"Should employers be allowed to monitor personal communication of its employees?"
Ellen Berkeley, Amy Davis, Shawn Molloy, Deborah O’Leary, Karey Raubenheimer
BCOM 275
October 31, 2011
Professor Tom Melpolder

Although organizations have monitored employees for centuries, a number of developments have greatly expanded the amount and scope of employee monitoring. For example, recent technological advances have dramatically altered the nature of work, the working environment, and employee–employer relationships. As a result, information technology has emerged as an integral part of today’s organizational infrastructure. These new technologies have the potential to improve worker efficiency and effectiveness. However, there are risks associated with any new technology including the potential for employee abuse resulting in negative consequences (Alder, Kuenzi & Schminke, 2008). Private communication such as e-mails and social media in the workplace has emerged as one of the stickiest legal issues of the electronic age” (Cappel, 1995). The debate is divided. One side believes that employers should not have full control over its employee’s personal communication. Their view is that employees should have the ability to communicate with friends and family while on breaks, as long as productivity isn’t affected. Further, they believe that employees have a privacy right and should be allowed to communicate while at work without being monitored by the employer. On the opposing side, some employers believe that they have every right to monitor employee’s e-mails and social media sites while using company equipment. Some employers believe that he or she is paying an employee to do a job; therefore, while on the clock, the employee should be working on company business. Therefore; they have the right to monitor usage. Let us explore both sides of the issue. Pro Debate

As mentioned earlier, many employers believe that there is a benefit to the organization if allowed to monitor employee’s electronic mail and other communications. The benefits include allowing the employer the opportunity to monitor productivity levels. This is viewed as an advantage to the employer and other employees. If productivity suffers, the company suffers. The view is that if employees are fearful of being “caught” surfing the net, they are likely to be more focused and more productive. Monitoring of electronic vehicles can prevent this from occurring during working hours. In addition, to monitoring electronic messages employers can ensure employees are not downloading or file sharing the company’s material that would be considered confidential or sensitive in the workplace (Unc.edu, 2011). Organizations that utilize monitoring cite a number of legitimate reasons for doing so. For example, they note the need to discourage productivity loss due to recreational use of the Internet. In a recent survey, 51% of employees who use the Internet at work spend between 1 and 5 hours per week surfing the web for personal reasons (Alder, Kuenzi & Schminke, 2008). In addition, file sharing and downloading unauthorized material can slow down the network services the company depends on for customer service (Unc.edu, 2011). The potential costs of employee Internet abuse may be considerable. Non-work-related web access during working hours accounts for 30–40% of lost productivity (Alder, Kuenzi & Schminke, 2008). Serious forms of Internet abuse may create an uncomfortable working environment for other employees and expose the company to sexual harassment lawsuits (Alder, Kuenzi & Schminke, 2008). According to Sex Tracker, a service that monitors use of pornographic web sites, 70% of the traffic that takes place on porn sites occurs during office hours. Similarly, Com Score Networks reports that 37% of Internet-enabled employees in the U.S. have visited an ‘‘X-rated’’ Web site while at work. Thus, organizations conduct Internet monitoring to ensure a suitable environment for their employees as well to avoid exposure to potentially expensive legal liability. Whether an employee intends on viewing or sharing information maliciously or not, monitoring employee’s correspondence will ensure that focus is on productivity and that information is secure. Monitoring employee’s internet usage can also save the company from being involved in any litigations ranging from sexual harassment to fraud. It is also said that employees who are aware of being watched are likely to spend more time working and less time on personal matters. This means increase productivity and considerable cost savings by increasing a company’s return on investment.

Con Debate

Electronic monitoring has deep ethical implications with respect to workplace outcomes such as employee perceptions of privacy rights, fairness judgments, quality of work-life, and stress-related illness. As a result, the increase in Internet monitoring is at times controversial and generates considerable debate concerning its advantages and disadvantages. Many employees believe they should have a right to privacy in the workplace. Therefore, it is their belief the company should not monitor his or her electronic messages and other communications in the workplace. Others believe that implementing various forms of monitoring, including Internet monitoring, is an Orwellian invasion of worker privacy. Critics further argue that the implementation of monitoring diminishes relationships of trust (Alder, Kuenzi & Schminke, 2008). Some believe that by monitoring his or her correspondence leads to feeling of mistrust in the workplace; thus resulting in stunted productivity and harsh working conditions. In addition, many, employees feel this is a violation first and fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. Legal and Ethical Issues Legal and ethical concerns are associated with monitoring employee’s electronic mail. Some employee’s believe that monitoring is unethical and against their constitutional rights. However, many employees believe that employers should not be allowed to monitor their property for misuse in the workplace (Hodson, Englander & Englander, 1999). According to the American Management Association, 15 percent of employers review employee’s electronic mail, fax transmissions, telephone calls, and other communications in the workplace (Hodson, Englander & Englander, 1999). Many employers monitor these communications to ensure employees are productive in the workplace. However, many employees believe that employers violate their right to freedom of speech in the United States Constitution (Hodson, Englander & Englander, 1999). However, the right to freedom of speech does not apply to private property that is provided by employers such as, electronic mail, fax transmissions, and other communications in the workplace (Hodson, Englander & Englander, 1999). Additionally, employees argue that employees are violating the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This amendment protects the citizens of the United States from unreasonable search and seizures (Lectlaw.Com, 2011). Once again, this amendment applies only to the government which cannot search or seize anyone’s personal property without probable cause (Lectlaw.Com, 2011). Therefore, in this case, electronic mail this would be considered the property of the employer not the employee. As a result, employees can have electronic messages, fax transmissions, telephone calls, and other communications reviewed by their by employers. Today, many companies have employees sign an agreement before entering the workplace (Hodson, Englander & Englander, 1999). Employees are expected to manage his or her domestic lives outside of the workplace without utilizing his or her company’s communications. Despite the attention Internet monitoring receives in the popular press, research on its effects is limited. Results suggest that Internet policies in the workplace are rarely communicated adequately to employees. For instance, using their Internet E-management framework, studies found that most organizations do not employ E-management measures and that those that do are lenient in enforcement. Similarly, Lim et al. (2002) found that 86% of respondents did not know anyone who had been disciplined for non work Internet abuse in any workplace. A few studies have also examined the effects of Internet monitoring on employee behaviors and attitudes, with mixed results. Kim (2006) found that when an employee Internet management (EIM) system was introduced in a Korean company, online search time decreased by 41%. As stated above, there are two definite views of allowing an employer to view communications during work hours on work property. After weighing the pros and cons of employee monitoring, we believe that the employer has every right to monitor the employee’s internet habits and how they are spending their time online when using company owned equipment. But we also want to point out that we believe there is an ethical way to monitor employees. We believe the ethical way of monitoring the employees would be to ensure all employees are aware of the company’s computer and internet policy prior to starting with the organization. For those currently employed, a meeting should be conducted that clearly outlines the company’s expectations and policies. The policy would indicate what is expected of the employee. The employee should clearly understand that they should have no expectation of privacy while using business related computing assets. With this policy in place, there are no employee rights being violated, or trust issues between employee/employer. The employee will clearly know what is to be expected. The decision would clearly be with the employee as to whether he or she would want to stay with that organization. In conclusion, employee internet monitoring in the workplace is an important consideration for any business. A business is obligated to protect themselves from the actions of employees who act in a fraudulent manner. Monitoring must be for legitimate business reason and should be conducted ethically to protect all involved. The question of whether an employer should be allowed to monitor personal emails, phone calls, and internet surfing and other forms of personal communication of their employees while in the workplace continues to be a legitimate workplace topic. We know that employers want to be sure that their employees are doing a good job, and production without distractions is paramount for success. We also realize that employees do not want to be micro managed, or have their privacy rights violated when communicating in the workplace. Clear, open communication and following company monitoring policies set in place are the keys to bridging the two arguments in the workplace.

References

Alder, G. G., Schminke, M., Noel, T., & Kuenzi, M. (2008). Employee Reactions to Internet Monitoring: The Moderating Role of Ethical Orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 481-498. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9432-2 Retrieved from EBSCOhost 10/29/11
Cappel, J. J. (1995). A Study of Individuals' Ethical Beliefs and Perceptions of Electronic Mail Privacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(10), 819-827. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 10/28/2011
Constitutional Rights.(2011) Retrieved on November 11, 2011 from website http://www.lectlaw.com
Hodson, T. J., Englander, F., & Englander, V. (1999). Ethical, Legal and Economic Aspects of Employer Monitoring of Employee Electronic Mail. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(1), 99-108. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.10/28/2011
Kim, S, 2006, _Economics of Employee Internet Management _, The Bottom Line: Managing Library

Finances 19, 124–138.

Lim, V. K, 2002, _The IT Way of Loafing on the Job: Cyberloafing, Neutralizing and

Organizational Justice_Journal of Organizational Behavior 23, 675–694.

Unc.edu. 2011. Why do employees Monitor. Retrieved on October 30, 2011 from website http://www.unc.edu