You would think that employee privacy rights only apply to employees that you currently have but it really begins with the hiring process. Companies can reduce the number of labor related incidents during the first step of recruiting by setting up a cost-effective, yet reliable drug testing system. According to Kevin Troutman (2005), "People who abuse drugs are a hazard to companies because they miss work, file more workers' compensation claims, make errors, steal and create safety concerns for other employees". An employer needs to use caution when setting up their system by making sure they are following their state's regulations and using a licensed third party facility to review the results. Unfortunately, a large percentage of employers abstain from this step because they fear that it will greatly reduce their pool of applicants but it could cost them more in the end.
Recent national studies report only half of employers test their employees for drugs, while three-fourths of the drug users in America are actively employed. According to a study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of Rockville, Maryland, substance abuse costs the employer an average of $19,000 per person in lost production, workers' compensation and medical coverage (Dolan Media Newswires, 2005).
Another problem companies face when interviewing prospective employees is that reference checks are not always an effective way to learn about the candidate. There is no specific statutory or common law right to keep an employment history private or confidential but many employers fear that if they provide negative information about a past worker he or she may sue them for defamation. Even if the employer is in the right with the law, ...
... middle of paper ...
...your boss standing over your shoulder, you should not be communicating it at all. I really feel that employees need to stand back and look at the situation from their employer's side before getting irate about their privacy rights being violated. If you had taken the time to set up a system of equipment that cost you thousands of dollars, would you not want to keep it safe? If you were responsible for the remarks made by the company joker would you not want to monitor him? If your clients' confidential information was in your hands would you not want to honor their rights?
When I chose this topic, I was going to go at this with the employees' best interest in mind but after learning about the liability the employer incurred I completely changed my direction. I have changed my telephone, email, and IM habits and am more careful about what I say. I hope you will too.
The ethics of drug testing has become an increased concern for many companies in the recent years. More companies are beginning to use it and more people are starting more to have problems with it. The tests are now more than ever seen as a way to stop the problems of drug abuse in the workplace. This brings up a very large question. Is drug testing an ethical way to decide employee drug use? It is also very hard to decide if the test is an invasion of employee privacy. “The ethical status of workplace drug testing can be expressed as a question of competing interests, between the employer’s right to use testing to reduce drug related harms and maximize profits, over against the employee’s right to privacy, particularly with regard to drug use which occurs outside the workplace.” (Cranford 2) The rights of the employee have to be considered. The Supreme Court case, Griswold vs. Connecticut outlines the idea that every person is entitled to a privacy zone. However this definition covers privacy and protection from government. To work productively especially when the work may be physical it is nearly impossible to keep one’s privacy. The relationship between employer and employee is based on a contract. The employee provides work for the employer and in return he is paid. If the employee cannot provide services because of problems such as drug abuse, then he is violating the contract. Employers have the right to know many things about their employees.
The Jaffee-Redmond ruling heavily impacted how all organizations and firms deal with staff members’ rights. Today, the legal human resource environment requires that all key organizational professionals know and understand the laws affected by this case. Prospective job candidates who are well-versed in these laws and similar issues can outmaneuver less knowledgeable candidates. Training in current privacy laws are a valuable asset in several settings, such as:
For many years, there has been an ongoing fight between employers and employees pertaining to employee rights. The main thing that they have fought about is computer and email monitoring.
An employer also should restrict an employee’s access to the internet or access to certain web sites, or prohibit the use of personal work computers. As a result, there is no right to claim privacy against your employer for monitoring or restricting your use of the internet. Having an internal regulation could avoid the personal use of a computer in the workplace, the employers are the owners of the computers, and they are also the owners of the data transmitted to and from the computers, regardless of the source. Another reason that justifies the employer's ability to control the use of the computer in the workplace is the security of their internal systems. Computer systems can be vulnerable to viruses and other types of technological problems if employees are downloading information and Internet programs, or other potentially harmful materials. Security can also be a problem in that employees can violate the company's confidentiality rules. By monitoring the use of the personal Internet, employers can prevent employees from being the means of disseminating confidential information about the company to the
It is annually estimated that the economic cost alone is $215 billion dollars that are being contributed to drug trafficking in the United States. According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy it is projected that nearly $61 billion dollars are being used towards criminal justice such as criminal investigation, prosecution and incarceration, $11 billion dollars are for the healthcare costs as in drug treatment and drug-related medical consequences, $120 billion dollars are lost in productivity, due to the labor participation costs in drug abuse treatment, incarceration and premature death. As stated in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy it is assessed that full-time workers who were on current use of drugs were more likely to miss workdays due to illnesses and injuries. As mentioned i...
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
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...
Another type of privacy invasion is the background check of a potential employee. Businesses only want employees who will benefit the business itself. The owners think of employees as a type of investment. So, to make a good investment, the managers are ordered to conduct a background check on prospective applicants.
Terms and Laws have gradually change overtime dealing with different situations and economic troubles in the world in general. So then dealing with these issues the workplace has become more complex with little or no rights to privacy. Privacy briefly explained is a person’s right to choose whether or not to withhold information they feel is dear to them. If this something will not hurt the business, or its party members then it should be kept private. All employees always should have rights to privacy in the workplace. Five main points dealing with privacy in public/private structured businesses are background checks, respect of off duty activities/leisure, drug testing, workplace search, and monitoring of workplace activity. Coming to a conclusion on privacy, are there any limits to which employers have limitations to intrusion, dominance on the employee’s behavior, and properties.
With many cases already being filed by the EEOC will provide some sort of guidance on how a company can more thoroughly conduct background screenings on their candidates and current employees. A company should have the right to conduct background screenings on their employees and potential candidates anytime they desire. Having the government interfere on how an employer can hire an employee interferes with our capitalistic economy. Background screenings are sometimes even crucial to a companies bottom line when taking into consideration of certain costs like insurance. Some insurance company’s will not cover certain potential liabilities for an organization if they have an employee with a criminal history. For example, a trucking company’s insurance policy may state that they will not cover any accidental damages if they have an employee who has a past arrest for driving under the influence and is operating one of their fleet vehicles. A background check I believe is a necessity when hiring employees and even screening current employees at random. This provides a strong structure of internal controls for an organization, and helps reduce a possibility of law suits and loss of capital for an
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...
Do we really have our privacy rights in the workplace? In today’s society we are so caught up with our rights that we often forget about work rules. If someone goes into my office or someone reads my email I feel violated and deprived of my rights. But the real question is, are these things my own to do with? In all reality if it is a private organization the person who owns the business is the owner of all offices and computers, so in that case you’re just using his stuff.
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
Employee rights are very important in the workplace (Rakoczy, C. n.d.). There are some laws to protect employee rights such as safe working environment, discrimination and overtime pay rate to ensure every employee treated fairly. All employees have the right to work in a safe and healthy workplace. In some industries, they use the high-voltage of electricity, extreme temperature, the high-speed and noisy machine in their workplace which can potentially threat to employee health and safety. A safety and healthy workplace must provide reasonable daily and weekly job schedule to the employees. Therefore, when the employee follows the job schedule, they can prevent to work overload because of a systematic system applied by the company.