The Electronic Privacy at ABC Control Case: The notice of termination would arrive seemingly out of the blue. Suddenly and unexpectedly Barbara Hanley and Jim Sampson, who worked for ABC Control (a fictitious company), would be told that they had been terminated from the firm—Barbara for sending personal email from her company computer and Jim for spending too much time surfing the Web at recreational sites and downloading pornography. Both would be stunned. They had received no warning. They did not know they were in violation of company policy—since none had been promulgated. They did not know they were being monitored. And their productivity and work output had not diminished since they were favorably rated at their last annual evaluation. “I hate to do this,” Sarah Hanson, vice president of Human Resources (HR), argued to Alan Stephens, executive vice president of ABC Control. “Somehow it doesn’t seem fair. We’ve not warned them, and they have been good productive employees up until now.” “I know,” replied Alan. “But when Arthur (Arthur Pesinsky, director of information systems) brought me the reports, I saw no alternative. Clearly, they have abused company resources, and we have to draw the line somewhere. We were monitoring Barbara prior to possible promotion, and Jim happened to be the first one caught by our new Sequel Technology Net Manager software that lets us track our employees’ use of the World Wide Web.” “We’re not the first ones to do this, you know,” he continued. “Employees at Los Alamos National Laboratory have been fired for surfing adult Web sites, Southern California fired an aerospace engineer for spending time on an Internet forum of home repairs, and Electronic Data Systems, among other companies, has fired employees for similar reasons. We have to protect ourselves. The courts have ruled that whatever goes out on email from a company belongs to the company. We have not only the legal right to review whatever is sent, but if there is any criminal activity we also have the obligation to turn over our backup tapes of any email message to the authorities. We don’t have a written policy on all of this, but anyone who reads the newspaper knows that email is not private, and all employees with any common sense should know that they shouldn’t spend their work time on either private correspondence or non–job-related Web surfing. Downloading pornography can even open us up to possible suits for sexual harassment for allowing a sexually hostile environment for our other employees.” “Nonetheless,” Sarah retorted, “not all companies monitor their employees’ email and their use of the Web. They trust them and respect their privacy. If there is an abuse or a complaint or someone is not performing up to expectations, then appropriate action can be taken. But in the absence of any negative complaints, why should we snoop on our employees, even if we’re legally allowed to do so? We don’t listen in on their phone calls. Why should we monitor their email or Web use?” “You can’t have it both ways, Sarah,” Jim replied. “We don’t want to block any Web sites. But if we treat our employees as adults and honor their privacy, then they have to take responsi-bility for their actions and act as they know they should. If they abuse the respect we show them and they are found out, then they should suffer the consequences.” “I’m still not comfortable with summary dismissal. Somehow it doesn’t seem fair. And what message will it send to our other employees?” “It should send a strong and clear message, I would hope. Anyone with any sense will understand that email messages are not private, that surfing the Web for non–work-related sites is unacceptable, that their illusions—if they had any—of electronic privacy were mistaken, and that they should do the work they are hired to do while on the job. What they do at home is their own business, unless, of course, they access their work computers from home with their modems, instead of getting their own private accounts on AOL or some other service.” “Why couldn’t we first give them a warning or a reprimand?” continued Sarah. “We could,” said Alan. “But that would be a very weak message to our other employees. Break the rules you know you should obey, and the company will give you a warning. No. We need something with teeth and drama to bring home to everyone how serious the issue is. It’s a shame for Barbara and Jim. But they brought this on themselves.” “HR has a responsibility for our employees,” Sarah finally said. “Give me a chance to work through a policy on this before sending them their termination letters. There has to be a better way to handle this, to protect the legitimate interests of the company and to respect the privacy of our employees. Give me forty-eight hours to come up with a policy.” “OK,” said Alan. “Forty-eight hours.” Question: If the institution were a university and the policy were to govern state employees, should the policy be any different?
The Electronic Privacy at ABC Control Case: The notice of termination would arrive seemingly out of the blue. Suddenly and unexpectedly Barbara Hanley and Jim Sampson, who worked for ABC Control (a fictitious company), would be told that they had been terminated from the firm—Barbara for sending personal email from her company computer and Jim for spending too much time surfing the Web at recreational sites and downloading pornography. Both would be stunned. They had received no warning. They did not know they were in violation of company policy—since none had been promulgated. They did not know they were being monitored. And their productivity and work output had not diminished since they were favorably rated at their last annual evaluation. “I hate to do this,” Sarah Hanson, vice president of Human Resources (HR), argued to Alan Stephens, executive vice president of ABC Control. “Somehow it doesn’t seem fair. We’ve not warned them, and they have been good productive employees up until now.” “I know,” replied Alan. “But when Arthur (Arthur Pesinsky, director of information systems) brought me the reports, I saw no alternative. Clearly, they have abused company resources, and we have to draw the line somewhere. We were monitoring Barbara prior to possible promotion, and Jim happened to be the first one caught by our new Sequel Technology Net Manager software that lets us track our employees’ use of the World Wide Web.” “We’re not the first ones to do this, you know,” he continued. “Employees at Los Alamos National Laboratory have been fired for surfing adult Web sites, Southern California fired an aerospace engineer for spending time on an Internet forum of home repairs, and Electronic Data Systems, among other companies, has fired employees for similar reasons. We have to protect ourselves. The courts have ruled that whatever goes out on email from a company belongs to the company. We have not only the legal right to review whatever is sent, but if there is any criminal activity we also have the obligation to turn over our backup tapes of any email message to the authorities. We don’t have a written policy on all of this, but anyone who reads the newspaper knows that email is not private, and all employees with any common sense should know that they shouldn’t spend their work time on either private correspondence or non–job-related Web surfing. Downloading pornography can even open us up to possible suits for sexual harassment for allowing a sexually hostile environment for our other employees.” “Nonetheless,” Sarah retorted, “not all companies monitor their employees’ email and their use of the Web. They trust them and respect their privacy. If there is an abuse or a complaint or someone is not performing up to expectations, then appropriate action can be taken. But in the absence of any negative complaints, why should we snoop on our employees, even if we’re legally allowed to do so? We don’t listen in on their phone calls. Why should we monitor their email or Web use?” “You can’t have it both ways, Sarah,” Jim replied. “We don’t want to block any Web sites. But if we treat our employees as adults and honor their privacy, then they have to take responsi-bility for their actions and act as they know they should. If they abuse the respect we show them and they are found out, then they should suffer the consequences.” “I’m still not comfortable with summary dismissal. Somehow it doesn’t seem fair. And what message will it send to our other employees?” “It should send a strong and clear message, I would hope. Anyone with any sense will understand that email messages are not private, that surfing the Web for non–work-related sites is unacceptable, that their illusions—if they had any—of electronic privacy were mistaken, and that they should do the work they are hired to do while on the job. What they do at home is their own business, unless, of course, they access their work computers from home with their modems, instead of getting their own private accounts on AOL or some other service.” “Why couldn’t we first give them a warning or a reprimand?” continued Sarah. “We could,” said Alan. “But that would be a very weak message to our other employees. Break the rules you know you should obey, and the company will give you a warning. No. We need something with teeth and drama to bring home to everyone how serious the issue is. It’s a shame for Barbara and Jim. But they brought this on themselves.” “HR has a responsibility for our employees,” Sarah finally said. “Give me a chance to work through a policy on this before sending them their termination letters. There has to be a better way to handle this, to protect the legitimate interests of the company and to respect the privacy of our employees. Give me forty-eight hours to come up with a policy.” “OK,” said Alan. “Forty-eight hours.”
Question: If the institution were a university and the policy were to govern state employees, should the policy be any different?
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
