similar GPS system but the workforce and the Maritime Union of Australia rejected it and the proposal was dropped.

Most of us find the possibility of such close personal monitoring unnecessary and insulting. Like most workers, the overwhelming majority of Council employees take pride in doing their work in a timely and professional manner. Assurances that such devices will not be used to monitor performance are not sufficient. The very fact that they could be used to spy on an individual's every move raises serious civil liberties issues.

The particular proposal for individual employees to carry such devices has evolved from being compulsory (for some at least), to being "voluntary". This is recognition of the fact that the Surveillance Devices Act makes it illegal to compel workers to wear such devices. However the now "voluntary" nature of the proposal is just as much of a problem:
1. If one accepts the premise that the use of these devices in this way is wrong, then they should not be used even in a "voluntary" manner.
2. Inevitably employees, particularly new employees on probation, will feel under pressure to accept the devices in order to secure a permanent position or promotion. Managers will be in a position to constantly remind employees how much they would prefer them to wear them. This sort of pressure is not acceptable and even in this form the proposal may still be illegal.
In my opinion this is not some minor operational or administrative matter. It goes to the very heart of the values and principles that guide Council's general regard and respect for its employees, its understanding of community values and its standing in the community. This level of individual surveillance is not common practice across local government or any Australian workplace.

If the proposal were to go ahead Fremantle Council would actually be setting a disturbing precedent. It is not just the dignity and rights of our workforce that are jeopardized, but that of the whole community. There are other non-invasive techniques that can be used to monitor and manage the performance and workload of employees. The issue is still being negotiated by the workforce, management and the union; and I hope a resolution that is acceptable to all parties will be reached soon.