Employee Privacy Rights in the Workplace Concerning Internet - Essay Example

Running Head: Employee Privacy Rights in the Workplace A persuasive essay on Employee Privacy Rights in the Workplace Concerning Internet The workplace is where most adults spend roughly half of their waking hours. It is not surprising, therefore, that employment practices affect a broad range of privacy rights. Employers have a great deal of leeway in collecting data on their employees, regulating access to personnel files, and disclosing file contents to outsiders. In addition to the issue of personnel files, workplace privacy involves such practices as monitoring internet usage, email, computer and telephone monitoring, and interference with personal lifestyle. All of these practices stem from a combination of modern employer concerns - employee theft, drug abuse, productivity, courtesy and the protection of trade secrets -- and technological advances that make it more economical to engage in monitoring and testing. The result for employees, however, is a dramatic increase in workplace surveillance. Surveillance is so thorough in some offices that employers can check to see exactly when employees leave their work stations to go to the bathroom and how long they take. Moreover, as workplace use of internet and reliance on e-mail grows, employers are spending more and more energy monitoring and regulating their employees' e-mails and other computer communications to avoid potential liability under hostile environment law. Even if antidiscrimination law were not a factor, employers would engage in a certain level of monitoring and regulation to ensure that their workers were not frittering away the workday instant-messaging their friends and Web surfing. But many employers are going well beyond what is needed to maximize productivity, and are using sophisticated surveillance tools to monitor employee e-mail to head off potential discrimination complaints. One-quarter of all large corporations, for example, perform keyword or phrase searches to censor employee e-mails, usually looking for sexual, scatological, or racist language (Rotenberg, M. 1993). Thus, the issue for all employees in the Internet age is the lack of safety in venting gripes online. "If you vent to your best friends and your spouse, the boss never finds out," Houston Labor lawyer Linda Wills remarked. "If you vent in the hallway or on the Internet, you're asking for trouble". Of course, Internet monitoring is just one way employers track employees. "There is a complete lack of freedom in the American workplace," the ACLU's Jeremy Gruber said. "Most people who work for private employers have their constitutional rights put in the garbage for eight to ten hours a day". Basically, it is believed that Performance monitoring has been critical to organizational effectiveness for centuries. Monitoring enables organizations to obtain information that can be used to assess and improve employee performance. Motivated by the variety of benefits that may accrue from monitoring, organizations have sought to improve the effectiveness of their monitoring efforts by assessing employees’ e mail and websites which they browse. (Jerry Adler, 1998) It is also said that Employers are using these techniques in response to a wave of hostile environment lawsuits brought by women and others who either received sexually suggestive e-mails, or who were simply offended to discover that their coworkers had swapped such e-mails among themselves. Almost every hostile environment case contains allegations of offensive workplace e-mails. While it is true that few hostile environment cases succeed solely on the basis of allegations that a corporate defendant tolerated offensive e-mails, such e-mails do hostile environment defendants no favors, so it is most sensible to prohibit them completely. As a leading First Amendment scholar points out, as long as e-mails can be used as part of a hostile environment claim, “the cautious employer must restrict each individual instance of such speech. The employer must say, ‘Do not circulate any material, even isolated items, that anyone might find racially, religiously, or sexually offensive, since put together such material may lead to liability.” When employees are caught using offensive language by software filters or other monitoring devices, they often find that the breach of their privacy is not the worst of their worries. They may also be out of a job. The New York Times, for example, fired 20 staffers for sending inappropriate and offensive e-mail. The company “cited a need to protect itself against liability for sexual harassment claims.” Jobs are at risk even when no third parties are involved, as two executives at Smith Barney discovered when the company dismissed them for accessing pornography at work and transmitting it between themselves. Although this might seem like excessive punishment, if a company looks the other way, or even lets its workers off with a stern warning, future plaintiffs in sexual harassment suits could use that tolerance as evidence that the company had a lax sexual harassment prevention policy. The looming threat of a hostile environment suit makes terminating an employee who e-mailed the wrong thing the most prudent course (Tanaka, J. 2000). Though, besides every outcome, the most frequent concerns rose by critics of monitoring are that the practice invades employee privacy, increases their stress, and, consequently, threatens their health. On the other hand, management groups argue that monitoring is a legitimate tool that organizations can use to increase productivity, improve quality and service, and reduce costs. Employees' concern for privacy may be more salient when they are subjected to electronic surveillance than when they are subjected to eavesdropping or computer monitoring. As support for the argument that such monitoring violates employee privacy, opponents of monitoring cite examples of employers who have gone beyond reasonably acceptable means to monitor their employees' behavior. For example, these stories may involve organizations that place software that detect employee internet usage and access their passwords of emails. This covert surveillance may be perceived by employees as violating their right to privacy both because of their right to be let alone and because of their right to control information about themselves. Employees may have an expectation of privacy at least while using internet and their email accounts. Moreover, employees may feel their privacy is violated if they are unable to control when and how the surveillance information is collected and its subsequent use. Clearly, close supervision and visual observation of sensitive nonperformance related areas, can make employees feel as though their privacy has been eroded and as though their dignity has been compromised. Thus, internet usage and e-mail privacy is major debate at workplace. The short answer is that employer must be aware of and sensitive to employee privacy concerns, a topic that has been called "the workplace issue of the 1990s.” I believe by counseling with management to establish an e-mail policy, employer can work to prevent lawsuits and improve employee morale. Current law seems to favor employers' interests over employee privacy rights when it comes to electronic workplace monitoring. In the present legal climate, why should employer concern themselves with whether their organization or clients engage in e-mail monitoring? Despite the current employer bias in the law, I strongly believe that employer should encourage management to formulate an e-mail and internet privacy policy, and to communicate it to all employees. Effective management involves predicting and addressing potential issues before they become fodder for litigation and/or government regulation. If employers fail to respond to their employees' concerns about e-mail privacy in a sensitive manner, Congress or the courts can be expected to change current law. In fact, federal legislation regarding employee privacy rights has already been introduced in Congress. The bill, known as the Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act, is broadly drafted to cover most forms of electronic surveillance, and would require employers to notify present and prospective employees of any monitoring policies, and would forbid secret monitoring. State legislation dealing with employee privacy rights has also been introduced in some state legislatures, although to date, none of the bills has passed (Nicole B. Casarez, 1992). Employers can expect the law regarding e-mail privacy and other computer privacy issues to be modified as technology changes over the next few years. Meanwhile, employers can protect themselves against employee lawsuits by establishing clear, communicated policies as to whether employee e-mail is considered private or corporate property. Open communication with employees regarding sensitive privacy issues can not only forestall litigation, but also improve employee relations by building employee trust. Some organizations, such as General Motors, McDonnell Douglas, Warner Brothers and Citibank, follow a "hands off" policy making e-mail completely private. Others, such as Epson, Eastman Kodak, Du Pont, UPS and Pacific Bell, have decided to reserve the right to examine employee e-mail. In drafting an e-mail policy, employer should challenge management to seriously consider the costs versus the benefits involved in all types of electronic employee observation. One publication that may be helpful in policy-making is a 1999 report from the Electronic Mail Association that provides four sample policies and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of each (Nicole B. Casarez, 1992). Conclusion Both employers and employees have valid concerns about e-mail privacy. Employers want to ensure their e-mail systems are being used for appropriate, job-related activities. Employees, on the other hand, may have an expectation that their e-mail messages are private. Although current law favors employers, employee privacy issues can be expected to generate substantial litigation and legislation in the future. (Nicole B. Casarez, 1992). References: Nicole B. Casarez; Electronic Mail and Employee Relations: Why Privacy Must Be Considered, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 37, 1992 Doug Bedell, Be Wary of E-mail Messages at Work, WATERBURY REPUBLICAN, Apr. 9, 2000, at 1D. Jerry Adler, When E-Mail Bites Back, NEWSWEEK, Nov. 13, 1998, at 45. Rotenberg, M. (1993, August). Communications privacy: Implications for network design. Communications of the ACM, 61. Tanaka, J. (2000, June 5). Guarding Online Privacy. Newsweek, 77-7 8. Read More