Ethical To Monitor Employees Whilst In Workplace

Ethical To Monitor Employees Whilst In WorkplaceThe development of development Communication Technology has created new good dilemmas due to the out-of-date moral, legal, and social boundaries. These boundaries throne be represented by rules and legislation, laws and human nature. The expansion of technology has created a new era of office thrash. The majority of offices around the world argon now filled with newly available technological advances from soulal computers to large profits servers. This gate to readily available technology has led to a blurring of the boundaries and has created new issues within the workplace. Over the last decade there has been an increase among employers to superintend the actions and mathematical operation of their employees. This is due to worries about quality of work, productivity employee theft or misuse of company property. (Johnson 2008, p.1) angiotensin-converting enzyme of the main estimable issues of the workplace is employee priva cy and command. This apprisevas go forth address the following honest issuance is it ethical to monitor employees whilst they are in the workplace? This provide be addressed in several variant ways to make sure that is analysed and evaluated properly. This essay leave be constructed in the following way firstly the definition of loneliness and surveillance testament be cross examined. This is to demonstrate the vast area that this topic covers and to supply background information on the ethical issue of employee privacy and surveillance. This go forth lead into boost background information regarding the aspects of employee monitoring, including the implications of the topic and the methods employed to monitor employees. Once the background research regarding employee monitoring has been analysed the ethical side of the topic will be assed and documented before world summarised and evaluated in a conclusion. The main focus of this essay will to create an argument regar ding the issues of employ monitoring and to explore if they are ethic onlyy correct or ethically wrong.Since this topic is based around privacy in the workplace, privacy is a key term to be explored. This section of the essay will analyse the definitions of the terms and look for trends and connections relating back to the essay question. An individuals privacy theoretically descends from the concern of others who may lease information relating to the person or is relevant to the person. The Oxford English Dictionary was used to give a rough understanding of the term Privacy. The dictionary describes the term Privacy as the followinga articulate in which one is not observed or disturbed by other peopleshe returned to the privacy of her own homethe state of being spare from public attentiona law to restrict newspapers freedom to invade peoples privacy(Oxford Dictionaries, 2005)This meaning relating to the topic of employee monitoring suggest that monitoring employees would be w rong as monitoring a person stops them from being unable to be disturbed or observed. The definition above isnt relevant enough to the topic above and should only be used as a rough guide. As a starting point for the topic of Privacy Schoemans definition will be examined, as it gives a basic understanding of the word.A person has privacy to the period that others swallow peculiar(a) access to information about him, curb access to the intimacies of his life, or limited access to his thoughts or his body. (Schoeman, 1984, p. 3)It suggests that to achieve privacy in the workplace a persons personal information should be contained with only limited access. From the quote it suggests that employees actions at work and outside of it should be only truly known to them. From this quote is it a fair response to suggest that once the employer starts to have access to the employees private information that it could lead to distrust and animosity in the workplace. From analysing this quote it suggests that employee monitoring in the work place is un-ethical, as it would allow others to have access to information about a person. undermentioned Shoemans ideas, allowing employers to monitor employees would stop the employee from being able to control the access of their information.Another definition of privacy is defined belowThe condition of not having undocumented personal knowledge about one possessed by others Personal knowledge consists of facts about a person which most individuals in a given society at a given time do not want widely known about themselves. (milling machine and Weckert, 2000, p.256)This definition raises issues as it implies that a persons privacy is only relevant to the society that they find themselves in. This could be their home, workplace or on a larger scale, their country. A person should still be entitled to their privacy regardless of the society human nature dictates that all humans have the capacity to have secrets or hide secrets. F rom this a person should be able to hide information from others regardless of their society. Relating this back to the initial essay question it implies that the idea of privacy would over again make monitoring employees in the workplace unethical. It would allow the employer access to the employees personal knowledge, thus being unethical. This will be explored later when the ideas of privacy are link to ethical theses.In the following section the aspects relating to employee monitoring will be analysed and discussed. This will be done by examining the following topics the implications of the topic and the methods employed to monitor.Bassick suggests that in Employee Surveillance An Ethical Consideration it is new methods of employee monitoring that is causing the ethical issues. Bassick states that the need for employee monitoring is down to three main ideas, these being to maximize histrion productivity, ensure the integrity the organization, and to protect the interests of c ustomers and fellow doers. (Bassick et al. 2007) In relation to the topic of ethics it is quite clear to see why this has been turned into an ethical dilemma. Employers disembodied spirit that they need to watch over their employees as git lead to a more profitable and efficient handicraft. On the other hand this can have blackball effects on the employees as they can finger more pressurised, over controlled, restricted and unmotivated.Now the types of surveillance used by employers will be examined and analysed. This will show what incurs the main ethical dilemmas, if the key areas of surveillance can be identified then it will be easier to understand what causes them. American Management affiliation (AMA) in 2007 carried out and published detailed information regarding to the surveillance of employees in the workplace. This information will be used to identify the most used techniques, from this it will identify how the employees are affected.From AMAs finding it suggests that employers main concern is Web surfing, with 66% monitoring the employees web usage. As well as this AMA found that 65% of all participating businesses used software to block inappropriate access to websites. Again this could lead to conflict within the workplace as employees could feel that they have duty to access to all websites when they are not on company time, i.e. on a lunch break or after office hours. This could lead to the ethical issue of the freedom of information act as by banning certain sites it reduces the access to publicly know information. (American Management Association 2007)AMA also explored surveillance relating to keyboard activity, the report concluded that 45% of employers track the employees keystrokes. As well as monitoring time at the computer, AMAs findings found out that 43% of the participating businesses stored their employees files and work for further refreshen and analyse.16% of all the participating businesses also record phone conversatio ns. Relating this back to the issue of privacy in the workplace, this is in clear violation of it. By recording employees conversations it removes all privacy with relation to calls, for example, a private call from a family member saying somebody in the family is ill, the employer could quite easily be recoding it thus breaking the employees privacy.Of the 43% of companies that monitor e-mail, 73% of them use software to monitor emails and 40% hire an individual to actual analyse and review all the employee emails. (American Management Association 2007) again this could be seen as a breach of privacy. Whilst in the workplace employees tend to receive emails daily, the majority will be work related, but some wont be. For example, if an employee receives an email about a potential new job, but actually has no intention of applying for it. It could still cause conflict in the workplace as the employer might interpret it as the employee looking for a new job, this could then give the e mployer the grounds for dismissal.Persson and Hansson in Privacy at Work Ethical Criteria looked at the duties of employers and their responsibility is the prevention of third parties, from having access to employees privacy. Employers can state that access to their employees information is to reduce unauthorized persons from having access to it. (Persson and Hansson 2003, p.60) This would justify the reasons for having to monitor the employees but would still require surveillance in the first place.In the Ownership, Privacy and monitoring in the Workplace, Loch Suggests that many employers have the correct to monitor their employees. This is because they are being paid to do a job and not achieving this is unproductive. She goes on to suggest that the owners of the companies also own the office supplies, equipment and technology. This gives them the right to monitor how the resources get used and what they are used for. (Loch et al. 1998)Relating this back to the initial question , it makes perfect sense to agree with what loch says. For example, if a person lends a friend a laptop to help them to do coursework, that person assumes that the friend will use the laptop to do the coursework. This doesnt stop the friend from using the laptop to do other things, much(prenominal) as, go on Facebook, or access illegal content. The person still owns the laptop even though the friend is using it, this means that the person can ask for it back at any time. They could also monitor the friend to make sure that they lay aside on task and only use the laptop for the coursework. From an ethical point of view the person could be regarded as a good friend because checking up on the friend could be regarded as being a good friend to make sure that they do well. But relating this to the workplace the same scenario can apply, as the employer monitoring the employees to make sure they keep on task could be seen as good bossing. The employers could also claim that by monitoring employees it reduces the risk of dismissal as the employees are more focused.Following Lochs teachings it suggests that employers have a right to see what their employees are doing throughout the day. The main reason for this as it normally leads to an increase in performance levels allowing a business to perform more efficiently. Persson and Hansson suggest that many companies track individuals keystrokes, email use, web site hits and their movements throughout the building to measure an individual employees efficiency. (Persson and Hansson 2003) the ethical implications of this are that it can lead to mistrust and conflict within the workplace this could lead to an unmotivated workforce.Through the analyse of the types of employee monitoring and the implications of this in the workplace, it appears that it can be argued by both. Employers can argue that surveillance is necessary to workplace productive and efficiency, whilst protecting employees from third party access. Whereas e mployees can argue that it is a breach of privacy and that employers shouldnt be allowed to survey staff as it can have a negative effect on the workplace. To further this argument employee defence must also be considered, this will be carried out by looking at the ethical implications of the topic.In the 2005 American Management Association survey it concluded that there is no official legislation that makes employee surveillance illegal. But the majority of employees regard it as unethical and an invasion of their privacy. (American Management Association 2005) This could be due to the fact that a atomic reactor of employees arent aware that they are being surveyed at work, this is then regarded as an ethical dilemma because employees feel that it is their right to know if they are being monitored or not.Firstly, Miller in Privacy, the Workplace and the Internet In addition stated that employees being monitored can suffer from poor health, stress, and morale enigmas compared to other employees. Again this raises further ethical implications, is it ethical to monitor employees when it could lead to health implications. This again is a fine line, as some employers will argue that surveillance is a necessity and that the health implications are treatable. Whereas employees will argue that their health is of more importance that the profit of the company, certainly it is an issue, but many companies are happy to overlook a problem to maximise a turnover.Another ethical implication relating to ethics in the workplace relates to employer-employee trust. Trust can be eventful in a workplace, as employers must trust employees on a daily basis to carry out their job tasks, to meet deadlines and to cooperate with other employees in the workplace. Employees also feel that not only is surveillance a breach of their privacy but an invasion of their personal space. Miller again identifies thisThere are other important things in life besides efficiency and profitabilit y. In particular, there is the right to privacy. The existence of the right to privacy, and related rights such as confidentiality and autonomy, is sufficient to undermine complete views such as the view that employees ought to be under surveillance every minute of the day. (Miller and Weckert, 2000)Employee surveillance is unethical because it takes away many of the rights addressed within this theory. One right stripped away from employees through surveillance is the right to make you own choices. Companies purposely adopt e-mail monitoring, website screening, and GPS tracking technology to eliminate employees rights to lead what they want to do.8 Companies do have a need to protect their organizational interests, but forcing employees to act a certain way through surveillance is not the ethical way to control behavior.7 Instead of cameras and monitoring software, an employer following the rights approach should encourage correct behavior by stating what is expected of the empl oyees and then giving them choice to act in a way they feel is right 8.Employers often tell employees when they are being monitored. What employers often do not tell employees is the extent of the surveillance taking place.2 For example, it is common for a business to state they use e-mail surveillance software but not describe what is appropriate to complicate in an e-mail, whether or not they are consistently reviewing e-mails, and if they are storing the e-mails for future use. By withholding information, companies are violating the employees right to be told the truth.8 Any employer that purposely omits pertinent information is acting unethically. According to the rights approach, companies must not hide any information from an employee. If employee surveillance must be used, it is only right to let the worker know exactly what the companys policy is on using monitoring technology.8(Bassick et al. 2007)Another ethical theory which emphasizes the process of moral character devel opment is virtue ethics. at bottom this framework, morality is not guided by rules or rights but instead by the concept of character.9 Character, which consists of honesty, fairness, compassion and generosity, drives members of an organization to concern themselves with what to be, as opposed to what to do.9 right based ethics seeks to produce excellent persons who both act well and serve as examples to inspire others.9 Actors, those making the ethical decisions, focus on whether rights are deserved as opposed to what the rule book implicitly states.10Under this theory, privacy can be considered a right that employees deserve. Companies implementing this ethical guidance turn over that workers know how to act and display themselves with great character. Therefore, surveillance is unnecessary because employees behaviour and decisions will be consistent with the actions of a good person 10.(Knights 2006) 9(Everett 2006) 10ConclusionTechnology is an amazing phenomenon. Never before has the human race been so dependent on instruments and gadgets to get through their everyday life. There is no doubt that these advancements have increased the standard of living and made many of our everyday activities far more convenient. With this convenience has come a greater panic of privacy invasion. Simply because a new technology has increased our potential, does not make these new abilities ethical. As citizens of the United States, whether stated by law or a common ethical framework, deserve the right to keep certain things private. There is currently a vague line that distinguishes what is and is not considered private material, information, or knowledge. In order to give all citizens equal rights these definitions must be more clearly stated and understood by all. The ambiguity that currently exists between employer surveillance programs and employee knowledge of such monitoring must be eliminated. More than anything it is important that people know what activity is b eing watched and what is not. As our abilities increase, our moral and ethical thinking must accompany this growth. We must have a sense of responsibility to maintain two of the greatest natural rights that we posses privacy and autonomy.