The unblinking eye of the boss sees more than you realize
Last Updated: Thursday, March 12, 2009 | 11:07 AM ET
By Ian Harvey, CBC News
Some companies are purchasing software to track the time employees spend on sites such as eBay, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. (iStock)
Warning: reading this story at work could be hazardous to your career.
Your boss could be watching your keystrokes, logging websites you visit and keeping track of how long you spend there, and looking for keywords in your emails. As if that weren't scary enough, some employers are going even further by demanding prospective employees submit to deep background checks as a condition of employment.
Technology is making it much easier for employers to quickly find out things about the people who work for them —or want to work for them.
And it's all perfectly legal.
Your boss could be watching your keystrokes, logging websites you visit and keeping track of how long you spend there, and looking for keywords in your emails. As if that weren't scary enough, some employers are going even further by demanding prospective employees submit to deep background checks as a condition of employment.
Technology is making it much easier for employers to quickly find out things about the people who work for them —or want to work for them.
And it's all perfectly legal.
'I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer.'—Paul Guindon, Canadian Corps of Commissionaires
Some employers, for example, are going far beyond a simple check of employment references and are drilling deep into a prospective employee's background. They're checking for a criminal record against the national police database by requiring a fingerprint.
It's a trend that Paul Guindon, chairman of national business management committee at the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, sees growing exponentially. Besides providing security guards, the Commissionaires' services include doing police clearances and digital fingerprint checks of staff for companies.
"I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer," he says, "especially those in sensitive positions like teachers."
To capitalize on the trend, his organization purchased 40 digital fingerprint machines with training and software at a cost of $1.5 million. At some 20,000 checks a year and growing, Guindon expects the investment will pay for itself in three years.
"We already do about 25,000 traditional ink-and-roll fingerprints, but there's a 200,000 backlog at the RCMP because it's manual," he says. "Digital is instant."
He says many private and public employers demand criminal record checks, including the Department of National Defence and defence contractors, Public Works Canada and many educational and health institutions.
Because of the privacy issues involved, those being checked must consent to the $75 process. The encrypted fingerprint data is sent directly to the RCMP, and the results returned to the employer noting a summary of any conviction including the offence, location and date if there is a match on the database.
"We have no idea of the result, and the data is wiped off our computers when it is sent," says Guindon, noting the Commissionaires also offer a pardon service for those with criminal records who qualify to have them expunged.
Potential employees, of course, can refuse the check and take a pass on the potential job. They usually get into difficulties if they haven't disclosed a criminal record when asked directly about it during their application process.
Companies have some responsibilities to protect privacy, though. They must store the information securely and restrict access to it if they hire the prospect, or destroy it securely if the applicant is not hired.
It's a trend that Paul Guindon, chairman of national business management committee at the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, sees growing exponentially. Besides providing security guards, the Commissionaires' services include doing police clearances and digital fingerprint checks of staff for companies.
"I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer," he says, "especially those in sensitive positions like teachers."
To capitalize on the trend, his organization purchased 40 digital fingerprint machines with training and software at a cost of $1.5 million. At some 20,000 checks a year and growing, Guindon expects the investment will pay for itself in three years.
"We already do about 25,000 traditional ink-and-roll fingerprints, but there's a 200,000 backlog at the RCMP because it's manual," he says. "Digital is instant."
He says many private and public employers demand criminal record checks, including the Department of National Defence and defence contractors, Public Works Canada and many educational and health institutions.
Because of the privacy issues involved, those being checked must consent to the $75 process. The encrypted fingerprint data is sent directly to the RCMP, and the results returned to the employer noting a summary of any conviction including the offence, location and date if there is a match on the database.
"We have no idea of the result, and the data is wiped off our computers when it is sent," says Guindon, noting the Commissionaires also offer a pardon service for those with criminal records who qualify to have them expunged.
Potential employees, of course, can refuse the check and take a pass on the potential job. They usually get into difficulties if they haven't disclosed a criminal record when asked directly about it during their application process.
Companies have some responsibilities to protect privacy, though. They must store the information securely and restrict access to it if they hire the prospect, or destroy it securely if the applicant is not hired.
Desktop surveillance
Technology is also offering employers ways to quietly keep tabs on what their staffers are doing on company time.
That time is money, says SpectorSoft Corp.'s marketing director Doug Taylor, and the Florida-based company sells software packages to monitor the online activities of a company's employees. Underlining how much time at work some spend on personal pursuits, Taylor points to a report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas that suggests during the National Football League regular season some 37 million people spend an average of 50 minutes a week at work managing their fantasy teams.
Add in eBay, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, stupid email jokes and the lists of top web destinations, and number of lost hours grows exponentially.
That time is money, says SpectorSoft Corp.'s marketing director Doug Taylor, and the Florida-based company sells software packages to monitor the online activities of a company's employees. Underlining how much time at work some spend on personal pursuits, Taylor points to a report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas that suggests during the National Football League regular season some 37 million people spend an average of 50 minutes a week at work managing their fantasy teams.
Add in eBay, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, stupid email jokes and the lists of top web destinations, and number of lost hours grows exponentially.
During the National Football League regular season some 37 million people spend an average of 50 minutes a week at work managing their fantasy teams.
Looking to claw back that company time, IMV Projects, a Calgary project management firm, installed SpectorSoft's 360 software three years ago on the PCs of the 650 people it employed at the time.
IT manager Ross Benov conservatively figures the firm recouped 10 hours per year per employee at $30 to $40 an hour, equaling between $195,000 and $260,000 in salaried work time. Setting a more liberal estimate of time wasting at 40 hours a year per employee, it adds up to more than $1 million, he says.
"We use it in different ways —to run a report on an employee if their supervisor feels they're spending too much time online, to see what websites they're going to," says Benov.
He notes that employees are told about the software and the company's internet guidelines. "We've had no problems since and I haven't heard any complaints. We allow full internet access at lunchtime because we want to keep people happy and maintain a balance."
SpectorSoft started making its surveillance software for the consumer market about a decade ago, allowing parents to control what their kids did online and monitor which sites they went to. It has since expanded to the corporate world and is finding an eager audience. Today it is one of the fastest growing companies in the U.S., with sales to more than 50,000 companies and 400,000 consumers.
"You have to own the computer and the network," says Taylor noting some European jurisdictions do prohibit some types of monitoring. "And you should tell your employees up front that they may be monitored."
He says there are two ways to use the system. The first is to monitor all employees for prohibited online behaviour. The second is to only watch employees who are not meeting performance standards. The software is not intended to crack down on any personal use of the web or email, Taylor says, but to single out the worst abusers.
"The system knows how long you had an eBay window open and how long you were active in that window," he says. "So it's not going to report that you were on eBay for seven hours [if the window was open that long], just that the window was open and that your mouse was active inside that window for 20 minutes."
IT manager Ross Benov conservatively figures the firm recouped 10 hours per year per employee at $30 to $40 an hour, equaling between $195,000 and $260,000 in salaried work time. Setting a more liberal estimate of time wasting at 40 hours a year per employee, it adds up to more than $1 million, he says.
"We use it in different ways —to run a report on an employee if their supervisor feels they're spending too much time online, to see what websites they're going to," says Benov.
He notes that employees are told about the software and the company's internet guidelines. "We've had no problems since and I haven't heard any complaints. We allow full internet access at lunchtime because we want to keep people happy and maintain a balance."
SpectorSoft started making its surveillance software for the consumer market about a decade ago, allowing parents to control what their kids did online and monitor which sites they went to. It has since expanded to the corporate world and is finding an eager audience. Today it is one of the fastest growing companies in the U.S., with sales to more than 50,000 companies and 400,000 consumers.
"You have to own the computer and the network," says Taylor noting some European jurisdictions do prohibit some types of monitoring. "And you should tell your employees up front that they may be monitored."
He says there are two ways to use the system. The first is to monitor all employees for prohibited online behaviour. The second is to only watch employees who are not meeting performance standards. The software is not intended to crack down on any personal use of the web or email, Taylor says, but to single out the worst abusers.
"The system knows how long you had an eBay window open and how long you were active in that window," he says. "So it's not going to report that you were on eBay for seven hours [if the window was open that long], just that the window was open and that your mouse was active inside that window for 20 minutes."
Legal considerations
But do the measures companies are taking to check and monitor employees equal an invasion of privacy?
A recent Ontario Securities Commission case, for example, uncovered a scheme by an IT worker who had default access to all company emails and who used his inside knowledge of merger talks to profit on the stock market before the talks were made public.
Companies are within their rights to ask prospective employees to submit to a background check, including fingerprinting, says the federal privacy commissioner's office, though there are rules around how that information is stored and who has access to it.
When it comes to on-the-job surveillance, there's no easy answer, says lawyer Michael P. Fitzgibbon, a labour and employment law specialist at Borden Ladner Gervais in Toronto.
"The lines are not clearly drawn, so it's a question of degree," says Fitzgibbon.
He notes that there are legal requirements around compliance and dissemination of information for publicly traded companies that may make surveillance necessary. A recent Ontario Securities Commission case, for example, uncovered a scheme by an IT worker who had default access to all company emails and who used his inside knowledge of merger talks to profit on the stock market before the talks were made public.
Fitzgibbon adds that there are areas where the employer has an interest in ensuring confidential data is not distributed by employees, and that sexual harassment and human rights rules aren't violated by material a worker puts on their screen or uses a company email system to distribute to others.
Still, says Fitzgibbon, monitoring all employees by default can also create a climate of distrust. That can have an unintended, negative impact on the productivity or retention of valued staff.
The federal privacy commissioner's office says surveillance of employee activities is a case-by-case matter. It says that as long as there are legitimate reasons for capturing the data and it's stored securely under privacy legislation rules, there's no hard and fast policy on the practice.
Not every company is comfortable with such stringent measures.
"We do get prospective clients who investigate our software and then decide it's just not for them," says SpectorSoft's Taylor.
The key is consent, Fitzgibbon says. Companies should tell employees if they are being monitored and be clear about what the guidelines are for personal internet use.
Still, to be on the safe side, you might want to stop reading this story and get back to work.
When it comes to on-the-job surveillance, there's no easy answer, says lawyer Michael P. Fitzgibbon, a labour and employment law specialist at Borden Ladner Gervais in Toronto.
"The lines are not clearly drawn, so it's a question of degree," says Fitzgibbon.
He notes that there are legal requirements around compliance and dissemination of information for publicly traded companies that may make surveillance necessary. A recent Ontario Securities Commission case, for example, uncovered a scheme by an IT worker who had default access to all company emails and who used his inside knowledge of merger talks to profit on the stock market before the talks were made public.
Fitzgibbon adds that there are areas where the employer has an interest in ensuring confidential data is not distributed by employees, and that sexual harassment and human rights rules aren't violated by material a worker puts on their screen or uses a company email system to distribute to others.
Still, says Fitzgibbon, monitoring all employees by default can also create a climate of distrust. That can have an unintended, negative impact on the productivity or retention of valued staff.
The federal privacy commissioner's office says surveillance of employee activities is a case-by-case matter. It says that as long as there are legitimate reasons for capturing the data and it's stored securely under privacy legislation rules, there's no hard and fast policy on the practice.
Not every company is comfortable with such stringent measures.
"We do get prospective clients who investigate our software and then decide it's just not for them," says SpectorSoft's Taylor.
The key is consent, Fitzgibbon says. Companies should tell employees if they are being monitored and be clear about what the guidelines are for personal internet use.
Still, to be on the safe side, you might want to stop reading this story and get back to work.
Managers now have the technical means to monitor employees. Managers can listen to their staff's telephone calls, read their email, and search their internet activity. Many managers believe they should monitor employees because they need to measure productivity, gather information for performance reviews, and prevent legal problems for the company. They also feel justified in keeping track of their employees' actions because technology is owned by the company. The majority of employers using electronic-monitoring technology notify the employees that they will be monitored.
1. What do you think of this management practice?
2. Is it ethical, moral and legal?
1. I think monitoring what workers do is essential, but only in the work place. As the article said, many people do things other than work such as Youtube, Facebook and Google. Workers should do what they are assigned to in work time, and I think employers have right to monitor what are they doing in the workplace. However, it's different when workers finished their working. It is one of basic rights for people to have privacy on their own time. The article said that's why companies will ask if they can monitor employees before they hire, but it's like "Sign in or u will not get a job". So, I think monitoring is enough for just workplace. Exception can be for people who are working at intelligence agency of the country who know Top secretes. (Even those people don't agree, anyways they will be tapped.
ReplyDelete2. I think monitoring isn't ethical or moral because people have privacy, but it should be legal in the work places because they are getting paid for assigned hours , which means employers have right to make sure employees are working as much as they get paid.
I agree with you that companies should be allowed to monitor their employees to make sure there isn't any time being waste in online activities that don't relate to work. But I think companies should be clear with all workers that they will be monitoring them.
DeleteI agree with the both of you I think its a great idea to know what the employee are up to.But at least they should be informed that they are being watched by their bosses because some can do things that can risk them losing their jobs but with that also it is not right to invade peoples privacy because if someone checks their mail or logs into their social media accounts on the work computer the boss can see what they are up to and with that they can hack into their accounts and steal information things like this come with advantages and disadvantages its up to the workers to know whats right.
DeleteI agree that companies should not have the ability to monitor you outside of your work environment, but only to an extent. I believe a company should be allowed to use public information about you that is posted online, but I also believe that monitoring your emails is unethical and invasive.
DeleteI agree with basically with all that you said, this should only be legal while they are at work, they should not be monitored while they are not at work.
DeleteI agree with you that monitoring should be required only at workplace. Employees should use their time productively to contribute to the development of the company and also to get paid. Monitoring is necessary for employers to make employees work as much as they get paid.
DeleteI agree that employees should have their privacy but also that employers have the right to see what their employees are doing
DeletePosted on behalf of Sihan:
DeleteI agree that monitoring isn't ethical because nobody would like to share what their privacy is. Also the employees should be told that they are monitored. In that way they can limit what they do
I strongly agree with you in the first answer, companies should monitor their employees only in the workplace. So they can know what kind of behaviour they have while working and if they are doing their work right.
DeleteManagers having the ability to monitor their employees is very important to the efficiency of the workplace.
ReplyDeleteI believe this because if people came to work and just did personal things all day such as shop online and look at Instagram while getting paid, the company looses money and the employee gets away with not doing their job. Of course they could do whatever they want on break and at home, but when someone is at work they should be working. Exceptions could be made if it was a personal emergency but they should also not be paid for that time unless it is paid leave.
Companies receiving background checks on possible and current employees is important for the manager and for the other employees. The other employees have the right to know if someone else in the workplace has been convicted of a crime and what crime it was. Managers should have the right to know as well because they can use this during the hiring process and they can make the decision on wether it will effect the workplace or not.
With regards to background checks I completely agree with you. If their is public information that suggests that you may not be the best candidate for a job, or could be a hazard to other employees, an employer would choose someone more suitable. Without this information they could be hiring people with criminal pasts that haven't changed, or could have their companies reputation damaged.
DeleteI agree with you, employees won't stop doing their personal things if they don't have a management. Employees should be focusing on the work when they are at work and nothing else like social media, if it is an personal emergency the employees should not be paid for that time.
DeleteI disagree that employees should know if someone has convinced a crime or what it was because that could make the other employees nervous and not work so well because they might be worried that this person will steel from them or whatever they were convicted of. Telling everyone of this persons crime would also hurt this person socially because everyone would be thinking don’t get to close to that person, their a bad person.
DeleteI agree with you that the managers have the right to have a background check on their employees or people wanting to work for them. But I don't think it is necessary for other employees to know about their past crimes they have convicted, because as long as the manager / employer thinks they are fit for the job and the job environment, that person should be allowed to work there without stress from their co-workers.
DeletePosted on behalf of Sihan:
DeleteI agreed that the background check is necessary for an employee because the companies need to know whether you can be trusted or not. That's a safety issue that can't be ignored. Then it's all about how the companies are going to protect your personal information from lacking.
I agree that companies have the right to do so since they paid the employees to do the job. But they have better ways to prove if an employee is being productive or not like judging by his/her job performance instead of checking his/her online activities.
DeleteDo we have our own rights when we are working in others’ company? That is being a controversial issue nowadays. The employers should have the ability to control us as workers, right? But the issue is started from here, some people thinks that employers shouldn’t monitor the employees, because of privacy issues. Indeed, the privacy is important to many people, but I still hold the point of view that employers should have the rights to monitor employees at work.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason why is that we as employees are working in others’ company, and we work for them as we are helping them and “work as them”. Trust me, this is not an issue towards interceptions of high to low level workers. Think about it, when we are students, our educational-used laptops are controlled and monitored by the school. So, it’s the same way. When we are students, our sole purpose is study, so the school should monitor us for playing games and cracking school’s software, and to prevent from these disruptions. When we are working in others’ company, our sole purpose is work, so the manager or employers should monitor us to prevent us from playing games, chatting, or breaking into the company’s safe vault.
But actually, is monitoring employees really ethical? In my opinion, before the agreement to work being signed by both the employer and the employee, the employer should tell the employee about the monitoring things. You know, some people have a really strong hold of opinion towards privacy. If they don’t agree, then they cannot get the job, because the employer need to monitor them. So if they do so, this will prevent a lot of issues that people are discussing nowadays. And, it’s not ethical to and also shouldn’t monitor them without their permission. But what I’m saying, the monitoring only happens at work, and each worker should have two separate computers, one for work and one for personal use.
For conclusion, the company only should monitor them at work, not in the personal time. If everyone do so, the issues will be gone.
Yes we do.Before working in other people companies we are given a contract on the list of things we are meant to do and not do with that we are also given a work computer and on that bosses can see what you do on it because its the companies computer and they have the right to know whats going on their computer.If it was your personal computer thats different thats invasion of privacy so yes employees have some form of rights at work place some being different than others.
DeleteI totally agree with you, the company can and should spectate or control what employees do when they are working, but nothing should happen when employees are not working.
DeleteIs it ethical, moral and legal?
ReplyDeleteFor many years companies have always been always looking for new ways to increase profits, whether it be through new innovations, good policies, and even practices such as this where they seem watch their employees every move. With regards to background checks upon hiring I believe that company has every right to look into your past and find out what type of person you are, whether it be upstanding, or criminal, they should be allowed to use this information to hire the best candidate.
In regards to watching employees, I don’t believe having the ability to make sure your workers are doing their job instead of wasting time should be considered immoral or unethical when they are being paid to complete a job. Though it may feel like an invasion of privacy, companies are just making sure that they aren’t paying employees to browse ebay, or tinker with their fantasy football team. When employees waste copious amounts of time slacking, they are stealing from the company, and I believe that deterrents such as this or moral, and ethical.
I agree with you, companies should not give their time by checking workers accounts, phone calls or emails outside of work. What they should do is look forward to make their company grow and the workers with them.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteManagers should be able to know what the employees do when they are working. Employees have their working time and managers can know whether the employees are working or not. Besides,managers can know how the employees do their work. Every employee’s work matters the whole system. If not, there may be some bigger problem than just loaf on the job. For example, corruption or make some change to the company’s system.
ReplyDeleteIt is ethical, moral and legal if employees know that. Employees get money from the company, the company should know what they do for getting the money.
The more I want to say is employees have their right to know they’ll be watched before working for the company. As long as they are ok with that, there’s no problem. If not, fond a new job.
I agree with you regarding what you said about companies, that they should be allowed to monitor their workers because they are paying them, so they should know if they are doing what they are supposed to do. Also, companies can't afford any wasted time.
DeleteI agree with your opinion, which it's ethical, moral and legal if the employees have the awareness of they are being monitored, and the workers have the right to choose if they want to be monitored or not.
DeleteI agree with your opinion. But, my one question is if Companies can monitor employee's privacy to prevent possibilities that they sell top secrets
DeleteI think it is vital to check up on what employees do online. It is a good way to increase worker efficiency. Most of people do other things such as Youtube, Facebook and Ebay. It is hard to concentrate on work all the time which means workers do visit other sites on the Internet. While workers are on the company clock, they should be doing productive work because they get paid from employers. Also, I think monitoring can prevent workplace harassment. For example, it enables employers to catch workers who sent racist emails, and especially engage in sexual harassment online.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, the companies should have an official policy for monitoring and make employees aware of the rules. Employers also should focus on monitoring for valid reasons like checking productivity and preventing harassment. Monitoring everything employees do online violates on their rights.
Personally, I don’t think it’s moral and ethical. Some people could feel that employers violate on their privacy. The agreement is required before employers hire someone. If the employees are very susceptible with their privacy, they should be aware of monitoring before they work there.
I agree with you, people should be monitored to make sure that they are not distracted on something else instead of working. I also agree on you that people could feel that it's invading their privacy.
DeleteI agree that it's a good way to make workers work more efficiently, but I think it's also moral and ethical. Workers are paid for ding that, they can quit if they don't like being spectated. They should not feel uncomfortable if they are doing everything well.
DeleteI agree with you that if the employees are worried that their privacy is being violated that they should be aware of them being monitored and I think that if they don't feel comfortable after that, they could not get the job and look for a better job elsewhere.
DeleteI agree with you saying that monitoring employees online can increase efficiency. I think that it would be perfectly ethical and moral if the workers were made aware of what was going on and agreed to it.
DeleteI totally agree with your opinion, it's crucial for workers to not do what they should do in the workplace, then it's essential for the manager or other employers to monitor their workers' working quality and computer usage.
DeleteI agree with you that Companies have right to monitor employees to prevent workplace and increase the efficiency through making sure they are assiduous. I think it's brilliant idea. I also have same opinion with you that people might feel it's abominable.
DeleteII agree with that workers should be monitored, but this should only be in the workplace.
ReplyDeleteI think it's good that workers are monitored on what they are doing at work, just like in class, people have to make sure that the employees are doing what they are meant to, these apps make that job a lot easier for employers and I think that is good. But employees, as well as students in school, should not be monitored while they are not at work because they have a right to privacy. So while they are not at work they should not be monitored because that just the same as stalking which is not legal, so why should this.
I think that it's legal while employees are at work because they are paid to be working and not doing whatever, but, as I have said before, it should be legal while they are not working because that is stalking.
I strongly agree with you that they shouldn't monitor when employees are out of the workplace because they have their right. Also, I think there should be a limitation of monitoring them like monitoring only a certain website to check up.
DeleteI agree with you, managers should not monitor their employees activity when they are out of workplace because they do have a right for privacy. As this is a good management there should be some limit for the managers to monitor.
DeleteI agree, this software is the same as a teacher walking around a classroom to see if their students are using their technology, only it is much more effective as not only does it enable the teacher to be more productive themselves by doing word and grading papers instead of monitoring student, but also it makes it so that students can't just close their gaming tab as they see the teacher coming.
DeleteThe companies are looking for the employees who works hard and efficiently therefore they have the right to monitor. The employees can't be paid without doing work. They should have been monitored and the problem is in what way they are going to do so. If the company is still watching your screen after work time, then it's unaccepted. It's about your privacy mostly.
ReplyDeleteIs it ethical?
I think most of the employees don't really like the system because it feels like working in a jail and their actions are limited. It doesn't make the employees work with conditions which mean they will work even less efficiently. Moreover, the workers should have a break, therefore texting, playing, socializing can't be completely not allowed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that managers should only have to monitor their employees if they don’t meet the work requirements, like missing a deadline or not doing the work to the best of their ability. I think this because watching what employees do all the time is an invasion of privacy, but because it is the businesses technology they do have the right to see what the employee has been doing, as long as they have good reason.
ReplyDeleteEthically and legally it is right for a manager to monitor their employees because they are at work using their works technology so if they aren’t using it for work purposes than the manager should know. Morally, I think it is right that the employees get their privacy, for example, if an employee had a family member in the hospital that they didn’t tell their coworkers about and the doctor told them about something but this employee didn’t understand what it was they have the right to look it up without possibly being questioned about it.
1. What do you think of this management practice?
ReplyDeleteI think this management is a good way to make sure that the employees are doing their work and actually getting paid for working and not going on social media or doing any internet activity. This management is an efficient way to keep an eye on their employees. I also think that the employees should be focusing on their work because that is what they are being paid for and they can do their phone calls, emails, social media, and internet activity at home. Employees can always save their phone calls and social media for after work. As the technology is owned by the company they have the right to know what is happening on their devices if the manager feels like their employee is not doing the work they should be allowed to go through the device and see what is keeping the employee away from doing work.
I agree with what you have to say. When the property is owned by the company, the company should have a say in what it is used for and they should be able to see and control what actually goes on. This would definitely increase efficiency and make the employees actually work for their money.
DeleteI think your right, that companies should monitor their employees to make sure that they are working and it's also an efficient way to keep eye on the workers. But I think that if a worker is not doing what's asked, the manager shouldn't be able to go through the workers' device because that is a violation of his privacy. I think they should tell him that he is not doing his work or maybe fire him if it happened again.
DeleteI 100% agree with you, employees should wait until their lunch break or after work to go on social media. Employers should have the right to know if their employees are doing while they are supposed to be working.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a good idea for employers to be able to keep track of what their workers are doing, because most people are paid per hour and sometimes workers aren’t doing what they are supposed to be doing but they end up getting paid for it anyways. So with this the employers can make sure that their workers are on task and are doing what they are supposed to, to be paid appropriately. The cons to this management practice are that the workers won’t have as much privacy and might not feel as secure at work as they would want. The workers shouldn’t feel stressed that they are being watched. But at the same time the managers and employers should have the right to watch over their employees, especially with jobs where people are using technology and computers all the time.
ReplyDeleteI think this isn’t as ethical and moral because the workers still should have the right to their privacy and that they should feel safe at work and not like their lives are being intruded upon. For example in the article, Paul Guindon said 'I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer.' I think that is going to far for the employers to have everyone fingerprinted to do their job because it will make the workers stressed and possibly feel uncomfortable in their working environment. But on the other hand, as long as the employers and managers are telling their workers that they are being monitored and the workers are ok with it, I think it should be legal for the business. The employers shouldn’t have the need to be monitoring their employees, but in this age of technology, most people rely on their technology to get them through the day and to keep up with their lives and other people lives. Therefore they might not be doing what they’re supposed to be doing.
Companies will always try to do whatever it takes to earn as much profit as they can, so they are willing to try anything that helps them achieve this goal. In my opinion, companies who monitor their workers are only doing it to make sure that their employees are doing what they are supposed to do. I think it's a beneficial process, that every company should monitor their employees at the workplace to improve efficiency but, companies should be clear about that with their employees. It's especially useful for businesses who manufacture sensitive products, so companies can make sure there are no mistakes by monitoring the employees. For example, if a company produce cameras for vehicles, they can't make mistakes because they can lead to serious accidents, so by monitoring what the worker did there will be a smaller chance for an error. According to the SHRM studies shows that a plenty of time is wasted due to network activities such as Facebook, and online gaming.
ReplyDeleteI think it's ethical because it's the only way to make sure that employees are doing what they are asked to do, but I think the company should be straightforward with their workers and tell them that they are being monitored. I believe that it's also legal, according to the Hubstaff, there isn't any federal law that states companies are not allowed to monitor their employees inside the workplace.
I agree, employees have the right to know if they are being monitered or not. It's a basic human right. I also think that its completely ethical to moniter employees to make sure they are working and being productive, instead of slacking off
DeleteI think that it should be completely fine for employers to monitor their employee's internet access while at work. as the article says that within 650 people in a specific company, the software detected approximately 40 hours per employee, enough for the company to loose about $1 million. I believe that all companies and even schools should use this software as it can pinpoint where time is being wasted by people who are supposed to be working, and there should be punishment for people who are being payed by the hour and are wasting time on sites like different social medias, as it is essentially stealing from the company they are working for.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement. I too believe that there is nothing wrong with monitoring your employees. I think the employees would be more productive and honest. I think theft incidences would decrease also. If you know that your employer is going to keep track of what you are doing when you are hired, I think you'll be on your best behaviour and focus more on the tasks that you were hired to do. Personally, I think it would be great, as it would help limit my time on social media, which would benefit me.
DeleteI agree. Employees are supposed to be working during work hours, and survelliance will help increase productivity, the quality of work, and make sure that everybody is working the same amount and is earning the rightful amount that they deserve
DeleteI like how you use specific data to back up your statement and connected school with business. I agree that companies should be able to monitor their employees, but there should be a boundary to it
DeleteI find no problem with employers enforcing surveillance on their employees. Employees are being paid to work for an assigned period of time, and the employee’s should be aware of the fact that they are supposed to be working during shifts, as there are short periods of times that allow them to take a break. However, I feel it unnecessary for employee surveillance to go beyond the workspace, and violate personal space like checking a person's texts or phone calls. I think that surveillance should focus more on whether the employee being monitored is being productive and using his or her time the way it’s supposed to be spent like monitoring a person's internet history. I don’t think that monitoring someone's personal space is necessary to make sure the employees are doing their job.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I absolutely see no ethical, moral, or legal problem with surveillance in the workplace, although in my opinion monitoring personal phone calls or messages can be a slightly unethical act, especially if the employer uses personal information against his or her employees. Returning to the topic of workplace surveillance, I thinks it has the benefits of creating a safer workplace while increasing the quality of work and productivity.
I completely agree with you. I believe that monitoring employees is a good asset to the workplace. However, you are correct in stating that tracking personal phone calls and texts is too far. Also, I too believe that there is no ethical, moral, or legal problem with monitoring. I think it is fair as long as the employees are given a heads up before being tracked.
DeleteI believe it is crucial to monitor what employees are actively taking part in while at work, but only to a certain extent. I think that bosses have the right to see how long an employee is on a website that is not essential to the job. (Facebook, Youtube, Ebay, etc.). However, I agree that the employees should not be monitored during their lunch break. I think this because lunch time should be personal time where employees can relax and enjoy their break. Also, I completely disagree with the fact that employees phone calls can be listened to word for word; I understand tracking how long they use their phone and possibly the phone number in which they called, but bosses should not be able to listen to personal phone calls. I feel as though this is an invasion of privacy. However, I strongly believe employees should be monitored based on what they do that is not work related, but that is displayed during the work day. This tactic could save a business a great amount of money. For instance, if a small landscaping company, that payed by the hour, did not somehow monitor when their employees were taking breaks or talking on the phone, they would be payed for work that they were not demonstrating. Nonetheless, I believe that every employee should be informed that they are being tracked before taking action. Therefore, I mostly agree with this form of monitoring employees in the workplace.
ReplyDeleteAs long as the employees are aware of the surveillance, I do not think it is illegal, unethical or morally wrong. I think it shows the employees that there is a certain expectation to the time that they are being paid for. They are there to work, but their breaks should not be monitored. I believe that the workplace may be a safer place and more productive if workers were being monitored.
Posted on behalf of Caroline:
ReplyDeleteNowadays, more and more companies are track the time employees spend on sites. The boss want to know their employees how much time at work. Do they spend too much time on the Internet to entertain or chat? Also the boss want to know what websites they're going to. I can not say this management practice is appropriate or inappropriate, right or wrong, but there are some my own thoughts.
On one hand, if employees spend too much time to do his own things or entertainment on the website, they definitely do not have enough time to do work or the quality of their work are incompetent. Also, the company want to ensure confidential data are not distributed by employees. What's more, employers need to know background of the people when they recruit the employees and rely on criminal record checks to choose which people they want also suitable for the company, then if this person work in the company whether or not he would betray the company or distribute the inside knowledge. At this point, employers have enough reasons to track their employees computer/laptop.
On another hand, in my opinion, employers may not be excessively inspected for employees' computers/laptop. I mean this management practice should focus on employees who are not achieve performance standards. Of cause, company want to make sure all the employees are working hard, but if the employers over surveillance everyone, it would be creating a circumstances of distrust, as they all want to have some their own privacy. The boss can track their sites occasionally, but I hold that do not be too strict, 10 or 20 minutes for relax, it's ok. However, if an employee spend quit lots of time on sites even he had finished his work qualified, the boss could give him more work and a warning, as this is still the work time, not the leisure time.
This management practice is ethical, moral and legal, but it needs to have some humanization.
Employee monitoring is a hot button issue in today’s social climate. Businesses administrators are forced to toe a line that veers between protecting the company’s assets and infringing on the rights of its employees. Many implement video and audio recording devices in the workplace, monitor calls and employee conversations, screen employee’s internet usage, require strict time-keeping, and occasionally search employee property. Most of these employee monitoring methods are practically unregulated.
ReplyDeleteAnd with how society has adapted to technology and social media, it’s abundantly easy to know someone before you’ve even met them. Indeed, a majority of businesses admit to scouring social media sites on potential hires and current employees.
Another will be the having security cameras installed is a tried-and-true way to deter crime and catch it when it happens. Advances in tamper-proof, durable camera technology make video monitoring a valuable asset in defending your workplace. And it is ethical − for the most part. Obviously, avoid placing recording devices in any invasive areas, like bathrooms or locker rooms. Also beware that cameras that capture audio might be subject to wiretapping laws.So I will end by saying it depends on the company and its rule.
1. I think that this practice is just non-sense. I understand that is a business and want to protect their image by making sure the employees do their job and don't cause illegal actions outside of work. But the employees have rights and those rights include privacy. Businesses need to respect the privacy of their employees in other to earn trust. You can't earn that by checking their calls, social media and emails. Other than that workers need privacy in their lives. Is not fair that one mistake by you saying something wrong in your phone call or email can cause your job.
ReplyDelete2. This is not moral, is ethical. Because the managers are making sure the employees have the a right conduct on the workplace. The part of legal is debatable. This practice should be legal in the workplace, but not outside of work. Because you are taking the workers the right f privacy.