Electronic Surveillance

Electronic surveillance in the places of work involves applying technology in eavesdropping on the employees, mainly without their knowledge. Modernization has encouraged socialization and globalization, which has developed diverse models of electronic surveillance (Howard, 2006). Findings indicate that there are four common methods of electronic surveillance with the engagement of videotaping techniques, photography techniques, information technology monitoring, and audio recording techniques (Howard, 2006). Some of the common reasons for employing electronic surveillance in the workplaces include recording of activities considered illegal and monitoring employees’ utilization of company’s time and resources, as well as shoppers (Privacyrights.org, 2013). Organizations should develop policies and regulations on the usage of the electronic surveillance in the places of work since the gadgets have a negative and a positive influence to both the employers and to the employees depending on the circumstances.

Protecting the interests of the employees and the employer calls for implementation of monitoring regulations and policies that are effective; it is argued that employers should exercise reasonable monitoring models, while at the same time making sure that the employees’ privacy is highly maintained in the places of work. Companies are expected to offer a well communicated, open and formal policies developed with active employees’ consultation; which is critical in making sure that employees within the company accept the monitoring of the internet and emails. The agreements must formulate the method of monitoring to be used. Policies are put in place to define and acknowledge usage of e-communication means in the organization, and the also the policy must define usage of the same means outside workplaces and working hours, this is critical since diverse bodies have different interpretations.

Policies are developed in establishing inappropriate and appropriate application of internet and emails in the places of work. Relaying of information requires courses on constant education in order to assist the employees to remain on the right track, in cases of changes; the same change must be communicated to the employees. Reporting systems developed by the policies must be up-to-date, accurate and offer secure information to the authorities concerned.

Some of the profound examples identify with Electronic Frontiers Australia and Federal Privacy Commissioner. The two bodies have clear guidelines on privacy, access and limitations critical in the development of a clear and open policy framework. Different places of work have different modalities of working, hence the policy frameworks may be modified or broadened. Workplace managers are expected to be knowledgeable on the modalities shaping the work environment of the employees and employers on issues of privacy debates.

Trust is valued in the workplace between the staff and the managers, in reducing risks of legal accountability and in building sound work relationship. The managers are expected to show and practice support to the privacy practices, in such instances, it is expected that the employees will feel part of the project, hence facilitating implementation.

The Federal laws and the State laws protect against usage of electronic surveillance in the United States, where an individual’s privacy is protected. Property protection is the main reason for the workplaces engaging electronic surveillance, with the main intention being monitoring of the shoppers and the employees. Surveys have indicated that employees and shoppers in the workplaces are afraid of committing crimes, since the electronic surveillance instills fear, anxiety, and doubt (Stanton & Stam, 2006). In this regard, law enforcement agencies and Police use the footages from the electronic surveillance gadgets in capturing criminals in the workplaces, where the recordings are used in the courts of law as evidence for the illegal activities.

Employee monitoring has been an issue in organizations since resistance is gathered from privacy advocates, employee interest groups, professional ethicists, lawyers and civil libertarians. Employee monitoring is discouraged on the basis of legal issues, economic issues and also on ethical issues (Hartman, 2008). The common arguments on employee monitoring circle on productivity argument, liability argument, security arguments, privacy arguments, paternity argument, creativity argument and on social control argument. It is argued that employees should be accorded freedom, privacy, technology, respect and responsibility. Different jurisdictions have laws and regulations governing employee monitoring in the places of work.

United States has set regulations and policies that govern employee monitoring in the places of work, which is guided by the employment law (Donaldson, 2001). It is expected that businesses in the US must consult the attorney before embarking on any forms of monitoring employees. Some of the organizations have argued that the employment law is complex and at the same time controversial. Employment law argues that businesses must inform their employees in advance on issues of employees monitoring, employees have a right of knowing what will not be monitored and what will be monitored in the organization. It means that the employers and the employees must communicate and come to a level platform on employee monitoring, so that the program can be considered to be legally compliant (Brown, 2000).

In the twenty first century, electronic surveillance in the workplaces has been on the rise. Conversely, not all workforces, work cultures, and workplaces calls for such close monitoring and surveillances (Piazza, 2002). Thus, employers must make the right choice on where and when to monitor the employees in the places of work. Findings have indicated that a significant number of employees are against electronic surveillance in the places of work, since the gadgets invade on their privacy (Howard, 2006). Furthermore, depending on the environment and culture, engaging electronic surveillance gadgets injure relationships, trust and ultimately send the wrong signals to workmates (Privacyrights.org, 2013).

Nevertheless, there are several advantages of electronic surveillance targeting employees at the places of work. Firstly, there are groups of employees who use office time in the wrong way, an example being watching pornographic movies and visiting social networking sites like Facebook during office hours. Under such circumstances, an employer is compelled into using electronic surveillance on the employees (Piazza, 2002). Therefore, the motivations behind us the electronic surveillance are pegged on organizations having productivity issues. Moreover, nature of websites visited by the employees (Howard, 2006) might also prompt such surveilance. Besides, some employees cultivate hostile work environment that is against an organizational culture. While employers are expected to trust their employees in engaging in good judgment practices, some readily violate the same.

In light of the foregoing, employers to some extent are compelled to use electronic surveillance to monitor employees’ activities and behaviors in the workplace. Nevertheless, the decision to use the gadgets must be guided by the work environment and the nature and manner of the organizational operations and systems (Privacyrights.org, 2013). In using such gadgets, organizational heads must take cognizance of the fact that electronic surveillance influences the levels of motivation, privacy, trust, relationships, and the employee commitment to work. As such, employers must weigh the benefits versus the shortcomings of using electronic surveillance in the workplaces before they can implement the same (Brown, 2000).

References

Brown, W. (2000). Ontological Security,Existential Anxiety, and Workplace Privacy. Journal of of Business Ethics , 4-19.

Donaldson, T. (2001). Ethics in Cyberspace: Have We Seen this Movie Before? Business and Society Review , 273-291.

Hartman, L. (2008). The Rights and Wrongs of Workplace Snooping. Journal of Business Strategy , 16-62.

Howard, G. (2006). Vetting And Monitoring Employees: A Guide for Hr Practitioners. Farnham: Ashgate Pub Co.

Piazza, P. (2002). More Companies Monitoring Computer Use. Security Management , 46-104.

Privacyrights.org. (2013). Workplace Privacy and Employee Monitoring. Retrieved September 01, 2013, from Privacyrights.org: https://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm

Stanton, J. M. & Stam, K. R. (2006). The Visible Employee: Using Workplace Monitoring and Surveillance to Protect Information Assets-Without Compromising Employee Privacy or Trust. Westport, Connecticut: Information Today, Inc.