Off-Duty Conduct and Its Effects on the Privacy of Employees - Research Paper Example

Introduction Today, in the age of social media, employees and employers have greater visibility even after working hours. Employers often want to control employee relations on or off-duty. Employers have been observed to keep track of employees personal behaviors post their working hours, which reduces the privacy of employees. There are several things like drug tests and alcohol tests that are required in order to balance the working environment of an organization. However, entering an employee’s private zone after their working hours is unethical and there are several laws in place, which provides information about the grounds on which employees can be monitored off-duty. It is also reasonable from an employer’s perspective to keep track of their employees if there is lack in quality of work. This research paper focuses on the current issues related to off-duty conduct and its effects on the privacy of employees. Analysis Employers have the technological means to find out, what workers do in their own time. However, the right to monitor employees’ personal conduct is limited based on the employees’ rights under law and specific rules. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), an employer is not supposed to conduct any kind of surveillance on employees during any gatherings off-duty1. If employees discuss about their workspace and their job related issues in union activities, it should not be made public by employers. Instead employers should keep away from social activities of employees if it is out of their interest. According to law, if an employer sends a supervisor to overhear on group discussions or private meetings then he is violating the rules set up by the NLRA. Similarly, the guidelines set by NLRA also states that Drug Testing should only be performed if any suspicious activity is recorded during working hours. NLRA states that drug testing has the potential to reveal an employee’s use of drug outside the office so it has been subjected to private litigation. The employers may face challenges on this stand because there are many employees who do-not perform their work properly. There may be several reasons behind it, including consumption of drugs before working hours. The employees may not react or let employers know that they are biased by drugs and employers many have to accept the low quality performance of employees. The Drug Testing in most of the organizations is conducted before joining of an employee or during any suspicious cases. For Example, if an applicant failed to pass the drug test in Walmart, then the authority has the right to terminate employee according to the off-duty employee conduct2. The law that protects the interest of employees in this ground is not appropriate because it can let the moral value of an organization and the society to go down. There are several issues that organizations face in the present circumstances related to consumption of drugs before or after working hours. The consumption of drugs is illegal in almost every country, hence it should not be allowed after working hours of organizations as well. Employers and employees would be able to work in a healthy and safe environment if drug tests are conducted on a regular basis. The recent facts about some organizations broadly signify the regulation of off-duty employee conduct. In Morgan Stanley, there has been an announcement in the year 2013 regarding the usage of social media. Morgan Stanley allowed more than 17000 financial advisors to use LinkedIn and Twitter. The organization took this step after looking forward to customer interest on these specific social networking websites. Morgan Stanley had strict regulations previously regarding the usage of social networking during office hours3. Moreover, the organization used to keep track of their employees by checking information about them in their respective social networking websites. The employer group was very conservative regarding social interactions even after office hours however the advancement in technology and public interest has let Organizations like Morgan Stanley to change their perspective and move forward. According to Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, companies should review their obligations under data protection laws in Europe. However, the announcement from Morgan Stanley includes risks regarding their company data going public. Despite the facts, the organization made an attempt to change their working environment and trust their employees regarding their work. Another important incident occurred on November 2013, when an employer was held liable in Texas for making effort to control an employee after office hours. The employer knew his driver was intoxicated and sent him home directly after his work4. The reasons action against the employer was to let the driver drive his vehicle even after knowing he was intoxicated. This shows that there are strict laws in place in Texas regarding employee management. If an employee is suspected to be intoxicated before his regular working hours, he should be immediately tested for drug and alcohol tests. If the procedure is not performed appropriately then employer should be charged based on the incident. Apart from these issues, there are certain other factors employers should keep in mind regarding employee off-duty conduct. Though smoking is injurious to health and it is not allowed in public places but employers should not make attempts to keep surveillance of employee actions regarding smoking or drinking after office hours. Employees have their personal life and according to law-making bodies in many countries employees should not be charged while they are off-duty5. During the office hours the adherence of organizational rules should be implemented however after office hours any kind of union or conduct of employees, employers should not interfere in the social life of their employees. There are some instances wherein employers’ surveillance has proved to be beneficial. For example, interference of employers in private life of employees, who are drug-addicted, might be beneficial. Employees might be provided with appropriate treatment regarding stress management and psychological sessions which could help them quit consumption of drugs, if employers keep surveillance on suspected employees. Discussion From the analysis it is clear that employees have their personal social life that should not be hampered by employers. Employers should be bothered about the working environment of their organization during office hours. Employees’ personal life after office hours should not be hampered by employers as it can lead to loss of faith as well as employment. Drug test should only be conducted during office hours if a person is suspected to be under the influence of any drug. On the other hand, employers can get in touch with their employees regularly in order to be assured about positive employee actions during office hours. According to the National Labor Relations Act, private sector organizations may restrict an employer’s ability to terminate an employee for providing any comments in social media6. Moreover it also restricts employer’s surveillance over employee’s private information without proper approval from the employee. Smoking in public places is a social offence and govern and the police department should be responsible for taking actions instead of an employer. The most important restriction that National Labor Relations Act has incorporated is that employers must not interfere during any social union of employees after office hours. Employees have the right to discuss about their concerns within an organization. Apart from the Federal law there is another law in place that protects the employee’s off-duty conduct. In United States the state and local laws play very important role in preserving employees’ interest. For an example, in Colorado, employers can-not terminate employees if they are engaged in any lawful activity unless the activity is directly related to occupational requirement. Similarly, in Montana employers can-not refuse hiring of employees if they consume tobacco or alcohol7. According to the laws employees should not take tobacco or alcohol during working hours however post working hours they are allowed to do the same. Employers also have specific responsibilities regarding employee management. Employers should keep track of performance of every employee. If an employee is not showing improvement then employers must not put surveillance on his private life. However, employers should take legitimate action if an employee is caught consuming tobacco or alcohol during office hours. The social gatherings of union can be taken care of differently by employers in order to assure successful and smooth running of an organization8. Conclusion Based on the analysis and discussion, it can be stated that privacy of employees is an important factor in smooth running of the working environment of an organization. Employers should keep track of actions performed by employees during office hours. However, after office hours employers should not restrict employees from any social unions. The access to social media is very important in the modern world because it enhances the working atmosphere. Employers must not incorporate any surveillance methods in the private domain of employees. The off-duty conduct of employees like smoking and drinking should not be restricted by employers because it can affect the personal life of employees. The laws incorporated by federal agencies and state agencies must be followed by employers and employees in order to assure smooth working of organization. Previously, due to restrictions from employers loss of employment have been observed, which was unethical. Hence employers should take a stand in favor of employee privacy. Works Cited Calder, Luis. “The Emergence of Employees Privacy Rights: Smoking and the Workplace”. The labor lawyer 32.4 (2012): 12. Print. Fairweather, Nathan. “Surveillance in employment: The case of Tele-working”. Journal of business ethics 12.1 (2012): 16. Print. Finkin, Mark. “An Excursion Through Strange Terrain: Chapters 6 (Defamation) and 7 (Privacy and Autonomy)”. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal 2.1 (2012): 17. Print. Foohey, Peter. “Untold Stories”. American employment law 1.1 (2013): 4. Print. Gonzalez, Eric. “Internal social medias impact on socialization and commitment”. Journal about socio-cultural development 12.2 (2012): 8. Print. Levin, Aaron. “Blurred Boundaries: Social Media Privacy and the Twenty‐First‐Century Employee”. American Business law 8.1 (2013): 19. Print. Mello, John. “Balancing Management Prerogatives and the Rights of Organized Labor under the National Labor Relations Act: The Ongoing Saga” Association of employment practices and principles 2.1 (2010): 2. Print. Reha, Jerome. “The law of trade secrecy and covenants not to compete in Colorado-Part ii”. Colorado Lawyer 28.2 (2011): 8. Print. Read More