The idea "if you don't let us track you, you can't work here" is highly polarizing. I see a cascade of negative press for the company that attempts it.

Julie Omohundro "would employers be wrong to mandate use"

I don't see how right or wrong has anything to do with it. Employers are generally free to set their conditions of employment and jobseekers are generally free to take or not take a job they are offered. Employers who require wearables might find this puts them at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to attracting employees, or they might be able to offer better or less expensive benefits as a result, and therefore might find they are more competitive.

Why not just make it implants? With a little microphone as well..

Karen Boyd, ASQ CQA I agree with Julie's stance on the issue - as "...employment and jobseekers are generally free to take or not take a job they are offered."
I see this as employers waging risk. An unhealthy employee could not only increase cost of medical benefits, but add potential risk to the business via lost time, injury, and altogether inefficiency and inability for longevity of employment. (Sounds callous and discriminatory, but these are some realistic factors in weighing risk-to-benefit for business, IMO.)
Whether an employer would utilize wearables or fitness alone as a determination of employment is questionable. Let's hope they would analyze all aspects of an individual (competency, character, capability, etc.) and the overall "big picture" in the hiring process.

That whole mandate thing is a doozy. Check out FitRankings.com where it's fun and productive to use wearables in the workplace...

Michael A. Fisher My previous employer required me to install software on my phone to gain access to my calendar & email. It was impossible to do my job without constant email & calendar access. They did not pay for the phone or reimburse for the plan. When I left, they erased my phone - all personal emails & contacts & text messages included. I also learned they were copying all my call records, web site visits, and text conversations (because an IT guy gave me a folder containing that info). That experience suggests we need to be VERY careful about agreeing to any amount of employer exposure to our personal lives. Note that this employer was a great and noble company, but it is easy to see how my permission could have been abused.

Michael B. It depends on the character of the company implementing such measures and their intent on developing hard-working and committed employees. Body, mind and soul ... All these components make a whole and balanced person. If the employer seeks to use the data to help the employee become better in body and work WITH them to meet their potential, i would unequivocally say it's an excellent idea.

If the employer uses the device for alternative purposes, such as tracking an employee ... Well, i hope it blows up in their face one day.

We have these technological tools that can be a bit scary when we think of some of the Orwellian implications and devious use. But we should think of the positive things that could come of this.

Julie Omohundro Michael, what permission are you referring to in your last sentence? I ask because your comment starts with "My previous employer required me to...."

Julie Omohundro I think wise companies would offer some type of benefit to employees for using wearables, just like many companies now offer incentives to participate in regular exercise programs, lose weight, quit smoking, etc, rather than make it a requirement.

Stacy Hawkins I am not sure which companies Gartner spoke to, in doing its research, but mandating usage does sound intrusive. Even still, if the company has an incredible benefits package that is conditioned on wearable usage will of the cost of privacy be outweighed by the cost of providing insurance to one's family?

Heather Orser I would have a serious problem with it. I don't like wearing bracelets, hats, and other accessories. Why should I suffer constant irritation throughout my non-work time?

Karen Boyd, ASQ CQA Then, Heather, I would say you have a choice to either "like it" (take the job or accept continued employment) or "lump it" (find alternative employment). It's nothing "personal" to anyone - just business.

Julie Omohundro "will the cost of privacy be outweighed by the cost of providing insurance to one's family?"

This choice is what is "personal," rather than business. An important factor is whether someone perceives the choice as being one they have to make. That is, whether they think that they cannot get a job except at a company that require wearables, and also that they cannot provide their family with insurance unless they have a job. Another question is how important they think it is, to be able to provide insurance for their family.

Heather Orser I think the point here is that an employer mandating what you do during time when you are not being paid is highly questionable. There are cases where it is material to your ability to perform your job, but wearables is not one. And while I would agree that there is the option to leave, the more likely outcome is for higher dissatisfaction in the workforce and that many employees have the wearable sit at home and and "fake" data if really necessary.

Julie Omohundro Heather, it would probably be mostly smoke and mirrors anyway.

I think the pressure to implement a mandatory wearables policy would probably come from the insurance companies, who don't care if the employers they insure are competitive in the workforce or not. On the flip, the employers probably won't care if their employers actually use wearables, only that they agree to use them, so they can report to this to the insurance company and get a discount.

Hmm...I wonder how long it would take before you could download an app that would generate and send fake wearables data?

Eric R. Larson For me, it would depend on the job, the compensation, the wearable, and the terms of "the wearing." While there may be some situations where I would agree to the terms, more than likely my response would be that my prospective boss can assume responsibility for the wearing, in a specific physical place that is best described as NSFW.

Stacy Hawkins I have read that some self-insuring companies are giving Fitbits to employees and their families to promote wellness. But, use is voluntary and incentivised. That is likely the difference between an insurance company offering a discount to the company and the company's promoting wellness in the interests of its employees.

Joe McMenamin Is this debate premature? Perhaps a better question: should we not address other issues first? Specifically, where are the scientifically valid data demonstrating health benefits to wearers? Conceptually, the benefits are easy enough to imagine. But in the main they have yet to be demonstrated. Moreover, there is a significant signal-to-noise ratio problem with this approach.

Stacy Hawkins @Joe McMenamin interesting points. So, what if the device is a smart toothbrush that actually tracks the location of the brush head when it is in the mouth as a person brushes his/her teeth. The benefit would be tracking how much time is spent per tooth with notice to the brusher that mor rushing tim on a specific area in the mouth is needed to remove plaque?

164 million work hours are lost annually due to dental disease, which has contributed to more $10 billion in direct costs to employers. Remove the plaque, no dental disease, no hours missee, no costs.

Julie Omohundro Stacey, I see the self-insured company the other way around.

In order to best serve the interests of their shareholders, they can't just give employees wearables (or get them to agree to wear them), report this to their insurance company, and realize a financial benefit in the form of a discount. The only "discount" they can expect is a reduction in their employee health care costs. So their employees must actually use the wearables. In that case, would expect self-insured companies to have a greater interest in compliance than companies with third-party insurance.

Moreover, as Joe observes, the employees must not only use the wearables, but their healthcare spending must be reduced as a direct result of the wearables. As Joe notes, the data to support this expectation are lacking.

I would be inclined to think that companies are giving wearables to employees more as morale builders than with any expectation of significant health benefit, especially given the high rates of abandonment that are being reported for these devices.

Stacy Hawkins @Julie O., if the employer does not care about employee outcomes then the sleight-of-hand discount would work for companies with an insurance carrier. But, if the benefit is improved employee health, reduction in absenteeism/loss productivity related to absenteeism and reduction in health care costs then it might change things a bit.

But, you are definitely right about the short-term adoption of wearables. I wonder however if that would apply to smart toothbrushes though given that the majority of people brush daily--it's just that some don't brush well enough. Perhaps, that would be the benefit of the smart toothbrush (that actually tracks where the brush is in the mouth)

Thus far, it would be interesting to hear from someone from HR, too. But, the comments have been very interesting.

Julie Omohundro Whether a "smart" toothbrush or anything other product offers benefit is a question to be answered as part of the design control process, when you establish user requirements. Do you have data indicating that the majority of people brush daily and that they don't brush well enough? And data showing that brushing daily is adequate for dental health, so that failing to brush well enough is the primary contributor to dental disease and associated costs? And that most patients who don't already brush well enough would in fact brush well enough if a toothbrush told them to?

Stacy Hawkins There is considerable data available on all but the last question - whether a smart toothbrush will change or improve behavior has not been proven. But, the answer to that question will also turn on the accuracy of the brush's ability to track exactly what is or is not being brushed properly.

Angeline P. I would consider any potential for electromagnetic radiation exposure as a con. But as a pro, I would feel good about helping out for a good cause, assuming data security was real. 👣👣👣👣

Angeline P. Everyone calls electromagnetic radiation concerns as hysteria...but we now have precedence in the court system for taking concerns seriously. Mitigation is possible, though...but 1st you must acknowledge reality. Hey!!! A new market.

I would have to agree with Joe McMenamin,the question is premature, there are some real issues with Scientifically relevant data that have to be addressed first,

My humble opinion is; "it is an awful idea". We are already rapidly approaching a society that places altogether too many requirements, mandates, and let's not forget ... (Federal & State) laws on "We The People" relative to our health and daily lives. At some point, it becomes an intrusion and diminishes our very freedom of choice. Truth be told... we may have already crossed the point of no return relative to being able to have any true privacy or freedom.

Joel Blatt I agree with Dean Eggert that the 800-pound gorilla in the room is privacy. While a company can legitimately ask its employees to voluntarily use wearables, it can not and should not require it. There a massive HIPAA issues associated with health records and I doubt that most companies are prepared to deal with them.

Julie Omohundro Stacy, I think the accuracy of that question will turn entirely on human nature.

Roshni Rajput How will it be useful?

It would be wrong for an employer to require of their employees to use wearables. I am not sure what data allowed Gartner to make that projection. I understand the expectations; using wearables can result in better fitness habits. But one thing that can be done is to offer incentives such as healthcare premium discounts to those employees that opt in.

Security of the technology is not good enough to be trusted at the level of employer-mandated implementation. Wearable standard metrics in healthcare need established and efficacy studies need to be done re: health benefits. Lots of work to be done.

Roshni Rajput well, we can always see the brighter side of this technology, the steps in introducing wearables to the workplace would entail 1) Identifying a specific business-use case 2) Considering any related potential privacy concerns 3) Identifying how to mitigate those concerns

I doubt that the driver will come from companies requiring it for their employees- However I do see how users will be interested in living longer and better through just in time monitoring system- As a healthcare provider told me recently " It will give individuals control and additional knowledge on their own health and wellbeing". I do see users (if privacy requirements are met) highly adopting these devices for their own wellbeing. Maybe if insurance companies see this is reducing the risk, then we get a second financial incentive, driving adaption of this technology to more people.

Angeline P. Stacy, here is the case I was referring to. Perhaps damages was phrased wrong. She won disability rights in court: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34075146
But, several research studies have now been published in this area (EMF) in regards to potential safety concerns, which is why WHO recognizes it as a legit disability. It was paranoia and hysteria for years...and yet I have even met physicians who experience sensitivity. I do believe the research was linked to cellular signaling and I am confident that if this is the case, mitigation is possible. Of course, people have been creating safe zones for years...

Stacy Hawkins Angeline, thank you.

Angeline P. Oh, Stacy, before I forget, I did a quick Google search on Lipoic Acid and mitigation of Electro Magnetic Radiation (it has a long history of ionizing radiation mitigation which I am well-familiar with). Sure enough, this publish study suggests it too: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705159/

Julie Omohundro Angeline, when anyone is calling anything hysteria, it's been my experience that, if you follow the message to its source, it is not "everyone," but those with a dog in the fight. And the more they insist it is hysteria, the more certain they are that it isn't.

Ginger Cantor I still see this as intrusive and a slippery slope that could lead to something similar to denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions. Also in my humble view, thinking everybody will enthusiastically embrace this is rather optimistic. It will "give them more knowledge and empower them"? As a population people don't manage this well. It could end up as much a disaster as the US population's retirement savings......let's throw yet another requirement on the employees instead of the business.