The protest and the workers' accusations
More than 300 employees at the distribution centers of The Warehouse, New Zealand's leading retailer, protested this week at sites in Auckland and Christchurch. According to reports in the British press and amplified by industry sources, workers fear that the artificial intelligence systems introduced by the company violate their privacy and that automation could lead to mass layoffs.
The most serious allegation concerns surveillance of time spent in bathrooms. According to Workers First union organizer Hayley Courtney, the company would use AI to measure how long employees spend in toilets. The representative reported that some workers, in order to avoid being monitored, allegedly withheld bodily functions to the point of episodes of incontinence that occurred repeatedly in the corridors of the distribution center.
An employee with 23 years of service publicly challenged the direction taken by the company, arguing that manual work should remain the preserve of people, not robots. The union clarified that workers do not oppose in principle the introduction of new technologies aimed at efficiency, but are asking for guarantees about their employment future.
The company's response
The Warehouse rejects the accusations and says it is dismayed and outraged by the claims regarding the incontinence episodes. Chief Human Resources Officer Richard Parker explained that the technology in use is not an artificial intelligence system as described by the union, but a scanning tool to measure production efficiency, used in distribution centers worldwide for decades. According to Parker, this tool has no connection to monitoring bathroom breaks.
The company also disputes the claim that the adoption of drones for inventory has caused redundancies. Parker says three temporary positions were added in that area and that drones improve inventory accuracy, customer experience, and safety, sparing employees from working at height with machinery every night. On employment prospects, the manager argued that no employer can guarantee what future roles will be, but that the company is committed to consulting with workers and offering retraining and internal mobility where possible.
What is certain and what remains to be verified
The picture that emerges from the confrontation is one of a dispute over how technology is applied in the workplace rather than over the use of technology itself. The confirmed facts concern the holding of the protests, the number of participants, and the existence of opposing positions on surveillance and automation. The union's specific allegations, including the one about monitoring bathroom time, are claims by the union side that the company denies.
It is not currently possible to independently verify which technology is actually installed in the distribution centers, what data is collected and for what purposes, or whether the incontinence episodes are documented. It also remains unclear what the overall employment impact of the innovations introduced has been, since the company claims new temporary positions but provides no indication of the net employment balance.
The case is significant because it concerns the boundary between measuring productivity and controlling the person, an issue that directly affects workers' rights and union negotiation over automation. The available information does not at present make it possible to establish whether the parties have begun formal talks or what developments are expected.
