Ethical Issues and Employees

¶ … Monitoring Employee Communications The workplace is highly complex, and while there is a great deal of emphasis placed on practical aspects such as management of resources and operational strategies, there is less attention paid to ethical issues. With the evolution technology, there is an increasing potential for businesses to benefits from its application, concurrently, there are many different ethical issues which may need to be considered (Tavani, 2013). An increasingly controversial issue has been the rights of employees to privacy when using workplace computers for personal communications (Blanchard, 2016).

This may be argued as becoming increasingly complex, as not only are employees using the workplace equipment, they may also be using their own devices which are attached to workplace networks, or where employees may placer information that can be accessed on social media (Buettner, 2015). The ability to monitor employee communications, need for commercial confidentially, and the desire of employees for privacy creates a dilemma, regarding to what extent it is acceptable for employers to monitor their employees' communications.

One may argue that from an ethical perspective, adopting a deontological approach, the employer should monitor as much as they see fit, as long as it remained within the law. Deontological ethics is the school of thought seen with the work of Kant. The idea is that the correct actions in an ethical dilemma may be assessed by examining the duties which exist (Sullivan, 2008). The defined primary stakeholders for a company are defined as the shareholders or the owners (Elliott and Elliott, 2015).

Therefore, while the management of a firm may need to make many considerations about the way they operate, the primary concern should be the needs and interests of the owners. There are other considerations with regard to duty; the management need to abide by the law, as this is also a duty.

This places the argument regarding the level of monitoring that should be undertaken in a very clear context; the employer can, and even has a duty, to undertaken as much surveillance as they see fit, This may include surveillance to ensure employees are performing their jobs, as well as more protective measures, such as ensuring there is no corporate espionage taking place. Adopting this approach, the employer will need to look at the legal position, to ensure any monitoring take place in line with the law.

In the US there is a very little to stop an employer monitoring the electronic communications of an employee in the workplace (FindLaw, 2016). Employees have very few rights to privacy in the workplace, the emails on the computer, even if personal, are considered the property of the company, and as long as the employer has a valid business purpose, they are allow to monitor all emails (FindLaw, 2016).

In many cases, employers now have systems in place which will copy and retain all messages that have been sent through their servers, with the purpose of checking for productivity and for illegal use (FindLaw, 2016). In recent years, emails of employees have frequently been used in court cases as evidence of an employee's wrongdoing (FindLaw, 2016).

Employers also have the right to electronically monitor the websites that an employee visits, voicemails and phone calls, however, there are limitations, as seen with the Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), where an employer cannot monitor the content of personal calls, unless the employee knows that the specific call is being monitored and has consented (FindLaw, 2016). This approach appears to indicate that there is a clear position where the employer has the right to monitor many communications, and an ethical duty to the shareholders.

However, this does not resolve the dilemma. The management of the firm are meant to act in the best interests of the owners, so this will also mean maximising the productivity of the employees. While monitoring may be seen as useful, if the employees feel the employer does not trust them, they are less likely to be productive as their motivation levels will decrease (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2011). This may undermine productivity and increase overall costs, as aspects such as attrition may increase (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2011).

One may also argue that making the employees unhappy and uncomfortable is not the right approach. Using universalism the way a decision should be made by looking at the source of action which will create the greatest level of happiness (Chyssides and Kaler, 1998). When looking at the case of monitoring employee communication, it may be argued it is not only the employees who may be unhappy about the monitoring but also the parties they are communicating with.

There are also broader societal issue, with many people concerned about the development of a big brother state, where there are high levels of surveillance, so it may be argued more external stakeholders would be happy if there were less, or no surveillance (Blanchard, 2016). Under this approach, it may be argued there is an ethical case to support a total refraining of monitoring.

Therefore, the issue remains a dilemma; there is a business need for some surveillance, and it is likely the employees themselves will accept there is some requirement, where monitoring will not.