Should employers have the right to monitor you?
Discussion
I am doing a bit of research on this at the moment and am interested to hear your opinions.
Should employers have the right to monitor you at work, including e-mail, internet, phone usage and to such extremes as placing trackers on company vehicles? (Which apparantly some US companies use!!)
I know I was monitored at my placement firm, but AFAIK only internet and e-mail and I was ok with this, but I would be a little more circumspect with phone monitoring, especially if I was working from home.
What do you lot think?
Should employers have the right to monitor you at work, including e-mail, internet, phone usage and to such extremes as placing trackers on company vehicles? (Which apparantly some US companies use!!)
I know I was monitored at my placement firm, but AFAIK only internet and e-mail and I was ok with this, but I would be a little more circumspect with phone monitoring, especially if I was working from home.
What do you lot think?
Yes. An employer provides you with equipment which they've paid for and they pay you to be there and work. Any reasonable person would accept use of the internet or the phone or even a company vehicle within reason, but an employer should have the right to monitor if their property and facilities are being misused.
Is there not an invasion of privacy matter here though? I am, generally, happy with the idea of being monitored at work, but I think that there comes a point where monitoring could become invasive, and I think that this becomes especially relevant when working from home.
There have also been incidents mentioned to me where an employer has heard of an incident that has happened outside of work and the accused has been disciplined at work - I will find some details later as I have to nip out soon.
Does this not take monitoring too far? If so where should the line be drawn?
Phil
There have also been incidents mentioned to me where an employer has heard of an incident that has happened outside of work and the accused has been disciplined at work - I will find some details later as I have to nip out soon.
Does this not take monitoring too far? If so where should the line be drawn?
Phil
Yep, our company vans have online tracking software so we can see if they are taking the p1$$ with their time cards, they were told about it when they were fitted, and the last company I worked for monitered phone calls for overseas calls, long calls, and repeated calls to one number 
mannginger said: Is there not an invasion of privacy matter here though? I am, generally, happy with the idea of being monitored at work, but I think that there comes a point where monitoring could become invasive, and I think that this becomes especially relevant when working from home.
There have also been incidents mentioned to me where an employer has heard of an incident that has happened outside of work and the accused has been disciplined at work - I will find some details later as I have to nip out soon.
Does this not take monitoring too far? If so where should the line be drawn?
Phil
I think they have every right so long as you are informed of the fact that you may be monitored, you are there to work after all .
I dont mind them doing a bit of surfing or private calls but lets face it half the people on here are getting away with murder .
reparestobeflamed:ADT have trackers in their vehicles, but they have a Work/Private selection available.
Where I work there is a certain individual who writes in a diary what everyone is doing, where they are going, listens into telephone conversations on a spare handsets and calls into the main office to inform whenever we leave on a job or a run. All off his own back.
Top That!
>> Edited by MoJocvh on Wednesday 26th February 17:34
Where I work there is a certain individual who writes in a diary what everyone is doing, where they are going, listens into telephone conversations on a spare handsets and calls into the main office to inform whenever we leave on a job or a run. All off his own back.
Top That!
>> Edited by MoJocvh on Wednesday 26th February 17:34
I'm with Ted. Yes an employer has a right to monitor that which you do at work. Frankly - any aspect of that which you do but I draw the line at cameras in the bogs - that's personal and no-one should watch that. 
I think it also reasonable for an employer to monitor some things that you do outside of the workplace. For example - on customer sites. Another example would be the employee's conduct at a Training Course or Company do - an employer can reasonably ask you that even when out of work - if you do anything with a remote connection to the company that you represent the company in a good way. For example again - if the Company sponsors a local football team and employees get into a fight with fans of the opposing team that might be considered unreasonable...
The Company might also be legitimately interested in your private life if you commit crimes - either using company property or knowledge gained at the company or, in fact, for any reason. I would not wish to employ a lawbreaking scrote myself.
However the Company has absolutely NO RIGHT at all to involve itself in your home life, sex life or social life.
I think for the very most part (and we hear of the horrendous exceptions) most Companies draw the lines in the right places.
An example of where they didn't once is:
Female employee of consultancy X has affair with employee of client Y. Affair is broken off. Client Y is no longer interested in purchasing systems from consultancy X. A Manager in consultancy X foolishly intimates rather strongly to female employee that it would be in her career interest to re-establish relations with employee of client Y pronto-tonto. Understandably she complained and all hell broke loose. She got bollocked for having an unprofessional relationship with a client (fairly IMO) but (also fairly IMO) was forgiven. Stoopid manager was not. Rightly.
I think it also reasonable for an employer to monitor some things that you do outside of the workplace. For example - on customer sites. Another example would be the employee's conduct at a Training Course or Company do - an employer can reasonably ask you that even when out of work - if you do anything with a remote connection to the company that you represent the company in a good way. For example again - if the Company sponsors a local football team and employees get into a fight with fans of the opposing team that might be considered unreasonable...
The Company might also be legitimately interested in your private life if you commit crimes - either using company property or knowledge gained at the company or, in fact, for any reason. I would not wish to employ a lawbreaking scrote myself.
However the Company has absolutely NO RIGHT at all to involve itself in your home life, sex life or social life.
I think for the very most part (and we hear of the horrendous exceptions) most Companies draw the lines in the right places.
An example of where they didn't once is:
Female employee of consultancy X has affair with employee of client Y. Affair is broken off. Client Y is no longer interested in purchasing systems from consultancy X. A Manager in consultancy X foolishly intimates rather strongly to female employee that it would be in her career interest to re-establish relations with employee of client Y pronto-tonto. Understandably she complained and all hell broke loose. She got bollocked for having an unprofessional relationship with a client (fairly IMO) but (also fairly IMO) was forgiven. Stoopid manager was not. Rightly.
I found the following fairly interesting - but what is "reasonable"?
In June 1997, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that workers have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy in making and receiving telephone calls at work. It was assumed that this applied equally to e-mails and other communications at work.
Some organisations contend that because they own the computer resources on which e-mail messages are transmitted, they should have an unconditional right to control and monitor the contents of those messages. In effect, employers assume the right to dictate how their workers can communicate with each other.
The private sphere is under attack throughout society. Intervention in people's lives is becoming acceptable, as they are increasingly seen as unable to manage their own lives without outside assistance. The workplace is no exception to this increased intervention and erosion of privacy. From monitoring e-mail and Internet use to forcing workers to undergo counselling to resolve problems in the workplace, the notion of workers having a right to privacy and autonomy in the workplace is being eroded.
Workers resisting the monitoring of their e-mail, insisting on their right to a private sphere in the workplace and refusing counselling are seen as a problem by employers. By simply defending their right to privacy and trying to preserve a sense of inviolable personal integrity in the workplace, they are seen as being obstructive.
More acceptable are workers who do not stand up for their right to privacy and who willingly accept interventions such as e-mail monitoring as a necessary price for freedom from harassment. In short, workers who are prepared to surrender a greater proportion of their sense of selfhood.
The inevitable consequence of monitoring e-mails is an erosion of freedom of expression in the workplace. Workers knowing their e-mails are being monitored exercise self restraint in what they say. Whether it is self censorship practised by workers fearful of censure, or direct intervention to terminate an offending message, freedom of expression suffers.
Taken from: www.netfreedom.org/news.asp?item=103
So do we just shut up and take it - or should there be a CLEAR line drawn - legally?
>> Edited by mannginger on Wednesday 26th February 17:46
In June 1997, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that workers have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy in making and receiving telephone calls at work. It was assumed that this applied equally to e-mails and other communications at work.
Some organisations contend that because they own the computer resources on which e-mail messages are transmitted, they should have an unconditional right to control and monitor the contents of those messages. In effect, employers assume the right to dictate how their workers can communicate with each other.
The private sphere is under attack throughout society. Intervention in people's lives is becoming acceptable, as they are increasingly seen as unable to manage their own lives without outside assistance. The workplace is no exception to this increased intervention and erosion of privacy. From monitoring e-mail and Internet use to forcing workers to undergo counselling to resolve problems in the workplace, the notion of workers having a right to privacy and autonomy in the workplace is being eroded.
Workers resisting the monitoring of their e-mail, insisting on their right to a private sphere in the workplace and refusing counselling are seen as a problem by employers. By simply defending their right to privacy and trying to preserve a sense of inviolable personal integrity in the workplace, they are seen as being obstructive.
More acceptable are workers who do not stand up for their right to privacy and who willingly accept interventions such as e-mail monitoring as a necessary price for freedom from harassment. In short, workers who are prepared to surrender a greater proportion of their sense of selfhood.
The inevitable consequence of monitoring e-mails is an erosion of freedom of expression in the workplace. Workers knowing their e-mails are being monitored exercise self restraint in what they say. Whether it is self censorship practised by workers fearful of censure, or direct intervention to terminate an offending message, freedom of expression suffers.
Taken from: www.netfreedom.org/news.asp?item=103
So do we just shut up and take it - or should there be a CLEAR line drawn - legally?
>> Edited by mannginger on Wednesday 26th February 17:46
Forums | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff