The Arguments The Wall Street Journal posted an article in October 2014 showing the two opposing opinions regarding employer monitoring of social networking. Nancy Flynn, the founder and executive director of the ePolicy Institute, held the stance that, “Keeping an eye on employees helps companies protect themselves.” In her opinion, “Management has a right and responsibility to monitor how employees are using social media at all times.” Flynn argues that organizations must be proactive in their approach to social networking. The rapid increase in use by employees equally increases the chance of damages, whether intentional or unintentional, to a company’s reputation or through security and information leaks. By being proactive, an organization can act more quickly to rectify the situation and hold those responsible accountable. As far as hiring practices are concerned she argues …show more content…
Due to the ease of misuse, many organizations find it necessary to monitor communications. This is done to ensure proper use of company assets, maintain reputation, and manage productivity. This can include email, phone, video, and the internet. In an article by The Entrepreneur Andrew Walls, security and risk officer at Stamford, suggests that the key to ethical communications monitoring is in management knowing the difference between monitoring and surveillance and that they are transparent about their actions. General monitoring of abuse with prior disclosure to employees is legal and reasonable in the workplace. What should be avoided is more intrusive and personal surveillance, without disclosure, consent, or just cause. An employer could also unintentionally discover personal information about employees, such as religion, sexual orientation, medical issues, or political views that could open the organization up to possible lawsuits over discrimination. (Richmond,
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
For many years, there has been an ongoing fight between employers and employees pertaining to employee rights. The main thing that they have fought about is computer and email monitoring.
O'Shea, Kellie A. "Use Of Social Media In Employment: Should I Hire? Should I Fire?." Cornell HR Review
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
How much information should be collected on employees and prospective employees? Collecting information presents risks that employers will be faced with when employees commit torts outside the scope of their jobs. Also, not collecting the proper information could result in risks depending on the case. These questions will be analyzed based on collected data and employer actual or constructive knowledge. In order to precisely elaborate about the risk and such, I will look at the employee monitoring at work, Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, and respondeat superior.
Previously it took a lot of equipment to monitor a person's actions, but now with technology's development and advancement all it requires is a computer. And there are many mediums which can be monitored such as telephones, email, voice mail, and computers.4 People's rights are protected by many laws, but in private businesses there are few laws protecting an individual's rights. 5 As an employee of a company there is an understanding of the amount of monitoring the employer does. The employer has to decide how much monitoring is necessary to satisfy the company needs without damaging the company's employee morale.6 With all the monitoring done by private businesses they are free to violate employee privacy since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights a...
While monitoring has been around for many years, employees think monitoring poses a bigger threat to his or, her privacy in the workplace. Even though it is unde...
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)
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.
The next generation approaching adulthood has a new challenge; growing up during the technological revolution and believing being monitored is way of life. Generation Y, as they are termed, will grow up thinking it is normal for video cameras to be on every street corner, at work, automatic teller machines, and one day in every home as a security device. They may grow up having “Big Brother” in the workplace applying constant pressure on them to prove they are productive. A 1998 survey of 1,085 corporations conducted by the American Management Association shows more than 40 percent engaged in some kind of intrusive employee monitoring. Such monitoring includes checking of e-mail, voice mail and telephone conversations; recording of computer keystrokes; and video recording of job performance (Doyle p. 1). My goal is to inform the working population about electronic monitoring. The question I strive to answer, “Will employees be monitored on closed circuit television (CCTV) to determine their productivity or worth to the company and does this violate their privacy?”
Privacy in the workplace has always been an issue, but now with the introduction of computers in the workplace the ability to collect data on employees has increased significantly. If an employer wanted to, every action by every employee could be collected and analyzed. This type of monitoring isn’t acceptable however, but there are some guidelines that can be followed to define what is acceptable. First we can break privacy into two main categories. Informational privacy, and physical privacy.
The greatest ethical problem that is facing American businesses today is the secured and unsecured use of social media by both employers and employees. Should employers be able to use social media networks as a way to recruit future job candidates? Or should employers be able to dictate what their employees put out on their own social media accounts when they are not on the job hours? These are all questions that arise from the employees’ point of view, what about the employers point of view. Would you want your employees talking bad about your business on social media? It would be equivalent to the employee holding up a sign that says, “This company sucks!” These are just a few of the unanswered questions that arise with the secured and unsecured use of social media. That is why it is still a big ethical issue today.
By definition, electronic surveillance is “observing or listening to persons, places, or activities—usually in a secretive or unobtrusive manner—with the aid of electronic devices such as cameras, microphones, tape recorders, or wire taps” (“Electronic Surveillance”, n.d.). With the advance in technology however, the ways a person can conduct surveillance in the current day and age goes much deeper than just using a video camera or microphone. If a company wanted to, they could track virtually every aspect of an employee’s day. Whether it is as simple as tracking the time an employee arrives at work or as advanced as GPS tracking in a company phone to follow their exact location throughout the day, workplace surveillance is not going away anytime soon.
For every technological introduction or advancement, there are consequences which come with it. This excludes not those that come with introduction of management information systems in companies. The modern society is entirely depended on information systems. Failure of these systems, today, can be declared as end of humanity. Worse enough is that there is a generational shift whereby future generations will not live without information systems that manage information. However, latest evaluations of the impact of management information systems have proven that there are chances, which are very high, of ethics being abused at the work place. Both the employees and the employers, are guarded by certain cord of ethics which aim at regulating the dignity of everybody at working place; and how far one party can be influential on the other especially on matters pertaining privacy. Profit making goals should not, by any means, overlook the importance of working ethics. This paper endeavors to explore areas of major concern where working ethics are likely to be compromised or have already been compromised at the working place due to institution of management information systems. Nevertheless, this research does not underscore the importance of these systems at the working place. The aim is to expose the negative impacts that might result from misuse of management information systems. These impacts can emanate from either party that forms part of the organization. In this case, mostly, it is either from the employee or the employer.
“Risk managers are struggling with a series of challenging balancing acts regarding the explosion of social media in the workplace. One is between giving workers freedom of expression and protecting company assets, including trade secrets and proprietary information.”(Greenwald, 2013, p.135). The risks involved are very serious depending on the industry that the employer is operating in. A major problem is the “potential release on social media of proprietary company information and trade secrets” (Greenwald, 2013, p.13). Managers that are trying to figure out the balance of what constitutes an employee’s free speech rights and what an employee may share that could be considered defamation by the employer. These postings by employees may not even be intentional. An example would be a high level employee whose company is merging with another. Simply posting something alluding to the location of a potential merger partner can signal people who the partner may be and how close the merger will happen due to the occurrence of face to face