GPS Trackers

[Transk53]

Got a strange one here. I am a Senior Security Officer working with a small team dedicated to keep me away from the public. I say that in jest, well probably not really, anyway the point is that the high and mighty numpties want to fit us with GPS Trackers. In this case for nefarious means down to one single purpose. Aside from that are our personal feelings that simply cannot comprehend the need in the context of our job. The big UK security companies (global here) fit their cash transit vans and wagons with trackers obviously, because they are needed. We are control room and patrol officers. We have at least two radios with panic open channel button to a man. We also use a electronic via battery clocking system. Various points throughout the site that are logged on the clocker via RF tags. More importantly than that though, we have our mobiles. Plus we are all on FB for pure intelligence purposes. No seriously, we kicked a load of EDL idiots of site after one of them stupidly believed that shoving a loud hailer near our ears was polite

Yes in the event of a radio going down, well stuff happens, but what use would a tracking system be on a dedicated site? Hard to answer I would guess on that, but we know where we are even if some stuff kicks off. The lot of us cannot see how it would fit in with our role, other than to be a spying device. Again that is not relevant to anybody on here, but one thing that continues to vex us is, is it legal to just randomly employ such a system without a specific context in regards to the tech? We have no site vehicles to use, or any other reason on H&S. The mechanism is already in place, there is no reason technically for the need of GPS Tracking. Some you are police officers, so I would ask from that professional slant of your jobs, what are the specifics behind the reasoning of trackers? The vehicles you drive yes, but what else. Thoughts welcome because if I can get specific uses of the system, I can go and politely tell my immediate boss what is what. Need some help on this please

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I would think two things are the reasons for these gps trackers.

1. They know where you are and can respond quickly if you are in trouble

2. They know where you are, where you go and what you do while on the clock. In other words they are tracking you and what you do during the course of your duties. With a GPS tracker they can track your every movement and map it out so that they know exactly where you were, do you follow the same pattern, etc.

As to employing it? I am pretty certain they can legally do so. They can also justify it based on point 1 above.

 

[Transk53]

I would think two things are the reasons for these gps trackers.

1. They know where you are and can respond quickly if you are in trouble

2. They know where you are, where you go and what you do while on the clock. In other words they are tracking you and what you do during the course of your duties. With a GPS tracker they can track your every movement and map it out so that they know exactly where you were, do you follow the same pattern, etc.

As to employing it? I am pretty certain they can legally do so. They can also justify it based on point 1 above.

No sorry Brian with respect, I have to disagree with point 1. They already know where we are through regular welfare and radio checks. Hey, if we get into trouble, my guys retreat and evaluate, or use the panic button. No I have officer safety well covered, and the higher ups know that.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Yeah, but I know this field pretty well. I know that management always wanted to have an ability to track, record officer movements. There really can be no other explanation for why they want it. They can use point number 1 to justify it. The real reason is point number 2. It is quite frankly an officer monitoring system making sure you are doing your rounds, duties, etc.

 

[jks9199]

You're in the UK, so things are different. But... here in the US, for cops, there are two or three primary reasons for GPS tracking of police officers. First, it allows more efficient dispatch by sending the closest officer rather than the assigned beat officer when appropriate. Some calls can't wait, and it's silly to send the beat officer who happens to be on the other side of town when there is another officer literally around the corner.

Second, it increases officer safety by letting you know where that cop happens to be if he couldn't mark out or didn't answer up to a status check. Let me use an anectdote to highlight what I mean. When I was a rookie, one of partners was on patrol, and checking down a side street for a runaway. He happens to see a drunk get poured out of a car, and stopped briefly to investigate. Well, the drunk was uncooperative and attacked him; all my partner could do was get out the distress call and location before his radio literally was smashed to pieces. Had he not been able to do that, without GPS (which we didn't have), we'd have had to search for him -- which can be a long time if you're fighting for your life.

Third, and more cynically or sinisterly, it lets the brass check up on your movements. They can see whether you're actually making rounds (for a guard) or patrolling (for a cop), rather than just hiding out in a coop somewhere. The idea of being watched like that is why GPS gets fought so fiercely by police unions.

Here's my personal take: for a guard company, it means they can check where you are between rounds and status checks. Pros and cons; it does let them get you help if you're in trouble or don't answer a status check, and it lets them catch the guys not doing rounds or otherwise cheating on their duties like that -- but it sort of punishes the ones who are doing their jobs properly for the jerks that aren't. My own feeling? I don't care, because I do my job so that they're not going to catch me, and I work for decent folks who aren't trying to burn me. Change that last part -- and my attitude would change!

 

[jezr74]

Have they not told you the purpose of the tracker? I'm guessing you would have to agree to the tracker being applied to you since you are already in a contact with your employer. This would be another term, so they would maybe be adding this to new recruits and over time it would become normal, but an amendment to your already existing contract could be contested, unless it's a lawful change passed down from a bill.

 

[Transk53]

You're in the UK, so things are different. But... here in the US, for cops, there are two or three primary reasons for GPS tracking of police officers. First, it allows more efficient dispatch by sending the closest officer rather than the assigned beat officer when appropriate. Some calls can't wait, and it's silly to send the beat officer who happens to be on the other side of town when there is another officer literally around the corner.

Second, it increases officer safety by letting you know where that cop happens to be if he couldn't mark out or didn't answer up to a status check. Let me use an anectdote to highlight what I mean. When I was a rookie, one of partners was on patrol, and checking down a side street for a runaway. He happens to see a drunk get poured out of a car, and stopped briefly to investigate. Well, the drunk was uncooperative and attacked him; all my partner could do was get out the distress call and location before his radio literally was smashed to pieces. Had he not been able to do that, without GPS (which we didn't have), we'd have had to search for him -- which can be a long time if you're fighting for your life.

Third, and more cynically or sinisterly, it lets the brass check up on your movements. They can see whether you're actually making rounds (for a guard) or patrolling (for a cop), rather than just hiding out in a coop somewhere. The idea of being watched like that is why GPS gets fought so fiercely by police unions.

Here's my personal take: for a guard company, it means they can check where you are between rounds and status checks. Pros and cons; it does let them get you help if you're in trouble or don't answer a status check, and it lets them catch the guys not doing rounds or otherwise cheating on their duties like that -- but it sort of punishes the ones who are doing their jobs properly for the jerks that aren't. My own feeling? I don't care, because I do my job so that they're not going to catch me, and I work for decent folks who aren't trying to burn me. Change that last part -- and my attitude would change!

Yeah. Thanks

 

[Transk53]

Have they not told you the purpose of the tracker? I'm guessing you would have to agree to the tracker being applied to you since you are already in a contact with your employer. This would be another term, so they would maybe be adding this to new recruits and over time it would become normal, but an amendment to your already existing contract could be contested, unless it's a lawful change passed down from a bill.

Thanks mate, this needs investigating.

 

[Tez3]

Join a union if you haven't already. In the UK they are the best insurance you can get to protect you from companies and bosses, we have various employment laws in this country that some think they can circumvent, you need more behind you than just you and your workmates in these cases.
It sounds as if they are wanting to use it to monitor what you do all the time, even going to the toilet and at breaks. Though that could work against them because it states in employment laws when you are to have breaks and if you aren't allowed them or can't take them it comes back on them. For safety radios should be enough especially if you have more than one, if they are worried they can give you a 'man down' alarm as well.

 

[Transk53]

Join a union if you haven't already. In the UK they are the best insurance you can get to protect you from companies and bosses, we have various employment laws in this country that some think they can circumvent, you need more behind you than just you and your workmates in these cases.
It sounds as if they are wanting to use it to monitor what you do all the time, even going to the toilet and at breaks. Though that could work against them because it states in employment laws when you are to have breaks and if you aren't allowed them or can't take them it comes back on them. For safety radios should be enough especially if you have more than one, if they are worried they can give you a 'man down' alarm as well.

That is weird, the reply was still waiting even though I navigated to my content before replying. Cool. Anyway, yes we have considered joining a union. The problem is though, there is a culture of fear instilled in all of us. I am lucky in the sense that if I was sacked for example (been very close too this year), I could use discrimination due to my er, social difficulties. As such, it works both ways, but the others don't know how to manipulate the situation to benefit us. I talk to them and suggest things that could be useful, or enlighten them of things they did not know. I am a information whore, so I read about anything really. That helps somewhat, but as a collective, we don't speak as one if you will. It tends to go from Watch to Watch.

Not sure in this respect that a union would help. There are a lot of human factors involved with differing wills and personalties involved. Yes it is very divisive, but that is by others whom have designed it that way. Sabotage won't work either

 

[Steve]

Not sure how things work in the UK. Did you actually sign a contract? Here in the USA, most people don't sign a contract and your employer would be able to change your conditions of employment in any legal manner at any time. your choices in this case would be quit, cause trouble and get fired, or get with the program.

If you are in a union, there may be an obligation to notify the union. Again, speaking only for the USA, there are a few different ways that can happen and it really comes down to risk vs reward for the company. If they have an interest in better tracking employees' comings and goings, and there are no unions involved, what's the worst that could happen? I don't know about over in the UK, but absent a union here, they could lose some employees who choose to quit or are fired for insubordination for refusing to follow the new rules.

Even with a union, there are several strategies that they could employ, and again it comes down to risk. They could try to work it out with the union in advance as a pre-decisional agreement. They could inform the union and either informally negotiate or formally bargain to come to some kind of agreement. Or management could just implement and manage a grievance if one is filed.

In this case, it seems like management would have several, reasonable arguments in favor of the change, and could even assert that the change is de minimis to the conditions of employment, as it is really just an extension of ongoing efforts to improve communication and officer safety. In other words, not a change at all, really. Ultimately, if they choose to implement in spite of a union's protest or failed attempts to negotiate, the worst that could happen really is that they are faced with an Unfair Labor Practice, which would likely result in an order to return to the bargaining table, reverse their policy, and/or post a notice saying essentially, "We're very, very sorry."

In a situation like this, I'd say that the risk to implementation is pretty low, union or not, at least here in the USA. I don't know what it's like over in the UK.

 

[Transk53]

Not sure the quote button has gone? Had to do that manually. Anyway, yes that would be the excuse to implement this. We have a contract, but it is tied to the rolling three year company contract. No doubt they will force this on us soon, then remedy at the next company contract renewal. Next year I think, so yeah, we are going to get **** on

 

[Transk53]

Not sure what has happened above. Must have hit a wrong button or something.

 

[Zero]

Transk53, being UK based it is highly likely there is a form of contract that you will have signed on starting your job. Even if there is an employment contract, the terms need to be reviewed carefully as the contract provisions may (or may not) provide the employer with the ability to make certain job specific amendments as long as such do not fundamentally alter the nature of your job role. In other words, the employer may be granted the flexibility to, if required, force this on you as a job requirement.

Why don't you see if you can dig out your contract, or determine if indeed there is one, and then let me know?

It would be optimal if you have a copy of such at home etc (note to all, always take and keep a copy of anything that is going to get you paid or cost you money). If not, best to ask for a copy in a low key manner from your employer and without any reference to your current concerns. A standard and credible line to use is that you are looking to take out a loan at your bank and they require sight of your signed employment contract and you need to arrange the financing quickly. If there is a HR department it may be best to simply take this up with them on that basis, just keep it on the down-low.

Peace

 

[Zero]

Oops, see you responded when I was typing...so you have a simple contract that ties in with the overarching company policy/contract? Take a look at your contract and the overarching company one.. If you don't have, ask for both as per my above post. best to check to confirm if they can actually force this on you. My hunch is that they probably can...

 

[Transk53]

Oops, see you responded when I was typing...so you have a simple contract that ties in with the overarching company policy/contract? Take a look at your contract and the overarching company one.. If you don't have, ask for both as per my above post. best to check to confirm if they can actually force this on you. My hunch is that they probably can...

Thanks man, will do Tbh with you, our paper contract is pretty much bog paper. I think it has something to do with being a approved SIA company, they being the national framework now. The more I think of it, that seems totally logical.

 

[Steve]

What I don't understand is why this is a problem. Can you help me understand what your actual objections to GPS tracking are and why you think it is a bad thing?

Edit: Just to be more clear, so far it seems that you have two arguments against:

1: It's spying on you.
2: It's unnecessary.

So, let's presume both are true. Your employer wants to spy on you. Why shouldn't they? Help me to better understand why your employer should not do whatever they can to best account for your time? I can't think of any administrative or legal reason why not. The only thing I can think of is that it could (possibly) imply a lack of trust, which might lead to some practical issues of attrition and/or employee engagement.

Whether it's unnecessary or not is really quite beside the point. I mean, if it's unnecessary, so what? There's a huge difference between saying that management should do something, and management can do something.

I guess what I'm wondering is what your real concern is and what you hope to accomplish.

 

[ballen0351]

we have them in our cars and quite frankly I dont really care if I had to wear one. To me the pluses outweigh the negs. Id much rather they know where to find me in case of an emergency and I dont care if they know how many times I walk into a bathroom

 

[Zero]

As an aside, have you disabled your gps tracker(s) in your personal/smart phone, tablet (and car, etc (and now watch and fridge etc!!??))?

Is it just in the employment context (which I get even if you are legit, gold star, photo on the wall, employee of the month) or do you also have an issue with corporate big brother?

 

[Steve]

As an aside, have you disabled your gps tracker(s) in your personal/smart phone, tablet (and car, etc (and now watch and fridge etc!!??))?

What's a gps tracker in a fridge going to do? That's a new one on me.

Is it just in the employment context (which I get even if you are legit, gold star, photo on the wall, employee of the month) or do you also have an issue with corporate big brother?

I don't get it. I asked Transk53, but if you have some insight, I'd love to hear it. I can kind of see resenting being micromanaged. But I've worked for many micromanagers, and while annoying, it's not anything I would take a principled stand over. I mean, work is where you're being paid for your time. If I'm paying you for 8 hours of your time, why shouldn't you be fully accountable for every minute of that time?