ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF EMPLOYEES

Electronic Surveillance of Employees



Electronic Surveillance of Employees

Introduction

The main purpose of this paper is to deal with the case study of “fade in-interior auto dealership show room-day”. This case study is about “Electronic surveillance of employees”. In this case, the boss of an auto dealer shop Herman used to listen to the conversations of his salespersons. One of his employees, Shelly had an objection on it and said that this is considered to be an invasion in the privacy. If he continues listening to their conversation, then she is not ready to work in this organization and will quit. This paper describes that whether the electronic surveillance of employees is right or not.

1. Explain where an employee can reasonably expect to have privacy in the workplace.

There are several places in the work place where an employee can reasonably expect to have privacy in the workplace. The rise of electronic surveillance in the workplace has made it fertile ground for claiming an invasion of privacy. However, most non-organized private-sector employees would likely be alarmed to learn that there is no legal basis upon which an invasion of privacy may be claimed (Baumhart 2002). In fact, the current privacy framework is inadequate to protect employees privacy interests increasingly being eroded by technology-enhanced surveillance from which vast amounts of personal information are collected, personal information ranging from data to images.

The convergence of surveillance and information widens the privacy gap in protection and increases the need for privacy issues in the employment context to be addressed. There are different places where an employee can reasonably expect to have privacy in the workplace (McCreadie 2000). These places are cafeteria, washroom, ladies dressing room, and a traditional lounge. These are the places where an employee prefers privacy because, at such places, an employee prefers to discuss personal or we can say personal issues.

2. In the office workplace there are typically two types of workspace, an open area, in which there are several desks and where conversations can be overhead, or an enclosed office, in which—when the door is closed—conversations cannot be heard and where one would expect virtually complete privacy. Explain whether it makes a difference if an employee is in an open area or an enclosed office.

In some cases, it matters that whether an employee is in an open area or an enclosed office. Mostly employees prefer that if they are sitting in an open office then their privacy should be maintained, and it should not be disturbed. It is perceived that the employees sitting in the open area do not have any privacy and it does not matter whether they are monitored or not? In my view, in case of electronic monitoring surveillance, there should not be any distinction that whether an employee is sitting in an open area or in an enclosed office (Botan 2006).

An employer can monitor all employees and can have an eye on all the employees whether they are sitting in an open area or enclosed ...