More handpicked essays just for you.
Should privacy be extended to the workplace
Should privacy be extended to the workplace
Introduction to legal and ethical issues of employee workplace monitoring
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I think employers should monitor their employee’s workstation. After all, it is company property. I also think that they should not monitor their employee’s workstation area. Another question to ask is, “Is what they are doing legal? Or does it cross that illegal boundary?” On the one hand, they should monitor their employee’s work place area. It gives the employees the fear they need to stay on task and get their work completed. If an employee is doing anything but work, they would not be able to reach their deadlines in time. This could result in a termination from that job they are in. The employee should know this and keep himself/herself in check because they know in the back of their mind that if they do not finish whatever they are working on, they could get fired. Employees should not be able to go on to social media sites on their work computers because that would distract them. They also do not need to do that because the computer is owned by the company, not them. The other side of this is the fact that these employees are grown, sometimes responsible, adults and can do their job without being monitored twenty four seven. They should know that distractions could cost them their job. They also should know that everything has a time and place; they should not be doing anything but work on their …show more content…
Companies can legally monitor employees' activities if they have written policies stating they should not have an expectation of privacy at work. Employees who use company phones, Internet, computers and vehicles are responsible for following company policies and guidelines. Companies are responsible for notifying employees on what type of usage is acceptable and the consequence for misuse. Companies also must be aware of types of surveillance that cross the line and intrude on an individual's right to
In Fitbit for Bosses written by Lynn Stuart Parramore she talks about how bosses want to start monitoring their employees. Parramore shows her discomfort with this idea. She thinks that “big money seems poised to trump privacy”(Parramore). Which basically just means that for bosses is that money is over everything even privacy. Allowing bosses to monitor their employees is dishonest and manipulating.Some researchers have also found out that increasing surveillance has caused the decrease of productivity. Researchers warned them that the data can have big errors and people that look at the data that the fitbits can cherry-pick the information that supports their beliefs and ditch the rest of the information that leads to racial profiling. “Surveillance makes everyone seem suspicious, creating perceptions and expectations of dishonesty.” Workers will become dehumanized“(Parramore), it prevents them from experimenting and exercising the creativity on the job.” A woman from California filed a suit against her former employer because he forced her to to install a tracking app on her phone. She had to have it on her phone 24/7 or else she would
The use of Social Media in the workplace is counter-productive. There are many reasons why this is so. The workplace is the place where you should be working, not checking on what Aunt Ethell had for dinner last night or whether your friends posted that embarrassing weekend photo. Most workplaces have plenty of distractions on their own without adding the extra time-wasting properties of Social Media. There is also the argument that what you post on Social Media can affect the way you are perceived at work. If your habits are less than savoury and your colleagues have access to the proof, you could find yourself without a job at all. It is easy to "slip up" and say things online that you may not have intended to be in the public domain. Internet
In recent times our right to privacy has been under fire, particularly in the workplace. With the fear of terrorists in today's world, we have been willing to sacrifice some of our individual rights for the rights of a society as a whole. A majority of these changes have taken place since September 11, 2001, in an attempt to prevent future terrorist attacks. New legislation, such as the USA Patriot Act, which decreases the limitations on the federal government's ability to monitor people, has been created for this reason. Although new legislation may be instrumental in the defense of our national security, we must take a strong look at their effect and the effect of decreased privacy in the workplace. Advances in technology, coupled with new legislation, has had a serious toll on our privacy especially at work. It is now possible to monitor an employee's keystrokes on the computer to how much time a day is spent on bathroom breaks. It is imperative for us to take a stand against these violations to our rights
In my opinion, employees should not be able to use the internet while at work. The computers and networks are business property and are solely used for business transactions. Thus, employers have a duty and a right to ensure proper usage of any, and all, equipment. If employers decide to, they may choose to monitor the usage of the internet to ensure the property is not abused. According to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, et. seq., (www.law.cornell.edu/uscode), federal law allows employers to monitor business calls, however, personal calls are an exception. Under the federal law and employer only has the right to monitor a call until they realize that it is a personal call then must cease monitoring. In the case of Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577, 583 (11th Cir. 1983), the court dictated that, "...a manager must cease listening in on an employee call once the call turns personal". When businesses first started using the internet, they did not contemplate developing new technology policies and were very liberal as to the usage of the internet. Eventually allowing liberal usage led to abuse of equipment and work time. Today, people check personal emails and facebook messages (among other social networking sites), take care of online banking, shopping, surf the net leisurely, and chat online. Employers have noticed this distraction severely impacted productivity and performance. Studies show, "Currently, as many as 26 million workers in the United States are monitored in their jobs, and this number will increase as computers are used more and more within companies and as the cost of these monitoring systems goes down" (DeTienne, 1993, p. 33). "By the end of the decade, as many as 30 milli...
Facebook and Twitter work-related conversations are under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. Employers are prohibited by the Act from restricting employee use of social media by excessive polices. Employees cannot be terminated disciplined for conducted on social media. The National Labor Relations Board received several charges in the year of 2010 regarding federal law violations which occurred as a result of Facebook postings. Complaints were issued to employers prior to an investigation which was conducted by NLRB. However there was no protection which covered the communications therefore no violation was committed. Several Board decision became more prevalent during the year of 2012. Which established precedence in regards to the
Big companies have to worry about government surveillance as well. Even as far back as May of 2006, seven years before Snowden leaked NSA data, it was reported that the NSA had been tracking phone calls using the resources of several major telecom companies, and a couple of weeks later it was revealed that it had given access to At&t’s fiber-optic lines back in 2002, meaning that they were able to directly access the phone information of millions of Americans (Vicens 29)! Government surveillance isn’t just limited to phone companies, though. It was reported in 2007 that some big companies like Microsoft had started participating in an NSA program to give the government data from live chats, and many other big companies also agreed to hand over
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. (2006, February). Employee monitoring: Is their privacy in the workplace? Retrieved September 22, 2006, from http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm
Previously it took a lot of equipment to monitor a person's actions, but now with technology's development and advancement all it requires is a computer. And there are many mediums which can be monitored such as telephones, email, voice mail, and computers.4 People's rights are protected by many laws, but in private businesses there are few laws protecting an individual's rights. 5 As an employee of a company there is an understanding of the amount of monitoring the employer does. The employer has to decide how much monitoring is necessary to satisfy the company needs without damaging the company's employee morale.6 With all the monitoring done by private businesses they are free to violate employee privacy since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights a...
One type of surveillance is employee monitoring. Many employers monitor their workers’ activities for one reason or another. Companies monitor employees using many methods. They may use access panels that requires employees to identify themselves to control entry to various area in the building, allowing them to create a log of employee movements. They may also use software to monitor attendance and work hours. Additionally, many programs allows companies to monitor activities performed on work computers, inspect employee emails, log keystrokes, etc. An emerging methods of employee monitor also include social network and search engine monitoring. Employers can find out who their employees are associated with, as well as other potentially incriminating information. (Ciocchetti)
A few questions have sparked discussion by many people. The first question being, should employers be able to check what possible employees have posted online? The second question, should employers be able to see what employees are doing on company computers during work hours? The final question being, should employers be able to check what employees are doing on their own time? These questions have become highly talked about subjects and people have different views on each topic of what is right or wrong for employers to check.
One method of control is surveillance as it exercises power over employees who behave better as a result of knowing they are being studied. Organisations use surveillance because they want to “reward effort, intelligence, productivity, and success while eliminating laziness, theft, and failure.” (Moore 2000, page 697). This is supported by Tannenbaum (1967) who believes that control processes such as employee monitoring help circumscribe idiosyncratic behaviours, and therefore keeps employees conformant to the rational objectives of the organisation. Since corporate culture uses surveillance as a control mechanism for its own benefit, Boehmer (1990) argues that this contributes to creating an ‘electronic sweatshop’ whereby workers lose all privacy (Flanagan 1994, page 1257). Here it is questioned how far organisations are willing to go to foster this conformity and value to the
Employee monitoring can be a useful tool for employers who have employees that may be violating their user access agreement. According to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the computer system that the employer provides is owned by the employer and therefore the employer is free to monitor almost everything that computer system is used for. This can include the employee’s internet searches, emails[,] and even keystrokes being monitored. Some employees may feel violated that they can be monitored to such an extent, however, if an employee is using their employer’s equipment, they should expect limited privacy.
“Employers must also comply with law enforcement or national security agencies in their investigations, according to all the personal information protection legislation that exists in Canada” (Levin 318). Whereas, an employer’s failure to inform their employees about the workplace surveillance can often lead to a violation of employees rights to privacy. Even though, if the employees get informed about the technology based activities a gap remains between the employer and the employees creating relationship problems amongst them, as it can create a false sense of security and furthermore cause a demoralizing work environment. “ The employer should also remain aware of the employee’s normal human desire for reasonable amounts of privacy” (Nord et al. 77). Employees think that it is unnecessary to use workplace surveillance.
But, these laws always changing, depending on the work setting or policies set by any specific organizations. Because there are so many different work environments, each claim of privacy has to be evaluated based on the actual conditions of the workplace (Smith & Burg, 2015). This is why policies must be set according to the CEO needs. If the organization does not allow the use of the internet for any personal use, than the employee must follow such guidelines. This eliminates employee privacy right violations, because the policy will informs them of the monitoring during the hiring
..., which can result in decreased productivity. An employee may be spending more time viewing their friends’ posts and pictures, rather than focusing on their job. Social media can be addicting to some people. This should be monitored by all business owners. Employees can attend a party with people taking pictures, and then the pictures can be misconstrued or distorted. Online reputational concerns can be critical for businesses along with their employees. It can result in loss of employment, loss of economics, and unforgivable social humiliations. Businesses are at another disadvantage while using social media because followers can post negative comments on the business’s Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram site. Also, a hacker can retrieve the company’s page and post false information. A business or organization’s reputation will suffer from these actions. (Oravec 97)