A Right to Privacy in the Workplace - Research Proposal Example

Employee monitoring Inserts His/Her Inserts Grade Inserts 14 November 2008 Introduction The late Henry Ford, the force behind the world-famous automaker, Ford Motor Company, once said that quality means doing something right when no one is looking. To employers who would want to monitor their employees this may not make sense, but to those that embrace proper human resource management skills such as employee participation, the statement clearly holds water. It is beyond doubt that employees deserve privacy at the workplace as this adds impetus to their performance by increasing their freedom. In reference to this, what is the position of the employment law? According to Findlaw.com, the employment law entails all rights and commitments within the relationship between the employer and employee. This covers all aspects of the employees whether current employees former employees or job applicants. The law is emphatic on safety of the employee at the workplace in terms of privacy (“Findlaw.com”). Many employers would argue that monitoring of their employees by camera surveillance, computer monitoring, restriction of phone calls and emails is one way of increasing productivity of a firm, but this is only relative. Too much monitoring and supervision may create a situation where fear is instilled among the employees that their performance is retarded. In addition, employees may not be able to think on their own and bring new ideas, as they would always feel that they are subject to being controlled by their employer (Weckert, 2005). What are the employees’ rights at the work place? According to Findlaw.com, all employees have essential rights at the workplace, which range from the right to privacy, fair treatment, and liberty from discrimination. Employers would argue that monitoring their employees is not a form of discrimination, but looked at from an ethical point of view it is. For instance, an employer who monitors the use of personal phones or emails by the employees denies them the right to communicate to people outside the workplace. A point to note is that some messages may need to be delivered urgently. If employees are not allowed, receive their calls or the calls are vetted by the employer, this denies the employees their fundamental right to freedom. The right to privacy at the workplace entails freedom of keeping one’s own personal possessions, including bags and brief cases, and lockers which are accessible only by employees (Howard, 2006). Employees also deserve a right to be the only people who access their private emails. If the employer keeps on monitoring an employee’s personal effects such as email, the employees may even feel uncomfortable to communicate with friends of other people (Howard, 2006). However, the employer has a right to monitor the employee in case he or she uses a company’s resources to access facilities such as email (Howard, 2006). Impact of monitoring Findlaw.com notes employers may be justified to monitor the use of computer systems by employees since some actions by the employees may be detrimental to an organization’s image. For instance if an employee shares pornographic material with a colleague using a company’s computer the company may be liable to lawsuit by its clients (Howard, 2006). Irresponsible use of emails may lead to spreading or viruses and worms that could cost a company a fortune to clean. However, Weckert (2005) noted that if employees’ every single step on the computer is monitored, they develop a sense of being powerless and lose morale for work. Call monitoring involves the employer or a designated authority listening to live phone calls made or received by the employees and recording observations. While this may be a mechanism by the employer to ensure that the employees only receive relevant calls and limit unnecessary time-consuming talks, it is detrimental to the employees in terms of their performance (Weckert, 2005). Reid, Parsons, and Green (1989) noted that call monitoring might place unnecessary stress on the employees since they have the knowledge that they are always being monitored. In addition, according to Howard (2006), monitoring increases stress, leads to job dissatisfaction and develops a feeling of social isolation among employees. Video surveillance has become the most common form of monitoring since it does not require a lot of active participation by the person doing the monitoring process (Howard, 2006). It involves the use of various video cameras placed throughout the facility to enable employers to view their employees (Morgan). It has been argued that this form of monitoring gives the employer a chance to monitor the performance of the employees without bias (Howard, 2006). In addition, it also deters any attempts by employees to depict behavior that may not be in line with an organization’s regulations (Morgan). A disadvantage of video surveillance is that it causes a lot of stress of to employees. The thought of always being seen by the employer makes the employees overly uncomfortable (“Human Resource Internet Guide”). Being continually watched can make some employees develop a feeling that there is no trust between the management and employees (“Human Resource Internet Guide”). Video surveillance can also lead to higher stress levels for the employees. Since they would not like to be perceived as underperformers, they constantly work and worry about their performance (“Human Resource Internet Guide”). This type of stress could lead to poor working conditions that could lower the production of the company while demoralizing the employees. The employees may exhibit lack of control over tasks since they have reduced job variety. The fear of losing jobs makes the employees to strive to show that they are in control only to realize later that their efforts are not rewarded (“US Securities Exchange Commission”). Given the discussed consequences of monitoring to the employees, it is evident that most employees would want monitoring abolished. However, abolishing would not be the best remedy in the light of both employees and employer. Computer monitoring for example is a good strategy to ensure that employees do not have unauthorized access to a company’s details such as secretes and policies (Howard, 2006). Worth noting too is the fact that if employees are not monitored in their use of computers, they may engage in activities such as software piracy, retrieval of unsolicited internet material and sabotage of a company’s files (Howard, 2006). All these amount to losses in the light of the company involved. Another aspect that makes monitoring useful is the use of time. If employees were not monitored, they would spend a lot of time surfing the internet or making unnecessary calls, which only serve to increase the company’s expenditure at the expense of productivity. In addition, there is no law that strictly prohibits monitoring of employees. Employers may therefore view it constructive to implement monitoring in order to improve efficiency of their employees. For instance, it is legal for companies to monitor the use of their resources such as computers and telephones (Morgan). Conclusion In order to increase the productivity of companies, it is imperative that all avenues towards success be assessed. It not just about being concerned about employees’ rights, it is juggling between a good working environment and maximum productivity. Therefore, monitoring should not be totally abolished but should be done if deemed appropriate. Either way, both the employer and the employee have to be comfortable with the method used. In addition, if a company monitors employees’ use of company resources such as phones, then outsiders should be informed to avoid inconveniences. Monitoring is not necessarily a breach of privacy; it may be the way up the ladder for ambitious employers. References Findlaw.com.14 Nov. 2008. Employees Rights 101www.findlaw.com Howard, Gillian. Vetting and Monitoring Employees: A Guide for HR Practitioners. New York: Gower Publishing, Ltd., 2006 Human Resource Internet Guidewww.hr-guide.com Morgan, Kristin. Types of Employee-Monitoring Systems in the 14 Nov. 2008 Workplace. http://www.stfrancis.edu/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/btopics/works/monitoring1a.htm Reid, Dennis H.; Parsons, Marsha B. and Green Carolyn W. Staff Management in Human Services: Behavioral Research and Application. New York: Thomas, 1989 US Securities Exchange Commission.14 Nov. 2008 www.sec.gov Weckert, John,. Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace: Controversies and Solutions. New York: Idea Group Inc (IGI), 2005 Read More