The metaverse could fundamentally change how we interact with each other at work. However, a workplace in the metaverse poses certain risks to employers trying to monitor and discipline employees. Sanika Karandikar explores how employers can mitigate risks of sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
The metaverse is basically a 3D, virtual world, where clients introduce themselves to different clients as ‘symbols’ and cooperate with each other. Organizations, for example, Meta, Apple, Microsoft and Google are ready to deliver various new equipment items in 2022, meaning metaverse-related items could turn out to be progressively standard.
It very well may be contended that we’re now ready to enter the “metaverse working environment”, if (like me) you spend a ton of your day conversing with partners in Microsoft Teams. It’s regular that businesses would need to tackle the force of the metaverse to further develop representative commitment and encourage better associations between partners. Nonetheless, all things considered, we’re as yet a couple of years from metaverse innovation being ordinary in a regular UK office – particularly given the possible critical set up costs with interest into computer generated reality wearable innovation for representatives that will be required.
Discrimination and sexual harassment in the metaverse
There has been a significant amount of recent press on how the metaverse already has a “groping problem” – this makes for depressing reading. A recent example, from May this year, is of a 21-year-old researcher being sexually assaulted in Meta’s virtual reality platform Horizon Worlds, when a male avatar led her into a private room and raped her avatar. The researcher also said she witnessed homophobic slurs and virtual gun violence. Her case seems to be one of many.
Meta, perhaps of the greatest defender and engineers of metaverse innovation, has presented a “individual limit” capability, which clients can go on to guarantee that different symbols can’t come quite close to their symbol. There are likewise components to impede and report clients.
At the point when this is all converted into the working environment, nonetheless, it represents what is going on for businesses. On the off chance that the work environment was contained in a metaverse, partners’ symbols would need to communicate with one another consistently and logical on a general premise. This would consider joint effort obviously, yet the gamble of unfortunate behavior remains – as it does in the actual working environment.
The meaning of lewd behavior in the UK Equality Act is a wide one. For conduct to be badgering, actual touch isn’t needed: just “undesirable way of behaving that has either abused somebody’s nobility, regardless of whether it was planned, or made a scary, unfriendly, corrupting, embarrassing or hostile climate for them, regardless of whether it was expected.” obviously, such way of behaving could incorporate one worker symbol offering physically unseemly remarks to another symbol, as in the “genuine” work environment.
A similar applies to separation – there’s no great explanation that this likewise couldn’t happen in the metaverse. As a rule, clients in a virtual world or gaming climate clients would pick symbols with similar qualities as them – regarding race, sex, orientation and even pregnancy status, for instance. Nonetheless, that is not generally the situation, and clients might decide to have an alternate skin tone for instance, or present as an alternate orientation.
Segregation in UK regulation isn’t simply unreasonable treatment in view of somebody’s safeguarded attributes, yet in addition their apparent qualities. Thus, almost certainly, one worker symbol offering prejudicial remarks to one more symbol in light of a view of their safeguarded qualities would add up to separation. It’s likewise possible that a representative’s decision of symbol qualities could itself lead to separation claims as being likened to donning blackface to a work occasion.
For representatives who truly do act ineffectively, businesses can probably make a comparative move regarding when such direct happens in the “genuine” work environment, by following a disciplinary technique in the ordinary manner, and the results (alerts, excusal) would be something similar. To guarantee representatives know about the norm of conduct expected in the work environment, and to relieve the dangers of badgering and segregation, managers ought to think about making the accompanying strides:
- Review and update policies and procedures – employers likely have disciplinary, grievance and equal opportunities policies in place, and these would likely already cover behaviour of employees and sexual harassment in the metaverse. However, it would be useful to explicitly state that such policies apply in the same way to the metaverse workplace.
- Training – as with policies, training around discrimination and harassment should specifically include examples and scenarios that could arise in the metaverse workplace, so employees are aware of the standards required of them. Training will also likely be required for managers and HR professionals, who will need to know how the metaverse works so they can implement policies and standards effectively.
- Safe spaces – some of the metaverse tools already have safe space functions to allow avatars privacy and distance from other avatars. Employers will want to consider how to make employees feel comfortable in the workplace, perhaps by introducing quiet or safe spaces, but also balancing this with the need for employees to be in the same virtual space to collaborate.
- Reporting procedures – as with in the real workplace, employers should make sure there are clear reporting channels for employees to inform HR of any misconduct.
- Avatar creation – employers could consider limiting how creative employees are when creating their avatars, and ask them to make sure the avatar presents the same characteristics as them.
- Consider the (mental health) impact on the employee – if an employee is subject to discrimination and harassment as an avatar, employers should be mindful not to be dismissive of this and to treat this in the same way as they would an instance of such misconduct in the real workplace.
Monitoring employees
Any monitoring of employees in the metaverse will need to be justified and proportionate. Employers who monitor employees and collect sensitive personal data, will have to justify this. Employers should be open with employees as to what exactly they are doing – existing employee-facing data privacy documentation will likely need to be updated to tell employees that their activities in the metaverse are being monitored and how. There is an implied duty of trust and confidence between the employer and employee, and employers should ensure that the level of monitoring of employees in the metaverse does not make them fall foul of this duty.
Jurisdiction issues
Although UK employment law likely applies to employees working in the UK under a contract of employment with a UK governing law clause, the waters are slightly muddied by the fact that the metaverse platform owner and servers are in different countries – a possible argument may be that the laws of that country apply. This is yet to be tested, but for now, employers should continue on the basis that the employment law risks in a virtual workplace are the same as in the “real” one.
