Workplace Privacy as the Nature

Workplace Privacy

As the nature of the workplace progresses, new and increasingly controversial ways in which employers can possibly impinge upon an employee's physical privacy have made themselves available, while the legal and ethical ramifications of these tools remain complex and multi-faceted. The major ways in which employers might possibly violate the privacy rights of any one of their employees through physical means include: drug testing, genetic testing, and electronic surveillance. It seems like an inalienable right that people have to some form of personal privacy; however, even if it is admitted that this premise is true, it is not altogether apparent precisely where public knowledge ends and private knowledge begins. Furthermore, businesses are, in their nature, primarily concerned with maintaining a productive and efficient workplace; obviously, this broad goal could, under any number of circumstances, interfere with the concept of individual physical privacy. This conflict of interest becomes increasingly difficult to navigate through as new technologies, like genetic testing, become available. After all, there is little legal precedent to tell, one way or the other, whether genetic information is a bit of personal or public information -- no such stipulations appear in the U.S. Constitution. Overall, physical privacy should be a key concern of employees, employers, lawmakers, and interpreters of the law; it remains up to the lawmakers and judges to make informed and ethically-driven decisions regarding the issue -- both on a case by case basis, and with broad legislation.

Possibly the most interesting and contentious of the ways in which employers might infringe upon personal privacy is through genetic testing. The way in which the genetic information obtained might be used, however, often varies: "Genetic testing includes both genetic screening and genetic monitoring. In genetic screening workers are tested for genetic predispositions for example to chemically caused disease. In genetic monitoring, workers are tested for genetic damage caused e.g. By exposure to chemicals in the workplace," (Persson 2). The main concern of the business in relation to employee predisposition or incurred damage is not, primarily, the employee's health; instead, genetic testing reflects a concern for legal liability on the part of certain companies that expose employees to potentially hazardous environments. After all, if the concern was the health of the workers, it should be expected that measures be taken to improve workplace conditions, in order to make them safer for all employees. Instead, many businesses have found that it is more cost-effective to implement genetic testing in order to assure that the employees they do have are not likely to acquire any conditions that may leave them legally liable.

Not surprisingly, although such practices are spreading worldwide, many employees and legal experts object to the role that genetic testing may play in the way the businesses operate; most are centrally concerned with the associated actions taken by employers based upon the results of genetic tests. For instance, it is not straightforwardly clear whether terminating an employee based upon the results of their genetic tests is an ethically sound measure. Additionally, it may be a form of employment discrimination to eliminate one applicant based upon a genetic predisposition to some form of disease -- after all, a predisposition fails to guarantee that the disease will ever manifest itself. If such precedents can be found to be ethically sound, then other forms of discrimination may find their way into employer hiring practices. It is possible to imagine, for example, that one workplace environment might be more hazardous to people of African descent than people of European descent based upon their genetic make-ups. Would it therefore be justifiable to eliminate all African-American applicants based merely upon their race? We might further imagine that this position grows exponentially as an industrial super-employer in the United States; employing millions of workers and sustaining a substantial portion of the economy. So, could it ever be found to be ethical to categorically deny the African-American's entrance into this industry based purely upon genetic predisposition? Some might contend that such circumstances are unlikely to ever arise, and they may be right. Yet, the notion that we should find one form of discrimination objectionable because it happens to be associated with race and another acceptable because it is more invisible in nature is a highly troubling position to take.

In short, utilizing a form of discrimination in the hopes of increasing employee safety represents an almost lazy approach to such the ever-present dilemma of workplace safety. History has shown, however, that improvements to safety can be made along other lines: "Data from multiple sources reflect the large decreases in work-related deaths from the high rates and numbers of deaths among workers during the early twentieth century," (Anonymous 1). The author notes that this has been particularly true among coal miners -- still one of the most dangerous professions on earth. Yet simultaneously employers -- even in such dangerous fields of work -- must be concerned with workplace diversity. This is not ultimately because workplace diversity contributes to efficiency or productivity -- though it may -- it is out of consideration for the social implications of employment. Essentially, "To manage diversity effectively, a corporation must value diversity; it must have diversity, and it must change the organization to accommodate diversity and make it an integral part of the organization," (Gilbert 1). In general, attempting to solve issues of workplace safety through genetic testing introduces new problems related to both privacy and diversity.

Surveillance has also evolved as technologies have made themselves available to the demands of employers seeking to further their ends: "Examples include miniature cameras, 'smart' ID badges that can be used to track an employee's movements around a building, computerized analysis of the pattern of telephone use and the destination of calls, and various systems that monitor employees' computer transactions more or less in detail," (Persson 2). These measures introduce a handful of difficulties for employees contesting that they represent invasions of privacy; foremost among these is the matter as to whether or not any action conduced in the workplace could be regarded as personal in nature. After all, as long as the ID badges, for example, only monitor movements within the building, it is difficult to argue that an employer does not have the right to know the location of any particular employee. In short, lines of reasoning claiming that workplace surveillance qualifies as an invasion of person privacy usually have a difficult case to prove.

Drug testing, on the other hand, may constitute an invasion of privacy. Although it is certainly arguable that some drug habits might interfere with the workplace performance of particular employees, there are two main difficulties with using the results of drug tests to either reprimand employees or eliminate applicants. First, as long as the drug usage takes place outside of the workplace and on the employee's personal time, it is certainly imaginable how such actions might be considered highly personal in nature. Second, the notion that drug use inhibits workplace performance fails to, in itself, justify drug testing; this is because if workplace performance declines, then this fact alone could be used as grounds for termination -- no potential invasions of privacy would be needed. With these points in mind, drug tests as a means to monitor employees are not likely to be as useful as simply monitoring employee activity and performance on the work site.