Ethics – Invading Your Privacy

Introduction

            The modern workplaces are increasingly using technology that is also creating new privacy concerns for both employees and employers. The reasons for technological development in the workplaces are surprising. There are a lot of benefits that an organization can derive from the use of emails and the Internet. Some of the advantages are a reduction in operation costs by automating the human tasks, facilitation of communication on all levels, and improvement in efficiency in various tasks within the company. Although technology can be lauded for the way it has helped to improve business operations, it also raises concerns that did not exist in the early days. Now the question is, “Can your employer invade your privacy through monitoring technologies?” The question will be addressed by evaluation of a case Smith versus Pillsbury Company.

Smith versus Pillsbury Company

            Smith was one of the employees of the Pillsbury Company. Furthermore, Smith was not an ordinary employee. He was a senior staff where he was the operations manager of the regional offices. Due to senior status, Smith has a company mail account which can be accessed at home and at the workplace. Smith believes what the company has been telling the employees that all the emails are confidential and that the company cannot intercept any emails or messages sent and received through the personal company email address. Therefore, Smith, like other employees, feels that there is no danger of the mail being intercepted. An intercepted mail or a message cannot be used as a ground for job termination or discipline at the company. Therefore, all the employees feel free to use the mail to send and receive any type of message and emails (Brown, 1996).

            In one instance, Smith receives a host of emails from the company’s supervisor while at home. Unfortunately, Smith replies to the emails and therefore, to the supervisor using threatening comments. In his mind, Smith thought that the mail could not be intercepted since that was the promise. According to him, there was no chance that he could be disciplined or worse lose his job. However, the company intercepted the emails and Smith was fired immediately. This prompted Smith to seek compensation or reinstatement to his former through opening legal proceedings.

            The above case is a perfect example of conflict between employee and employer at the workplace over privacy. But what is privacy? Privacy is the state where a person is free from observation or disturbance from other people. Although the company is the employer, it has gone against the definition of privacy in simplest terms. It is not disputable that a company has a right to monitor the activities of the employees at the workplace. However, the employees should be given comprehensive on such issue before accepted getting hired. Notification beforehand would give the employees all the understanding of cautionary measures they should take before deciding to engage in an activity that would put them and the employees on crossroads over privacy. However, the company is complete opposite of the expectations where it goes on to tell assure the employees that they should not worry over such matters (Miller & Weckert, 2012).

            It is clear that at the time Smith was getting hired, the company did not have policies and guidelines that would deter the employees from misusing the company technological facilities such as the email and the Internet. If the company had such policies and guidelines Smith would not have stood any chance at the court. Furthermore, he would not have opened a legal proceeding with the court before he would have been warned beforehand. Although we do not know the content of the mail Smith received from the supervisor, he probably had a reason to reply threateningly. Probably the supervisor email had such content and Smith felt it was just right to reply in the same tone the supervisor sent the mail. Another possibility is that the supervisor felt he was superior to Smith and he could do anything that he wanted to his juniors which angered Smith. I would have argued the case in favor of the supervisor and the company if Smith directed threats to a junior employee. Furthermore, Smith was motivated to reply in the way he did because the company had reassured the employees that it would not hijack the content of the any email sent using the company’s email addresses. It must have been a surprise when Smith realized that he was being fired on grounds based on lies. It would not have been challenging for the company to develop a policy and guidelines which would serve as a springboard upon which employees such as Smith would be disciplined if they went against it. But the company chooses to use lies to catch any employee who goes against what is not among the policies (Loch, Conger, & Oz, 1998).

            The company has failed on several fronts. It would also have taken time to educate the employees on some technological concerns such as the server. They would have let Smith who might not have been aware that the server retains all the deleted media content have that vital knowledge. It would have deterred him from doing such a thing to a senior employee at the company. Smith would have been aware of the fact that no matter how much one deleted the message from the computer, it would have been visible by the company’s database administrator at the other end (Shepard, Duston, & Russell, 1989).

            The Fourth Amendment states that a person has the right to the property they own. It extends to the workplace to the items and facilities such as the Internet and the use of it. Therefore, Smith and the other employees would have been right in using the Internet the way they saw it good provided that they were within the company’s policies and guidelines regarding the same. Unfortunately, there was no such policy. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment protected the employees’ privacy at the workplace. However, Pillsbury Company has gone against a constitutional mandate that protects the employees against possible exploitation through denial of privacy. The same constitution does not state whether the employer has the right to violate their privacy at the workplace. Therefore, the company has a case to answer and should either reinstate Smith to his former position or compensate him for destructive dismissal (Lane, 2003).

Conclusion

            Privacy is personal as is personal property. It does not matter where privacy is applied but should always be respected. Companies should also educate their employees about the contentious issue since it is a potential source of conflict as is the case between Smith and Pillsbury Company. 

References

Brown, W. S. (1996). Technology, workplace privacy and personhood. Journal of Business           Ethics, 15 (11), 1237-1248.

Lane, F. S. (2003). The naked employee: How technology is compromising workplace privacy.      New York: AMACOM.

Loch, K. D., Conger, S., & Oz, E. (1998). Ownership, Privacy and Monitoring in the Workplace:             A debate on technology and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (6), 653-663.

Miller, S., & Weckert, J. (2012). Privacy, the Workplace and the Internet. Journal of Business       Ethics, 28 (3), 255-265.

Shepard, I. M., Duston, R. L., & Russell, K. S. (1989). Workplace privacy: employee testing,        surveillance, wrongful discharge, and other areas of vulnerability. Washington, D.C:       Bureau of National Affairs.

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in assignment writing services if you need a similar paper you can place your order from essay writing services.