Touchless time clock covers several technologies that share one property and differ in everything else. A proximity card, a fob, a phone based punch and a face reader are all touchless, and only the last of them holds anything about a person's body. Treating them as one category leads employers into obligations they did not intend.
What touchless actually solves
Speed at shift change, no shared surface, and an electronic record from the outset. Contactless readers came into wide use for hygiene reasons and stayed because they clear a queue and remove the consumable. Thirty people arriving at once is the case that separates these from a card and slot, and a queue of paid people waiting is a cost nobody puts in the business case.
Cards and fobs, which carry no biometric data
For most employers this is the proportionate answer and the one a regulator would expect to see considered first. It is cheap, fast, needs no consent discussion, and fixes the arithmetic problem that makes paper punch clocks expensive. Its known weakness is that cards can be handed over, which matters only if you have evidence that happens.
Face readers and the higher bar
A face reader is touchless and is also the most intrusive option available, with a correspondingly higher bar for justification, notice and an alternative for anybody who declines. Choosing it because it is convenient rather than because a less intrusive option failed is the decision that does not survive scrutiny.
Questions people ask about touchless time clock
Does touchless mean facial recognition?
No. Cards, fobs and phone based punches are all touchless and hold no biometric data at all.
Is a card reader fast enough for shift change?
Comfortably, and usually faster than a punch card. It is the standard answer for clearing a queue at a single door.
What about hygiene?
Removing the shared surface is a real benefit in food preparation and healthcare, and a card reader achieves it without any biometric processing.