Surveillance Webinar

Unifor has a list of principles when it comes to dash cameras:

https://unifor.unionresearch.ca/dashcam.html

As background, the Technology and Work report from UC Berkeley outlines similar principles for bargaining.

https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/tech-and-work-policy-guide/

Internationally, the ILO and the ITF have been compiling strategies different unions are taking to stop the erosion of worker privacy and expanding employer rights.

https://www.equaltimes.org/trade-union-strategies-on

There is no question that surveillance technology is here, but there are many ways to think about the implementation. As such, the simple presence of a dash camera does not mean that all the functionality of that camera, data collection, and the software running on that data need to be turned on.

Some conceptual frameworks for pushing back on the technologies in our workplaces centre on health and safety, safety for the public, data retention and security, national security, secure supply chains, and data privacy. All of which can connect bargaining demands to the broader conversation about AI.

In rail and other transport sectors, we have been talking about augmentation instead of replacement of workers when dealing with automation. That campaign has had significant impact in regulation in the USA and Europe. As such, finding a similar program in Canada may lead to better regulation of the implementation of this technology.

The lack of a sophisticated Canadian regulatory regime for automation/AI is a problem for more than just the transport sectors.

In addition to pushing back on the implementation of technology, Unifor locals should be creating committees and using union-employer structures in the workplace to drive a conversation about supportive technology that augments work to improve safety.

For example, Lytx’s ad to employers is that it can tell a driver that they do not have their seat belt fastened. It is ridiculous to think that we need AI to tell a driver this since most cars have an indicator light for seat belts going back to the 70s.

The other Lytx ad program is the use of mobile phones when driving. Mobile phone use is a safety issue, but the reality is that most delivery/supply chain workers use apps on their phones to know where to go, get notifications from corporate office, and maps. Workers will also use their phones to deal with the loneliness of working alone and as a safety device to make calls.

Companies are not providing proper, safe, and tested technology that replaces the operator’s phone apps used in their work.

We must start with some basic principles

• Operators/drivers are not causing these issues. Logistics workers are operating in a complex environment, responding the best way that they can as professional operators.
• Current technology is driven by the interests of the profit rate of the third-party AI/camera firm like Lytx.
• The AI system is structured to deskill work and save the employer money.
• Deskilling drivers with the current technology will increase risk and accidents.
• Augmentation is the key. Instead of focusing on replacement and discipline, employers must be developing best practices for implementing technology that improves safety, not geared to replace or deskill workers.

If principles of augmentation are applied, these technologies would be implemented in very different ways.

There is a difference in the implementation of ELDs between USA and Canada:

• Canada has specific hours for personal driving to be included in total hours on the road.
• USA does not have specific hours identified in law.

The difference is that USA companies are pushing drivers to use personal hours to violate driving hours. The abuse of the personal conveyance or yard rule loopholes means that drivers are driving too much.

The response from the USA government and employers is to try to enforce hours instead of looking at the real problem exposed by the implementation of EDLs: too low wages.

Drivers are being forced to break the rules and fudge the numbers to make ends meet because the wages did not grow in concert with the implementation of the EDLs.

Garney’s data showed a 2.8% decrease between 2018 and 2023 in violations of the rule that allows only 14 hours of consecutive service after coming on duty and a 25% increase in violations of the HOS rule that allows only 11 hours of driving within that 14-hour period. But during that time, there’s also been a 137% increase in false log violations, he said.

The ITF Safe Rates campaign is about establishing wages high enough and regulations strong enough that we make roads safer through reducing hours fraud.

Drone technology and regulations are evolving rapidly in the commercial sector. These changes are driven by advancements in autonomous flight, beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) capabilities, and the emergence of purpose-built drones for commercial inspection of infrastructure.

Canada's regulations for BVLOS operations are currently less strict than those in the USA, but this is expected to change soon with establishment of regulatory reviews in the USA. This shift will likely encourage drone companies to expand rapidly into the Canadian market, particularly in remote areas, as current regulations favor such operations.

While a commercial drone license is generally required, regulations for drone use near workers remain underdeveloped. This creates a potential gap in worker safety and privacy protections.

The potential increase in the use of drones in the rail sector requires a proactive approach to regulation and policy development. These bargaining recommendations prioritize worker safety, privacy, and union involvement while recognizing the potential benefits of drone technology for inspection and safety purposes.

The Technology and Work report produced by University of California at Berkeley outlines principles for unions bargaining technology as it relates to surveillance and the use of data captured by devices in the workplace. These include:

• Employers are only allowed to use electronic monitoring for specific purposes, in a manner that affects the smallest number of workers.
• Employers must give prior notice of any electronic monitoring.
• Employers are prohibited from using electronic monitoring that results in a violation of labor and employment laws; records workers off-duty or in sensitive areas; uses high-risk technologies, such as facial recognition; or identifies workers exercising their rights under employment and labor law.
• Employers are prohibited from relying exclusively on data from electronic monitoring when making decisions like hiring, firing, discipline, or promotion. Instead, the employer must independently corroborate the data, and provide the worker with full documentation.
• Employers must conduct impact assessments of electronic monitoring systems, testing for bias and other harms to workers, prior to use.
• Productivity monitoring systems in particular must be documented and reviewed by regulatory agencies overseeing workplace health and safety before use.
• Workers must have a private right of action and be protected from retaliation for exercising their rights.

Internationally, the ILO and the ITF have been compiling strategies different unions are taking to stop the erosion of worker privacy and halting the expansion of employer rights.

Pushing back on the technologies in our workplaces centres on health and safety, safety for the public, data retention and security, national security, secure supply chains, and data privacy.

In addition to pushing back on the implementation of technology, Unifor locals should be creating committees and using union-employer structures in the workplace to drive a conversation about supportive technology that augments work to improve safety.