A lot of people can say that the fifty two percent of companies that now monitor employees is unfair and inappropriate. But that is not always the case, because if the employee was not okay with it, then the company was not allowed to be monitoring the worker. Others think that it is completely okay and responsible of the company to do so. Making sure that their workers are not making the company itself look bad because of their reputation on social media. I can really argue both sides. I think that to a certain point, it is appropriate for a company to monitor profiles of their employees to keep an eye out for illegal action and inappropriate posts and or public exposure. For the companies point of view, they want to avoid getting in trouble …show more content…
Employees should not be doing anything other than work on the computer at work. Which means playing games or on personal email. It is work equipment. That is when I feel like they only need to watch their workers is when they are at work. Because they have complete control over whether what they should and should not be doing. But getting on to them about what they post at home, is none of their business and the company has no authority over …show more content…
And so I think that if it has nothing to do with the company, and it is out of their property or having anything to do with the company, it is none of their business. Yes, embarrassment may become a concern, but it is really an embarrassment on the other person more as to the company who hired them. And knowing what employees do on their weekends or when they are not at work can cause tension or bad opinions between coworkers that are not necessary. And to avoid lawsuits, employees most know and be aware that the company is looking at what they are doing before they look over profiles and such. But then again, there is a contract involved with monitoring. The employee and the boss has to sign the confidentiality paper stating specific rules. And if both sign off, no lawsuits can be filed unless one goes against the contract. Another pro of monitoring over employees is to gain trust. If the boss or company overall sees that the employee has not posted anything inappropriate or illegal, they will sense responsibility and proactiveness. Seeing that they do not out themselves, whether they do stuff or not, they do not make anyone else’s business. They keep to themselves, which keeps embarrassing and judgmental comments
Confidentiality has several different levels that include employee, management, and business information. Employee data includes personal identifying information, disability and medical information, etc. Keeping this material confidential is important because the information could lead to criminal activity to include fraud or discrimination; this can result in decreased productivity and affect employee morale. Management information covers impending layoffs, terminations, workplace investigation of employee misconduct, etc. It should go without saying that sensitive data should only be available to management. Lastly, the business portion includes business plans, company forecasts, and special ingredients/recipes, information that would not be readily available to competitors. Employees and managers should receive training on how to properly handle confidential information (Jules Halpern Associates, LLC,
In Fitbit for Bosses written by Lynn Stuart Parramore she talks about how bosses want to start monitoring their employees. Parramore shows her discomfort with this idea. She thinks that “big money seems poised to trump privacy”(Parramore). Which basically just means that for bosses is that money is over everything even privacy. Allowing bosses to monitor their employees is dishonest and manipulating.
Most individuals use these social networks and applications as an outlet to connect with old friends and family, share media, and keep up with everyday topics. Sometimes, employees exchange social media accounts if they become friends at work, which is acceptable. But, if an employer decides to review an employee or potential employee’s personal account without their permission, that is an invasion of privacy. Also, a person’s social media account should not have to be monitored or reviewed by an employer, especially if it does not relate to the job itself. Everyone deserves privacy, and if an employee’s social media account(s) have to be monitored, the same should apply to the employers as
Consequences of Secrecy. If something is done in private to keep away from any negative attention then more than likely it shouldn’t be done. In this case there doesn’t seem to be any secrecy consequences, a statement was made when certain employees were let go for not complying with policies.
Martucci, W. C., & Shankland, R. J. (2012). New laws prohibiting employers from requiring employees to provide access to social-networking sites. Employment Relations Today (Wiley), 39(2), 79-85. doi:10.1002/ert.21368
One of the significant issues that frequently evident by the organizations is the privacy policy related to workers. According to Wright (2013), the utilization of workplace drug testing policy by the employers might affect the workers' behavior outside the workplace.
In my opinion, employees should not be able to use the internet while at work. The computers and networks are business property and are solely used for business transactions. Thus, employers have a duty and a right to ensure proper usage of any, and all, equipment. If employers decide to, they may choose to monitor the usage of the internet to ensure the property is not abused. According to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, et. seq., (www.law.cornell.edu/uscode), federal law allows employers to monitor business calls, however, personal calls are an exception. Under the federal law and employer only has the right to monitor a call until they realize that it is a personal call then must cease monitoring. In the case of Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577, 583 (11th Cir. 1983), the court dictated that, "...a manager must cease listening in on an employee call once the call turns personal". When businesses first started using the internet, they did not contemplate developing new technology policies and were very liberal as to the usage of the internet. Eventually allowing liberal usage led to abuse of equipment and work time. Today, people check personal emails and facebook messages (among other social networking sites), take care of online banking, shopping, surf the net leisurely, and chat online. Employers have noticed this distraction severely impacted productivity and performance. Studies show, "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" (DeTienne, 1993, p. 33). "By the end of the decade, as many as 30 milli...
The same goes for data on the employees, we’re protected from customer’s seeking out our private info out of convenience or even malice. These rules insure the
25 Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (2002) Employee Monitoring: Is There Privacy in the Workplace? . (6/3/2004)
Sometimes there is no middle ground. Monitoring of employees at the workplace, either you side with the employees or you believe management owns the network and should call the shots. The purpose of this paper is to tackle whether monitoring an employee is an invasion of privacy. How new technology has made monitoring of employees by employers possible. The unfairness of computerized monitoring software used to watch employees. The employers desire to ensure that the times they are paying for to be spent in their service is indeed being spent that way. Why not to monitor employees, as well as tips on balancing privacy rights of employees at the job.
One type of surveillance is employee monitoring. Many employers monitor their workers’ activities for one reason or another. Companies monitor employees using many methods. They may use access panels that requires employees to identify themselves to control entry to various area in the building, allowing them to create a log of employee movements. They may also use software to monitor attendance and work hours. Additionally, many programs allows companies to monitor activities performed on work computers, inspect employee emails, log keystrokes, etc. An emerging methods of employee monitor also include social network and search engine monitoring. Employers can find out who their employees are associated with, as well as other potentially incriminating information. (Ciocchetti)
A person’s right to privacy is being challenged with the high use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter. What used to be considered part of your personal life is not so personal anymore. When one chooses to share details about ones-self to their friends via a social media, they are not always thinking about the “other” people. The other people could be ones current boss or future employer. Other people could be a school official, your baseball coach, your friends’ mother; you name it the list goes on and on. Recently, a few employers or perspective employers have requested Facebook and other social network log-in information. It is probably a violation of equal employment laws, and there are two senators investigating the practice of requiring job applicants and employees to provide their social network log-in information as a condition of employment.
An example of the pros and cons of privacy in the work place while during the hiring process is in 2012, a company in Maryland decided to ask job seekers to log into personal profiles and search through wall posts. As this is becoming more of trend many creative ways to monitor the posts. Another example within this sector is the athletic program at the University of North Carolina, “Each team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitoring the content of team member social networking sites and postings”
But, these laws always changing, depending on the work setting or policies set by any specific organizations. Because there are so many different work environments, each claim of privacy has to be evaluated based on the actual conditions of the workplace (Smith & Burg, 2015). This is why policies must be set according to the CEO needs. If the organization does not allow the use of the internet for any personal use, than the employee must follow such guidelines. This eliminates employee privacy right violations, because the policy will informs them of the monitoring during the hiring
..., which can result in decreased productivity. An employee may be spending more time viewing their friends’ posts and pictures, rather than focusing on their job. Social media can be addicting to some people. This should be monitored by all business owners. Employees can attend a party with people taking pictures, and then the pictures can be misconstrued or distorted. Online reputational concerns can be critical for businesses along with their employees. It can result in loss of employment, loss of economics, and unforgivable social humiliations. Businesses are at another disadvantage while using social media because followers can post negative comments on the business’s Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram site. Also, a hacker can retrieve the company’s page and post false information. A business or organization’s reputation will suffer from these actions. (Oravec 97)