Physical privacy issues in workplace drug testing and polygraph procedures

¶ … Ethics of Employee Location Monitoring

In the contemporary workplace, workers are usually aware that their computer activity, email, and phone conversations may be -- and probably are -- being monitored by their employer. Efforts to limit the consumption of offensive or pornographic material, use of company resources for non-work purposes, and desire to track employee behavior in order to improve efficiency leads managers to install keystroke logs, RFID location tags, cell phone software, and "back door" computer tracking programs. Employees complain that they do not feel trusted by employers who use these strategies, and managers may not have clear guidelines for how to use the information they glean from covert employee monitoring. However, some of these techniques can be used to improve workplace safety and ensure, for example, that employees take regular breaks from work in order to reduce eye strain and the health dangers of sedentary work. Below, I will explore some of the ethical issues underlying employee monitoring, specifically location monitoring using technology.

Recent media attention has been showered on the iPhone 4's ability to constantly track its GPS-determined location. Because most iPhones are the private property of individuals rather than corporations, it is ethically questionable for a corporation to monitor this information without giving the device's owner the opportunity to "opt out" of being monitored. It is somewhat less questionable for employers to monitor their employees in such a way. Currently, many businesses employ location-tracking software that is built in to corporate laptops, cellphones, cars, and ID badges (Kaupins & Minch, 2005). Most companies intend this location-tracking to maintain property security as well as track employee whereabouts. Since the cell phone, laptop, ID badge etc. are legal possessions of the employer, the fact that they allow the employer to accurately track the location of the employee who uses these items in the performance of work-related tasks is ethically neutral during business hours. Problems arise, of course, when the boundaries between work and non-work time and use are blurred.

Consider, for example, a company that distributes iPhones to its sales force. These employees are asked to fly all over the country to sell their employer's products. Employers may use location tracking in this case to inform internal review processes -- for example, checking whether sales agents were on time to their appointments with prospective clients. However, they may also monitor employees' behavior after hours, and raise objections to the activities they appeared to have been involved in while they were not on the job -- for example, if the locations the iPhone recorded included a strip club, gay bar, medical marijuana pharmacy, or controversial house of worship. Hartman (2000) argues that because the device that recorded this information was issued by the employer, use of data collected by that device is ethically available to the employer for any use they see fit. However, if the device in question was not issued by the employer, data collected about employee locations is only ethically present to the employer's awareness if the activities took place during normal working hours for that employee -- e.g. If the employee could reasonably have expected their behavior to be monitored.