Employee Workplace Monitoring: What’s Allowed?

Workplace monitoring has become one of the most debated topics in modern employment. The question is no longer whether companies are tracking their employees, but how much tracking is acceptable, legal, and effective. How far it can go before it stops feeling like work and starts feeling like surveillance. As work moves beyond office walls and across borders, the rules and expectations around monitoring have gotten significantly more complex.

Remote work is pushing millions into home offices, and the old ways of knowing what people were doing stopped working. Companies want to measure productivity when they cannot see people at their desks. They also worry about data breaches and the need to comply with regulations that differ wildly from country to country.

But the real challenge lies in the tension. Monitor too much and you risk destroying the very trust that makes remote teams succeed. Monitor too little and you might miss real problems until they become expensive disasters. The legal lines vary by jurisdiction, and the ethical questions get murky fast. Your best employees might leave if they feel watched every second of the day.

What is workplace monitoring?

Workplace monitoring refers to tracking employee activity through digital tools, physical security measures, and communication oversight. The purpose is to ensure security, maintain regulatory compliance, and measure productivity across teams. It can range from time-tracking and badge-access systems to detailed screen monitoring, email scanning, keystroke logging, and video surveillance.

According to 2025 data from Remotly, 76% of companies in North America use at least one form of employee monitoring, with 64% adoption globally. That represents a massive jump from 42% in 2020 and 61% in 2022. Projections suggest this will reach 82% by 2026.

The shift to remote and hybrid work models has accelerated this trend faster than anyone predicted. Employers lost the ability to see who was at their desk, so they turned to software for visibility into productivity and work patterns. But employees often view these tools differently. Many fear the technology crosses into privacy violations, creating tension between operational needs and personal boundaries.

“Extreme monitoring tactics, such as keystroke tracking, webcam surveillance, and excessive screen monitoring, can often heighten stress and undermine psychological safety,” Jasmine Escalera, a career expert at Zety, told WorldatWork. “Excessive monitoring can lead to feelings of micromanagement, decreased morale and lower job satisfaction, ultimately resulting in reduced productivity and potential talent loss,” she adds.

In fact, Zety’s survey of 1,000 American workers found that 11% had quit a job due to excessive monitoring, and 90% said strict reporting negatively affects the workplace, leading to job dissatisfaction (22%), burnout (18%), and a culture of fear (22%).

Types of employee monitoring

Not all monitoring is created equal. Some practices are widely accepted and legally sound across most jurisdictions, while others can create serious legal exposure and damage workplace relationships.

Legal and common practices

Most monitoring falls into categories that courts and regulators recognize as legitimate when implemented transparently.

• Time and attendance tracking. This includes clock-in and clock-out systems, project hour logs, and billable time recording. These tools form the foundation of workforce management without raising significant privacy concerns.
• Email and communication monitoring. Employers can review business-related communications sent through company systems to ensure compliance with policies and regulations. The key is focusing on work accounts and company-owned platforms rather than personal communications.
• Internet and application usage. Tracking which websites employees visit and which applications they use helps ensure company resources serve work purposes. This practice becomes acceptable when employees know the scope and receive clear guidelines about acceptable use.
• Security surveillance. Physical cameras in common workplace areas serve safety and security purposes that most employees understand. Courts generally support this practice as long as cameras stay out of private spaces like bathrooms and changing areas.
• Device monitoring. Tracking company-owned laptops, tablets, and mobile devices protects sensitive data and intellectual property. Clear policies help employees understand what happens on company hardware and networks.

Questionable practices that risk crossing the line

Some monitoring methods push into territory that can trigger legal violations, employee backlash, or both.

• Monitoring personal devices or off-the-clock activity. Tracking what employees do on their own phones or computers often violates privacy laws, particularly under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and various state laws in the U.S. Even when technically legal, this practice destroys trust faster than almost any other.
• Excessive keystroke logging, screenshots, or webcam surveillance. While some companies use these tools, they are considered highly invasive by employees and restricted under many privacy regulations. Constant webcam monitoring crosses ethical boundaries in most workplace cultures.
• Monitoring without employee knowledge or consent. Secret surveillance is illegal in many jurisdictions and unethical everywhere. In Australia’s New South Wales, covert monitoring is a criminal offense without a magistrate-issued warrant.
• Intrusive tracking that undermines employee trust and morale. When monitoring feels excessive or punitive, it backfires. The line between oversight and overreach often depends less on the technology itself and more on how it gets implemented and communicated.

Legal considerations for global employers

The rules around workplace monitoring shift dramatically depending on where your employees are located. What flies in Texas might be illegal in Berlin. Understanding these differences is about building trust across borders while prioritizing global compliance.

U.S.

Federal law gives employers broad rights to monitor company-owned devices through the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). Employers can track activity on company systems for legitimate business purposes without much restriction at the federal level. But state laws complicate the picture significantly.

New York and Connecticut require written notification before monitoring begins. California restricts the monitoring of personal devices and off-duty activities. Employers operating across multiple states need to comply with the strictest regulations in any location where they have employees.

EU

The GDPR sets a much higher bar for employee monitoring across all EU member states. Employers must have a legitimate, documented reason for any surveillance. The regulation requires that monitoring be proportionate, transparent, and necessary for specific business purposes.

Blanket tracking or excessive surveillance violates employees’ reasonable expectations of privacy under GDPR compliance. Companies found non-compliant face fines of up to €20 million or 4% of global revenue, whichever is higher. Individual EU countries add their own layers of protection on top of the GDPR.

Germany requires employee consent and works council approval before monitoring policies take effect. France mandates consultation with employee representatives before implementing any workplace monitoring. Italy requires labor union approval before tracking internet use, emails, or workstation activity.

U.K.

The U.K.’s GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 impose requirements similar to the EU despite Brexit. Employers must justify any surveillance and conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) to evaluate whether monitoring is necessary. The assessment must also explore whether less intrusive alternatives could achieve the same goal.

Canada

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) requires employee consent before monitoring unless a clear business necessity exists. Employers must prove surveillance is reasonable, limited, and not overly intrusive. British Columbia and Alberta impose even stricter privacy requirements, making compliance complex for businesses operating nationwide.

Australia

Workplace monitoring laws differ by state across Australia. In New South Wales, the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 mandates that employers provide at least 14 days’ written notice before monitoring begins. The notice must outline what will be monitored and why. Covert surveillance is a criminal offense unless explicitly approved by a magistrate.

Latin America

Brazil regulates employee monitoring through the General Data Protection Law (LGPD) , which mirrors many GDPR principles. The law requires transparency and valid business reasons for monitoring while also limiting data collection to what’s necessary for business purposes. Chile operates under Law No. 19628 on the Protection of Private Life, requiring written consent tied to specific monitoring purposes.

Asia-Pacific

Japan has no dedicated employee monitoring law, but the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI) covers workplace privacy. Employers must obtain consent, avoid excessive surveillance, and remain transparent about what gets tracked. India passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act in 2023, introducing formal rules for handling employee data as enforcement frameworks continue rolling out.

The United Arab Emirates permits monitoring of company premises and devices, but employees must be fully aware of all practices and provide consent. Federal laws protect employees’ right to personal privacy.

The universal principle

Regardless of location, three principles apply everywhere: monitoring must be proportionate to the business need, transparent to employees, and compliant with local labor laws. Companies that cut corners on any of these risk legal penalties, damaged reputations, and losing their best talent to competitors with better privacy practices.

Balancing compliance with trust

Legal compliance solves one problem, but it does not automatically create a healthy workplace culture. The companies that get monitoring right treat it as a tool for improvement rather than a weapon for control. Here are the key considerations that help organizations walk this line effectively.

Ensure transparency

Clearly communicate what is monitored, why it’s occurring, and how data is used. Employees should never discover monitoring by accident. When people understand the business reasons behind tracking and see policies written in plain language, resistance drops dramatically.

Obtain consent

Obtain written acknowledgment where required by law or company policy. This protects both the organization and the employee by creating clear expectations from day one. Documentation also proves compliance if regulatory questions arise later.

Maintain proportionality

Monitor only what is necessary for compliance, security, or performance. Blanket surveillance of everything employees do destroys trust without adding real value. Focus monitoring on work-related activities and business systems rather than tracking every click and keystroke.

Focus on outcomes

Prioritize results-based performance metrics over intrusive surveillance. Measure whether projects get completed on time and whether quality standards are met. Track productivity trends to identify workflow inefficiencies rather than micromanaging individual behavior. Employees respond better when they know you care about their output, not their bathroom breaks.

Conduct regular policy reviews

Update monitoring policies to align with new regulations and remote work norms. Laws change, work patterns evolve, and yesterday’s reasonable policy might be outdated today. Schedule annual reviews of your monitoring practices and adjust based on employee feedback and regulatory developments.

Best practices for employers

Getting monitoring right requires intention and structure. The goal is to protect your business without alienating the people who make it run. Here are the practices that help organizations thread that needle.

• Establish written policies accessible to all employees. Develop a clear document that specifies what gets monitored, why it happens, and how data will be used. Make it available in employee handbooks, onboarding materials, and internal portals where anyone can reference it at any time.
• Provide training for managers on ethical monitoring practices. Equip supervisors with guidance on using monitoring data to support employees rather than micromanage them. Training helps managers understand the difference between tracking productivity trends and invading privacy, which directly impacts team morale.
• Involve HR and legal teams when implementing new monitoring tools. Bring in these experts before rolling out any new technology to ensure compliance with local regulations and alignment with company culture. Their input helps identify potential legal risks and employee relations issues before they become problems.
• Regularly review monitoring technology. Schedule periodic audits of your monitoring practices to confirm they remain relevant as regulations evolve and work patterns change. Technology that made sense two years ago might be excessive or outdated today.
• Limit monitoring to work-related activities during work hours. Focus only on what you need to achieve legitimate business objectives and avoid tracking personal devices or off-duty behavior. The less intrusive your approach, the less likely it is to infringe on employee rights or create resentment.
• Secure collected data and restrict access. Protect any information gathered through monitoring by storing it securely and limiting access to authorized personnel only. Implement permission settings and audit logs to track who views employee data and when.
• Foster a culture of trust. Explain how monitoring protects both employees and the business. Be candid about the reasons behind your monitoring choices and share examples of how the data helps identify unbalanced workloads, supports overworked team members, and improves policies for remote workers.

When employees understand that monitoring serves their interests alongside company goals, resistance drops significantly.

Cultivate a workplace culture rooted in trust

Workplace monitoring is a necessary but sensitive employer responsibility. The ones that get it right? They treat legal compliance as the baseline, not the ceiling. The companies that thrive treat monitoring as one piece of a larger trust equation rather than a shortcut to control. For employees, it should feel like infrastructure rather than surveillance.

If you need support navigating the complexities of HR compliance and global hiring, compliance, and employee management across multiple jurisdictions, Pebl’s global Employer of Record (EOR) service helps you scale internationally with confidence and clarity. Get in touch to learn more.

This information does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal or tax advice and is for general informational purposes only. The intent of this document is solely to provide general and preliminary information for private use. Do not rely on it as an alternative to legal, financial, taxation, or accountancy advice from an appropriately qualified professional. The content in this guide is provided “as is,” and no representations are made that the content is error-free.

© 2025 Pebl, LLC. All rights reserved.