EMPLOYEE PRIVACY IN THE WORKPLACE

Employee Privacy in the Workplace



Employee Privacy in the Workplace

Introduction

Employee privacy is one of the most controversial areas concerning personnel in the public sector. Claims of privacy abuse are measured against an employer's prerogatives in establishing workplace standards and ensuring the efficiency of administration.

Monitoring of employees in the workplace can create conflicts between employer and employee. The problems increase as technological advances change the nature of work, communication, and supervisory functions in the workplace. This conflict reconsiders the basic questions as to what is private, what is proprietary, what legal rights an employee possesses, and what are an employee's obligations and responsibilities within the sphere of employment.

Discussion

To most, privacy is seen as need for "personal space", which is directly tied to the Fourth Amendment, which holds that, "It is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures (Lewis, 2000)."

Privacy in the workplace has also been asserted on the basis of First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The exchange of speech between persons should be allowed without redress as long as that speech does not, in some way, threaten the employer or the business. Therefore, the monitoring by the employer of employee conversations in lounges during breaks would definitely be regarded as a monitoring of behaviors outside the employer's sphere of interest, which is not only illegal, but also unethical (Long, 2001).

The elevated expectation of privacy connected to oral conversations is acknowledged in legislation like the Federal Wiretap Act, which excludes equally private and public workers from interrupting and recording the "wire communications" of members of the staff. It is the discussion that is secluded (Grossman, 1999).

For example, employers may use cameras to observe employees and to provide security, but providing those cameras with audio capability could violate the Wiretap Act. This is consistent with employees who tolerate surveillance cameras within their work environment for security reasons, but draw the line on any attempt to record their conversations (Roser, 1999).

This issue of privacy of conversation is commonly raised when employers terminate employees for violation of organizational policies or rules in their use of Internet or e-mail networks while on company time. Users (employees) of these networks tend to view them as mediums in which they can freely communicate without much regard for the potential consequences involved. It may include "cyber-surfing" to web sites that are not related to work duties, downloading information that is non-work related into your employer's computer equipment and database systems, and utilizing e-mail for personal use (Barry, 2001).

Whatever the semantic distinction between private and public, these few examples represent the issue of permissible or non-permissible intrusion by the employer into employee activity, which the employee regards as none of the ...