Introduction
The essay is an in depth examination of the concept of basic physical privacy right issue in the workplace. This is done by selecting an issue and for this case electronic monitoring of employee is chosen for the analysis. Over time the relationship of employers and their employees have gone through numerous stages.
In the recent past, most employers have resorted to closely monitoring their workers to the extent of their residential places. This has been deemed by the later to be unconstitutional while the former claim it is for the interest of not only the organization but also to the employee (Simms, 1994).
Electronic monitoring of employees
As suggested by Ravi, S. & Robertson, 2003 it is worth noting that with time, man has strived in developing technology to better his life.
With such technological advancement that has made it possible for workers to be under surveillance even at their home is a privacy concern in place of work as most workers are of the opinion that their privacy is unprotected. Indeed there are provisions that allow employees to monitor their workers. Similarly, the later do have the right of going to work without the fear of his/her privacy being invaded.
Despite the different opinion being held by proponents and opponents of electronic monitoring or surveillance of employees, a study by American Management Association has shown that there was a sharp increase in organizations adopting the practice (Simms, 1994).
Just like any other thing, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with closely monitoring the day to day activities of an employer. Monitoring can include video monitoring, monitoring of e-mails, phone calls, testing drugs as well as keystroke logging to mention but a few.
It is worth to note that it might be of significance for an employer to prohibit workers from visiting certain sites for instance those with pornographic materials.
Similarly, the kind of forwarded mails opt to be monitored to ensure the working environment is not jeopardized. However, intentional interception of communication through electronic devices is prohibited but can be done when the employer give notice of doing so to the workers (Anders & Sven, 2003).
Utilitarian and deontological considerations
According to Halbert & Ingulli, 2009 from utilitarian view point which was brought forth by such renown philosophers as Mills, it is held that an ethical thing opt to maximize the happiness of the entire society. In this case, what needs to be done is to calculate the advantages versus disadvantages associated with electronic monitoring of employees if indeed the benefits are more than the cons, then it is ethical and vice versa.
Since outcomes of any action are predictable the actions taken is linked to the ‘end justifies the means’. It is worth noting that the theory provides that there is no wrong or right action but the correctness and wrongfulness of such actions are exclusively a stuff of largely non-moral good.
The principal is to generate more happiness to the greatest number. If electronic surveillance of employees will be beneficial to all other stakeholders of the organization then it is a good move.
On the other hand deontological advocated by such individuals as Kant holds that obligation and duty is what guide us in making decisions. The theory suggests that there are certain actions that are true and applicable in a universal manner and there are those actions that are immoral despite their outcomes (Moreland, 2007).
According to Kant, the morality of an action lies with the intentions of the person advocating for a given action to be taken in this case if the action of the employer is to help employers improve on their productivity, then electronic surveillance is fine. However, if the intention was to establish who logs in for prohibited sites, then it is wrong.
Conclusion
From the review of electronic monitoring of employees, it is apparent that more and more organizations are adopting the system. Employees have cried fall that their privacy is being invaded. On the other hand, the employers try to justify that they do that for the good of the employees as well as the entire organization.
On the basis of utilitarian stand point, if the benefits derived from such an action out ways the negative consequences then it is ethical. On the hand, deontologist hold that there are intrinsically wrong things that human need not to engage in and human opt to be treated as objects of intrinsic moral value. Thus electronic monitoring can be right or wrong partly if the intentions of doing so are evil.
References
Anders, J. & Sven, O. (2003). “Privacy at work ethical criteria” Journal of Business Ethics. Dordrecht: Jan 42(1): 59.
Halbert, T. & Ingulli, E. (2009). Law and ethics in the business environment. Ohio: Southwestern Cengage.
Moreland, J. (2007). Ethics theories: Utilitarianism Vs. deontological ethics. Web.
Ravi, S. & Robertson, J. (2003). “Strategic and ethical considerations in managing digital privacy” Journal of Business Ethics. Dordrecht. 46(2): 111.
Simms, M. (1994). “Defining privacy in employee health screening cases: Ethical ramifications concerning the employee/employer relationship” Journal of Business Ethics. 13(5): 315-325.