It was a day like many others for Suzie Cheikho, consultant at Insurance Australia Group (IAG) in Australia. Sitting at her remote desk, Suzie dutifully (but barely) typed, unaware that every single touch on the keyboard was being registered.
That day his working world would collapse. After 18 years of service, his dismissal came as a bolt from the blue, and all because of keystroke sensing technology that revealed “low typing activity.” Sorry for the somewhat "Rieducational Channel" style beginning, I'm smiling so as not to cry. Prepare to immerse yourself in a case that deserves reflection.
Digital surveillance is reaching new heights
In the era of remote work, trust between employer and employee is crucial. Because if that trust is lost, monsters are generated. Insurance Australia Group (IAG) used keyboard keystroke tracking technology to monitor the performance of one of its employees. Could he do it? It's ethical, right?
Irony of fate, Suzie Cheikho it was responsible for (among other things) meeting regulatory deadlines and monitoring “work from home compliance”. She and she was fired for missing deadlines and meetings, and for being absent and unreachable.
La Australian Fair Work Commission (FWC) rejected his claim for “unfair” dismissal, arguing that his dismissal occurred for a “valid reason of misconduct”. Suzie claims she was targeted due to her mental health issues. Who is right?
Keystroke: a relentless eye
Keystroke sensing technology isn't new, but its use in monitoring remote employees has raised several ethical questions. The Australian company tracked Suzie's cyber activity for 49 days between October and December, detecting "very low typing activity."
The employee denied having worked less than the allotted hours, stating that he had used other devices to log in. She was “confused and shocked” by the data and questioned its accuracy.
Remote monitoring and final judgment
For the Vice President of the FWC, Thomas roberts, the evidence showed that Suzie was “not working as required during her designated work hours.” The situation is unfortunate, but the dismissal was not considered unfair or unreasonable.
This case confronts us with a new reality of remote work. To what extent can companies monitor their employees? Where is the line between privacy and job responsibility? And above all, how can we balance trust and surveillance in an increasingly connected world?
Suzie's story is a very serious wake-up call that invites us to reflect on the future of work and our relationship with technology. Maybe it's time to ask ourselves: are you really freer when you work remotely, or are you simply under a new kind of supervision?
Not to mention what is moving.
