Maine lawmakers are slated to consider creating protections for workers that will limit how American businesses can use emerging monitoring and surveillance systems, which some corporations have adopted to spy on remote workers and ensure they are not slacking off.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Amy Roeder (D-Bangor), would require employers to obtain informed consent from employees before using surveillance programs and would prohibit the most invasive types of corporate monitoring, such as audiovisual monitoring within an employee’s personal vehicle, device, or home.
Rep. Roeder presented the bill to the legislature’s Labor Committee on Wednesday.
“Employer surveillance can include the use of security cameras, phone recording, mouse tracking, remote desktop control, monitoring internet activity, mobile device tracking, and more,” said Roeder
The Bangor Democrat, along with her co-sponsor, Sen. Michael Tipping (D-Penobscot), put forward the bill after it was brought to them by a group of employees concerned about the level of surveillance imposed on them by their employers.
During her testimony, she raised concerns about advanced new techniques that use technology to attempt to determine a worker’s future actions, such as asking for a pay raise or leaving the job. She also claimed that employer surveillance leads to a worse work environment, citing evidence suggesting that workers might retaliate against these practices by intentionally working more slowly.
“Sage Journal published a study that said that U.S. employees who were monitored by their employer took more unapproved breaks, intentionally worked more slowly, and stole more office equipment,” said Roeder.
The bill would require an employer to notify employees during the hiring process and before surveillance begins that they will be monitored while working or using the employer’s property. The bill would also prevent employers from surveilling employees through their personal devices or in personal homes and vehicles.
Employer surveillance is defined to include a broad range of monitoring systems, including computer activity tracking and phone call monitoring, though the bill explicitly exempts cameras used for safety or security, as well as GPS systems and other safety measures installed in employer vehicles.
The bill requires employers, such as Amazon or UPS, to notify workers using fleet vehicles of any surveillance measures, but it does not prevent them from using the surveillance tech because the vehicles are owned by the company.
Similarly, employers may install surveillance software on company computers if they notify employees, but they may not force workers to install similar software on personal devices.
Roeder’s bill prohibits employers from using any “audiovisual” monitoring devices or software in an employee’s home, vehicle, or personal property if that monitoring system is intended for surveillance.
“There are instances where the employer has randomly turned on the camera to make sure that the person is sitting there, doing their job,” said Roeder.
Employees may decline to install any monitoring software on their personal devices.
Roeder’s proposal comes in part as a response to surging numbers of employees working from home and a related concern from employers and supervisors about how to ensure workers remain productive. Conversations of employee surveillance must also confront the emerging reality of hyper-advanced employee monitoring tools, boosted by revolutionary technologies like ChatGPT and similar Large Language Models (LLMs).
Sophisticated employee monitoring software could, for example, track the number of times an employee uses the backspace button on a keyboard, how long an employee’s eyes focus on certain areas, or the number of tasks they’re able to complete in a given period of time. Such monitoring would allow employees to efficiently identify the most productive workers. But the concept of omni-present employee monitoring fueled by inhuman “Artificial Intelligence” systems also calls to mind all the worst versions of late-stage capitalism imagined in science-fiction novels.
The industry representatives and lobbyists who opposed or critiqued Roeder’s bill didn’t necessarily defend the digital equivalent of Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon, but they did point up several perverse or unintended consequences that might stem from the legislation.
The Maine State Chamber of Commerce and some of Maine’s largest corporations, made more plausible cases in favor of employee monitoring tools.
Jake Lachance, a government relations specialist for the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in opposition to the bill, challenging the need for employers to notify employees of surveillance on company devices.
Lachance said that while the Chamber did not oppose the protections proposed for employees personal property, the organization was strongly committed to defending an employers absolute right to oversee the use of any devices owned by the company.
“The employer is ultimately responsible for the use, content, and maintenance of these devices, it is only right that the employer should have the sole discretion to monitor the use and content that is maintained on these devices, regardless of whether that device is used in the workplace or remotely,” Lachance said.
“These tools for surveillance play an important role in allegations of harassment, embezzlement, child pornography, and other illicit activities, resolve disputes between employees, and recover misplaced or stolen property,” he said.
Ben Grant, speaking on behalf of the Maine Professional Logging Contractors, similarly echoed Lachance’s concerns, speaking to a company’s right to safe-guard its property and equipment.
“From our perspective, this bill is a clear example of government overreach into a private business. An employer has a right to monitor their equipment and employees without having to notify the employee,” said Grant.
In addition to the limitations the bill would place on corporate employee monitoring, Roeder’s bill would also allow a theoretical employee who was monitored in violation of the proposed law to sue the employer. The so-called “private right of action” could open the door to myriad lawsuits filed by employees against businesses of all sizes, alleging that they have been illegally spied upon.
Multiple organizations opposed the bill’s private right of action clause, arguing that the provision would amount to a, perhaps unintentional, prohibition on certain types of work being performed remotely. Some lobbyist also raised additional concerns about the unintended or unforeseeable consequences the law could have.
Krista Simonis, speaking on behalf of the Maine Credit Union League, expressed concerns that the bill could cause problems for at-home workers, suggesting that virtual tellers would no longer be able to function because their video calls with clients would be prohibited as surveillance in an employee’s home.
“We understand that the intent of this bill may be to protect employees from surveillance in their homes, but without an exemption for the surveillance necessary for the safety and security of credit unions and their members, we must oppose it at this time,” Simonis said.
“Credit unions across the state rely on security cameras, entry logs, and other control mechanisms to ensure that our facilities, staff, and the deposits of 750,000 Mainers are always safe and secure,” she said.
Simonis proposed that the banking industry be exempt from the increased privacy requirements for employees due to the sensitive nature of the information handled by tellers.
Currently, the bill does not have a fiscal note attached to show how much it would cost taxpayers, but Roeder mentioned during her testimony that when she brought a similar bill forward in the previous legislature, the fiscal note estimated that it would only cost taxpayers around $30,000.
It’s unclear how much it would cost businesses to adopt practices that would comply with the proposal.
Seamus Othot and Steve Robinson contributed to this story.
We need surveillance of the law makers.
So companies will get people in other states other than Maine and their big brother Commiefornia. The Maine legislators hate the Maine people
The employer should be checking on their employees that work from home, the employee is being paid for WORK! If they are not working it’s called stealing!! Maine democrats are just plain Marxist! C’mon man!
This would rule out Windows 11, and specifically Microsoft’s co-pilot (both very invasive). So, great idea, hope the legislation succeeds! Might also rule out things like GM’s OnStar.
if passed, why would companies hire anyone from Maine?
Whatever Maine can do to cover for the slackers, it will do!