Privacy_in_the_Workplace

Privacy in the Workplace Explain where an employee can reasonably expect to have privacy in the workplace. Privacy in the workplace can reasonably be expected in three general areas as it relates to the employer, co-workers, clients and customers. When an employee is hired at a new company, there are several security measures that are already in place in order to keep their personal information private and/or confidential. The first being in the Human Resources Department where all the information is gathered by the employee filling out various forms of that are confidential in nature. This information is kept in the employee’s private, confidential employee folder in the Human Resources Department, generally in a locked cabinet or other secured areas. This ensures that no one other than the Human Resources Department can get access to the information other in the file. At times, special permission is granted for a manager to review the file for a specific reason, along with the Human Resources representative. The second place where an employee can reasonably expect to have privacy is in the computer mainframe where all the pertinent records (such as social security number, address, date of birth, banking information, etc.) are stored. This is used primarily for an employee’s timekeeper administration and government reporting purposes. Only key personnel such as Human Resources, Accounting and IT have access. There are also different levels of access allowed based on the need to see the data. Another area of where an employee can reasonably expect to have privacy from their co-workers is in their private workspace areas. This allocated space is where an employee places their personnel belongings in a drawer, cupboards or lockers. This also assures reasonableness for the freedom to personalize one’s workstation with pictures, trophies and not having to keep their coffee cup in the drawer leaving no personal belongings visible as is policy in some companies. The third area deals with the privacy of revealing one’s self to a client or customer. An employee needs to control what he reveals to the outside world and the ability to direct and restrict other’ access to their personal data becomes more important at work than in other confined areas since workers must interact with people they have not chosen to cooperate with over a long period of time. Finally, and mostly not discussed in articles, the employee can expect privacy in the bathrooms. Employers generally do not invade this area as they feel activities related to work would not be conducted in the bathroom. Open Area Workspace Vs Enclosed Workspace In the office workplace there are typically two types of workspaces, an open area, in which there are several desks and where conversations can be overheard, or an enclosed office, in which when the door is closed, conversations cannot be heard and where one would expect virtually total privacy. Explain whether it makes a difference if an employee is in an open area or in an enclosed office. Generally speaking, there is no difference regarding privacy if an employee is in an open area or in a closed area. There is a difference regarding the reasonableness of letting the employee(s) know of the intent to monitor their conversations and/or activities. In the case of Hernandez vs. Hillsides Inc., from California where employees can reasonably be expected not to be on candid camera based on the lack of monitoring in the workplace . In this case, the employer suspected that someone was accessing unapproved and/or un-appropriate websites from employee’s computer, including the one in an office shared by two employees. They were not sure which employee was acting inappropriately as well. Rather than having a policy in place that would have implement a password which would be required to log into the system that would allow the employer to track who was accessing the sites, the employer hid a motion sensor video camera on the bookshelf in the office without telling the two employees. When the employees noticed the red blinking light and discovered what it was for, the employees sued for invasion of privacy after consulting with an attorney. “The trial court rejected the employees’ claims for two reasons. The first was the employees were not actually recorded as the camera was discovered beforehand and secondly the court said that the employer’s interest in catching the person accessing pornography outweighed the employees’ privacy interests. However, the appellate court disagreed, reversing the summary judgment motion for the employer. It held that while employers have the right to have surveillance at the work place, it was reasonable for the two employees to expect that images of them in their office with the door closed would not be transmitted to another portion of the building. The court further noted that the employer failed to establish that it needed to engage in this kind of surveillance. In light of this case, employers should be mindful that while employees’ expectation of privacy in the workplace are limited, and can be further limited by express policies describing the kinds of surveillance and monitoring in which the employer may engage, engaging in surveillance beyond the kinds of surveillance described in such policies may constitute a violation of employee’s rights to privacy” (Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 2006). Honest Employees Explain if Herman’s need to know whether his salespersons are honest is sufficient ground for utilizing electronic surveillance. Herman’s company is selling cars to the public and the salesperson must be honest and upfront to the buyer at all times. The integrity of the car dealer is at stake should a sales person misrepresent them to the public and there could be a potential law suit should the sales person not act in good faith. Businesses justify electronic surveillance is a number of ways. It is a form of quality control, enabling the supervisor to better correct and improve employee performance. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) made it illegal to intercept, disclose or electronic eavesdropping. The ECPA also allows employers to listen to conversations made in the ordinary course of business. However, where business interest such as a legal liability is at stake, the surveillance would be allowed. Herman chooses the electronic surveillance to include listening in on the sales person’s conversation with the potential buyer. Under the circumstances in the video, Herman had suspicions that the sales person might not act professionally and he had a right to listen in to the conversation. The sales person also lacked dignity and loyalty to the car dealership as he joked continuously in the conversation and didn’t think about the reputation he was tarnishing. Employer’s use of Electronic Surveillance Explain to what extent an employer can engage in electronic surveillance of employees Employers have increased their employee surveillance over the past several years and there are several methods of doing so. However, there are some employers that do not use electronic surveillance on their employees but go by the old school of monitoring one in “good faith”. Over time the good faith method has slowly changed to electronic surveillance and it is done in several ways. The first is creating a formal policy on employee surveillance. A written policy, which would include how the surveillance would be enforced, helps the company demonstrate the seriousness of their efforts in order to manage an employee’s unprofessional behaviors at all times. With a written policy in place, employees are put on notice about being monitored, what activity is being monitored and what is considered inappropriate usage of company assets. To the extent that the employer uses electronic surveillance, it can occur in several ways. The most commonly used monitoring can include e-mail, voice mail, telephone conversations, internet usage, computer files, and video surveillance. “Employers monitor employees primarily because of concerns over productivity and potential legal liability. Concerns over safety and theft are additional reasons why employers monitor. Employers can monitor employee productivity have extensive technological means by which to measure work activity at the most detailed level. Software exists to capture every keystroke, every error, and every moment spent typing by data-entry clerks. Similarly, the number of customer calls answered, their duration and their content can be monitored for customer-service employees. Trucking companies can now deploy location-tracking technology to continuously monitor their drivers’ activities. As electronic communications becomes even more pervasive in the modern workplace with the use of e-mail, the internet, telecommuting, and corporate intranets, employers are increasingly scrutinizing employee use of these business assets. The primary reason employers scrutinize employee e-mail and web usage is to avoid or mitigate potential legal liability for workplace sexual-harassment claims. Courts are increasingly finding employers liable for sexually harassing, hostile work environments when their employees use company equipment to transit offensive e-mail or sexually explicit pictures or comments. Because the e-mail systems and computer systems are extensions of the employer’s property, the employer has a duty to prevent harassment from occurring to them. Recently, Chevron paid a $2.2 million settlement to employees who claimed that offensive e-mails sent on company computers were sexually harassing and crested a hostile working environment” (Kelly, Eileen P. 2001:4). Explain to what extent the inclusion of innocent, unaware third-parties in such surveillance determine whether it is legal. “In the process of monitoring employee’s activities, there could be an inclusion of innocent, unaware third party people who are part of the surveillance. As an example, this can include video surveillance of an exit to the building which employees either enter or exit as third party individuals would walk through their area during the day as well. There are other common areas as well such as an elevator or bank lobbies where guest would generally visit. Other types of inclusions can be employee e-mails to both other employees as well as a friend who would be a innocent third party. These types of monitoring are legal as the employer monitors those areas as a safety concern for their employees as well as protection against potential negligence suits. Currently, federal law does not prevent video monitoring even when the employee and or third party do not know or consent to being monitored.” (www.workplacefairness.org/surveillance).