Individual Research Paper

Running head: EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE PRIVACY 1

Employee Privacy in the Workplace

gggggggggggggggggg

Florida State College at Jacksonville

EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE PRIVACY 2

When you go to work and walk through the doors of your employer, they can monitor

your activities without your knowledge. There are laws for federal jobs regarding employee

privacy in the workplace. However, there are no regulations that pertain to the private sector.

Frederick S. Lane (2003) revealed:

“In Schowengerdt v. General Dynamics Corp. … the privacy rights of an

employee at a secret weapons facility were not violated when the employer

searched his office, desk, and credenza. Specifically, the court found that the

employer had clearly warned employees that due to the sensitive nature of the

work being done at the facility, both scheduled and random searches would be

conducted. As a result, the Ninth Circuit said the employee had no reasonable

expectation of privacy” [emphasis added] (chap 10).

Some employees think it is a violation of their rights for employers to monitor their

activities while at work. DesJardins & Hartman (2011) noted the USA Patriot Act expanded

employer’s right to monitor employees at work. Employees do not fully understand their rights

to privacy at work, or the Fourth Amendment which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

Privacy can be defined as a human right not to violate someone’s personal space, or it can be

characterized as keeping personal information to oneself (DesJardins & Hartman, 2011).

When you are hired at an organization, human resources require personal information to

be documented. According to Lane (2003), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

(HIPPA) require these records to be safeguarded by human resources because they may contain

sensitive medical information. This information may list medical conditions, medications taken,

drug test results, beneficiaries, and the next of kin. In addition, human resources will provide

newly hired workers with an employee handbook. Reading the employee handbook is essential

EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE PRIVACY 3

because it outlines company policies and goals, what is expected of the employee, and how to

handle certain situations. The employee’s handbook implemented by human resources should be

aligned with an organization’s objectives (Gerhart, Hollenbeck, Noe, & Wright, 2014). Along

with the employee handbook, human resources may present new hires with a monitoring and

surveillance disclaimer. This disclaimer allows the employer to monitoring employee activities at

work. Sometimes the issue of employee privacy begins years later when an employee becomes

absentminded about the disclaimer. The employee may get complacent, forget the disclaimer,

and begin to use the employer’s technology for personal reasons.

Today’s employers cannot be competitive in any industry without the use of technology.

Technology has made it convenient for companies to gain greater access to information by

reaching the global market to stay competitive and profitable. Many jobs could not be performed

without the usage of information technology. This makes technology a requirement in order for

employees to be productive. Naturally, an organization should protect their investment of

technology from illegal usage. It would be useless for a company to go into business, utilize

technology, and not take measures to safeguard their property. Employers have a right to take

certain measures of protecting their technology (Grunewald, Halpern, & Reville, 2008).

Nevertheless, some companies abuse their power of authority when it comes to

monitoring their employees. Lane (2003) found with the developmental advances in technology,

certain laws are not mandated quick enough to provide guidelines on how organizations can

gather and collect information about employees. At times an organization’s actions can be

unlawful. According to DesJardins & Hartman (2011), “An employer cannot violate an

employee’s rights by discriminating against them because of their lifestyle. For instance, New

York’s lifestyle discrimination statute prohibits employment decisions or actions based on four

EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE PRIVACY 4

off duty activity: legal recreational activities, consumption of legal products, political activities,

and membership in a union” (p. 361). Furthermore, a significant responsibility of human

resources is to ensure organizations stay within the contents of the law by not committing

unwarranted searches, such as looking for an employee’s Facebook account, or Instagram

photos.

From personal experience, I have monitored an organization’s information network. I

have a military background in information technology. In 1999, I worked at a network operating

center that provided classified/unclassified internet which contributed to the mission of deployed

ships in the Mediterranean Sea. One of our responsibilities was to monitor internet activity

transmitted and received from the deployed ships. This was before laws were established that

forbid accessing certain websites on military networks. As monitors, we could see the website’s

universal resource locators (URL) scrolling across our router’s screen as they were visited by the

ships. Our router kept a record of which websites were visited, how long they stayed on them,

including the date and time. At night, the military servicemen would visit sexually explicit

websites. We would report our findings to our chain of command. Our command advised the

ship’s captain and Washington, DC regarding the illegal usage of a government’s network. Not

only did it stop the illegal usage, but since our command reported its findings, this began a

foundation which started a preamble of regulations. Eventually, the Chief of Naval Operations

implemented policies to guide all military personnel of their conduct and responsibilities while

using military networks.

Due to my experience with monitoring information technology, I can empathize with

employers. Legitimate businesses can be destroyed and face huge consequences due to illegal

internet activity by an employee. Negative publicity can damage a company’s reputation and

EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE PRIVACY 5

image, especially if they have a competitive lead in an industry. Once the damage is done, it may

be extremely difficult for a company to regain consumer confidence. Therefore, it is detrimental

for an organization to regulate its technology by discouraging employee misuse. If an employee

misuses an organization’s technology, after they have agreed to a disclaimer, then the

organization has a right to take action within the law.

One way an organization can combat misuse of information technology is by monitoring

employees in a variety of ways. Keeping track of work related activities is not a crime, and

employers are not violating anyone’s privacy by monitoring its employees. Employers should

openly express that monitoring and surveillance is strictly for business related purposes.

Furthermore, employers should go the extra mile by posting alerts on technology and throughout

the building as a reminder to ensure personnel are aware of company policy (Grunewald et al.,

2008). Florida State College at Jacksonville has a login disclaimer displayed on all of their

computers which implies you have to abide by federal laws when using their computers. When

you log into their network, you are agreeing to the disclaimer. Located on Kent Campus under D

building, a sign is posted that says, “Smile you are being watched” (personal communication,

January 24, 2015). Regardless of signing a disclaimer, reading alerts, and posting signs, many

employees overlook these rules. When it comes to monitoring the usage of electronic technology

in the workplace employees do abuse their privileges. Sometimes as a result of the abuse, human

resources may have disciplinary procedures in place depending on the severity. When employees

utilize technology for their personal gain, work production is reduced.

To combat excessive internet usage, software programs can reveal all of an employee’s

activities on the internet. These software programs can block certain websites, show duration of

time visited, and prevent downloading of files that carry viruses. Lane (2003) found ”Companies

EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE PRIVACY 6

are far more interested in software that can record the actual keystrokes made during the course

of the day by each employee, along with a record of websites visited, programs used, and in

some cases, the actions and movements of each employee's mouse” (chap 6). I have personally

witnessed employees shopping online, especially on cyber Monday. During the workday, I

observed some employees constantly post comments on Facebook, visit Instagram, and check

their private email. Computer monitoring software can even show how this impacts internet

bandwidth usage (Lane, 2003).

Frederick S. Lane (2003) stated:

“Employers can also choose to block other types of sites, ranging from general

entertainment to shopping to job search information. Websense [emphasis added]

provides filtering … for three different groups of materials:

Productivity management, which blocks advertisements, freeware/shareware downloads,

instant messaging, message boards and clubs, online brokerages and trading, and pay-to-

surf sites.

Bandwidth management, which blocks Internet radio and TV, streaming media, peer-to-

peer file sharing, personal network storage and backup, and Internet telephony.

Malicious websites.” (chap 6).

This includes making excessive personal calls and accessing personal email. Many

companies have policies that prohibit these types of activities. Usually companies will notify

employees that their phone calls and emails are being monitored. For instance, call centers will

prompt you with a recording that says, “This phone call may be recorded or monitored for

quality assurance purposes” (personal communication, January 24, 2015). Believe it or not

personal phone calls and emails used on a company’s network infrastructure can be subjected to

EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE PRIVACY 7

monitoring. Today many organizations configure their telephone system to their information

network.

Frederick S. Lane (2003) noted:

“The problem is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 allows a

‘system provider’ to access electronic communications like e-mail without liability.

There is a broad consensus that the provision covers commercial providers … but there is

some debate over whether it covers so-called employer-providers, i.e., a company that

creates and maintains its own internal e-mail system. By and large, however, most legal

analysts assume that a business that provides an internal e-mail system is a ‘systems

provider’ within the meaning of the statute, and therefore is free to examine e-mail on its

system” (chap 10).

To prevent being monitored by phone or personal email, employees use their cell phone to make

personal calls or access personal data. If employees are not following organizational policies,

then they should not feel violated when confronted with illegal actions of inappropriate usage.

Sexual harassment is subject many organizations have to deal with. It is mandatory for

organizations to provide sexual harassment training to all employees. Some organizations require

human resources to be involved by implementing a sexual harassment program which provides

ongoing training for employees. Sexual harassment issues are definitely justification for

monitoring emails sent over a company’s network. Human resources have to follow strict and

legal guidelines in order to assist management in time of such crisis. These emails are collected

and obtained for evidence. Any email that is transmitted or stored on a company’s network can

be analyzed. Computers maintain information regardless if you hit the delete key. Lane (2003)

stated all too often, material that you think you've deleted may still be somewhere on your hard

EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE PRIVACY 8

drive. The practical consequence is that this type of material can frequently be recovered by your

boss, a private investigator, a federal or a state prosecutor. This technique is used to protect the

employers against legal issues, since evidence is needed to prove misconduct through the use of

sexual explicit emails being transmitted using the company’s network.

Another sensitive method of monitoring employees is by drug testing. For example,

during job orientation a city worker had her employment terminated for refusing to take a routine

urinalysis upon accepting the job. “She felt an intrusion of privacy because being a new hire the

city should not suspected her of taking drugs” (America Civil Liberties Union, 2013). She

obtained a lawyer, went to court and won her case. However, private employers can enforce law

abiding drug testing program to promote a safe, drug free work environment. Also administering

drug testing should depend on the type of job, which may involve public safety, such as a

commercial truck driver, or airline pilot. One of the reasons employers insist on implementing a

drug testing program is to prevent incapacitated judgment which may cause injuries.

Human resource department is responsible for incorporating monitoring policies and to

provide reprimand guidance, as necessary. The human resource department serves as an

intermediary between employer and employee. Even though employees are being monitored at

work, they do have other options. They can show self-restraint by not allowing personal interests

to disrupt work productivity. Another method is to use the organization’s information technology

strictly for work purposes only. Employees can use their cell phone to access and discuss

personal matters. Employees do not have certain privacy rights when entering their workplace.

By ensuring all stakeholders benefit, employees should understand employers have a legal right

to use monitor and surveillance techniques to safeguard their business interests (Grunewald et

al., 2008).

EMPLOYEE WORKPLACE PRIVACY 9

References

American Civil Liberties Union. (2013). ACLU Challenges Key West’s Employee Drug Testing

Scheme. Retrieved from https://aclufl.org/2013/05/15/aclu-challenges-key-wests-

employee-drug

DesJardins, J., & Hartman, L. P. (2011). Business ethics: Decision Making for Personal

Integrity and Social Responsibility. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Gerhart, B., Hollenbeck, J.R., Noe, R. A., & Wright, P.M. (2014). Fundamentals of human

resource management. (fifth edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Grunewald, D., & Halpern, D., & Reville, P.J. (2008). Management and legal issues

regarding electronic surveillance of employees in the workplace. Business Ethics,

80, 175-180. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9449-6.

Lane, F. (2003). The naked employee: How technologies is compromising workplace privacy.

Retrieved from: http://common.books24x7.com.db08.linccweb.org.aspx? bookid-5191.