See-Roe V. Glendale (1997) 4 846

I believe it is appropriate for an employer to gather data pertaining to the activities an employee engages in on employer-provided devices. For example, an employer has the right to collect data such as time spent on devices and websites or apps used during businesses hours. Furthermore, the employer also has the right to gather data from personal devices used at work or home on employer-provided networks. Employees are reportable to employers during business hours, since the employer is paying to do their job. Consequently, an employer is entitled to know what activities, websites, and time spent on personal devices on the business network. If an employee did not want to be invaded of privacy, she/he should not use personal devices at work

But in the case of phone calls or e-mails some would believe that (William Parent, “Privacy and Morality and the Law”) there should be put in place criteria for determining which invasion of privacy is justifiable. William Parent proposes that the employer should apply six questions to review whether their act of monitoring is allowable or not and that this would offer guidance. But most would agree that while it is legal for employers to monitor, it does not make it right. Realistically, most workers are at work sometimes more than forty hours per week. So if they take the time to make a personal phone call during that

Outside of the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many states have issued this problem as a privacy issue between employer and employee instead of a protected classification. “Nowhere in the United States Constitution is explicit reference made to the right of privacy. The Supreme Court, however, has interpreted the Constitution to provide for individual privacy in certain areas such as reproduction, contraception, abortion and marriage. There are no Supreme Court cases which specifically pertain to privacy issues that arise from employee testing, however certain legal scholars have advanced the idea that personality tests should be considered under the Fourth Amendment Search and

For example a worker that is an excused of being intoxicated while working their employer has all the rights to use a Breathalyzer on that employee.

In a new era of technology, cell phones are often times the primary tool used by staff in the workplace, whether it is status updates, workplace selfies and pictures shared. It now poses a new threat to PHI and HIPAA. Staff may think it is okay to speak about a patient they encountered, or a disagreement with a supervisor or co-worker in the public setting. However this can be

Personal cell phones need to be silenced during working hours and only used for emergencies.

Although this case seems unique in matter the government has a history of invading the privacy of American companies and citizens. In 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a brief

To proceed, we would assume that it is the company's policy for employees issued with company devices to sign a consent form acknowledging company's right to monitor all aspect of employee's communication on and off the job. Going back to the issue of the complexity involved in electronic monitoring mentioned above, extreme care was taken in investigating the circumstances that bear out the fact that Bill is indeed guilty of conduction his own business with company - issued phone. To this end, not to expose the company to a potential lawsuit for invasion of Bill's personal domain we considered two of the factors the courts examine to ensure the legality of our actions investigating the matter and deciding a possible disciplinary action. First, we ensure that the monitoring process is not unduly obnoxious as the courts refer to a means that "deviates from the normally accepted means of recovering the relevant information (Ingulli H ., 2012)." The second factor addresses the reason for the intrusion. Since in fact the law views electronic surveillance and monitoring of another person as a search per se, we ensure that care is taken to confine information gathering only to the investigation on hand. In consideration of the above, if the information gathered confirms that Bill was, in fact, guilty of the behavior, disciplinary actions to be determined would be

All confidential information concerning the Employer and any other business about which Employer’s staff obtain information through employment with Employer must be kept strictly confidential and cannot be discussed or disclosed except to the extent necessary to conduct of Employer’s business. Such information cannot be discussed under circumstances where it could be overheard. Written information must be safeguarded and must not be left where others may see it. The unauthorized disclosure of such information could result in serious injury to Employer.

An employee’s privacy rights in the workplace come down to the word ‘Reasonable’. The employee’s rights in the workplace are very different than it is in their personal lives. An employee cannot expect the workplace to be private, nor their electronic communications to be private as well. Within the workplace, employers have the right to reduce liabilities within the scope of the law to which they must adhere. For example, employers have the right to ensure that email communication is being used for work-related purposes (Gidin, 1999). Federal laws provide employers the right to monitor communications, retain records, and conduct surveillance given that they provide proper notification

Others sometimes don't feel comfortable at all with being recorded because as said before it's just in invasion of privacy. According to Bryson, “I have a friend who got a job with a large manufacturing company in Iowa a year or so ago. Across the street from the company was a tavern that was the company after-hours hangout. One night my friend was having a beer after work with his colleagues when he was approcahed by a fellow employee who asked if he knew where she could get marijuana. He said he didn't use the stuff himself, but to get rid of her--- for she was very persistent--- he gave her the phone number of an acquaintance who sometimes sold it. The next day he was fired. The woman, it turned out, was a company spy employed soley to weed out drug use in the company.” This basically show's that a company could hire a professional spy without your knowledge and find out about your personal doings after-work hours, and in this situation the spying lead to Bryson's friend getting fired due to the fact that he told her of a person who sells it because she was persistent. But a company doing this without knowledge is scary.

If both can enjoy the freedom of contract then both deserve the freedom of speech as well. At the end, it is not fair upon the employee because he/she does not have the bargaining power and ultimately has to deal with the employer’s decisions, even if it is fired for reasons unknown. Employees should have the right to freedom of speech and right to privacy outside the workplace.

We will now receive work emails and contact calls on the identical device as private fb comments, Instagram photos, and an array of different private information. Given such era's addictive nature, guidelines to control their use at work are not often powerful, because it's hard to put in force rules about what human beings can observe on their personal devices. It's typically more helpful if people understand

An employee spends several hours a week on her cell phone talking with her children and their associated caregivers, schools, and friends

One hand it is necessary to monitor the employees’ because to protect the business from legal liabilities and produce more efficient employees and sometimes to stop the misuse of electronic resources. According to (Bezek, Britton, 2001) Workplace monitoring can be beneficial for an organization to obtain productivity and efficiency from its employees. Big fortune companies like Microsoft and Apple monitor each and every single call in their call centers so they can get to know about the quality of call and interaction of their employees with the customers but employees already knows that their call is being monitored by their supervisor. That shows transparency in the policy. According to California state law on California Public Utilities Commission, organizations monitoring phone calls are required to inform participants of the recording or monitoring of the conversation by either putting a beep tone on the line or playing a recorded