Assembly Will Vote on Anti-Peeping Bill

The state Assembly is expected to vote on legislation today that would prohibit employers from recording--by video or audio--their employees in places such as restrooms and locker rooms where one might expect some privacy.

The so-called anti-peeping bill, AB 2303, by Lancaster Republican Assemblyman George Runner, seeks to remedy the lack of a statute protecting workers’ privacy.

Runner introduced the legislation this year after hidden cameras in a local classroom inadvertently captured a teacher changing clothes as she worked late one evening.

Only Connecticut, Georgia and Michigan have laws specifically prohibiting surveillance of employees in restrooms, locker rooms and employee lounges. Federal legislation that would have made it illegal to conduct undisclosed monitoring except where employers suspected illegal activities failed in 1993.

Rapid technological advances have miniaturized snooping devices so effectively that they can be concealed in areas where their presence would once have been obvious, Runner said. But even if employers suspect employee theft or drug use, secretly recording the activities of all their workers infringes the rights of the innocent, he said. Business owners should contact the police and get warrants through them if they suspect employees of wrongdoing, Runner said.

The conservative Republican lawmaker has been joined by a number of labor unions, which are supporting his bill.

“The shrinking realm of people’s privacy is probably one of the major issues our society will confront in the 21st century,” said Barry Broad, who lobbies for the Amalgamated Transit Union, which represents bus drivers.

“The degree of advantage employers gain in detecting nefarious activities is outweighed by people’s right to have someplace where their privacy is inviolate,” Broad said. “No one wants to be videotaped using the toilet.”

The bill has no registered opposition. The California Chamber of Commerce, however, argues that there are legitimate reasons why employers may conduct hidden surveillance, said chamber spokeswoman Julieanne Broyles. And if cameras do catch an employee, say, tucking merchandise into his shirt, she said, employers would like to be able to use that film in court, something Runner’s bill would prohibit.

“Runner’s bill seems to go too far,” she said, suggesting that the chamber may oppose the bill later unless it is modified.

AB 2303 sailed through the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a 21-0 vote last week.