SHRM Opposes California Bill to Restrict Workplace Surveillance

California Assembly Bill 1221, which would establish strict rules regarding the use of surveillance equipment in the workplace, was introduced in February by state Assemblymember Isaac G. Bryan. The bill stems from worries about data security, worker privacy, and the increasing use of surveillance technologies in the modern world of work.

In a speech before the Assembly on May 1, Bryan, a Democrat who represents California’s 55th district, said the bill aims to introduce “prohibitions on the most abusive technologies,” which are on another level in terms of “scale, speed, and invasiveness.”  

SHRM has publicly opposed the legislation as “overly broad, operationally burdensome, and likely to result in unintended consequences — particularly for small and midsized employers.”

The proposed statute defines “tools” in a broad sense to include any hardware, software, or system that companies use to monitor or collect data from their workers. Audio and video recording, computer tracking, keystroke logging, and facial recognition software all fall under the statute’s wide-ranging definition. 

AB 1221 would require employers to provide affected workers with notice prior to introducing a surveillance tool. It would also create guidelines for the proper use of worker data, as well as prohibit employers from using the tools in certain controversial ways. Employers who violate the statute would be subject to a civil penalty.  

Modern Workplace Surveillance 

As more employers use digital tools to keep an eye on workers’ activities, workplace surveillance has grown to be a significant issue. As technologies such as email and chat monitoring, keystroke logging, GPS tracking, and facial recognition become more prevalent, there is increased concern about privacy and fairness.  

Monitoring employees via surveillance technologies is a common practice in several states, including California. A 2023 ResumeBuilder.com survey reported that 96% of California companies use some kind of surveillance to monitor their remote or hybrid employees. Eighty-five percent of in-person workers are also subject to surveillance. According to the research, three-quarters of companies in the state have terminated workers based on data collected through monitoring software.  

Labor activists and employees contend that overzealous monitoring can violate fundamental privacy rights, lower morale, and foster a culture of distrust. With the growth of remote work, where the lines between professional and personal space have become hazier, these worries are heightened. Furthermore, without enough human oversight, AI-powered automated surveillance systems may generate biased or opaque results that influence hiring or disciplinary decisions. 

At this moment, there is legitimate discourse about finding a balance between employers’ interests with workers’ rights to dignity, transparency, and due process. Employers and worker advocates alike have been calling for clearer guidelines about how to appropriately use surveillance technology, resulting in bills such as AB 1221.  

Issues with AB 1221

Though SHRM supports protecting employee rights and promoting transparency, it said that AB 1221 in its current form places too great a burden on employers and would lead to unintended consequences. These would disproportionately affect small and midsized businesses.  

AB 1221 would apply to almost all kinds of employee surveillance, including common workplace technologies such as productivity tools, safety systems, and scheduling software. Because the bill makes no distinction between low-risk and high-risk tools, employers would be forced to comply with an unreasonable number of requirements, hindering operations, SHRM said. In its current form, AB 1221 does not offer a practical way to resolve disputes. Any unintentional noncompliance would result in costly civil fines, hurting smaller companies in particular.

Bryan noted that some of the more advanced surveillance tools can track a person’s movement and may discriminate against a person with a disability — for example, someone with a different way of walking. However, SHRM has collected evidence to the contrary: Monitoring tools can, in fact, help employers reduce bias and improve diversity in their businesses.  

By eliminating or limiting these systems, AB 1221 “risks discouraging the responsible use of technology that is already helping reduce bias and improve hiring practices,” said Hedy Holmes, an HR professional speaking on behalf of SHRM and SHRM California, in her May 1 testimony before the state Assembly.  

While SHRM supports protecting workers, it believes AB 1221 goes too far and risks stifling innovation and impairing business operations.

Rachel Zheliabovskii is a specialist, B2C content, at SHRM.