analysis and a Table of Content for research paper
Dudeoutside
privacy_in_the_workplace.docxPrivacy in the Workplace
Although it is a common practice in many workplaces that employers possess a significant degree of freedom that is important to maintain the integrity of workplace and this freedom includes monitoring their employee as well. Yet to maintain a productive working environment and ensuring safety of the working place, it is mandatory that employers should maintain a certain degree of balance between their own interests and the interests of employees. Employee privacy has turned into quite a controversial issue and is widely debated by human resources departments. Furthermore the incorporation of technology such as use of computer generated softwares and devices have enhanced the efficiency of employee monitoring process. DeTienne reported that 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 (, 1993). Studies have confirmed that by the end of the decade, as many as 30 million people may be constantly monitored in their jobs (cited in Mishra and Suzanne). Due to the wide use of electronic monitoring techniques, Losey stated that Electronic monitoring and surveillance has been the subject of high media profile (cited in Mishra and Suzanne).
Numerous methods have been designed to perform employee’s evaluation during work time. These methods include computer monitoring, video surveillance, benefiting from a third party such as team of investigators, undercover operatives, spying, wiretapping (eavesdropping), E-mail and voice mail and the use of active badges. While all of these methods are applicable in a workplace, most employers make use of electronic monitoring. A survey conducted by the American Management Association in 1999 revealed that 45% of all U.S. companies conducted some sort of electronic surveillance at that time (2016). Computer monitoring is preferred in jobs like data entry. If monitoring is to be performed on waiters and mobile workers, use of active badges (individual monitoring) and CCTV footages (individual and collective monitoring) is widespread.
Video surveillance is referred to as the use of cameras is workplace. Some cameras are fixed to some major and noticeable places and in open areas whereas others might be hidden in order to provide secret surveillance information. According to a survey conducted by SHRM about 40% of respondents believe it is the employer's right to use video surveillance" (Losey, 1994).
Another rare but effective method of surveillance is to hire an employee that monitors the activities of other employees by posing as a friend. For instance Schultz reported in 1994 that K mart hired a team of investigators to pose as friends of other employees, have lunch with them and an occasional beer after work, offer help in moving to a new home, befriend coworkers and write reports about conversations in the workplace, even including the number of pitchers of beer ordered by each employee (cited in Mishra and Suzanne). K mart claimed such surveillance to prevent theft and drug related issues to employees. But such acts of monitoring are not favored by the employees as it is an example of direct invasion of their privacy.
Spying is also not prevalent act of employee evaluation because it may lead to false allegations. The spy may misunderstand something and that would badly affect the conduct of employee. Spying is a controversial method of monitoring and is not supported by many. There was a case in which a security guard of tower records in California was asked to spy two homosexual managers who were reported of performing indecent activities during work time. The guard was asked to tape phone calls and spy on their house as well. The guard refused and so he was forced to resign from his job. The news came out later when he resigned. In addition to spying, undercover operatives are hired by some companies that secretly investigate employees about other employees. An employee working as legal assistant in Portland Field contributed pain in her wrist, a medical issue, to excessive working on computer. But when another employee was investigated about her, it came out that she had an abortion which led to that pain. She provided wrong information to achieve medical benefits so the company to offer it saying that the pain was due to emotional disturbance as a result of abortion.
Employers make use of digital technology in order to look into the behavioral patterns of employee. This is referred to as following the “digital footprints”. From this term it means that the activities performed by employee over the internet such as using the email or using social media or any other platform, makes it easy for the employer to view content of the subject that employee discusses. Sometimes the employer puts together this electronic record of employee like pieces of a dominos in order to analyze and evaluate employee’s conduct and performance. The ways used by employers for monitoring their employees include analysis of telephone calls, emails, voicemails, computer terminals and online activities. MacWorld survey conducted in 1993 claimed that one out of every five U.S. companies admits they search employee electronic files (Pillar, 1993).
An employee’s computer terminal at workplace provides the employer an insight into his activities. Now there are multiple ways how this monitoring is performed. First and the most commonly employed way is installation of certain softwares by the employer in every computer which provides him with the data stored inside and running on-screen of employee’s computer. The data stored in hard drive is also open to the employer in the presence of such softwares. Furthermore the employer also gets continuous information about the internet usage by employee such as web surfing etc. Another way is that employers take into account that time during which the employee was not working on computer terminal rather, was sitting idle in his/her cubicle. Number of keystrokes per hour performed by the employee is also monitored by employers in some private settings. The employer then compares it with the standard number of keystrokes/hour during evaluation of performance of the employee. In fact the employer is able to see what the employee is doing over his/her computer terminal. It is because all the terminals are interconnected. This practice is more commonly followed in private sector where state rules are sometimes not levied. But in public sector there are straight rules as to what extent employer can interfere with the computer terminal of employee. The rights owned by employee are clearly writer under the privacy act of U.S. constitution.
Electronic monitoring is the recent advancement when it comes to employee monitoring. It is done by certain softwares that offer a computer generated spotlight over the employee. For employees working over computer, this software analyzes the number of mistakes per hour along with what is being performed and how much accuracy is present during typing. Danaan explained that with the use of a video display terminal (VDT), employers can monitor the number of mistakes per hour, stroke rate for each job, the number of jobs, the accuracy of what is being typed, and the speed of employee transactions (cited in Mishra and Suzanne). Electronic surveillance is preferred in many workplaces as it delivers unbiased information regarding the performance of worker. It prevents direct interaction of the employer and employee and makes the worker more comfortable during work time. It also evaluates the worker’s performance solely on the basis of time he devoted to work and upon the quality of work rather than on the opinion of employer. Electronic monitoring offers a distinct advantage to the employee: it is objective (Worsnop, 1993). Another advantage of implementing this approach is that the employee directly receives feedback electronically through a tape which also explains the working habits of employee, the mistakes he/she made during work and the changes that are needed to be made regarding work. Electronic monitoring can also be employed as a tool by the employees to evaluate their own work performance. For instance a study performed in 1998 by Christopher Early indicated that computer-based feedback has a greater impact on an employee's performance if he or she receives it directly from the system than if it is provided by a supervisor (DeTienne, 1993). An example of this opinion is that a man named Jim Sullivan began to work as a waiter at Dallas restaurant some years back. His performance was being watched by software and not by manager of the restaurant. The software was a digital sentinel that tracked every waiter’s movement and also recognized tickets and dishes and drinks in order to prevent employee theft. The information provided by software was detailed enough to display full working performance of an employee. As Mr. Sullivan’s performance was brilliant, the employer when opened a fourth restaurant at Dallas, he made Mr. Sullivan the manager of it. The importance of electronic monitoring here is that if Mr. Sullivan would’ve been observed by manager then his performance might not have conveyed appropriately to the employer. There might have biases while delivery of such information. So, Mr. Sullivan might not be a manager if it were only up to a person to evaluate his performance.
Where there are many advantages of electronic monitoring of the employee in terms of revenues, there are also certain disadvantages. For instance the comfort level of employee is disturbed by continuous surveillance. It generates stressful conditions and performance is also affected.
Stress during work time interferes with productivity. If an employee comes to know that he/she is being monitored by the boss all the time then there would be development of stress. Furthermore in this distress his/her mind will get deprived of the creativity and ideas that an employee has to offer in a working environment. The creation of "electronic sweatshops" leads to unneeded employee pressure and stress. Stressful working conditions related to monitoring include a heavy workload, repetitive tasks, social isolation, fear of job loss, and a lack of job involvement and personal control (Levy, 1994). In a study conducted at the Communication Workers of America, Smith (1992) concluded that the monitored employees reported higher workload, less workload variation and greater workload dissatisfaction than the unmonitored employees. The monitored employees also reported less control over their jobs.., less fairness of their work standards and more frequent interactions with difficult customers. Another evidence to support this argument is that at AT&T, where computer monitoring is used extensively, at least 25% of the workforce is involved in job counseling for work-related emotional disorders (Pai, 1997). An example of work related stress development is provided by a TWA reservation agent who was constantly monitored for about 30 years of her working life. She admitted the fact that her health was adversely affected by the increasing levels of stress and her work also suffered due to it. She claimed “I suffered nausea, severe sleep disturbance, weakened eyesight, mental confusion, headaches, muscle aches, exhaustion, and lymph node pain" (Worsnop, 1993). It is evident from these researches that employees do demand privacy. It may include taping of the telephone records, reluctance to allow monitoring of emails etc. If such circumstances prevail and monitoring is made obligatory then employer should develop clear cut policies regarding the extent to which privacy will be offered to the employees. In the absence of such standard procedures employee won’t feel comfortable to work.
Privacy issues are very rarely reported in settings headed by the government. The reason for such a huge difference between public and private sector is that there are straight laws regarding the degree of freedom that has to be offered to the employees in public sector. On contrary, employees serving the private sector enjoy very little freedom because in most of the cases, employers have their own reservations. In order to evaluate the limitations of employees and employers regarding privacy, we need to look into the monitoring details.
Constitution claims four common laws that are applicable in both the public and private setting. For instance the employee may come across such invasion by the employer where the employer searches locked cabinets or lockers. Or the employer conducts surveillance in such areas which are quite private like dressing rooms etc. Another type of invasion may include asking inappropriate questions from the employee like sexual orientation etc. Another law safeguards the private life of employee which permits the employee to legally take action against the employer in private sector as well. This includes the situation where employer discloses such facts about the employee that were quite private and the employee wouldn’t give permission to disclose them in front of a huge audience. Another law is that where the employer falsely alleges the employee to be involved in criminal activities whereas the employee has no such activity. So, false allegations on part of the employer also provide advantage to the employee. Last law offers the employee to have full authority upon permitting the use of his/her photograph in business brochures, pamphlets etc.
Concluding the above explanation, one can say that there are limitations of rights of both the employee and the employer. Where surveillance is beneficial to the employer, it is annoying to the employee. It is the right of employer to monitor behavior and performance of employees in the workplace but there are certain rules as to what extent this monitoring should be carried out. Physical searching of the employee is not permissible. However watching his work related activities is not violation of law. Video surveillance of a particular employee is not permissible. If the employer wants to keep an eye, he/she should do it for all the employees. If the employer hires a third party to perform analysis of the employee’s background and performance, it is mandatory for the employer to take consent of the employee. According to law (ECPA Title II) the intentional inspection of emails and oral communication is prohibited. All these laws are created to preserve the integrity of employee at work. They also define the working boundaries of employer. In addition these laws enable employees to perform in a more effective manner.
Works Cited
Amick, B. C., and M. J. Smith. Stress, Computer-based Work Monitoring and Measurement Systems: A Conceptual Overview. Applied Ergonomics (1992). Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
Danaan, S. Stories of Mistrust and Manipulation: The Electronic Monitoring of the American Workforce. Cleveland, OH: 9to5, Working Women Education Fund (1990). Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
DeTienne, K. B. Big brother or friendly coach? The Futurist (1993). Web, 19 Apr. 2016.
"Fact Sheet 7: Workplace Privacy and Employee Monitoring." Privacyrights.org. Privacy Rights Clearing House, 1993. Web. 2016. <https://www.privacyrights.org/workplace-privacy-and-employee-monitoring>.
Levy, M. Electronic monitoring in the workplace: Power through the panopticon. (1994). Web. 19. Apr 2016. http://bliss.berkeley, edu/impact/students/mike/mike -paper, html
Losey, M. R. Workplace privacy: Issues and implications. USA Today (1994). Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
Mautner, Gail E., Nancy W. Anderson, Sarah E. Haushild, and Lane Powell Spears Lubersky. "Privacy in the Workplace." Comp. Mary Schug. 206-223-7099 (2011). Web. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. <http://www.lanepowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/mautnerg_002.pdf>.
Mishra, Jitendra, and Suzanne Crampton. "Employee Monitoring: Privacy in the Workplace?" SAM Advanced Management Journal 63.3 (1998). Online. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. <http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/SAM-Advanced-Management-Journal/21160636.html>.
Nash, Jonathan Remy. Workplace Privacy: Proceedings of the New York University 58th Annual Conference on Labor. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2010. Print. 978-90-411-3163-8.
Pillar, C. Bosses with x-ray eyes. MacWorld (1993). Web. 19 Apr. 2016.
