[Type text][Type text][Type text]

1Running head: WORKPLACE PRIVACY

Ethics Paper On Workplace PrivacyMohammad Ul HaqueMonroe college, Kings Graduate School.

Submission date: 02/07/2015

Abstract The issue of privacy is a large concern in the workplace. With the expanding of new technology, many employees are concern about his/her privacy in the workplace. Employees have the right to go to work knowing that his/her employer will not invade their privacy. The rights to privacy in the workplace only provide limited protection for workers against monitoring and breach of confidentially. Electronic monitoring has seen a tremendous growth in the workplace in the past ten years. Most people believe that they have a right to privacy under the law, whether at home or on the job. For that reason, it is common for people to feel comfortable with the idea of sending personal emails or making personal phone calls while on company time. They expect that they can communicate with other people freely without monitoring during working hours and on workplace equipment. Despite these expectations, however, most employees are not entitled to complete privacy in the workplace. Rules do differ between public sector and private sector jobs, however, and workers do have some responsibility in keeping the rights that they do have intact. Regardless of these expectations, or perhaps due to them, employees may be surprised to learn how little privacy they can expect in the workplace. Since electronic monitoring was introduced into the workplace in the twentieth century, employers now use monitoring to listening to telephone calls and computer monitoring, such as email and internet use. While this monitoring is now important to the safety and security of the employer, it can be very invading because of advancing technology creating a greater risk for employers whether purposely or inadvertently are discovering personal information about employees. Employers and employees often have conflicting interests in the workplace. One of these conflicting interests concerns the privacy rights and considerations of the employees versus the rights of the employer to monitor the activities of its employees. A relaxed, comfortable workplace promotes good morale but too much comfort can result in a workforce that takes their responsibilities for granted. Achieving a happy medium is the ultimate goal. The development of modern technology has provided employers with increased opportunity to monitor the activities of their employees both on the job and off. Telephone, computers, voice mail, and the internet have provided employers with vehicles that were not available just a decade or so ago. Because of the newness of such devices, regulations and laws governing the use of them are not well developed. As a result, at the present time, employers are enjoying virtually unfettered opportunities to listen, watch, and read most anything and everything that their employees are doing while at work. Some more aggressive employers are even using such devices to do the same in regard to their employees private lives as well. In limited cases, some corporations and businesses have enacted policies limiting such interventions by the company but there are very few such companies. The concept of privacy is complicated. What is private for one person may not be for another and when it comes to privacy in the workplace the issue becomes even more complicated. From a legal point of view, what constitutes privacy is essentially the expectation of the individual. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined what this expectation standard is and established tests for determining it but such a review is beyond the scope of this paper. In essence, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that for the most part the employer is endowed with the power of determining what the privacy expectations of an employee might be and under what circumstances an employee might expect privacy (City of Ontario v. Quon).The problem of workplace privacy is also quite broad. It begins even before an employee is hired. With the advancement in technology employers are now provided with a variety of means in which to uncover information regarding potential new hires. It is imperative that any individual either beginning to enter the workplace or having already been in the workplace take every measure possible to guard his or her privacy. Regardless of ones past, events that may seem totally innocent can affect ones employability as more and more businesses routinely perform background checks on their employees. Background checks provide the classic battle between employers right to know and the employees right to maintain a private life. Employers have an interest in ensuring that the people they are hiring are responsible, honest, trust worthy individuals. An individual employee can have a long-term effect on the operation of a business and how the business is perceived in the community. These are important considerations for a business owner. The employee, on the other hand, has the right to expect that information about his or her past that might be adverse is not used inappropriately. Therein, lies the essential balancing that occurs in all workplace privacy matters. The burden of background checks falls primarily upon the shoulders of the employer. There is little that an employee can do facing the possibility of a background check to change the situation. The employees background is what it is and the employee is forced to deal with the consequences of his personal history. The employer, on the other hand, when conducting a background check is suddenly provided with information that is potentially sensitive. Under these circumstances, employers are placed in a position where they must exercise strict confidentially standards in order to protect the privacy of their employees or their potential employees. This requires that a business establish a rigid methodology that minimizes and, hopefully, eliminates the sensitive information being used for unethical purposes. Additionally, businesses must be diligent in how they apply background information. The failure to treat every employee or job applicant equally in regard to the treatment of what background information either qualifies someone for employment or makes them unqualified is an important consideration in regard to a business litigation exposure for a violation of privacy rights. A consistent policy applied to all employees and applicants makes it far less likely that a business will be subject to litigation losses. The old clich is that All is fair in love and war, but one might add that this includes the area of business as well. Businesses exist to make a profit and for many businesses if this means sacrificing the privacy of one or all of its employees means greater profits than it is a small price to pay. Fortunately, there are those in the business world who are aware of this philosophy and who take positive steps to develop a set of ethical standards to govern the operation of business (Tabak). The underlying attitude supporting these ethical standards is that the maintaining of ethical standards in regard to protecting the privacy of the individual is important in order to protect both the organization and its employees from legal action and to promote the business reputation in the community. One of the examples where businesses have applied ethical standards to the issue of privacy is in the area of drug testing. Drug testing has become as widespread as a background check with the theory usually being adopted by employers is the utilitarian one that produces the greatest excess of benefits over the harm (Baglione). This position often causes employers difficulty in application. The employer argues that they have a moral right to a fair days work in exchange for a fair days pay and that anything that seriously interferes with an employee rending a fair days work is subject to review. The fact that drugs can significantly impair a persons work performance therefore grants the employer the right to test the employee. Employees, however, offer arguments to the contrary. First, employees view drug testing as a humiliating. Second, they see the results of drug testing as a poor basis for measuring a persons work performance. Recreational use may have no effect on an individuals work performance and if performance is the basis than testing for the sake of testing is simply an invasion of privacy. Finally, the results of drug testing are notoriously unreliable. The statistical incident of erroneous results is extremely high and when the consequences are so possibly severe employees argue that they should not be relied upon (Carpenter). The area of privacy concerns has intensified in recent years. Part of the reason for this increased concern is the fact that technological improvements have made the process much easier to apply but terrorism and immigration concerns have also caused it to be of particular concern. Such concern has caused employers to increase their vigilance in regard to security and for employees to surrender some of their privacy rights for the same reason (Sproule). As time passes and terrorism concerns are lessened, it can be expected that employers and employees will both relax their concerns. In the interim, it can be expected that both employers and employees continue to balance their respective interests to achieve workable privacy policies. Privacy is important to nearly everyone and entering the business world can often mean the loss of a great deal of this privacy. Historically, employers have occupied a position of control on this issue and employees must be aware that, once employed, they must learn to accept a loss of their privacy. This privacy loss is not unbridled but, nevertheless, employers and employees should be careful in how they handle their personal affairs and recognize that privacy is important and that once violated difficult to restore. The advent of technology (email and the Internet) has allowed companies to immensely reduce operating costs, speed up most tasks and increase their efficiency. (Allowed companies to immensely reduce operating costs through automation of human tasks, facilitate communication on innumerable levels, clearly increase efficiency in almost all tasks, allow for geographic and other business expansion, and less obviously, even reduced the amount of real estate and inventory that companies require) Among one of the advancements has been an explosion in technology designed to aid employers in monitoring their employees. It has helped them easily review the workers conduct and performance and to ensure that none of their confidential information are being leaked out into public. While this technology can be lauded for the ways in which it has helped business, it also raises a concern that previously did not exist. The issue is that employees come to work with an expectation of a certain degree of privacy and most of the time they are not aware that the company has the right to monitor their every move. The reality is that while at work, except in the company restroom or locker room they have no legal privacy rights. Their expectation of privacy have unfortunately not yet caught up with all the forms of technology that are out there and can be used in a workplace A majority of employers monitor their employees. They are motivated by concern over litigation and the increasing role that electronic evidence plays in lawsuits and government agency investigations. In fact it has been stated that Invading Your Privacy is Now the Norm in the Workplace. The employer should do a better job at informing employees of the monitoring policies that are in progress. They should do that both in writing and verbally. The notice should be as specific as possible by including what types of monitoring will be used, how frequently monitoring will occur, and what purpose the employer hopes to accomplish through the monitoring. In addition to that they should also have pop-up warnings that appear during employees computer usage which warn them of the lack of privacy. Such protocol will help workers understand the risks involved. And will help the company avoid any lawsuits for privacy violations. Among one of the protocols that goes too far is requesting employees passwords to their private emails and social media accounts. By doing so the employer is intruding into their personal matters which should not concern them. Such procedures should be immediately terminated. The law does not protect a private companys employee information from being disclosed to a prospective employer and they may hand out employee information, including their Social Security Number, date of birth, pay level, work schedule or full name. Such practices put the employees at risk and could result in their information ending up in wrong hands where they could be potentially used for fraudulent purposes. The companies should keep Personnel Files and Records Confidential and should only disclose them with their permission to whomever has a legitimate business need to access them. Abiding to such guidelines would provide sufficient protection to both the interest of the company and its employees. Employees have a right to a social life and should not have to fear termination of employment for having a life. There are other simpler ways employers can maintain the productivity and accuracy of their employees, without invading their personal lives. The first amendment states that we all have freedom of speech, but why do we not have the right to live as we please. All this is a way to keep employees in line; like modern day slavery. When will this end? This, will never end if we as citizens do not put a stop to it now. We have to protect our futures, and ourselves. Everyone has something to lose, and as employees, we will suffer the biggest loss, our dignity, and privacy. I stated at the beginning that employers should reevaluate this situation; I believe strongly that if we began to initiate this process, a change would have to be possible. Some may feel reluctant about stepping up to the plate, but that is normal. To make changes happen, it takes time and focus. We should write to our local congressional representatives and tell them to address this issue. Then contact the labor board, every little thing helps change this process. Once we all become proactive, we will begin to see results.

ReferencesDillon, T., Hamilton, A., Thomas, D., & Usry, M. (2008, June).The Importance of Communicating Workplace Privacy Policies. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 20(2), 119-139. doi: 10.1007/s10672-008-9067-1.Nord, G. D., McCubbins, T. F., & Nord, J. H. (2006, August). E-Monitoring in the Workplace: Privacy, Legislation, and Surveillance Software. Communications of theACM49(8),73-77.Retrievedfrom http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.nu.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=69b60369-0ea5-4aab-ada0-23521b45ebf2%40sessionmgr14&vid=3&hid=2Schwartz, J. C., Chadwick, J. P., & Lucas, A. R. (2010, August). U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Quon Changes Workplace Privacy Law. The Corporate & Securities Law Advisor, 24(8), 23-26.Baglione, Stephen L. "Productivity vs. privacy for an organization's workforce." Journal of Academy of Business and Economics (2014).Carpenter, Christopher S. "Workplace Drug Testing and Worker Drug Use." Health Services Research (2013): 795-810.City of Ontario v. Quon. No. 130 S. Ct. 2619. U.S. Supreme Court. 17 June 2010.Sproule, Clare M. "The Effect of the USA Patriot Act on Workplace Privacy." Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly (2002): 65-73.Tabak, Filiz. "Privacy and Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace: A model of managerial cognition and relational trust development." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal : 173-189