Shorter Reads

Fired over Mouse Jiggling: the employment law risks of TikTok ‘work hacks’

Wells Fargo recently dismissed several employees after claims that they were simulating keyboard activity to trick their employer into thinking they were actively working. From a UK legal standpoint, this case raises several important questions regarding employee rights, workplace monitoring, and the impact of emerging trends on professional conduct.

2 minute read

Published 3 July 2024

Authors

Share

Key information

  • Sectors
  • Digital

It has been widely reported that US bank Wells Fargo recently dismissed several employees after claims were made that the employees were simulating keyboard activity to trick their employer into thinking they were actively working. This incident has sparked discussions about remote work ethics, employer surveillance, and the influence of social media trends on workplace behaviour. From a UK legal standpoint, this case raises several important questions regarding employee rights, workplace monitoring, and the impact of emerging trends on professional conduct.

‘Mouse jigglers’ can be in the form of devices or software that keep a computer mouse in motion, preventing the device from going idle. Mouse jigglers surged in popularity during the Covid-19 pandemic with some home workers seeking to give the impression they were online and engaged when in fact the opposite was true. Viral social media trends have continued to encourage the use of such tools as well as other tips and tricks which prevent devices from going into sleep mode.  These ‘work hacks’ are likely to be particularly popular with employees working in environments where productivity is monitored for example via webcams or tracking tools such as keystroke monitoring.

The boom in hybrid working following the pandemic sparked several debates about the legality and ethics of using such tracking software.  In the UK, employers thinking about employee monitoring need to be aware of their obligations under data protection legislation, employment law, and potentially human rights law too.  As a starting point, however, they need ask what their objective is with any monitoring activity. If employers are seeking to track performance or productivity, reports have indicated that monitoring can in fact have the opposite effect. Monitoring gives the impression of a lack of trust and confidence in staff and can make employees less engaged, perhaps explaining the uptake of certain TikTok trends such as ‘mouse jigglers’.

In the Wells Fargo case, it is not clear how exactly any false keyboard or mouse activity was detected. However, the employees’ behaviour was deemed to be sufficiently serious to justify dismissal. The bank released a statement claiming that “Wells Fargo holds employees to the highest standards and does not tolerate unethical behavior” [sic].

Legal implications in the UK

The full facts surrounding the dismissal are not known, however any UK employers who find themselves in a similar situation should be cautious before jumping straight to dismissal. In the UK, if such a situation arose, it would be important to ascertain why employees were using such methods in the first place. If it was an attempt to circumvent some form of employee monitoring system, it would be essential to find out what monitoring was in place and why.

Data Privacy

In compliance with the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, employers intending to monitor their employees must ensure that the purpose for processing their employees’ data in this way is clear and justified, that the monitoring is proportionate, and that there are no other less intrusive methods of achieving the intended objective. Employers should have clear policies in place that inform employees about the extent and nature of monitoring.

Disciplinary Matters

Employers have the right to expect honesty and integrity from their employees. In addition to implied contractual obligations, contracts of employment often contain express clauses regarding conduct and adherence to company policies. Certain policies for example on remote or hybrid working might detail more specific examples of expected levels of behaviour and it is possible that using a mouse jiggler to simulate activity could be seen as a breach of those terms.

If an employer believes that an employee has acted in such a way that would constitute a disciplinary matter, they should ensure that they follow a full and fair procedure. This would include:

  • Conducting an investigation.
  • Holding a disciplinary hearing.
  • If the allegations are upheld, deciding on an appropriate disciplinary sanction.
  • Allowing the employee the opportunity to appeal.

It is important that each case is assessed on its own specific facts.

Tips for Employers

  • Update or implement clear policies on acceptable behaviour when working remotely with reference to actions which might constitute disciplinary matters.
    Ensure any such policies are clearly communicated to employees, including any updates.
  • Conduct training to inform employees about the risks of following potentially harmful social media trends and the importance of professional conduct.
    Ensure that any disciplinary actions taken are fair, proportionate, and in line with established procedures.

Tips for Employees

  • Employees must be mindful of how engaging in certain trends could put them in conflict with their professional responsibilities. They should ensure they are aware of their obligations and any specific conduct rules that may apply to them as set out in company policies and/or their contract of employment.
  • Employees facing challenges when working remotely should communicate with their employer to seek find a supportive solution rather than resorting to deceptive practices.

Conclusion

This incident serves as a pertinent reminder of the complexities surrounding remote work, employee monitoring, and the influence of social media on workplace behaviour. From a UK legal perspective, it underscores the importance of clear communication, transparent policies, and fair practices in maintaining a trustworthy and productive work environment. Both employers and employees must navigate these challenges carefully to uphold the integrity of remote working arrangements.

Related latest updates
PREV NEXT

Related content

Arrow Back to Insights

Shorter Reads

Fired over Mouse Jiggling: the employment law risks of TikTok ‘work hacks’

Wells Fargo recently dismissed several employees after claims that they were simulating keyboard activity to trick their employer into thinking they were actively working. From a UK legal standpoint, this case raises several important questions regarding employee rights, workplace monitoring, and the impact of emerging trends on professional conduct.

Published 3 July 2024

Associated sectors / services

  • Data Protection
  • Employment law for employees
  • Employment law for employers
  • Digital

Authors

It has been widely reported that US bank Wells Fargo recently dismissed several employees after claims were made that the employees were simulating keyboard activity to trick their employer into thinking they were actively working. This incident has sparked discussions about remote work ethics, employer surveillance, and the influence of social media trends on workplace behaviour. From a UK legal standpoint, this case raises several important questions regarding employee rights, workplace monitoring, and the impact of emerging trends on professional conduct.

‘Mouse jigglers’ can be in the form of devices or software that keep a computer mouse in motion, preventing the device from going idle. Mouse jigglers surged in popularity during the Covid-19 pandemic with some home workers seeking to give the impression they were online and engaged when in fact the opposite was true. Viral social media trends have continued to encourage the use of such tools as well as other tips and tricks which prevent devices from going into sleep mode.  These ‘work hacks’ are likely to be particularly popular with employees working in environments where productivity is monitored for example via webcams or tracking tools such as keystroke monitoring.

The boom in hybrid working following the pandemic sparked several debates about the legality and ethics of using such tracking software.  In the UK, employers thinking about employee monitoring need to be aware of their obligations under data protection legislation, employment law, and potentially human rights law too.  As a starting point, however, they need ask what their objective is with any monitoring activity. If employers are seeking to track performance or productivity, reports have indicated that monitoring can in fact have the opposite effect. Monitoring gives the impression of a lack of trust and confidence in staff and can make employees less engaged, perhaps explaining the uptake of certain TikTok trends such as ‘mouse jigglers’.

In the Wells Fargo case, it is not clear how exactly any false keyboard or mouse activity was detected. However, the employees’ behaviour was deemed to be sufficiently serious to justify dismissal. The bank released a statement claiming that “Wells Fargo holds employees to the highest standards and does not tolerate unethical behavior” [sic].

Legal implications in the UK

The full facts surrounding the dismissal are not known, however any UK employers who find themselves in a similar situation should be cautious before jumping straight to dismissal. In the UK, if such a situation arose, it would be important to ascertain why employees were using such methods in the first place. If it was an attempt to circumvent some form of employee monitoring system, it would be essential to find out what monitoring was in place and why.

Data Privacy

In compliance with the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, employers intending to monitor their employees must ensure that the purpose for processing their employees’ data in this way is clear and justified, that the monitoring is proportionate, and that there are no other less intrusive methods of achieving the intended objective. Employers should have clear policies in place that inform employees about the extent and nature of monitoring.

Disciplinary Matters

Employers have the right to expect honesty and integrity from their employees. In addition to implied contractual obligations, contracts of employment often contain express clauses regarding conduct and adherence to company policies. Certain policies for example on remote or hybrid working might detail more specific examples of expected levels of behaviour and it is possible that using a mouse jiggler to simulate activity could be seen as a breach of those terms.

If an employer believes that an employee has acted in such a way that would constitute a disciplinary matter, they should ensure that they follow a full and fair procedure. This would include:

  • Conducting an investigation.
  • Holding a disciplinary hearing.
  • If the allegations are upheld, deciding on an appropriate disciplinary sanction.
  • Allowing the employee the opportunity to appeal.

It is important that each case is assessed on its own specific facts.

Tips for Employers

  • Update or implement clear policies on acceptable behaviour when working remotely with reference to actions which might constitute disciplinary matters.
    Ensure any such policies are clearly communicated to employees, including any updates.
  • Conduct training to inform employees about the risks of following potentially harmful social media trends and the importance of professional conduct.
    Ensure that any disciplinary actions taken are fair, proportionate, and in line with established procedures.

Tips for Employees

  • Employees must be mindful of how engaging in certain trends could put them in conflict with their professional responsibilities. They should ensure they are aware of their obligations and any specific conduct rules that may apply to them as set out in company policies and/or their contract of employment.
  • Employees facing challenges when working remotely should communicate with their employer to seek find a supportive solution rather than resorting to deceptive practices.

Conclusion

This incident serves as a pertinent reminder of the complexities surrounding remote work, employee monitoring, and the influence of social media on workplace behaviour. From a UK legal perspective, it underscores the importance of clear communication, transparent policies, and fair practices in maintaining a trustworthy and productive work environment. Both employers and employees must navigate these challenges carefully to uphold the integrity of remote working arrangements.

Associated sectors / services

  • Data Protection
  • Employment law for employees
  • Employment law for employers
  • Digital

Authors

Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.

    Subscribe

    Please add your details and your areas of interest below

    Specialist sectors:

    Legal services:

    Other information:

    Jurisdictions of interest to you (other than UK):



    Article contributor

    Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?

    Subscribe to our articles

    Message us on WhatsApp (calling not available)

    Please note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.

    I accept Close

    Close
    Scroll up

    Find out about Business

    Find out about Dispute Resolution

    Find out about Individuals & Families

    Find out about Real Estate

    We are Collyer Bristow - The law firm for those that
    value individuality, creativity and collaboration.

    Legal & Pricing info Regulatory InformationAccessibilitySitemapPricing and service information

    Listen to our latest podcast: Charity Rules Uncovered: US vs. UK (Part 2)

    Read our latest article: Gaming or gambling? The regulation of video game ‘loot boxes’

    Listen to our latest podcast: Charity Rules Uncovered: US vs. UK (Part 1)

    Read our latest article: Preventing sexual harassment: The ghost of Christmas party?

    Listen to our latest podcast: Budget Miniseries: Impacts on Families with US Connections (Part 3)

    ExpandNeed some help?Toggle

    < Back to menu

    I have an issue and need your help

    Scroll to see our A-Z list of expertise

    Get in touch

    Get in touch using our form below.



      Business Close
      Private Wealth Close
      Hot Topics Close