Safetrac’s employee surveillance is more than a mere privacy breach
While workplace surveillance through laptop mics may fall within legal boundaries in many jurisdictions, the reputational implications for businesses are significant and often underestimated.
Crisis communications expert Sally Branson unpacks the recent case of Safetrac secretly recording its employees.
Safetrac, a Melbourne compliance training company with a broad and impressive client list, was caught secretly recording employees through their laptop microphones while working from home. This represents more than just a privacy breach. It’s a cautionary tale about how surveillance can destroy the very trust and productivity it claims to protect.
From a reputation management perspective, opening up the mics on company laptops and hitting record sends up red flags about organisational culture. When companies resort to covert surveillance of their employees, it fundamentally undermines the trust that should form the foundation of any healthy workplace relationship, and sends signals about the values or culture of a business.
The real risk here isn’t just internal. In today’s hyper-connected world, these practices rarely remain secret. When employees discover they’re being monitored through their laptop cameras and mics, and they inevitably do, it creates a reputational crisis that extends far beyond the workplace.
Word spreads as we see with the recent AFR expose, and Reddit threads a go go. Suddenly, you’re not just dealing with employee relations issues; you’re managing reputation issues.
This case is especially contentious because of the ongoing campaigning around work from home and productivity conversations.
The concept of “productivity paranoia” has created a climate of mistrust that surveillance seems to promise to solve. The AFR reported that Safetrac’s surveillance captured not just work conversations but potentially confidential client discussions and even family members’ conversations near laptops.
One employee’s children started whispering around the computer to avoid being recorded. This level of intrusion into personal and family life crosses fundamental boundaries that no productivity concern can justify.
Companies need to ask themselves: what message does this send to potential talent? To customers? To business partners? Operating from a base of mistrust signals deeper operational problems that surveillance can’t fix. It suggests management has lost confidence in their hiring processes, training programs, and performance management systems. So it isn’t just about being a big brother, it is about the fundamental business operation, and the confidence risk in internal productivity and work.
Just because you can implement surveillance technology doesn’t mean you should. The legal framework around workplace monitoring varies significantly across Australian states, creating a complex compliance landscape. Victoria Police are investigating whether Safetrac breached state surveillance laws, while Workcover has already granted one employee compensation for anxiety and depression caused by the surveillance.
But beyond legal considerations lies a more fundamental question: shouldn’t staff sometimes be free to talk about their boss?
The Safetrac recordings reportedly captured employees complaining about the CEO during Teams meetings. While this might be uncomfortable for leadership, it’s also a normal part of workplace dynamics. When surveillance chills even basic workplace discourse, it creates an environment of fear rather than productivity.
Sally Branson
The absolute biggest risk for organisations considering surveillance is that there are better, less risky alternatives available. Clear performance expectations, regular feedback, proper training, and targeted monitoring where genuinely necessary for compliance can address performance issues without the reputational and legal risks of covert surveillance.
The question organisations must ask is: do you look like an honest broker?
When surveillance practices become public, and they will, how does this reflect on your organisation’s values and integrity? Safetrac, ironically a compliance training company that teaches other businesses about proper conduct, now faces police investigation and significant reputational damage.
The legal question of “can we do this?” should never be the only consideration. The more important question is “What does this say about us as an organisation?” Because in the court of public opinion, perception often matters more than legal precedent.
The technology exists to monitor employees in unprecedented detail, but wisdom lies in understanding when not to use it. In the end, the question isn’t whether you can monitor your employees, it’s whether you should, and what the true cost of that monitoring might be to your organisation’s reputation, culture, and long-term success.
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
Have your say