Anti-Nepotism and the Loss of Privacy
Introduction
When employees bring their personal problems to work and it affects their performance or the performance of others, clearly you can coach, counsel, warn, and ultimately terminate their employment. In cases where employees did not cause a problem at work but were fired merely because of an anti-nepotism policy, courts in some states found the employees had been discriminated against on the basis of marital status. Such policies penalize employees who are married, as compared to unmarried employees whose relationships are equally intimate. Currently, thirty-eight (38) states prohibit marital status discrimination. Having a more general policy prohibiting employees who co-habit from working in the same area would not violate marital status laws, but could be considered an invasion of common law privacy, which is recognized in most states (Risser 1997). In my paper, I will address the issue of anti-nepotism, and invasion of common law privacy. What business is it of the organization if people co-habit? How are employers supposed to know who is living together? The prohibition against invasion of privacy by the government is enforced, yet anti-nepotism policies seem to supercede even those more strictly.
Anti-Nepotism
What is Nepotism? Nepotism comes about whenever an employee makes decisions affecting a close relative or domestic partner. Included in these decisions are those that pertain to "hiring, appointment, reappointment, classification, reclassification, evaluation, promotion, transfer, discipline, supervision, or pay increases". According to the King County Board of Ethics, nepotism is a conflict of interest based on familial relationship or domestic partnership, and is inconsistent with the basic principles of ethics (Edwards 1998).
The practice of nepotism is said to be inconsistent in instances that require impartial decision-making and attempts to ensure that private interest or personal benefit does not override the public’s interest. In addition, nepotism creates situations that appear of improper influence or favor. As such, anti-nepotism policies have been written to protect public organizations from adverse lawsuits. There are many discriminatory clauses of anti-nepotism policies, as they pertain to individual lifestyle and privacy.
Although an anti-nepotism policy does not expressly discriminate against an applicant based on the condition of being married or unmarried, it may exclude a person because of the particular identity of his or her spouse. Whether spousal identity – as opposed to marital status per se — is a prohibited basis for discrimination is an unanswered question under many discrimination laws
Marshak, S. (2009) Essentials of Geology, 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, ch. 11, p. 298-320.
The site visited on this day was informally known as the Bedrock Knob (NTS grid reference: 120 342). It is in an area where patches of limestone and exposed bedrock are common. The bedrock is part of the Preca...
The power of executive privilege has been extremely controversial since basically the beginning of the United States as a democratic government. Many saw this power come into a greater public focus particularly during the Nixon presidency and the infamous Watergate Scandal, but the theory and use of executive privilege existed long before Nixon. As in true American fashion, some argue in favor of executive privilege, while others view it in a more negative light. The intense controversy is what makes executive privilege so intriguing to review in a deeper and more in depth analysis. The theory of executive privilege has derived its power throughout evolution of time, a series of presidencies, and quite a few pinpointed circumstances resulting in some very notorious court cases.
Bennett-Alexander, Dawn D. & Hartman, Laura P. (2001). Employment Law for Business (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Publishing. Downloaded February 4, 2008 from the data base of http://www.eeoc.gov
Krinitzsky, E. L., and Willard Jay Turnbull. Loess Deposits of Mississippi. New York: Geological Society of America, 1967. Print.
In an age where instant access to information has influenced the privacy workplace model, which once prevails over what were inalienable assumptions of privacy is no longer a certainty in the workplace. Some companies require employees to sign confidentiality agreement to protect their patents, formulas, and processes. There are instances where companies dictate a “no compete” clause in their hiring practices, to prevent an employee from working for competitors for typically two years without legal implications. While these examples represent extents, employers go to protect their company’s privacy; companies do not go to that extent to protect the privacy of their employees.
...enetration. The area and degree of information the parties shared paired with a cost-benefit motivational factor produced an intimate relationship not commonly seen in the work environment. Privacy coordination also played a role in Lewis’ relational closeness with her husband and colleague. Lewis and Bristler’s or any ‘work spouse’ relationship may be the result of social penetration.
When we mention the word ‘privacy’, we mean that there is something very personal about ourselves. Something that we think others are not supposed to know, or, we do not want them to. Nevertheless, why is it so? Why are people so reluctant to let others know about them entirely? This is because either they are afraid of people doing them harm or they are scared that people may treat them differently after their secrets are known. Without privacy, the democratic system that we know would not exist. Privacy is one of the fundamental values on which our country was established. Moreover, with the internet gaining such popularity, privacy has become a thing of the past. People have come to accept that strangers can view personal information about them on social networking sites such as Facebook, and companies and the government are constantly viewing a person’s activity online for a variety of reasons. From sending email, applying for a job, or even using the telephone, Americans right to privacy is in danger. Personal and professional information is being stored, link, transferred, shared, and even sold. Various websites, the government and its agencies, and hospitals are infringing our privacy without our permission or knowledge.
Civil liberties is a term coined by the United States that guarantees certain rights to the people by the Bill of Rights. Although the Right to Privacy is not officially enumerated into the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do in fact, have the right to their own privacy in their own home and their own beliefs. Privacy rights are an essential part of everyday American lives, in that everyone should be given the right to do whatever they want to do in privacy without anyone judging them or knowing what they have done. The right to privacy can also be considered jeopardizing to society because if someone is doing everything privately, including planning some sort of abomination or is doing something illegal, and the police does not find out, it can cause some serious damage to the society. The Patriot Act was enacted after 9-11 to ensure security among the nation. By doing so, the United States implemented strategies in protecting the people, such as decrease privacy rights that were “given” to the people. Also, in today’s society, iphones have an a setting in which the phone can track your location and so-call “help” you do whatever you need the phone to do. According to the Usatoday’s article, location services through GPS coordinates one’s online post and photos, in that one does not even know they are exposing their private lives to the online world. Although, The right to privacy plays an important role in keeping everyday Americans the will to do whatever they want in private, it may cause potential trouble in keeping everything a secret, even illegal actions.
In recent times our right to privacy has been under fire, particularly in the workplace. With the fear of terrorists in today's world, we have been willing to sacrifice some of our individual rights for the rights of a society as a whole. A majority of these changes have taken place since September 11, 2001, in an attempt to prevent future terrorist attacks. New legislation, such as the USA Patriot Act, which decreases the limitations on the federal government's ability to monitor people, has been created for this reason. Although new legislation may be instrumental in the defense of our national security, we must take a strong look at their effect and the effect of decreased privacy in the workplace. Advances in technology, coupled with new legislation, has had a serious toll on our privacy especially at work. It is now possible to monitor an employee's keystrokes on the computer to how much time a day is spent on bathroom breaks. It is imperative for us to take a stand against these violations to our rights
Terms and Laws have gradually change overtime dealing with different situations and economic troubles in the world in general. So then dealing with these issues the workplace has become more complex with little or no rights to privacy. Privacy briefly explained is a person’s right to choose whether or not to withhold information they feel is dear to them. If this something will not hurt the business, or its party members then it should be kept private. All employees always should have rights to privacy in the workplace. Five main points dealing with privacy in public/private structured businesses are background checks, respect of off duty activities/leisure, drug testing, workplace search, and monitoring of workplace activity. Coming to a conclusion on privacy, are there any limits to which employers have limitations to intrusion, dominance on the employee’s behavior, and properties.
People tend to believe that everything on their social media accounts are private and controllable by their privacy controls alone. Privacy is a misconception because social networks are never completely private. Outsiders can gain some access to a user’s personal information through websites, including hackers, identity thieves, advertisers and employees of the network. Several social network sites have ways for consumers to protect themselves from an average user without coding or hacking capabilities. They typically provide their users the ability to set privacy settings. This means that the individual can add, or block anyone from viewing their account. Also the individual is capable of limiting the access to specific photos, or posts on
You get to work, login, check your email, and examine the values of your stocks. Have you done something wrong? Should your manager care about what you do with those couple of minutes? Hypothetically, if you consider 48 working days per year, with 40 hours per weeks (totally 9,600 hours of work a year), then the daily five minutes of personal internet usage mounts to approximately 24 hours (three working days) of wasted company time. In a capitalist economy, such inefficiency impedes the goal to maximize profit; therefore, compelling businesses to turn to rigorous surveillance to discourage inappropriate use of company resources and to promote productivity. As the American legislative and judicial culture has generally upheld companies’ proprietary rights to monitor their employees at the expense of employees’ privacy, civil libertarians have protested to what they claim to be direct violation of the employees’ right to privacy, which the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment implicitly guarantee.
In a world of Facebook and LinkedIn and YouTube and OKCupid and Google and IPhones and Ipads and Kindles and all the other hundreds of sites and devices designed to garner personal information, data-mine your information, to better advertise, sell, inform, and connect you with the people or the places that you want to experience. The wonderful world of the Internet helps connect millions of people with millions of other people in milliseconds all day, every day. All the swapping and sharing of information create a world of transparency, deception, fraud, and identity confusion. Avatars, aliases, and profiles are the ways most people advertise their goods and services and themselves. With this consideration an erosion of privacy has changed our culture in ways that some predicted years ago and some that are new to our era. This paper will explore some primary regarding how technology causes the changes in privacy and what are the effects brought on by these changes.
The Mass Media is a unique feature of modern society; its development has accompanied an increase in the magnitude and complexity of societal actions and engagements, rapid social change, technological innovation, rising personal income and standard of living and the decline of some traditional forms of control and authority.