Employees should decide on what information to surrender to employers - Essay Example

?RUNNING HEAD: EMPLOYEES SHOULD DECIDE ON WHAT INFORMATION TO SURRENDER TO EMPLOYERS Employees Should Decide on What Information to Surrender to Employers Student Name School Date Employees Should Decide on What Information to Surrender to Employers Privacy and Privacy Intrusion According to Ferdinand Schoeman (1984, p. 3, as cited in Persson & Hansson, 2003), “A person has privacy to the extent that others have limited access to information about him, limited access to the intimacies of his life, or limited access to his thoughts or his body” (p. 61). Privacy encompasses the body, mind and possessions (Persson & Hansson, 2003). Employment is an individual’s source of livelihood. An individual, from the time of his or her application for work up to the moment of employment is required by the employer to provide personal information. The employer determines which information the employee should divulge. Not supplying certain data may mean termination from work. An applicant for a position may even be excluded from the list of qualified candidates by not providing the information asked by the employer. But should the employers determine which type of information the employees should reveal to the employer or the former have the right to do so. Requiring a worker to reveal personal information would be tantamount to a transgression of the privacy of the person if not work related. Employers, on the other hand, can insist that they have the right to require some information since they have to know more about the person they are hiring to work for them. Through such information, they can determine if their interest and investments would be safe from such person. Infringement into the privacy of an employee involves an ethical and legal issue. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution explicitly guarantees the right of people to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Doyle, 2010, p. 2). Intrusion into the privacy of an employee must be justified from the start and related to the subject of the intrusion that would warrant the justification (Narducci v. Moore, 2009, as cited in Doyle, 2010). Sources of Information There are many types of information that can be taken from an individual. The usual procedure in getting information from an individual is through a form that asked for simple data such as the name of the applicant, address or status. Usually, a job applicant has to fill all the blanks that require specific information, otherwise the application will not be entertained. The employer may use these data for the background investigation of the applicant prior to hiring. Persson and Hansson (2003) mentioned three other sources of information, which are drug testing, genetic testing and surveillance, all of which are related to privacy issue. Genetic testing has two forms, genetic screening (which identifies “possible genetic predispositions” to diseases caused by chemicals) and genetic monitoring (which identifies diseases that resulted from chemical exposure in the work area) (Persson & Hansson, 2003, p. 59). Genetic testing may result to a social stigma although the employee does not actually develop the disease (Brady, 1995, as cited in Persson & Hansson, 2003). An individual can also be subjected to the “Hitler mentality” wherein those who do not fit the perfect race concept will become outcast in society (Brady, 1995, p. 52, as cited in Persson & Hansson, 2003, p. 60). Other information may not be as permanent as the genetic code, such as the personal items brought into the office, or the movement of the employee within the company premises. The latter case will fall under the third category mentioned by Persson and Hansson (2003), which is surveillance. The “smart” ID badges, for instance, can track down the whereabouts of a person anywhere within the building (Persson & Hansson, 2003). Tracking an employee while answering the call of nature would be irrelevant for the employer. And at that moment, the employee should be granted privacy although he or she is still within company premises. The employee may also leave personal belongings in the workstation that he or she could use for personal needs, and may include personal contacts and addresses. These things are not job-related and therefore, should not be pried upon by the employer or his representatives. Intrusion into such personal belongings would require seeking prior consent from the employee. Balancing of Interests Personal information, whether biological, genetic or otherwise is a sensitive matter. Unauthorized collection of information infringes upon the rights of an individual. Moreover, whether collection of information is authorized or not, it can be subjected to misuse and abuse. Thus, gathering of information must be guided by criteria in order that all parties concerned will be amply protected. Persson and Hansson (2003) said that in information gathering, three parties are involved – the employer, the employee and third parties. The intrusion into the privacy rights of an employee would be substantiated based on three justifications, which are: for the interest of the employer, the interest of the employee and that of a third party (Persson & Hansson, 2003). Monitoring of email messages of employees is another controversial aspect in ethical practice in business. An employer cannot simply pry into the email messages of employees even though the latter uses company computers in sending and receiving emails. Opening of private messages and reading through them violates the right to privacy of persons. The emails might contain some sensitive information that only the employee should know. The IT or MIS department of a company can have access to all connected computers within company premises, and can have access to all information stored in any computer. There are instances when an employee has to open his or her email account when an important family matter has to be attended to. The employer though may give a warning that personal emails should not be accessed during working hours. When there is such a notice, the employer can check the personal email messages since the worker has violated company policy. Employers are required to provide a safe work environment, which is free from drugs and harassment (Shumaker, 2003). To achieve this, the employer has to impose some level of monitoring, which can be too invasive as to transgress one’s privacy or very lax that could cause negligent hiring court case (e.g. hiring a person with fictitious credentials causes harm to another) (Shumaker, 2003). The background investigation performed by the employer upon the personal life of an employee which is non-job related violates privacy rights (Shumaker, 2003). A rejected applicant may file a case against the employer if the former later learned of such intrusive investigation (Shumaker, 2003). Thus, privacy-intrusive background investigations should be done with prior consent of the subject individual (Shumaker, 2003). Certain job positions would need specific character requirements so that the interest of the employer would not be placed at risk. The good moral character of a person can be verified by checking previous criminal records (Shumaker, 2003). Propensity to criminal acts cannot be readily known but the employer may be able to determine it through a background check. In this case, if the employee is allowed to limit which information to provide to the employer, another’s interest and property, or even physical body might be harmed. Besides the regular procedure wherein information is provided by an employee through a form, other information can be taken from biological specimens. The urine sample, for instance, can be used for other laboratory testing other than the normal urinalysis procedure (Cantoria, 2011). An employee may not know if the urine sample is used for drug testing (Cantoria, 2011). The urine sample may also be used to know the illness of a person. Using the sample for drug testing or determining the illness of a person is a violation of privacy (Cantoria, 2011). The fact that the result of drug testing may be subject to error or rigging that reveals a person to be a drug user (even if not true) is a violation of the due process of law. If the employee is terminated based on such testing which is conducted without his or her consent, the employee can have recourse by filing a suit against the employer. Thus, if urine testing is done for a stated purpose, the employer should utilize the specimen only for that purpose. The employer must also inform the employee if the sample will be used for any other purposes. On the part of the employee, he or she may refuse and not grant one’s consent to use the sample for other purposes. In this case, the employee has the right which information he or she can reveal to the employer. The use of illicit drugs is prohibited by law. And the employer would not hire a drug user or one addicted to drugs. In pursuance with the intent of keeping the workplace drug-free, the employer may impose drug testing as part of the hiring process (Cantoria, 2011). Moreover, the employer must inform the applicant about the procedure used in the test (Cantoria, 2011). For a continuing drug testing, the employees must also be informed that random testing will be conducted at unannounced dates (Cantoria, 2011). An employee cannot question such testing if he or she wants to remain working with the company. It is a company prerogative to impose drug testing so that company premises and other personnel will remain safe within the company. However, the testing procedure should be applied equally and uniformly among all the personnel (Cantoria, 2011). Refusal by Employee to Provide Information The right of the employee to determine which information to provide the employer should be regarded as proper. Otherwise, he or she shall be subjected to abuse. The employer has all the means to obtain information from the worker even without his or her knowledge. The employer can even get information outside the premises by hiring private background investigators. If an employee would not subscribe to the imposition of the company to wear smart ID cards within the premises, this can be a ground for termination. The worker then has to choose whether to wear smart badges or lose one’s means of livelihood. But in a limited sense, the worker can choose which type of information he or she can reveal to an employer. When the nature of intrusion is not job-related, the worker may justifiably refuse to release personal data. When his body specimens (urine or blood) are used for other testing besides the routine procedure, the worker can later on complain. In these instances, the worker can avail of administrative remedy in the company’s grievance procedure and the courts of law by filing a suit. An employee is still a person with rights, and does not lose one’s individuality upon acceptance into a company. He or she does not become a property of the employer. Even in the workplace which obviously belongs to the employer, the employee is still entitled to privacy. For instance, when an employee receives an emergency call from home, the employer does not need to know the nature of the call unless the employee wants to reveal it. Private messages between two employees should also not be transgressed by the employer. As in the previous argument, employees do not become properties of the company after they become employees. As social human beings, communication and interaction are part of the social process. Personal exchanges should not be interfered with or intercepted by the employer with the intent of knowing what the workers are communicating with each other. Personal communication within company premises that does not interfere with productivity, performance or functions of the workers should not be subjected to surveillance, especially if those are personal in nature and does not involve the company or its representatives. An employee has indeed a right to decide which information to pass to the employer in a limited sense. Moreover, the information must be job-related and relevant to a person’s capacity to perform the tasks and functions to justify employer’s action on requiring some information. And in all instances that the employer will extract personal data or information from an employee, there must be prior consent, an established procedure in doing it, and applied equally to everyone without discrimination. References Cantoria, C.S. (2011). Business Ethics and Drug Testing in the Workplace. Richter, L. (ed.). Bright Hub. Retrieved 14 March 2011, from http://www.brighthub.com/office/human-resources/articles/106337.aspx Doyle, D. (2010, July 28). Public Employees’ Right to Privacy in their Electronic Communications: City of Ontario v. Quon in the Supreme Court. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 16 March 2011, from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41344.pdf Persson, A.J. & Hansson, S.O. (2003). Privacy at Work Ethical Criteria. Journal of Business Ethics, 42, 59-70. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Shumaker, T.A., (2003, November). Employee privacy versus employer rights: it's easy to invade employees' privacy, and suffer the legal consequences, if you're not careful. Here's how to be careful. Health Publications. Bnet. Retrieved 14 March 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3830/is_11_52/ai_n6065762/ Read More