To: All Staff
From: Max Claude, CEO
Date: June 26, 2015
Subject: Implementation of workplace surveillance

In an effort to keep everyone on the same page at XYZ Corporation, I am writing this memo to inform you on the workplace surveillance that will take effect very soon here at XYZ.
Electronic surveillance of workers has long been a source of dispute between employers, workers and unions. In the case of surveillance "on workplace ", the employer, or the owner may decide to install video cameras or other surveillance means to ensure, in particular, the personnel safety and protection of property in the company. Unions or employees, may in turn, appropriately, challenge the presence of these types of monitoring alleging that they constitute an unreasonable work condition or undermine the dignity or privacy of workers (ILO 2007). That whole debate is usually confined inside the company which implies that the only opposing parties are the employer and employee representatives, whose case usually get decided by an arbitrator.
You may wonder if indeed there are controversies on this issue then why senior management or the CEO, pondering such idea. Well, it is because in the last quarter of 2014, XYZ Corporation has decided and entered into a contract for the installation of surveillance throughout our facilities in the North Eastern region of the United States.
Just as we have promised you from the moment you joined XYZ Corporation you are an important stakeholder and as your CEO it is my duty to keep that promise and inform you the direction of the company. Although the installation will take place three months from now, here are some matters that I needed you to understand. Jurisprudence has established different treatment criteria for legality of workplace surveillance and spinning in law work (McHardy 2005). I am also guaranteeing you that there will be no electronic surveillance conducted by third parties; XYZ will dwell exclusively to the protection, security and of the monitoring to improve our personnel interaction with customers and our professional development. Let me identify the criteria that apply to each of these three situations.
Workplace surveillance by the employer
As you may already know, theft and property values are the main reasons, often successfully invoked to justify the use of surveillance cameras in the workplace (Isnard 2001). As part of the legitimate right of this company in the protection of its assets, I have elected to exercise that right. The case of the United States v. Jones have recognized the legality of electronic surveillance when an outbreak of flights rife with the employer (Slobogin 2012). In that matter they have agreed that the employer can monitor its employees electronically, by video or audio recording, provided that this monitoring meets a number of criteria. United States v. Jones in 2012, was the first decision of its magnitude to deal with the legality of electronic monitoring and provided large discretion to feds, states and other institutions to monitor in the workplace.
Vandalism
Vandalism is another reason for legitimizing electronic surveillance. Indeed, when a persistent problem of vandalism in our company can be solved by the use monitoring, I ought to use that solution in accordance with the law to remedy the problem. Arbitration courts have also recognized the legality of the process (Guerin 2012). The most striking example was in 2006 for the Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court in Nelson v. Salem State College (Wilson 2006). In places where cameras cannot be installed such as inside the male and female bathroom, a camera placed at the entrance to monitor the entering and exiting of employees is deemed legal (Wilson 2006).
Monitoring for employee improvement
Although I have highlighted convincing reasons on why we are obliged to select the best ways to protect our assets, I feel that our personal development through collective monitoring surveillance will give us an even bigger edge in our industry.
Firstly, electronic monitoring of employees presents a positive aspect- it is objective. It's a really good point in the sense that this process will provide a method of assessing performance and prevents non-biased prejudices that our managers can have about you (the employee) (DeTienne 1993). The information generated by electronics or computer will return a uniform and accurate feedback of past performance (Earley 1988). Thus, the evaluation will only be based on the quantity and quality of work produced by the employee and not solely on the opinion of the manager. One of the main benefits of monitoring of employees, and more specifically video surveillance, is to provide feedback on work performance. Indeed, rather than listening to the manager to tell you how to do your work, you may view the recording in order to identify weaknesses and objective way to judge your performance based on criteria established in advance (Earley 1988).
In this case, the video surveillance will also be used as a real management tool, showing employees their work habits. So they can realize for themselves the points they have to improve. You will also have the opportunity to use this information to compare your performance with other employees performing the same tasks. A study by Christopher Earley in 1988 showed that the feedback received by an employee is always better when viewed directly from a machine that is neutral and objective than when made by a supervisor (Earley 1988).
Finally, the introduction of workplace surveillance in this organization will train and allow management in the future, to implement new forms of work such as teleworking or provide access to flexible hours in the organization. Indeed, the future will offer more opportunities as it would be now possible to control the work of remote employees, which will give them more freedom and autonomy in the management of their tasks.
As I finish this memorandum I need to also remind you that we are not legislators, we are not judges and we certainly are not politicians. We are smart, determined, and tough minded business people who must worry about the creation and addition of value in our customer’s lives. Those folks that I just mentioned have enacted sweeping legislation sometimes in favor of the union and sometimes in favor of the corporations and based on those facts we know that they are going to modify further laws that will favor the union and also the corporations- those conditions, we cannot change, but what we can change is ourselves. Let us welcome these improvement in XYZ corporations and at the same times improve our personal and professional development.

Reference 1) ILO (2007). Retrieved on June 2015 from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---webdev/documents/publication/wcms_082607.pdf 2) McHardy C. (2005) Retrieved on June 2015 http://www.mccarthy.ca/pubs/Monitoring_and_Surveillance.pdf 3) Isnard A. (2001) Retrieved on June 2015 http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/regional/isnard1.pdf 4) Slobogin C. (2012) Retrieved on June 2015 http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=djclpp 5) Wilson D. (2006) Retrieved on June 2015 http://www.rc.com/documents/article.pdf 6) DeTienne. (1993). Developing an Employee-Centered Electronic Monitoring System. Journal of Systems Management 44(8):12-16. 7) Johnson B. (1995). Technological Surveillance in the workplace. 8) Earley, P.C. (1988). Computer-generated performance feedback in the Subscription-processing industry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 50-64.