Response to interpellation 2024/25:308 on the monitoring and control of people's work
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L argues that the employer's interest in control must be weighed against the employee's personal privacy 1. L emphasizes that the employer is responsible for ensuring that the application complies with laws, regulations, and good practice 1. L believes that the parties in the labor market should have the primary responsibility for regulating these issues in detail because solutions cannot suit all occupations generally 2. L emphasizes that there is a consensus that a working life where toilet visits are logged is undesirable 3. L highlights that the EU AI Act sets high requirements for AI systems used to monitor and evaluate people's performance 1 3. 3 L thinks it is positive that issues regarding digitalization and algorithmic management are on the EU's agenda 3. L wants to continue to be an active party within the EU in the field of labor law and monitor Swedish interests and the Swedish model 3. 4 L believes it is important that Sweden is proactive nationally and internationally so as not to fall behind in the work with digitalization and AI 4. L admits that there are strong reasons to ensure that one has control systems and mechanisms to follow up when violations against employees occur 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! Adrian Magnusson has asked me how I and the government view the trend of increasing surveillance and control of people's work and whether I and the government are prepared to act on the issue.
Initially, I would like to thank Adrian Magnusson for highlighting the current and pressing issues regarding surveillance and control in the workplace. The development of technology has changed the working life, which has caused new questions and balancing of interests to become relevant in several different areas of law.
At its core, it is about the employer's interest in control and monitoring having to be weighed against the employee's protection of personal privacy.
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is one of several international human rights commitments that contains provisions for the protection of privacy that must be considered in these contexts. The provisions of the Instrument of Government regarding the protection of personal integrity must also be considered for public employees. If the control involves a processing of personal data, the employer must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR.
According to the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, AI systems used to monitor and evaluate individuals' performance and behavior in work-related contexts are classified as high-risk AI systems. High-risk AI systems need to meet the regulation's high requirements before they are put into service or placed on the market.
The regulation also prescribes a specific obligation for employers to provide information to employee representatives and employees before a high-risk AI system is put into service or used in a workplace. When EU law is applied, the rights in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights must also be observed.
It is the employer who is responsible for handling the difficult trade-offs of interests. The employer is responsible for ensuring that the application meets the requirements in laws and regulations, as well as that good practice in the labor market is observed.
Video surveillance in workplaces can be permitted under certain specific conditions. I want to emphasize that special reasons are required for it to be permitted for an employer to video surveil employees according to GDPR.
In the event of more significant operational changes, the employer shall, according to the Act (1976:580) on Co-determination in the Workplace, call the collective agreement-bearing employee organizations to negotiations before decisions are made. This is an important regulatory framework that enables employee influence.
There is reason to follow these issues and the developments closely.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister Brandberg, for the answer to the interpellation!
The answer touched upon a number of different aspects, and I appreciate that. What I am missing, however, are some more concrete examples of what measures the government intends to take in light of the development, if it is prepared to take any measures.
There may be good reasons to primarily hand the matter over to the parties, at least in an initial stage, but there may also be good reasons to assume that issues concerning personal integrity are issues where legislation may eventually need to be required. There are plenty of examples in history of the legislator having had to step in and regulate issues concerning personal integrity.
In his response, Minister Brandberg highlights above all questions linked to the rollout of AI in the working life, for which there are good reasons. The use of AI requires access to large amounts of data. When data is collected, it can be used to monitor and control workers, and then the algorithms can in turn handle large parts of the control. In this way, the control is shifted to machines one further step on the scale, i.e., even further away than just regular monitoring and control.
Madam Speaker! There are reasons for strong concern regarding this development. Good work does not become particularly good if it is built on rigid control of the workers, i.e., workers in a broad sense, for it is naive to believe that the development will only affect the most so-called proletarian workers, such as bicycle couriers.
The development is visible in large parts of the labor market. For example, home care staff are logged in several stages, such as when they pick up keys for care recipients and when they then arrive at the care recipients, and it is monitored how much time it takes between the different locations and the different steps. There are also examples of truck drivers who are constantly monitored by cameras while they are out driving. It is also becoming increasingly common for cars used by employees to be monitored in real time, just to mention a few examples.
As I explained in the interpellation, the newspaper Byggnadsarbetaren reported on a requirement in a procurement in Enköping, where the painters who were to perform the work were to wear GPS. In that case, the painters also ended up in a legal vacuum.
The Administrative Court examines procurement rules and the correctness regarding the Public Procurement Act but not issues concerning, for example, GDPR, while the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection examines cases where personal privacy has been violated, but only when it concerns individuals, not trade unions as in this case, and not cases where it can be thought to be violated.
Madam Speaker! Now I have raised some examples involving more traditional blue-collar jobs, but white-collar workers are in no way exempt from the development. Even there, there are examples that can be called horror stories, such as surveillance occurring by, for example, chat threads between colleagues in workplaces being reviewed. It is obviously a completely unacceptable development that must be curbed.
Those who are most vulnerable to this type of behavior are, despite everything, workers who have occupations where they are in a very vulnerable power relationship towards their employer, such as food delivery riders, other types of couriers, taxi drivers and the like. These are occupations where the conflict between labor and capital has clearly and distinctly tipped in favor of capital, i.e., the employers.
In those cases, it should perhaps be part of the thinking that the politics and the government should find reasons to act. There also seem to be certain gaps in the legislation. With the explosive development of AI that we are seeing, there will be reason to reflect more closely on these issues.
I would therefore like to ask the Minister: Does the Minister see a need to, for example, convene the parties to discuss the issue, if legislative measures are not currently relevant in this situation? I ask this because there was a great deal of focus on the parties in the answer.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! The question that is the subject of this debate involves extremely difficult balancing of interests.
Regardless of which industry we work in, most of us spend many hours of our lives at work, and it is clear that there are strong privacy reasons to closely examine the questions of how one is monitored in their daily life for many hours a day.
The committee members raised some examples that absolutely demonstrate the importance of looking at privacy issues. At the same time, there is another balance. There may be strong security reasons why we need to have, for example, camera surveillance in places that are also people's workplaces.
Then there is also the question of drug tests and those types of tests where there is a privacy aspect but where there can also be strong security reasons, depending on which industry we are talking about.
We have a development with many deaths at work. In that case, it is clear that we need to see dangers with, for example, people who may be under the influence of drugs and responsible for operating heavy machinery and other safety issues that can have an impact on both their own safety and others' safety at work. I say this to illustrate how complex this is.
Since it is very much a question that varies from situation to situation as to which interest prevails, this is a question that is very well suited for the parties in the labor market to have the primary responsibility for. We will never be able to find a solution that fits all workplaces and occupations generally, but we need to let the parties in the labor market regulate this in detail.
With that said, there is already today legislation that employers have to comply with - for example GDPR, which regulates which controls one can perform as an employer. For example, control measures involving the processing of personal data must be proportionate and purposeful and be based on a legal ground. That regulation already exists today.
Just as we have raised in this debate and as I said in my opening remarks, we are also in the midst of a time of AI and increased digitalization. It affects our working lives in many different ways, not least when it comes to privacy in the workplace. I believe we must see that there is, of course, a risk of abuse when there is a digitalization that enables one to go incredibly far in monitoring individual employees. In that case, we must constantly ensure that this balance is made in a correct manner.
I have had a dialogue about these issues with the parties in the labor market - on both sides, I should say. I will continue to have that type of dialogue. This is also, I mean, an issue that is relevant for the investigation of a new work environment strategy that is currently underway.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! It was pleasing to hear from the Minister that a dialogue is taking place with the parties on both sides. I would have been concerned otherwise, but that a dialogue is taking place regarding these issues with the parties on both sides is nevertheless pleasing.
Sometimes we talk about the Swedish model and the parties, but we must not forget that the state and the public sector are also a party in this many times. It is the state that provides the legislation. I know that the Minister for Employment is well aware of this, but I still think it is worth pointing out. We sometimes forget the state's role, the legislator's role, in this relationship. That being said, the parties can solve many of these issues themselves, but the state and politics also have a role.
I believe that the digitalization and the use of artificial intelligence that we are now seeing in society is something that we should fundamentally be positive about. Historically, we in Sweden have not been negative towards technological development, but rather we have seen the opportunities that come with new technology, new tools, and new means that we can use to make working life safer or to increase productivity and simply ensure that good work becomes better.
But I also believe that when one talks about efficient work and good work, more productivity and growth and such, one must remember that good work is not a work that is built on mistrust or surveillance from the employer. It is built on mutual respect. We have examples in this country's history of it not having done so, and it has not always ended so well. But the model that has emerged in Sweden, at least over the last hundred years, is that unions and employers and employees and employers have great respect for one another. One does not always have the same view on the basic ideological positions, one may have different views on a number of different things, but in many cases there is mutual respect. One sees the benefit of trusting one another and having a dialogue with one another and not letting the relationship be permeated by mistrust.
If we get a development in this country where there is increasing control and surveillance of working life, I believe it will change the view of work. We will see a development in this country where people experience work as a compulsion to a greater extent. One goes to work, and then one endures eight hours - or however long the working time is to be in the future; we shall see. One endures the working time, and then one goes home and spends one's free time resting in some way. Now, that type of work exists today as well, but there is a risk that it will expand if it were to be the case that one constantly feels monitored and controlled in working life.
Unfortunately, there are many additional horror stories, for example that toilet visits are logged and that you get scolded if you are on the toilet for any minute too long. I do not think that is the type of working life we want in this country in the long run. I do not think the Minister for Employment wants that either.
I believe we need to return to these types of questions. We also need to return to the regulations that the Minister was touching upon, for example GDPR. How are the rules and the legislation that we have today being followed? It is always good to have legislation and rules, but what happens if they are not followed? One can have a long moral-philosophical discussion about that, but one can discuss the effectiveness of them if they are not followed and respected.
Let us take camera surveillance as an example. There may be reasons to camera-surveil truck drivers, for example for traffic safety reasons. One can see what happens in an accident. But is it reasonable that the camera is pointed towards the truck driver 24 hours a day or for the entire work shift, all the time? One can discuss whether that is where the surveillance should take place or if it should be towards the traffic. And if crimes are not followed by punishment, it is indeed ineffective.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! The member is absolutely right that I do not want to see a working life where one is logged when going to the toilet. I believe very few want that, and I can state that there is great consensus between me and the member regarding the difficult balancing of interests that is at issue here.
In this context, I also want to highlight that issues regarding control and surveillance in the workplace are also highly topical within the EU, which I see as very positive.
For example, there are provisions aimed at promoting transparency, human control, and safety in platform work in the recently adopted platform directive. The Government has also recently appointed an inquiry to investigate how the platform directive should be implemented in Swedish law.
As I mentioned earlier, the entirely new AI Act also contains provisions regarding AI systems used to monitor and evaluate people's performance and behavior in the workplace.
It can be added here that the AI Act from February 2 onwards this year, that is, in just a few weeks, prohibits the use of AI systems that have the purpose of inferring a natural person's emotions in the workplace. This is something that we perhaps could not even imagine could be an issue a few years ago but which today is a reality – a reality that we need to take very seriously.
Furthermore, the Commission's chair has highlighted digitalization in the workplace as a priority for the upcoming mandate period and opened up for a possible initiative on algorithmic management. The current Polish presidency has also signaled that the future of work in a digital Europe will be prioritized during the spring, particularly the impact of digitalization on the workplace.
From the Swedish side, we will continue to be an active party within the EU in the area of labor law. We naturally think it is positive that these issues are on the EU's agenda, because we need to have a regulatory framework and a view on this. But from the government's side, we will also continue to monitor Swedish interests and, of course, the Swedish model in upcoming negotiations in this area.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I appreciate that the Minister points out the regulatory frameworks that exist around this, such as the AI Act. In the first statement, the Co-determination Act was also mentioned, for example, as a way to address these types of issues. I still have a concern that these legislations and regulatory frameworks can become ineffective if they are not followed and if there is no clear supervisory body that can ensure that employers simply follow the rules stated in the AI Act or those regulated in collective agreements or whatever it may be.
When it comes to the parties we have discussed here a few times, we also see a situation where, for example, the couriers – food couriers, bicycle couriers and other couriers – are often unorganized. When it comes to them, there is also a problem in that they are in a completely different position of dependency towards their employers and do not have any organization that can back them up as the union can many times do. Then we also have a situation where the risk is great that there occurs an abuse of this type of control and monitoring bodies. It is something that concerns me.
If this takes hold in large parts of the labor market and in large sectors, the risk is obvious that it will then spread to other sectors and that we may have an entire generation growing up with the idea that it is natural to be monitored throughout their entire working lives. It is something that I have not experienced, but which I know that others unfortunately experience every day.
I look forward to following the government's work regarding these issues and to following how the government works with these issues in the EU. I believe, just as the Minister is pointing out, that the fact that the EU is raising this shows that it is very important and that these issues are prioritized.
We will certainly have reason during this parliamentary term, and during many parliamentary terms ahead, to return to these types of questions. With the developments we see in the labor market, this will hardly become less relevant. I look forward to following the government's work on the issue.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! The member is absolutely right that we should not be naive and believe that different regulations are always followed simply because we introduce them. There are, of course, strong reasons to ensure that we have different control systems and mechanisms. Then we can follow up when violations against employees occur - which is exactly the question when existing regulations are not followed. I appreciate that the member also brings that up.
I believe that this is an issue that will become more and more relevant based on how digitalization and not least AI progresses. I believe it is important that we from the Swedish side are on the ball both here in Sweden and internationally - perhaps primarily within the EU - in order not to fall behind in this important work.
With this, I would like to thank you for today's interpellation debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.