Business Ethics How Important Is an Individual\'s

Business Ethics

How important is an individual's privacy in the workplace? Is an individual's privacy in the workplace the most important consideration to be taken into account? What constitutes privacy in a workplace environment? Do the goals and the mission of the organization supersede an individual's desire to protect his or her privacy? Is it ethical for an employer to collect and disperse personal information from employees without their knowledge? How does the philosophy of utilitarianism play into this issue? This paper delves into those questions and provides supporting information for the resolution of this issue.

After careful review of the textbook for this course, after reviewing additional scholarly resources and taking into consideration a utilitarian approach to this issue -- and after researching the Australian laws regarding workplace privacy -- this paper takes the position that an individual's privacy is indeed vitally important (and must by law be protected) but not as important as the quality of effort put forward by the employee in terms of teamwork, production, and competency vis-a-vis the goals and purposes of the organization.

Additional backup justification for the thesis

Companies and small businesses are the engines that drive the Australian economy, and government should pass legislation -- and government has passed laws -- to protect individual privacy. But looking at the theory of utilitarianism -- "Actions are right to the degree they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number" -- the greatest number in this context is the company itself and all the workers. If a company struggles in the marketplace because a substantial number of employees are giving only 60 to 70% of their best efforts (and the other 30 to 40% of the time they are engaged in personal conversations online or other distractions), that company is failing and this could mean layoffs for workers who depend on their income to support families. Happiness is of course a relative and vague concept; to a company happiness is a healthy bottom line and to middle managers happiness is having your boss be pleased with the production on their units. Because of the diversity of employees in any given work environment, happiness comes in myriad shades and colors.

What is meant by privacy in the workplace?

According to the Australian Government's "Best Practice Guide" (Fair Work Ombudsman), matters of privacy in the workplace relate to what information management has a right to collect and retain. Also, privacy in the workplace entails the question of what information is appropriate for an employer to share with other entities. Privacy entails more than just matters of personal information such as where one was born or a person's financial status. Privacy has to do with "…being able to do things without interference by others," the Fair Work Ombudsman explains.

But basically "personal information" is private information unless an individual worker is willing to disclose that information. Clearly some personal information is legitimately provided to employers (a person's address, age, work experience, and more). But there are matters that are personal and private and should be respected by employers as such. That includes an employee's: sexual preference; political views and associations; religious affiliations; ethnicity; health and genetic information (Fair Work Ombudsman).

The Fair Work Ombudsman explains that federal privacy laws (National Privacy Principles -- NPPs) relate to standards in Australia that employees are obliged to adhere to. When an employer gathers information about a particular employee, that employer should notify the worker that certain information is being gathered -- and moreover, the employer should let the employee know what the purpose is for the gathering of personal information. That said, the employer should also make any information gathered about an employee available for review by that employee.

As to sharing personal information from employees to third parties, the Fair Work Inspector from the government has the right to request information about workers when that information relates to legal obligations the employer must meet. The Fair Work Ombudsman best practice policy permits an employer to disclose personal information when another employer is requesting reference data -- but in most cases, it is considered best practice to notify the employee that his or her performance at work is the subject of an inquiry from a potential employer.

When it comes to the use of email and the Internet while at work, just because an employer gives a new hire a password and login code doesn't mean that the employee's private conversations online are not monitored. Here is an instance in which the employer is using best practice policies by notifying the worker that his or her emails can be (and likely will be) monitored. In addition, it is best practice for the company to be fully open with transparency vis-a-vis notifying the employee as to what is expected, what is prohibited, who has access to personal information and what the consequences are for improper use of the Internet / email.

The Fair Work Act 2009 allows for the collection of personal information on an employee when a complaint is lodged by the employee or: "…when you email or telephone the Fair Work Ombudsman"; when an investigation is ongoing by the Fair Work Ombudsman; or when a Fair Work Ombudsman is auditing a company or a campaign (Fair Work Ombudsman). Regarding the rights of the employee, he or she has the right to be told why personal information is being gathered; and employees have the right to be protected against "unauthorized access" to his or her personal information. In addition, personal information cannot be shared with another person or organization unless the employee gives permission or if the information is "required by law" or "necessary to prevent "…or lessen a serious threat to the life or health of another individual" (Fair Work Ombudsman).

Why is workplace privacy an important issue in Australia?

The fact is that some employers "…unhesitatingly rummage through the files of their workers" even though those files may have "Private" written in big bold letters gives workers pause regarding whether their private information is being shared without their knowledge or permission, according to the textbook. The textbook asserts (p. 446) that employers peek into emails and even "eavesdrop on their employees' phone calls" -- and recent research found that 65% of Australian companies monitor employee emails without notifying employees that this policy is ongoing (446). And there are other apparent violations of employee privacy but the more salient point is found on page 447 of the textbook: "Even when a genuine privacy right is identified, the strength of that right depends on circumstances."

Moreover, it is certainly true in Australia as in other countries that corporations and smaller businesses (and other organizations) do have "legitimate interests that may conflict with the privacy concerns of employees" (447). But the larger question (after taking the previous sentence into consideration) is this: when is it morally justifiable to infringe on employee's privacy?

Rebuttals to points made in previous two paragraphs

While it is wrong for any company to eavesdrop on an employee's emails if the employee has not been notified that this policy is in place, any alert, technology-competent worker knows that his or her emails in a company environment could easily be accessed by supervisors. Employees are working with technology that does not belong to them; therefore, when the company owns the computer and the software and an employee is asked to perform specific tasks on that equipment, it is fair for the company to assume the worker will confine use of those technologies to tasks assigned by the company, and not for personal usage.

Again, this doesn't justify intrusion into personal letters and messages, but unless the worker is sending emails on his or her own smartphone -- or computer -- if a company computer is being used for private, personal communication, all bets are off as far as assuming those communications will remain private.

Certainly companies have the right to expect their workers to dress appropriately and conduct themselves with good behavior. The textbook notes that in some cases an employee might be asked to wear clothing that is provocative. There is a logical rebuttal to that problem: when applying for the position the employee certainly should know what is expected out in front. There may be cases where this is not plainly spelled out, but in most cases the expectations of the company or organization is clearly obvious. If a young woman is applying to Hooters for a job as a server, surely that applicant knows what to expect as far as apparel on the job.

Informed consent on the job

There is a fine line between asking an employee to voluntarily take a personality test and demanding that the employee take the test. If asked to take a test that is said to be "voluntary," then the employee is being offered free choice and should not be docked or in any penalized for refusing to take it. However, once the test is taken, then the company has access to that information and the employee is basically giving his or her consent to have the company invade his or her privacy.

Clearly, an ethical company will be straightforward with its employees as to what happens to private information once the employee has given informed consent to allow the company to gather that information. But there are companies that are so focused on profit and image they may not always be honest with employees vis-a-vis drug testing, monitoring and other policies that invade employee privacy. Installing hidden video cameras -- or otherwise spying -- in order to monitor the behavior of employees is not only sneaky, it is invasive as to the privacy rights of employees. Ethical companies do not conduct surveillance without notifying employees that their activities are being monitored.

As to drug testing, if it is done professionally to prevent workplace errors or accidents, and employees know out in front they will be tested for illegal substances, this should not be a breach of ethics nor should it be thought of as an invasion of privacy. What would be unethical in this instance is if the company shared the results of the drug test with a third party. For example, if the employee voluntarily leaves his position to apply for another job, and that prospective employer calls the first employer to get a reference -- and the former employer reports the individual had a positive test for marijuana -- that would be a major breach of ethics and of the individual's privacy.

Utilitarianism and privacy rights -- questionable generalizations

John Stuart Mill's version of utilitarianism boils down to this phrase: "Actions are right to the degree they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number" (Wofford College). Using that ethical position, an employer could simply argue that he is using private information about an employee for the good of the greatest number of other employees. That employer could argue that the greatest good in terms of the company's profit margin -- or position among competitors in the marketplace -- justifies intrusion into workers' private files. According to the ethics department at Wofford College, the problem with Mill's utilitarian theory is that because the "greatest good" for the greatest number of people is described in "aggregate terms." Hence, the "greatest good" may be achieved "…under conditions that are harmful to some" -- and that harm should be balanced by a greater good.

Moreover, Utilitarian theory does not acknowledge any individual rights "…that could not be violated for the sake of the greatest good," and one way to improve on this theory is to embrace what Wofford College describes as "Rule Utilitarianism." That is, behavior would be evaluated "…by rules that, if universally followed would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number" of people in the company.

Is real privacy a realistic goal for company employees?

There are myriad arguments and scholarly research papers on the subject of privacy and ethics that address both sides of the issue presented here. Meanwhile, Mirko Bagaric is Professor of Law at Deakin University in Australia; along with co-author Carolyn Doyle, Bagaric takes the position in his book that the legal "validity" of the right to privacy has yet to be established. Bagaric goes on to say the right to privacy "is not a strong right and few interests should be subjugated to this right" (Doyle, et al., 2005, p. 14).

Bagaric references the Victorian Law Reform Commission's definition of "privacy" as "…a right underpinned by autonomy and dignity" (16). But that definition is "conceptually flawed," Bagaric continues; it confuses "the notion of 'definition' and 'justification'." There are extreme approaches to privacy, and Bagaric references the approach by Ruth Gavison, a law professor at Hebrew University in Israel. Gavison breaks privacy down into three components, which sets Bagaric up for his comments later that challenge moral theories on privacy. Gavison claims that privacy amounts to "…limited access in the senses of solitude, secrecy and anonymity" (Bagaric, 17). Privacy is "a measure of the extent to which an individual is known, the extent to which an individual is the subject of attention, and the extent to which others are in physical proximity to an individual" (Bagaric, 18).

Utilitarianism and privacy claims

After Bagaric launches into a complicated, long-winded discussion of the overuse of the concept of "rights" (for example, the Australian Prime Minister, in discussing the availability of IVF treatment for same-sex couples, he said "…each child has a right to a mother and a father") he approaches the consequentialism moral theory known commonly as utilitarianism. "Utilitarianism provides a sounder foundation for rights than any other competing theory," he explains. Utilitarianism is a good way to approach rights because "…recognition of [rights] best promotes general utility," Bagaric writes. Moreover, he continues, "…rights save time and energy by serving as shortcuts to assist us in attaining desirable consequences"; and by giving certain interests the label of "rights" (such as the "right to privacy"), we are thus "spared the tedious task of establishing the importance of a particular interest" (Bagaric).

But wait, Bagaric points out that utilitarian approaches to privacy rights "…do not have a life of their own -- they are derivative not foundational"; and because of the derivative character of utilitarian rights, they fail in most cases to carry the "same degree of absolutism" as rights that are based on deontological theories. '

(Using a deontological normative theory based on a discussion of rights might be more absolute, but it is also a fact that using a deontological theory, proponents of any given right "…can simply assert the existence of a right to privacy" while opponents, according to a deontological normative theory, can give an "equally valid" response that there is the "right to know." One can see how an employer in a shop where items have disappeared from the inventory would contend that he has a "right to know" what every employee is doing even though employees claim a "right to privacy."

Meanwhile, as to any claim of rights, asserting that any given right is "absolute" is not a sustainable argument, Bagaric asserts. But utilitarianism is a good fit when discussing privacy rights because it is "…the only theory that provides a mechanism for ranking rights and other interests," Bagaric goes on. If there is conflict over privacy rights, utilitarianism works well because the winner can claim the right he or she advocated will generate the "most happiness." Of course that winner might be management, and its claim could be that snooping in on employees' emails and phone calls will eliminate waste and benefit the whole company and all the employees because there will be profits which leads to bonuses at the end of the year.