Workplace Surveillance - Essay Example

?Workplace Surveillance Introduction Within any given organization, the need to ensure maximum ethical practice as a way of creating and uploading tothe organization’s corporate culture is very important and relevant. Ethical uprightness indeed has the power of leading to long term growth and development of any given organization because it could serve as a means of competitive advantage for the organization in question (Ababio, 2009). To uphold to ethics therefore, many are the organizations who have adapted to the use of workplace surveillance. Though many justify the practice, the writer holds the view that workplace surveillance is not an appropriate way of achieving ethical uprightness and that it infringes on basic human rights of workers. Background Workplace surveillance has been practiced in most parts of America for quite some time now. The practice has indeed been replicated in many parts of the world. In Australia for instance, it is on record that workplace surveillance is backed by the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 under the New South Wales Consolidated Acts (Australasian Legal Information Institute, 2012). In practice, workplace surveillance permits employers and managers to monitor the activities and operations of their employees, purposely by the use of technological tools. It is not surprising therefore that computer surveillance, under which there is internet surveillance and desktop surveillance happens to be the commonest forms of surveillance commonly in practice in most organizations. The Opposition The writer holds the view that the purported reason for undertaking workplace surveillance to regulate the working activities of workers in order to bring about adherence to workplace ethics is a misuse of the system. The opposition view would therefore say that it is appropriate to have workplace surveillance to ensure organizational ethics. The following sections presents a two sided debate whereby the strength and weaknesses of the opposition claims are outlined as against the warrants of the substantive claim. The strengths and weaknesses of opponents’ claim The major strengths in the opposition claims include the fact that no all people can be trusted to on their own put up good behavior and guide against such behavior as pilfering, rudeness towards customers and irresponsible use of working hours. For this reason, workplace surveillance would just be appropriate to put everyone under check. There could also be a merit of workplace surveillance whereby it puts everyone equal before the law and fights against partiality in the sense that once the system is used, each and every individual comes under the surveillance. This is especially so when sophisticated cameras and other technological tools are used (Logan, 2009). These merits not withstanding, the use of cameras and other equipment to watch the everyday steps of workers at the workplace clearly infringes on their privacy (Robinson, 2012). Yet again, the theory of behaviorism provides that the conscience of people to select good morals is better shaped if the people are nurtured to select such attitudes by themselves (Privacy Right Clearinghouse, 2012). This is indeed a major contradiction to the principle of workplace surveillance. The effect of the forceful nature of getting people to be ethical would therefore be that in a situation whereby the systems break down or for whatever little opportunity people get, they would abuse the system and make multiple mistakes of all that they intended to do but did not have the chance to do because of surveillance. Present claim The point is therefore being reiterated again that workplace surveillance is an extreme way of checking for ethical practice at the workplace and thus it is inappropriate. If indeed the figurative saying that there are several ways of killing a cat is true, then it is important that work input and output be monitored but this should take a different dimension other than the use of surveillance technology. Warrants for claim and the opposition The warrant for the present claim is that nurturing should always be at the center of human training. As part of the duties and responsibilities of human resource managers, they should be in a position to foster good morals and ethics in their employees and workers. This should be done through a consented approach whereby compliers to the rules would out of personal will appreciate the need for them to comply. Importantly, people who out of their personal will accept the need to remain ethical at the workplace would continue to do that as long as they remain at the workplace and under any circumstance at all that they find themselves. Contrary, someone who is made to comply by force would always be looking for a way out. Again, human resource persons are admonished of the use of basic organizational motivational strategies to win the hearts of their employees instead of resorting to workplace surveillance. Clearly, a well motivated worker would always be seeking for ways to pleasing his or her manager and the last thing that such a person would do would be to show acts that are unethical (Putnam, 2012). Freedom at the workplace should therefore be paramount whiles still trying to achieve maximum ethical practice. Conclusion In conclusion, there has been every indication that there is a common ground of argument whereby the need for strict ethical practice at the workplace has been embraced. This is because ethical practice is a core technique for winning and maintaining a very large customer base. The need for workers and their efforts to be monitored has also been embraced as a positive move. However, the claim continues to be that if people must be positive in their dealings, they have to do so out of their own will. Human behavioral techniques should therefore replace technology based workplace surveillance. REFERENCE LIST Ababio, Richard. Modern Ethics and Organisational Development. New Oriens Press Limited: Accra. 2009. Print. Australasian Legal Information Institute. Workplace Surveillance Act 2005. 2012. Web. April 15, 2012 Logan, Irene L. Issues of Contemporary Workplace Monitoring. 2009. APUS, Press Series: Harcourt Brace, Vol 2 No. 5. Privacy Right Clearinghouse. Workplace Privacy and Employee Monitoring. Facts Sheet 7. 2012. APUS Database. Web. April 15, 2012 Putnam, Mark S. Workplace Surveillance: Making You More Ethical or Just Scared? 2012. Global Ethical University. Web. April 16, 2003 Robinson, Allens A, Workplace Surveillance Act. 2005. APUS Database. Web. April 15, 2012 Read More