Advertisement
Advertisement
Chinese work culture
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more
A Chinese company sparked privacy debates after it asked to check employees’ battery power before they could leave work. Photo: SCMP composite

Demand from Chinese company to check employee phone battery power sparks privacy debate

  • The company said it was checking battery power to reduce phone use during work
  • Experts said it is unlikely that the company violated any laws when making the request

A company in central China is in hot water for making its employees send screenshots of their phone battery status to management to ensure their staff is not wasting time when they could be working.

The company, which is based in Wuhan, in Hubei province, and whose name was not disclosed, made their staff show their remaining battery power before getting off work for the day.
A viral post on Weibo showed that the staff must send a direct message on WeChat with an attached screenshot of their battery power, along with data that shows the power consumption used by specific apps.
According to the person who posted the screenshot, the policy received resistance from the staff, with some employees telling management that it was a violation of their privacy.
The company was not performing well and was trying to prevent people from playing games or texting during work. Photo: Getty Images

After staff questioned the policy, the company told them that its performance had been declining and said the inspection was meant to “inspire work efficiency and team spirit”. It added that the bosses wanted to dissuade people from using their phones to play games, watch videos or send personal texts at work.

A lawyer from Guangzhou, who asked not to be identified, told the South China Morning Post that, while the screenshots may reveal employee activities, it is not clear if the information is covered by personal privacy and security laws.

“At this stage, we cannot judge it as a violation of employee privacy,” she said.

When the Post contacted a state-backed public hotline dedicated to legal consulting services, the agent on the line said:

“It is a legal right for employers to supervise employees with different approaches during work. In this case, when the employer asks employees to send screenshots of their remaining battery power on their phones, it is reasonable. If it happens after work, it is a violation of employee privacy.”

Yang Wenzhan, a lawyer from the Beijing Zhongdun Law Office, told the 21st Century Business Herald, “If the company has informed the workers about the testing and has obtained their consent, the testing programme is legal.”

“But these documents are in English. Can the company guarantee that the employees are clearly aware of the content in the documents?”

At this stage, we cannot judge it as a violation of employee privacy.
A lawyer commenting on the phone battery incident

Online, people mocked or criticised the company.

“From now on, each employee will have two phones on average,” wrote one person on Weibo.

Another said: “The company is not progressive enough to revamp the business when it does poorly, but instead shifts the pressure onto employees. What is the boss doing?”

It is not the first time that Chinese employers have found themselves in hot water for overreaching when monitoring their employees.

Last year, Hebo Technology, a tech start-up based in Hangzhou in Zhejiang Province in east China, monitored its employees’ movements through their chair cushions in the office. It said it used smart cushions so the human resources department could check which employees spent a lot of time away from their desks.

In 2019, e-commerce giant JD.com asked its staff to provide the company with their social networks, such as information about their family, friends and even classmates.

At the time, Qiang Meng, a vice-president of the Beijing Institute of Technology on Civil Law, said it was “an excessive collection of employees’ personal information and probably violated their privacy”.

1