These days, you’ll probably see them in practically every mid-sized manufacturing facility: clip-on motion trackers, shoulder sensors, and thin wristbands. They are worn by employees during eight-hour shifts, sometimes longer. Vendors make a strong case for real-time biomechanical data, early injury detection, and a proactive approach to worker safety. What is there not to like? It turns out that quite a bit.
There’s an increasing trend to be aware of. Predictive wearables that identify ergonomic risk are being discreetly repurposed in facilities throughout the UK, North America, and parts of Europe. The data they produce is being used to evaluate individual worker behavior rather than informing structural modifications to workstations or task design. The sensor history becomes exhibit A when someone sustains a repetitive stress injury, indicating that the worker did not follow protocol, moved improperly, or adopted the incorrect posture. The injury was not caused by the machine. The employee did.
This is not a minor issue. For years, occupational hygiene experts have voiced similar concerns, especially regarding the handling of vibration exposure data. Employers in the UK are required by law to evaluate and manage employees’ exposure to hand-arm and whole-body vibration under the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005. The law makes it very clear that the employer bears responsibility. Real measurements, real working conditions, job rotation, and equipment maintenance are all necessary. However, in reality, things frequently turn out differently. While the underlying conditions that cause harm remain unchanged, monitoring is completed once, a report is filed, and the checkbox is checked.
Wearables neatly fit into the same inclination to measure rather than take action. Structural change is replaced by data collection. When an injury finally occurs, as it does because repetitive stress builds up over months and years rather than days, the data is collected, reports are created, and a paper trail demonstrating the worker’s monitoring is created. Whether on purpose or not, that trail tends to protect the business more than the employee.
It’s possible that the majority of businesses using these technologies do so with sincere good intentions. When compared to annual assessments or generic manufacturer data, the appeal of continuous monitoring is clear, and safety managers are under a lot of pressure. However, good intentions don’t always result in positive outcomes, particularly when management controls all aspects of the data infrastructure surrounding these devices and employees are largely unaware of it.
The fact that repetitive stress injuries, such as HAVS, carpal tunnel syndrome, or chronic lower back conditions from whole-body vibration, seldom have a single cause or moment of origin is especially uncomfortable. They develop gradually over several shifts, influenced by the caliber of the equipment, the layout of the workstation, the work pace, the timing of breaks, and the upkeep of the tools. It is not scientific to treat a single worker’s movement patterns as the main variable. It’s a handy simplification.
This is a more general problem of power. Employees with years of experience in physically demanding jobs frequently find it difficult to dispute a sensor-generated record of their own biomechanics. The information appears to be objective. It bears the subdued power of technology. However, the decisions about what to measure, how to interpret the results, and what to do with them are made by people who are not wearing the wristbands.
Wearable safety technology would look very different if it were honest. It would directly contribute to shift reorganization, equipment upgrades, and workstation redesign. Employees would be able to view their personal information. The results would lead to management accountability rather than merely reminding people to “lift with your knees.” There is technology to do this effectively. When doing it well entails admitting that the environment, not the employee, is frequently the issue, the question is whether there is appetite for it.
It’s more difficult to have that conversation. Additionally, it appears that far too many businesses are currently letting a wristband handle things for them.
