The Downside of Computer and Video Monitoring in the Workplace - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: Computer Sciences and Information Technology Employee Privacy Rights: The Downside of Computer and Video Monitoring in the Workplace ADiscussion Paper Name Course Title Name of Professor Date of Submission Introduction Privacy in the workplace has become a fiercely debated topic in the Human Resource management discipline as companies have more means accessible to monitor voice mail, computer units, and telephones. This issue of privacy has been stimulated by the greater application of different ‘electronic monitoring systems’, defined as “the computerized collection, storage, analysis, and reporting of information about employees’ productive activities” (Peters, 1999, 201). According to DeTienne (1993), “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” (as cited in Mishra & Crampton, 1998, 4). Due to these assessments, electronic surveillance and monitoring has been the target of many protests and deliberations. Employers install several forms of employee monitoring systems. Several of the most widely installed are video surveillance, which monitors worker safety, misbehavior, and theft; computer monitoring, which determines worker keystroke and precision; the active badge system, which identifies a worker’s position or location within the company; phone tapping, which monitor outgoing, incoming, and the number of worker phone calls; and spying, which makes use of detective or eavesdropping methods to investigate suspicious behavior and doings within the company (Mishra & Crampton, 1998). In spite of the current emergence of these sophisticated monitoring and surveillance systems, employee monitoring is known to the business field for a long time now (Peters, 1999). In fact, according to Losey (1994 as cited in Mishra & Crampton, 1998), employee monitoring has been used in manufacturing for a number of decades to monitor overall efficiency, inventory, and productivity. Before 1913, cyclometers, or automatic keystroke counters, and other techniques were applied for determining typing productivity, and ever since the 1920s monitoring of phone calls has been performed (Peter, 1999). What have developed recently are the supervision process and the level of accessible information gathering means. Even though younger, electronic monitoring is basically as interfering as customary supervision. The employee monitoring issue has surfaced in recent years due to the demands of employee privacy rights (International Labor Office, 1993). As companies want to track workers’ performance, workers do not want their private affairs, or restroom activities monitored. According to Privacy Invasions (1993), “American workers have almost no legal protection from employers who want to poke or prod into their personal lives” (as cited in Mishra & Crampton, 1998, 4). Progress in technology, monitoring systems, employer exploitation, and the absence of laws protecting workers have raised employee privacy issues. While workers commonly see monitoring as a privacy breach and a root of unnecessary job pressure, monitoring remains generally unchecked because companies or employers see it as a way to enhance quality, efficiency, integrity, and so on (Odgers, 2004). Because there are gains and losses to both employees and employers, the controversy over the use of surveillance and monitoring continues. Workplace professionals warn workers to have second thought before sending an e-mail at work. An unpleasant note about one’s manager, vulgar or rude pictures can raise dilemmas in the workplace. Even though workplace e-mail is almost everywhere and computer use has made employees more competent and productive, e-mail does record worker’s correspondences. Though the worker believes that the communication has been deleted, it can be recovered and it leaves something that can be detected since almost every e-mail is stored on the system server. Moreover, a lot of employers and companies have bought new e-mail security systems such as Mail Marshal to aid in their employee monitoring. Mail Marshal has the ability to “continuously scan employee e-mail for key words—everything from ‘performance review’ to managers’ names, to ‘sex’ and ‘jerk’” (Mcevoy, 2002, 69). Spector, another new program, can take snapshots of workers’ computer screens which privacy systems, like encryption, useless (Odgers, 2004). According to Mcevoy (2002), a current Computerworld study discovered that roughly 33 percent of all employers interviewed track their workers’ e-mail but there are those who assume that the number is roughly 50 percent and perhaps reached 80 percent by the end of 2001. The most controversial case of an employer’s disciplinary measure against workers for e-mail mishandling was the one related to the New York Times, which dismissed one employee in New York and twenty-three in Norfolk, Virginia (Mcevoy, 2002). During an investigation connected to an unemployment benefit program, the organization discovered several capably malicious e-mails a number of which had been forwarded or sent to other workers in the company. The finding resulted in the firings and the release of memos to other employees who had simply been the receivers of the unpleasant mails. Majority of those dismissed were senior employees (Mcevoy, 2002). Although the company disclosed that the e-mail contained lewd pictures and gags, workers called the contents ‘sophomoric’ (Mcevoy, 2002, 71). However, the company claimed that it had a duty to run a professional, safe, and clean workplace. Besides the company had a rule that specified (Odgers, 2004, 46): Computer communications must be consistent with conventional standards of ethical and proper conduct, behavior and manners and are not to be used to create, forward or display any offensive or disruptive messages, including photographs, graphics and audio materials. Numerous companies and employers assert that they have the right to prohibit private use of workplace computer units and to dismiss or castigate workers for e-mail communications that the company believes improper for the workplace. Companies are self-assured not simply because workers have usually failed to push their cases that allege violations of privacy, but because legislations state that since employers or companies own the computer units they can make rules supervising their use (Odgers, 2004). Since privacy allegations have been unsuccessful, some workers have consulted the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Besides safeguarding the rights of employees to form unions and associations the NLRA safeguards employees’ rights to correspond with one another about employment’s terms and conditions (Mcevoy, 2002). Numerous states have implemented laws obliging companies and employers to inform their workers if they perform electronic monitoring in the office. For instance, the Electronic Monitoring Act of Connecticut obliges employers to inform workers of the “nature and scope of the methods of surveillance the employer might use to conduct electronic monitoring” (International Labor Office, 1993, 45). Regardless if state legislation calls for notices or not, workers should be careful of using the Internet and e-mail in the office. There are numerous pending cases about the unknown areas on these employee privacy concerns. In employee privacy rights’ ladder, most secured are workers’ personal properties (e.g. wallets, car, etc.), and bodily fluids (International Labor Office, 1993). A smaller number of securities are given to company properties borrowed to employees for their personal use like mail, cubbyhole, cabinet, and desk. Least security is given to company properties that are used by several workers like e-mail, documents, and an office (Peters, 1999). Since e-mail is one of the least secured of employee privacy rights and there are many monitoring systems available to companies and employers, a worker’s greatest workplace issue should be improper e-mail. Conclusions Workers may not understand that the reality that e-mail is simple, easy, and quick makes it threatening to their jobs. The discussion above shows that e-mail should be used cautiously and that complying with policies and regulations should be prioritized by responsible employees. The law safeguarding both employees’ and employers’ rights in privacy issues remains in its formative years. Until there is more transparency and finality, companies and employers will have to take care of themselves in developing implementable rules for Internet and e-mail use. Workers, for their part, have a responsibility to work and act conscientiously and maturely when using the Internet and e-mail in the office, limiting their correspondences to professional or business issues or be ready to bear the consequences. Effective monitoring policies are needed so as to safeguard the rights of both workers and employers. Workers have a right to their personal information gathered through monitoring systems, whereas employers have to enforce proper control and management to guarantee a successful and competent workplace. References International Labor Office (1993). Workers’ privacy: Monitoring and surveillance in the workplace. Cornell University. Mcevoy, S. (2002). “E-Mail and Internet Monitoring and the Workplace: Do Employees Have a Right to Privacy?” Communications and the Law, 24(2), 69+ Mishra, J. & Crampton, S. (1998). “Employee Monitoring: Privacy in the Workplace?” SAM Advanced Management Journal, 63(3), 4+ Odgers, P. (2004). Administrative Office Management. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Educational Publication. Peters, T.A. (1999). Computerized Monitoring and Online Privacy. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company. Read More