logo
‘Young people and black workers at highest risk of workplace surveillance'

‘Young people and black workers at highest risk of workplace surveillance'

Glasgow Times30-05-2025

Shop floor staff, warehouse workers, delivery drivers, and those working in call centres and from home are all at high risk of having calls recorded, emails analysed and possibly even being monitored by cameras or laptop webcams, a think tank said.
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said there is an urgent need for legal reform so workers can have a say over how they are monitored and managed both at work and while working from home, amid a warning rights to privacy could be being breached.
Its research suggested those in low-skilled roles – where worker retention may be seen as less critical – and low-autonomy jobs – where there might be lower levels of employee trust – as well as those not in a union are most likely to be subject to monitoring at work.
Young workers aged 16 to 29 came out as being at high risk.
Black employees were also seen as likely to face surveillance, with high rates of low autonomy and lower-skilled work, although greater levels of union representation.
Among workers in the private sector, men were found to be at higher risk of surveillance across all three risk factor measures.
The IPPR is calling on the Government to introduce new legislation that gives people 'a genuine voice over how they are monitored at work' through new legal rights to consultation – similar to those with redundancy law – and more transparency requirements, compelling employers to disclose what data is collected, why, and how it will be used.
Joseph Evans, IPPR researcher and co-author of the report, said while technology has 'evolved really rapidly', legislation has not kept up with the pace of change 'so at the moment many of these practices are not illegal but what we don't have is a mechanism to control them where surveillance does tip over into potential breaches of privacy or freedom of expression and association in the workplace'.
He said surveillance can have 'quite negative impacts on people in terms of their health and stress and anxiety'.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is has transformed surveillance, he added, giving employers an even greater insight into their employees.
He said: 'Surveillance and algorithmic management are very linked. Often surveillance packages are single software packages which both collect data and then use it to make recommendations to employers, and algorithmic management itself is being innovated and rapidly transformed by AI which can create much more sophisticated insights.'
Increasing levels of surveillance of certain workers could 'deepen the inequalities already baked into the labour market', said Mr Evans, noting that black workers are more likely to be in jobs with a higher risk of 'intrusive surveillance'.
He added that productivity could also be affected.
'If surveillance has a chilling effect on people's willingness to express themselves in the workplace, that may also decrease their satisfaction at work,' he said.
'As part of their wider changes to employment rights, through the Employment Rights Bill, there should be substantive new rights to negotiate and consult over surveillance. And specifically adapting pieces of legislation like the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act to provide the new mechanism for workers to be able to negotiate over surveillance.
'Implicit in the right to negotiate is that it would give workers the right to challenge if they felt it (surveillance) was excessive or unfair.'
The IPPR analysed data from the 2023 Institute for Social and Economic Research's UK Household Longitudinal Survey to produce its findings.
A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said: 'Our plan to Make Work Pay aims to ensure workers' rights keep pace with technological change so that workers' voices are at the heart of Britain's digital transition.
'This includes safeguarding against invasion of privacy and discrimination by algorithms.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Unsafe building cladding could cost Scottish Government £1.7bn
Unsafe building cladding could cost Scottish Government £1.7bn

STV News

time27 minutes ago

  • STV News

Unsafe building cladding could cost Scottish Government £1.7bn

Unsafe building cladding could cost the Scottish Government £1.7bn over a 15-year period, according latest estimates. New estimates from Holyrood suggest almost 1,500 residential buildings may need repair work during the same time period. A Building Safety levy bill has been announced to help raise around £30m per year to help fund work to fix residential buildings. If passed, the construction of certain new residential properties will be taxed, which is similar to legislation in England Public finance minister Ian McKee said: 'The Scottish Government is committed to doing what is right and necessary to address the challenge of fixing buildings affected by unsafe cladding. 'That includes putting the appropriate funding arrangements in place to ensure that the associated costs of cladding remediation do not fall directly onto affected homeowners. 'I know that developers share our determination to keep people safe and this levy will ensure they make a fair contribution to these costs, just as they will be doing in England. 'I also welcome the continued cooperation of developers who have accepted responsibility for the assessments and any required mitigation and remediation of their buildings.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country

Labour faces embarrassing defeat over foreign state ownership of newspapers
Labour faces embarrassing defeat over foreign state ownership of newspapers

Telegraph

time27 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Labour faces embarrassing defeat over foreign state ownership of newspapers

The House of Lords is preparing to inflict an embarrassing defeat on Labour over its ' deeply problematic ' plans to let foreign powers become part-owners of British newspapers. Peers including a former chancellor, a former director of public prosecutions and the current chairman of the press regulator are in open revolt over proposals by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, to relax an outright ban on foreign state shareholdings to allow passive stakes of up to 15pc. The basic principle was expected to be reluctantly accepted by Parliament, in part to end the destabilising uncertainty at The Telegraph caused by a blocked takeover bid bankrolled by the United Arab Emirates. However, a loophole that it is feared could allow foreign powers to team up to gain sway over Britain's free press has stoked a rebellion capable of defeating the Government. As proposed, the legislation would enable foreign states to own up to 15pc if they are not cooperating with each other. Lord Young, the journalist and founder of the Free Speech Union campaign group, has spearheaded an open letter to Ms Nandy demanding she tighten the proposed laws. It has dozens of signatures from Conservative peers of all stripes, including former Cabinet ministers Lord Lamont, Lord Baker and Lord Lilley, as well as crossbenchers including Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions. The letter to Ms Nandy said her proposals to allow multiple foreign powers to own shares in a single newspaper were 'deeply problematic'. It added: 'It has to be assumed that if different state actors are intent on exerting influence through their shareholding, then some may be prepared to do so covertly and in collusion with other states. 'To guard against this risk, the draft regulations should ensure that the cap in the percentage of shares that can be owned in a British newspaper enterprise is a total cap.' The letter was also signed by Lord Faulks, the chairman of the press regulator Ipso; Baroness Fleet, the former editor of The Evening Standard; and Lord Goodman, the former editor of the Conservative Home website. Other prominent backers included Lord Brady, the former chairman of the 1922 committee of Conservative backbenchers; Baroness Deech, the chairman of the House of Lords appointments commission; Lord Swire, the former Foreign Office minister; and Baroness Spielman, the former head of Ofsted. Lord Roberts, the Churchill biographer, has also signed and has written in The Telegraph that the legislation 'must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press'. The letter marks a significant escalation of opposition to the legislation in the Lords. Baroness Stowell, who last year played a critical role in forcing the Government to block the UAE bid for The Telegraph, was among the first to raise concerns over multiple state shareholdings in a letter to Ms Nandy last week. She did not sign Lord Young's letter, but warned the Government it faced defeat if it pressed ahead, even though the Conservative leadership in the Commons had signalled it did not oppose the proposed laws. The Liberal Democrats have tabled a rare 'fatal motion' to veto the statutory instrument which may become the focus of the Lords rebellion. Lady Stowell said: 'I really hope the Government reconsiders these proposals quickly. 'It would not be acceptable for multiple foreign states to own stakes of up to 15pc in the same newspaper, yet for reasons unclear, that is a scenario Lisa Nandy wants to allow. 'Unless she closes this obvious loophole, I can see peers swinging behind a fatal motion to block this legislation. It would be a rare step to take, but I know colleagues feel very strongly about this crucial matter of press independence.' The Conservatives are the biggest group in the Lords. Alongside the Liberal Democrats and some crossbenchers they could readily defeat the Government and spark a battle with the Commons. Lady Stowell is among the parliamentarians to have said she would accept a limit of 15pc with reservations, were it not for the risk of cumulative shareholdings. The figure is three times the limit proposed last year by Rishi Sunak's government. Ms Nandy decided to lift it following lobbying on behalf of Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Daily Mail. Both media moguls have sought sovereign wealth investment in the past. Lord Rothermere previously considered a takeover bid for The Telegraph with financial backing from the Gulf. Mr Murdoch relied on the support of a Saudi royal shareholder to fight off the investor rebellion sparked by the phone-hacking scandal. Lobbyists for Lord Rothermere and Mr Murdoch argued that a 5pc cap on foreign state investment would cut news publishers off from a significant source of potential investment in digital growth at a time of upheaval as print newspapers decline. The row over cumulative shareholdings threatens to further delay a conclusion to the two-year saga over ownership of The Telegraph. RedBird Capital, the US private equity firm that was the minority investor in the blocked UAE takeover, has agreed in principle to become controlling shareholder in a £500m deal. IMI, the media investment vehicle owned by UAE royal Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan is expected to retain up to 15pc. However, the deal has not been finalised and is likely to require a settled legal position before it can face regulatory scrutiny. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport declined to comment. Full list of signatories Lord Biggar Baroness Meyer Lord Moylan Lord Jackson of Peterborough Baroness Eaton Lord Brady Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell Baroness Finn Baroness Fleet Baroness Noakes Baroness Bray of Coln Lord Strathcarron Baroness Lea of Lymm The Earl of Leicester Lord Borwick Lord Roberts of Belgravia Baroness Deech Lord Sherbourne Lord Mackinlay Lord Ashcombe Baroness Coffey Baroness Foster of Oxton Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Lord Evans of Rainow Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Buscombe Lord Sharpe of Epsom Lord Mancroft Lord Robathan Baroness Nicholson Lord Wrottesley Baroness Cash Lord Goodman Lord Shinkwin Baroness Altmann CBE Edward Faulks KC Lord Swire Baroness Fox of Buckley Baroness Spielman Lord Lamont Lord MacDonald of River Glaven Lord McInnes of Kilwinning Lord Hamilton of Epsom Lord Reay Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Lilley Lord Baker of Dorking Lord McLoughlin Baroness Morrissey

The State pensioners who will get an immediate Winter Fuel Payment boost
The State pensioners who will get an immediate Winter Fuel Payment boost

North Wales Live

time36 minutes ago

  • North Wales Live

The State pensioners who will get an immediate Winter Fuel Payment boost

Many State pensioners were controversially stripped of their £300 Winter Fuel Payment over the winter. It came after the Government declared the benefit would be means tested but the issue has been highly contentious. It means the vast majority of State pensioners will no longer receive a £300 payment unless they claim a qualifying benefit. Since then Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced a partial reversal on the benefit, pledging to reassess the eligibility threshold to reinstate the payment to more pensioners. How this will be implemented or what the criteria might be have not yet been disclosed. This week, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves announced that more pensioners will receive the winter fuel allowance this year, although it still won't be universal, reports the Express. Officials haven't yet said how many more pensioners will be eligible. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: "We have listened to the concerns that people had about the level of the means test and so we will be making changes to that. Join the North Wales Live Whatsapp community now "They will be in place so that pensioners are paid this coming winter. People should be in no doubt that the means test will increase and more people will get winter fuel payment this winter." 'Exact amount will vary depending on your birth year' However, many aren't aware that if you do qualify for the Winter Fuel Payment this year, the exact amount you receive will vary depending on your birth year and possibly other circumstances as well. The Government previously paid the Winter Fuel Payment automatically to all state pensioners, but until any changes are announced, the current rule is that you must be claiming a qualifying benefit such as Pension Credit. Those who are of state pension age but under 80, meaning they were born on or before September 22, 1958, and who qualify will receive a £200 payment. But those aged over 80 - born on September 23, 1944, or earlier - will receive £300. The amount you receive is determined by your age and circumstances during the "qualifying week" of September 16 to 22, 2024. If you missed this period, you can backdate Pension Credit claims until December, so it's still accessible now. So if you're over 80 and eligible, your Winter Fuel Payment will rise from £200 to £300. Most qualifying individuals will receive a letter detailing the amount they'll receive and the bank account in which it will be paid to, this is typically the same as the one used for your Pension Credit or other benefits. An Age UK spokesman said: "If you or your partner claims Pension Credit, Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance or income-related Employment and Support Allowance, the payment should go to the main claimant of the benefit automatically. "You should receive your payment between mid-November and Christmas. Call the Winter Fuel Payment helpline on 0800 731 0160 if you have any enquiries or you don't receive your payment."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store