Brookstar

The first key idea I would like to address is the vague laws that permit email surveillance to be legal in the United States. Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) which permits several types of monitoring to be legal within the work place. At the time this law was enacted computers were still emerging into society and email did not start to become popular until the 90’s. The ECPA mainly focuses on obtaining legal recordings of communication as evidence in criminal court. However, the law does mention in more current revisions that a company can legally monitor employees email if the reason for monitoring is justifiable to the business (Spykerman). Individual states have their own separate laws to determine if employers should be required to inform their employees that they are using email surveillance. Because of the varying laws the idea of email surveillance as legal has become a grey area. The lack of knowledge that employees have about email monitoring at work has caused numerous legal cases.

Given that laws regarding email monitoring in the workplace reside in a grey area employees have the idea that it is an invasion of their rights and privacy. Legal cases arise because employees do not know the laws that permit employers to monitor. The lack of education and notice about monitoring by the company to the employees is what causes the legal issue to arise. According to Yerby, “The main disconnect between the organization and the employees interpretation is poor communication or training.” Yerby suggests that employees should be educated about how the monitoring will take place. And also the reasons for the monitoring to occur. Yerby continues by saying that most companies monitor email to protect the company’s assets. Which ensures that the company’s reputation is not put in a negative view. Additionally, employers monitor to determine if employees are completing their work and not misusing company time and equipment. Overall, email surveillance in the workplace has become such a big dilemma because employees have little knowledge about its legality and purpose.

The second key idea I would like to address is that email usage in the workplace is here to stay. Which brings the conclusion that email surveillance will not vanish from the workplace, but be found in more workplaces. Currently emails are a common part of work communication and there is a very slim chance that emails will cease to exist in the workplace. According to the AMA survey done in 2003 the average employee with access to the internet spends 25% of their workday checking and sending email. This statistic has likely grown over the course of 13 years. Email will continue to exist in the workplace which should lead to the conclusion that this situation should be addressed (Snyder). Because of this ongoing issue proper laws need to be created, so that the entire workforce population understands their rights and any rights the employer might have. The main problem is that employees do not understand the laws and their rights within those laws because of the lack of attention this issue is presenting.

Staying on the notion of email usage continuing to exist in the workplace, the technology used to commit the surveillance is developing. According to Snyder, “Advances in communication technologies…have made it easier for organizations to gather information about employee activities.” Snyder suggests that because of the developing technology that employers can gather even more personal information. Snyder continues by suggesting that the time frame of gathering information is becoming faster and faster as surveillance tools develop. Overall, email surveillance has become such a large ethical dilemma because the boundary of invading an employee’s rights is a grey area. There is not enough attention brought to this situation which causes the dilemma to continue especially with the new technological advancements in surveillance tools.

The third key idea is that employees have little knowledge concerning the technologies and purpose related to email surveillance. Currently there is no law that requires employers to notify their employees of email monitoring. However, a vast majority companies do, 71% according to American Management Association survey. Of those employees who are not told of email monitoring have little knowledge about their rights and the employer’s rights. Things brings up a grey area because employees will have little knowledge about what the employer considers to be improper work habits. Because of the large amount of employers monitoring their employees, employees should have knowledge about the employer’s right as it relates to email monitoring. Employees should know what the employer is legal able to do and what types of email account the employer can monitor whether work related or personal. The main issue is that employees tend to not understand the idea behind email surveillance and what abilities employers have when they do monitor email.

There can also be market pressure for employers to committing to the practice of email monitoring. The American Management Association survey asked why employers monitor their employees’ emails. One of the most common answers was to increase the work proficiency of the employees so that the employer is receiving the work they are paying. Most types of monitoring software cost around a few hundred dollars. For example, Activity Monitor by SoftActivity, cost the employer $200 to purchase the software. In cases purchasing a software in the long term can save a business money. For instance, discovering an employee who does not perform up to the standards that they should be performing can save the employer form paying that particular worker. Overall, there is economic pressure for employers to use software that will monitor employee’s emails to save the business money.

Top 10 Factors

#1 No law requires employers to notify employees of email monitoring

This article discusses the current federal and state laws regarding surveilling employees in the workplace. Currently it is legal for companies to monitor employees’ emails. The author continues by saying that if a company has an email policy told to them prior to being hired then an employer will not have to notify employees about email monitoring. (Spykerman)

#2 Email surveillance is here to stay

Within this article the author discusses that surveillance is not going to leave the work place any time soon. Furthermore, employees will see an increase in types of surveillance within the workplace because employers are more paranoid than ever. They want to ensure that the work they are paying to be done is actually being completed by the employees in a timely manner. (Nancherla)

#3 Small number of companies notify employees of email monitoring

In this article the author talks about the facts concerning employers monitoring email. Additionally, he analyzes the employer and employees’ viewpoints discussing the legality of email monitoring. The article includes numerous surveys detailing why, how, and if employers monitor their employees emails. (Yerby)

#4 Employees assume they have a constitutional right to privacy

In this article the authors discuss how employees have little knowledge on the topic of surveillance and how it relates to their rights. The authors also state that the Fourth Amendment brushes the topic of privacy, but that only protects the state and federal employees. And does not fully address the issues or privacy in the workplace. All other types of employees have to look elsewhere, to state laws, to find protection. (Nord, G. D., McCubbins, & Nord, J. H.)

#5 Employees have little knowledge about email surveillance

The author of this article discusses the viewpoint employers have about email surveillance. She continues that employers monitor to protect its assets and to ensure that the work they are paying for is being completed. She also argues that employees do not know why there employers monitor them due to the lack of information from their superiors. (Schulman)

#6 A widespread usage of email in the workplace

Thousands of Americans are exposed to the internet in a typical work day. There has been a steady increase of email usage in the workplace since the 90’s. This steady increase will only continue to grow as the internet becomes more accessible. The author also claims that because of the wide usage of email by employees there will be a day that almost all employers will monitor their employees. (Snyder)

#7 Employers can monitor personal emails if accessed on company device

The authors of this article discuss the types of content that employers are allowed to monitor and keep records of. If an employee access their personal email while at work using a company provided device or internet connection, then the employer still has right to read those emails. If the employee had accessed those personal emails outside of work on a personal device then the employer would not have the right to read those emails. (O'Rourke, Anne, Teicher, Julian & Pyman, Amanda)

#8 New advances in technology make email monitoring easier to do

The advancement of new technologies and software makes it easier for employers to monitor their employees’ emails. In this article the authors discusses how the new technology is increasing the number of employers who monitor their employees. (Friedman, Barry, Reed, Lisa)

#9 Government employees are only protected under 4th amendment

The 4th amendment to the Constitution protects only government employees from practices such as email monitoring. When employees work for private companies, which is a large portion of the work force, they cannot be protected under the 4th amendment. The authors discusses in further detail how courts tend to side with employers on the basis of protecting the companies interests. (Adams III, Hall, Scheuing, Suzanne & Feeley, Stacey)

#10 Courts consistently support the rights of the employer

In this article the authors discusses why the courts are consistently support the rights of the employer to monitor employees email. They also claim the US legal system does not currently address rights associated with email in the workplace. The author claims that the courts favor the employer because they see it as the employer protecting the business assets against employees. (Smith, William P. & Tabak, Filiz)

Data and Information

Fact #1: 71% of employers notify employees about email monitoring (American Management Association survey)

Discussion of fact #1: This statistic shows how many companies within the United States notify their employees about email monitoring. The number is not 100% because it is not required by law to notify employees. Additionally, the cause for surveillance of emails was asked resulting in 64% saying they monitor emails to prevent violation of email policy. 62% also stated that they monitor emails to deter inappropriate and offensive language. This situation has caused employees to feel that their rights are being violated because they are not told email surveillance is occurring. If the law will continue to be the same then we will see the continuous legal battles employees present after being terminated because of emails.

Fact #2: Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA) of 1986

Discussion of fact #2: This is the law passed by congress that determines the legality of wiretapping, voice recordings and other surveillance methods. Currently there is a revision of the law to include dilemmas resulting from computers. The revision specifically mentions that email monitoring is legal in the workplace. However, the reason for monitoring has to relate to the operation of business. Any other circumstances are not covered by this law. An example includes personal email accounts accessed on company computers. Situations like this are not mentioned in the ECPA. This brings up important ethical situations that are resolved in a legal court case. Overall, there is not one clear law that covers all the issues concerning email surveillance which results in many individual cases to determine if any rights were violated.

Fact #3 Reasons for email surveillance, violation of any company policy (64%) inappropriate or offensive language (62%)

Discussion of fact #3: This fact comes from the same survey conducted by the American Management Association survey mentioned in fact #1. These statistics represent why the employers continue to use or start to use email surveillance within the workplace. Over 2/3 of the 300 companies surveyed, believe that the main concern they have is their employees using harsh language or not following company policy. There were other options for the companies to choose, but were not nearly chosen as much as the two options stated above. However, employees still feel violated even if the employer presents a valid reason for email monitoring. This brings up an important ethical debate that continues because there are no strict laws regarding email surveillance within the work place.

Fact #4 46% of organizations monitored e-mail use, rose to 52% in 2003, 55% in 2005 (American Management Association Survey)

Discussion of fact #4: This statistic shows a continuous increase in the number of companies who admit to email monitoring. The troubling aspect is that the statistic is over 10 years old. There is a strong possibility that the number now of employees who admit to email monitoring has grown significantly. The troubling part is that there are no strict laws concerning the topic of email surveillance in the workplace. As this statistic shows the number continues to increase which should bring this dilemma onto the radar of lawmakers. Additionally, employees should also be aware of the large amount of employers using surveillance tools to avoid any legal situations with the company.

Fact #5 Software manufacturers expect sale of computer monitoring/surveillance software to businesses to increase from $139 million in 2001 to $622 million in 2006

Discussion of fact #5: This statistic shows the large amount of companies that are going to buy software to monitor their employees. However, this statistic is 10 years old, but because of the large amount of companies that admit to monitoring employees’ emails it is likey that these numbers have increased. This statistic also helps to show that the access to monitoring tools is becoming easier for the employer to have the ability to use in the workplace. Additionally, this statistic should demonstrate to employees that it is likely that their employer has purchased some sort of monitoring software due to the large amount of sales expected.

Solution Rational

Moral system #1: Contract-based moral system. In a contract based system the law is the final word to the situation. In this system everyone is treated fairly based on what the law dictates.

Solution and rationale per #1: This system was selected because all employees no matter what state they reside in or if they are government employee should follow the same laws. Having all companies in every state follow the same law will be beneficial to all employees. This situation requires that employees have knowledge of what is being done to monitor their work performance.

Argument for solution per Moral system #1

Premise 1: The use of the internet and most specifically email will continue to be a foundation of communication within the workplace.

Premise 2: There is no federal law that requires companies to disclose surveillance, however state laws are starting to be put in place.

Premise 3: Employees feel the most violated because employers fail to disclose email monitoring and its purpose.

Conclusion: Employee email monitoring will remain in the workplace which necessitates federal laws requiring employers to notify employees of email surveillance to be put in place.

Moral system #2: Duty-based moral system. This system suggests that there are obligations people need to be held to.

Solution and rationale per #2: This moral system was selected because there is an obligation that employees should be held to. Employees should know the laws that concern email monitoring in the workplace. Additionally, employees should be obligated to know what rights they have against email surveillance and what rights their employers have.

Argument for solution per moral system #2

Premise 1: Email surveillance in the work place is only increasing, which means more employees will be subject to employer monitoring.

Premise 2: Employees have little knowledge concerning their rights and laws of email surveillance.

Premise 3: Court cases concerning email surveillance in the workplace continue to persist.

Conclusion: Court cases concerning email surveillance continue because of the lack of knowledge employees have about their rights and their employers’ rights to monitor.

Synthesis

Email surveillance in the workplace presents a few challenges. First there is very vague laws that require employers to inform their employees about monitoring. The EPCA and its revisions do not go in to specific detail about email monitoring. For example the boundary between company property and personal property. If an employee uses company computers to access personal email accounts it is determined by the company policy if they will monitor those emails. Which brings up concerns from employees who believe personal email monitoring is not ethical. Additionally, the laws between states are inconsistent because only two states require employers to notify their employees. This brings ups the issue of employee’s rights being violated. Employees argue that they had no knowledge about their emails being monitored. This results into disputes between the employees and the company.

Another challenge about the issue of email surveillance in the workplace is the employees’ lack of knowledge about the practice of email surveillance. Additionally, the rights that employees have and even more important the rights that the employers have when it comes to email surveillance. Employees often have little idea about how the actual process works. According to Schulman’s article the main concerns that employees have include: the purpose for requiring the information, is the purpose legitimate and important, is the information relevant, and how will the personal knowledge be protected once it has been acquired. These are just a few of the questions Schulman presented in her article that employees have on the process of email surveillance. Employees feel that they have little knowledge so they assume that there must be a violation to their rights. This can sometimes result into legal cases concerning wrongful termination which leaves the court to decide did the company commit their actions in legal compliance.

A challenge also faced with this issue is the lack of concern employers and law makers have about violating employee’s rights. The current issue, email surveillance, will continue to be a problem because email is a vital communication tool used in the workplace. The lack of laws on this problem can lead a person to conclude that the issue is not being taken serious enough. However, the issue is not life or death important but, employees still see feel that their rights are being violated. The situation needs to be addressed because employees and employers will continue to be involved in legal disputes. The increasing use of email surveillance in the workplace will only cause more disputes over employee’s privacy rights.

There is a lot of information to compare and contrast about email surveillance. The topic has two sides and research will find support for both sides: against or for employer email surveillance. However, research overall has come to a conclusion that email will remain in the workplace which should allow a company to determine if what the work they are paying for to be done is actually getting done. Employers can agree that email surveillance will be present to some extant in the workplace because of email’s extensive use. The concern that most employees have is how the employer chooses to go about the practices of the monitoring. This is where the situation splits into two sides because of the ethical choices employers must go through if they wish to commit to email surveillance. Which concludes the employees to feel as though their rights have been violated.

Sources

Adams III, Hall. (2000). E-Mail Monitoring in the Workplace: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Defense Counsel Journal, 67(1), 32-47.