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 …show more content…
For example, when they go to the gym, they like to monitor their heart rate. The emotions that arose in me while I read this article is that bosses should not have the control to monitor their employees and it should be the highest in the company you are, you should be monitored. They have more power in the company so, then they mess up it has more of an effect on the company. I think that the more important you are in the company the more you should be monitored. This changed my perspective on why do we have devices that allow other people to know where we are and how we are feeling when it should be for our benefit and not
The Social Contract Theory would apply in preservation of ethics in the workplace as it considers an action to be good if it is accepted by collective group of rational people and is therefore considered binding (Nielsen, 2013). The Social Contract theory would be used to collectively determine whether GPS tracking of employees is ethical. Employees and employers would be required to collectively agree on the benefits of tracking such as increased productivity, efficiency, cost reduction and better accountability all of which would translate to more profits for the company and bonuses for the employees. The employees would consent to GPS tracking and monitoring during office hours while the employer would be required to forego tracking and monitoring during lunch breaks and outside working hours, otherwise the employer would be in violation of the collective agreement. Employees would also be required to abide by their duties and responsibilities during working hours to avoid violation of the agreement. The Social contract theory would also include consequences in the instance of violation for both the employer and employee
In an age where instant access to information has influenced the privacy workplace model, which once prevails over what were inalienable assumptions of privacy is no longer a certainty in the workplace. Some companies require employees to sign confidentiality agreement to protect their patents, formulas, and processes. There are instances where companies dictate a “no compete” clause in their hiring practices, to prevent an employee from working for competitors for typically two years without legal implications. While these examples represent extents, employers go to protect their company’s privacy; companies do not go to that extent to protect the privacy of their employees.
...ompanies’ databases without our awareness—much less our approval—the more deeply the Net is woven into our lives the more exposed we become. In order to stop online tracking, we have to take personal responsibility for the information we share and modify our privacy settings. We have to get bills and regulations passed by congress so laws can be made to limit corporations from tracking and sharing our personal formation and discipline and take action upon any corporation that does not abide by the rules.
In 1948, George Orwell wrote about a society in which individual privacy was nonexistent. In this society, which he imagined would become a reality in the 1980s, surveillance was foremost. Everything one did was under surveillance by “Big Brother”, an unseen figure who was always watching you. Surveillance in this society was imposed and malicious. Although this type of society has never fully become a reality in the Western world, changes in technology and media are indirectly bringing this imagined society, one of complete surveillance, to life. With the rise in corporate business and commercialism, surveillance in society increasing; however, new media has brought about a significant shift in its use. In the 20th century, surveillance was primarily used for “protective measures”, as Orwell had imagined. In the 21st century, there has been a rise in its use for commercialism. This essay will critically analyze the developments in new media that have contributed to this shift, as well as explain the reason for the ubiquitous nature of surveillance in today’s western society. To aid with this analysis, surveillance will hereby be defined as a “focused, systematic, and routine attention to personal details for purposes of influence, management, protection or direction” (Lyon 2007:14).
While it is obvious that most employees are against electronic monitoring, the use of electronic monitoring contributes to increased stress levels in employees. While the advantages derived from electronic monitoring far outweigh the disadvantages. Through the use of employee monitoring, companies can save money in overall operations cost by weeding out those employees who don't pull their weight, and cut down on employee theft. By monitoring employees, it is possible to measure their performance and see if they are meeting standards.
Technology is expanding rapidly, and multiple fictional (but very much possible) stories display positive and negative effects on the amount of our freedom (negative in most sorts) and also safety and equality (positive in some cases bad in another). A short story “CityWatcher Chipping its Employees Under Protest” (by Todd Logan) explains this topic and shows things that make their daily and routinely lives easier in their technologically advanced generation, it explains this terrible event that is completely statistically plausible based on our rate of technological innovation (some may disagree on those statements) written in an intriguing short story in which a major corporation implants RFID devices in their patients and/or employees,
Employee Monitoring: Is There Privacy in the Workplace? . (6/3/2004)
Sometimes there is no middle ground. Monitoring of employees at the workplace, either you side with the employees or you believe management owns the network and should call the shots. The purpose of this paper is to tackle whether monitoring an employee is an invasion of privacy. How new technology has made monitoring of employees by employers possible. The unfairness of computerized monitoring software used to watch employees. The employers desire to ensure that the times they are paying for to be spent in their service is indeed being spent that way. Why not to monitor employees, as well as tips on balancing privacy rights of employees at the job.
Technology and the Invasion of Privacy As citizens of America we are all entitled to our rights of privacy. When something threatens this guaranteed privacy we tend to take extra precautions to prohibit prolonged violation. As the advancing world of technology continues to grow and expand, so do the amount of cases involving privacy invasion. Technology drives these privacy-invading crimes; however, crime also drives technology, creating a vicious cycle.
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)
Technological Surveillance In an age where instant communication and technology provide easy and ready access to information, the society and the individual is caught between two very controversial principles- open information and privacy. The perceptions and expectations of privacy are rapidly changing as a result of current developments in surveillance technologies. The question is are these new surveillance technologies endangering the values and morals of our democratic society, the society we have worked for many centuries to achieve? According to Webster's dictionary, surveillance is defined as a "close kept watch over someone or something.
There has always been surveillance of the general public conducted by the United States government, the usual justifications being upholding the security of the nation, weeding out those who intend to bring harm to the nation, and more. But the methods for acquiring such information on citizens of the United States were not very sophisticated many years ago, so the impact of government surveillance was not as great. As a result of many technological advancements today, the methods for acquiring personal information - phone metadata, internet history and more - have become much simpler and sophisticated. Many times, the information acquired from different individuals is done so without their consent or knowledge. The current surveillance of people by the United States government is unethical because it is done so without consent and it infringes on a person’s rights to privacy and personal freedom.
An example of the pros and cons of privacy in the work place while during the hiring process is in 2012, a company in Maryland decided to ask job seekers to log into personal profiles and search through wall posts. As this is becoming more of trend many creative ways to monitor the posts. Another example within this sector is the athletic program at the University of North Carolina, “Each team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitoring the content of team member social networking sites and postings”
Also technology can be used to make sure that athletes are not working so hard that their heart is overworked. Technology can be used to measure athletes cardiovascular level “Technology can be used to monitor the cardiovascular level of the athlete therefore making it safer for them to participate” (“A Level”). The use of this technology can help athletes reach their target heart rate. Therefore making the workout more beneficial for the athlete. Technology has changed the level of safety in many different aspects of professional
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