Is "Microchipping" Employees Ever A Viable Option?
The idea of mandatory “microchipping” — the practice of employers requiring employees to have a small computer chip inserted beneath the skin — triggers a high score on virtually any cringe meter. According to a 2007 study conducted jointly by Littler Mendelson and the Ponemon Institute (“Workplace Survey on the Privacy Age Gap”) more than 90% of respondents, regardless of age, responded that mandatory microchipping by their employer would constitute a privacy violation.
Mirroring this sentiment, in early September, the California Legislature sent to Governor Schwarzenegger for signature a bill which would prohibit any person from requiring, coercing or compelling “any other individual to undergo the subcutaneous implanting of an identification device.” [UPDATE: Governor Schwarzenneger signed the bill into law]. An “identification device” is defined as one capable of transmitting personal information by radio frequency (RFID) or other means.
The only surprise about this bill is that California — the state most protective of individual privacy — is not the first to ban mandatory microchipping legislatively. North Dakota and Wisconsin grabbed that honor, passing prohibitions on mandatory microchipping in April and May 2006, respectively. Legislatures in seventeen other states — including Georgia, Michigan and New Jersey — are considering similar laws.
From the employer’s perspective, these bills are, in a sense, irrelevant. After all, what employer would dare risk the employee and public relations disaster of forcing employees to accept a microchip? Continue Reading...