Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
To: Chief Executive Officer
From: Full Names
BUSINESS MEMO
EMPLOYEE MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE
The advent of technology has improved the methods used employee in monitoring to include surveillance techniques. To protect organizational resources, managers use monitoring and surveillance in the process of human resource management. However, surveillance on employee poses a big ethical issue that is rejected as an infringement on the privacy of employees. Despite the ethical debate, companies have come up with various ways of monitoring their staff members. This memo will explore the ethical issue of surveillance on employees as part of employee monitoring to determine whether it is ethical for businesses to do.
The issue of employee surveillance attracts not only the ethical debate, but also the legality of the methods used. Employees feel that surveillance is an encroachment on their right to privacy (Bassick et al, 2010). In rejecting surveillance and monitoring, the employees argue that they have a right to privacy, which is true. On the other hand, the employers claim that only surveillance can deter the employees from using workplace resources for their personal activities. At the same time, the managements seek to protect company resources (Bassick et al, 2010). For instance, if a company is publicly traded, the management will ensure that every employee adheres to the rules by using surveillance. They might decide to monitor the emails and phone calls of their employees.
The management insists that the practice aims at improving productivity and reducing goods siphoning. The debate lies in the issue regarding whether the employees really need their privacy or they just want space to engage in various malpractices (Mujtaba, 2015). The businesses that keep surveillance on their employees have argued that all new employees are notified of the practice. To affirm their position further, they claim that the surveillance issue is clearly stipulated in the employment contract.
Their argument is that employees know that they are being watched and therefore, the said surveillance is not tantamount to invasion of privacy. Employees, on the other hand, argue that, usually, they are not aware of the clause when they sign the contract (Bassick et al, 2010). This raises the question of whether some new employees are too lazy to read the employment contract before signing it. Another group proposes that new employees should be notified by word of mouth, since most of them fall victim to surveillance- related- dismissal. In the United States, only two states require the employer to inform the employees before monitoring them. The employers in the other states do it out of courtesy.
The methods used in the surveillance of employees have what largely led to the ethical concern. One of the methods used in employee surveillance is computer monitoring. According to MacDonald (2014), research has found out that employers monitor the internet usage and emails of their employees using the following methods. 45% of the employers track content, time spent and keystrokes, 43% review computer files, 12% monitor the blogosphere and 10% monitor social media sites (MacDonald, 2014). Monitoring and surveillance also take other forms, including, tapping of telephone calls and voicemail, video surveillance, and using Global Positioning satellite (GPS).
As expected, employee surveillance has been a blessing to the employers, but a curse to the employees. In the same survey, it emerged that 30% of the employers have fired their workers because of internet misuse. Video surveillance is also another option. However, employees hold the opinion that if an email is addressed to their name, then the management has no right to read it.
The Magnitude of the issue
The issue is big because none of the warring parties is willing to relent. Employers and employees alike feel like they are on the right regarding this issue. Employers cite an increase in productivity since the introduction of employee monitoring and surveillance (Ferrell et al, 2015). Civil society groups argue that it will not be long before the employers take away another civil right from their workers (Bassick et al, 2010). They urge the public to stand up for their rights if they want a brighter future for their children. The issue is big enough to form the subject of debate in many media outlets.
The issue has also seen the corridors of justice for some time now. In 2010, a case regarding city of Ontario V. Quon questioned the legality of going through the communication devices of employees that the employer has provided them (Privacy Rights, 2015). The government was seeking permission to search the pager of Quon, a police officer, to determine whether he had used the device for personal messages. The issue reached the Supreme Court that ruled in favor of the government. The state found that Quan’s pager contained sexually explicit messages. He was relieved of duty.
Is the issue growing or decreasing?
As it stands, more businesses and government agencies are adopting the culture of employee surveillance. The surveillance software programs have become cheap and readily available. Unlike before when surveillance was the preserve of blue chip companies, it is now common to find CCTV cameras installed in small businesses (Bassick et al, 2010). The government has advanced its monitoring system too. In some cases, it is a requirement for police officers to have a body camera every time they are on official duty. The camera that records both video and audio has incriminated many police officers during the investigation on police brutality. This is a form of employee surveillance, but on the government side
Lobby groups advocating for employee privacy are gaining ground by the day. The groups have managed to convince employees that surveillance and monitoring are a violation of their privacy. The number of employees opposed to this practice is growing and the legislature too is increasing its involvement in this issue. Although it has not passed a specific law prohibiting employers from monitoring their workforce, it has put regulations to the extent to which employers can exercise surveillance.
Personal thoughts
Personally, I support the monitoring and surveillance of employees by their employers, but for formal protection of organizational resources. Bassick et al (2010) found out that since companies started monitoring the internet usage of their employees, it emerged that 45% of the employees wasted time on social media, porn sites, personal communication and shopping websites. It is morally wrong to receive payment for a job not done. Besides, accessing some of these put the company at risk of losing vital information to hackers (Bassick et al, 2010). For the sake of data security and employee productivity, business should keep monitoring the internet usage of their employees.
The business owns the resources and therefore has the right to determine their usage. The only way to establish if the employees are using the resources as per the business regulations is through monitoring. Research shows that some employees use business resources for their personal benefit. Some unscrupulous employees will use the business telephone to make lengthy calls to their friends and family (Ferrell et al, 2015). The results are exorbitant phone bills that do not correlate to the productivity of the employee in question. The same scenario applies to employees that use the company’s means of transport to reach personal destinations. However, if the business explains that it will be monitoring its resources, it will act as a deterrent to misuse of company resources.
Employers have the right to know what the employee has been doing throughout the working day. They can achieve this by looking at the phone destinations of the employees, their emails and surveillance footage of their movement within the organization (Bassick et al, 2010). No employer would want to pay someone that goofs around the workplace barely doing what their job specifies.
The employers also need to protect the interests of third parties such as the authorities, clients, shareholders, suppliers and creditors. The employer is liable for the actions of the employees in accordance with third parties. It is only responsible of the employer to ensure that the employees engage third parties in a professional manner to prevent lawsuits or loss of business.
The way forward regarding the Issue
For employee surveillance and monitoring to proceed in harmony, there is a need for limitations on the extent to which the employer can intrude the employee’s privacy. Personal computers, cell phones, pagers, and emails should be out of bounds during monitoring. In the same vein, employers should not pry the private social media pages of their employees. It is wrong for an employer to fire somebody because of what they wrote on their private social media page during their personal time.
It is only fair that the employers inform their employees whenever they intend to monitor their activities. That way, employees will be doing their work with the full knowledge of their employer’s eyes on their back. Surveillance without notice is entirely wrong. It shows that employers have no trust in their employees. Lack of trust between the two parties could be a reason for low motivation in the job. It is also important that employers indicate whenever their premises are under CCTV surveillance to protect themselves from lawsuits. Maybe then will there be a mutual understanding between the employers, employees and the lobby groups.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Corporate Relations Officer
References
Bassick, M. McNamara, T., & Sullivan, D. (2010). Employee Surveillance: An Ethical Consideration. Retrieved from, <http://www.ethicapublishing.com/ethical/3CH6.pdf> 11 November, 2015
Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2014). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning
MacDonald,. G. (2010). The Latest on Workplace Monitoring and Surveillance. American Management Association. Retrieved from, <http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/The-Latest-on-Workplace-Monitoring-and-Surveillance.aspx> 11 November, 2015
Mujtaba B,.G.(2014). Ethical Implications of Employee Monitoring: What Leaders Should Consider. Journal of applied Management and entrepreneurship, Retrieved from, <http://www.business.nova.edu/JAME/articles/employee-monitoring.cfm> 11 November, 2015
Privacy Rights (2015). Workplace Privacy and Employee Monitoring. Privacyrights.org Retrieved from, <https://www.privacyrights.org/workplace-privacy-and-employee-monitoring> 11 November, 2015