Ethical Dilemma #4: To What Extent Should Employees Be Monitored While At Work?
The unblinking eye of the boss sees more than you realize
Last Updated: Thursday, March 12, 2009 | 11:07 AM ET
By Ian Harvey, CBC News
Some companies are purchasing software to track the time employees spend on sites such as eBay, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. (iStock)
Warning: reading this story at work could be hazardous to your career.
Your boss could be watching your keystrokes, logging websites you visit and keeping track of how long you spend there, and looking for keywords in your emails. As if that weren't scary enough, some employers are going even further by demanding prospective employees submit to deep background checks as a condition of employment.
Technology is making it much easier for employers to quickly find out things about the people who work for them —or want to work for them.
And it's all perfectly legal.
Your boss could be watching your keystrokes, logging websites you visit and keeping track of how long you spend there, and looking for keywords in your emails. As if that weren't scary enough, some employers are going even further by demanding prospective employees submit to deep background checks as a condition of employment.
Technology is making it much easier for employers to quickly find out things about the people who work for them —or want to work for them.
And it's all perfectly legal.
'I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer.'—Paul Guindon, Canadian Corps of Commissionaires
Some employers, for example, are going far beyond a simple check of employment references and are drilling deep into a prospective employee's background. They're checking for a criminal record against the national police database by requiring a fingerprint.
It's a trend that Paul Guindon, chairman of national business management committee at the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, sees growing exponentially. Besides providing security guards, the Commissionaires' services include doing police clearances and digital fingerprint checks of staff for companies.
"I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer," he says, "especially those in sensitive positions like teachers."
To capitalize on the trend, his organization purchased 40 digital fingerprint machines with training and software at a cost of $1.5 million. At some 20,000 checks a year and growing, Guindon expects the investment will pay for itself in three years.
"We already do about 25,000 traditional ink-and-roll fingerprints, but there's a 200,000 backlog at the RCMP because it's manual," he says. "Digital is instant."
He says many private and public employers demand criminal record checks, including the Department of National Defence and defence contractors, Public Works Canada and many educational and health institutions.
Because of the privacy issues involved, those being checked must consent to the $75 process. The encrypted fingerprint data is sent directly to the RCMP, and the results returned to the employer noting a summary of any conviction including the offence, location and date if there is a match on the database.
"We have no idea of the result, and the data is wiped off our computers when it is sent," says Guindon, noting the Commissionaires also offer a pardon service for those with criminal records who qualify to have them expunged.
Potential employees, of course, can refuse the check and take a pass on the potential job. They usually get into difficulties if they haven't disclosed a criminal record when asked directly about it during their application process.
Companies have some responsibilities to protect privacy, though. They must store the information securely and restrict access to it if they hire the prospect, or destroy it securely if the applicant is not hired.
It's a trend that Paul Guindon, chairman of national business management committee at the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, sees growing exponentially. Besides providing security guards, the Commissionaires' services include doing police clearances and digital fingerprint checks of staff for companies.
"I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer," he says, "especially those in sensitive positions like teachers."
To capitalize on the trend, his organization purchased 40 digital fingerprint machines with training and software at a cost of $1.5 million. At some 20,000 checks a year and growing, Guindon expects the investment will pay for itself in three years.
"We already do about 25,000 traditional ink-and-roll fingerprints, but there's a 200,000 backlog at the RCMP because it's manual," he says. "Digital is instant."
He says many private and public employers demand criminal record checks, including the Department of National Defence and defence contractors, Public Works Canada and many educational and health institutions.
Because of the privacy issues involved, those being checked must consent to the $75 process. The encrypted fingerprint data is sent directly to the RCMP, and the results returned to the employer noting a summary of any conviction including the offence, location and date if there is a match on the database.
"We have no idea of the result, and the data is wiped off our computers when it is sent," says Guindon, noting the Commissionaires also offer a pardon service for those with criminal records who qualify to have them expunged.
Potential employees, of course, can refuse the check and take a pass on the potential job. They usually get into difficulties if they haven't disclosed a criminal record when asked directly about it during their application process.
Companies have some responsibilities to protect privacy, though. They must store the information securely and restrict access to it if they hire the prospect, or destroy it securely if the applicant is not hired.
Desktop surveillance
Technology is also offering employers ways to quietly keep tabs on what their staffers are doing on company time.
That time is money, says SpectorSoft Corp.'s marketing director Doug Taylor, and the Florida-based company sells software packages to monitor the online activities of a company's employees. Underlining how much time at work some spend on personal pursuits, Taylor points to a report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas that suggests during the National Football League regular season some 37 million people spend an average of 50 minutes a week at work managing their fantasy teams.
Add in eBay, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, stupid email jokes and the lists of top web destinations, and number of lost hours grows exponentially.
That time is money, says SpectorSoft Corp.'s marketing director Doug Taylor, and the Florida-based company sells software packages to monitor the online activities of a company's employees. Underlining how much time at work some spend on personal pursuits, Taylor points to a report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas that suggests during the National Football League regular season some 37 million people spend an average of 50 minutes a week at work managing their fantasy teams.
Add in eBay, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, stupid email jokes and the lists of top web destinations, and number of lost hours grows exponentially.
During the National Football League regular season some 37 million people spend an average of 50 minutes a week at work managing their fantasy teams.
Looking to claw back that company time, IMV Projects, a Calgary project management firm, installed SpectorSoft's 360 software three years ago on the PCs of the 650 people it employed at the time.
IT manager Ross Benov conservatively figures the firm recouped 10 hours per year per employee at $30 to $40 an hour, equaling between $195,000 and $260,000 in salaried work time. Setting a more liberal estimate of time wasting at 40 hours a year per employee, it adds up to more than $1 million, he says.
"We use it in different ways —to run a report on an employee if their supervisor feels they're spending too much time online, to see what websites they're going to," says Benov.
He notes that employees are told about the software and the company's internet guidelines. "We've had no problems since and I haven't heard any complaints. We allow full internet access at lunchtime because we want to keep people happy and maintain a balance."
SpectorSoft started making its surveillance software for the consumer market about a decade ago, allowing parents to control what their kids did online and monitor which sites they went to. It has since expanded to the corporate world and is finding an eager audience. Today it is one of the fastest growing companies in the U.S., with sales to more than 50,000 companies and 400,000 consumers.
"You have to own the computer and the network," says Taylor noting some European jurisdictions do prohibit some types of monitoring. "And you should tell your employees up front that they may be monitored."
He says there are two ways to use the system. The first is to monitor all employees for prohibited online behaviour. The second is to only watch employees who are not meeting performance standards. The software is not intended to crack down on any personal use of the web or email, Taylor says, but to single out the worst abusers.
"The system knows how long you had an eBay window open and how long you were active in that window," he says. "So it's not going to report that you were on eBay for seven hours [if the window was open that long], just that the window was open and that your mouse was active inside that window for 20 minutes."
IT manager Ross Benov conservatively figures the firm recouped 10 hours per year per employee at $30 to $40 an hour, equaling between $195,000 and $260,000 in salaried work time. Setting a more liberal estimate of time wasting at 40 hours a year per employee, it adds up to more than $1 million, he says.
"We use it in different ways —to run a report on an employee if their supervisor feels they're spending too much time online, to see what websites they're going to," says Benov.
He notes that employees are told about the software and the company's internet guidelines. "We've had no problems since and I haven't heard any complaints. We allow full internet access at lunchtime because we want to keep people happy and maintain a balance."
SpectorSoft started making its surveillance software for the consumer market about a decade ago, allowing parents to control what their kids did online and monitor which sites they went to. It has since expanded to the corporate world and is finding an eager audience. Today it is one of the fastest growing companies in the U.S., with sales to more than 50,000 companies and 400,000 consumers.
"You have to own the computer and the network," says Taylor noting some European jurisdictions do prohibit some types of monitoring. "And you should tell your employees up front that they may be monitored."
He says there are two ways to use the system. The first is to monitor all employees for prohibited online behaviour. The second is to only watch employees who are not meeting performance standards. The software is not intended to crack down on any personal use of the web or email, Taylor says, but to single out the worst abusers.
"The system knows how long you had an eBay window open and how long you were active in that window," he says. "So it's not going to report that you were on eBay for seven hours [if the window was open that long], just that the window was open and that your mouse was active inside that window for 20 minutes."
Legal considerations
But do the measures companies are taking to check and monitor employees equal an invasion of privacy?
A recent Ontario Securities Commission case, for example, uncovered a scheme by an IT worker who had default access to all company emails and who used his inside knowledge of merger talks to profit on the stock market before the talks were made public.
Companies are within their rights to ask prospective employees to submit to a background check, including fingerprinting, says the federal privacy commissioner's office, though there are rules around how that information is stored and who has access to it.
When it comes to on-the-job surveillance, there's no easy answer, says lawyer Michael P. Fitzgibbon, a labour and employment law specialist at Borden Ladner Gervais in Toronto.
"The lines are not clearly drawn, so it's a question of degree," says Fitzgibbon.
He notes that there are legal requirements around compliance and dissemination of information for publicly traded companies that may make surveillance necessary. A recent Ontario Securities Commission case, for example, uncovered a scheme by an IT worker who had default access to all company emails and who used his inside knowledge of merger talks to profit on the stock market before the talks were made public.
Fitzgibbon adds that there are areas where the employer has an interest in ensuring confidential data is not distributed by employees, and that sexual harassment and human rights rules aren't violated by material a worker puts on their screen or uses a company email system to distribute to others.
Still, says Fitzgibbon, monitoring all employees by default can also create a climate of distrust. That can have an unintended, negative impact on the productivity or retention of valued staff.
The federal privacy commissioner's office says surveillance of employee activities is a case-by-case matter. It says that as long as there are legitimate reasons for capturing the data and it's stored securely under privacy legislation rules, there's no hard and fast policy on the practice.
Not every company is comfortable with such stringent measures.
"We do get prospective clients who investigate our software and then decide it's just not for them," says SpectorSoft's Taylor.
The key is consent, Fitzgibbon says. Companies should tell employees if they are being monitored and be clear about what the guidelines are for personal internet use.
Still, to be on the safe side, you might want to stop reading this story and get back to work.
When it comes to on-the-job surveillance, there's no easy answer, says lawyer Michael P. Fitzgibbon, a labour and employment law specialist at Borden Ladner Gervais in Toronto.
"The lines are not clearly drawn, so it's a question of degree," says Fitzgibbon.
He notes that there are legal requirements around compliance and dissemination of information for publicly traded companies that may make surveillance necessary. A recent Ontario Securities Commission case, for example, uncovered a scheme by an IT worker who had default access to all company emails and who used his inside knowledge of merger talks to profit on the stock market before the talks were made public.
Fitzgibbon adds that there are areas where the employer has an interest in ensuring confidential data is not distributed by employees, and that sexual harassment and human rights rules aren't violated by material a worker puts on their screen or uses a company email system to distribute to others.
Still, says Fitzgibbon, monitoring all employees by default can also create a climate of distrust. That can have an unintended, negative impact on the productivity or retention of valued staff.
The federal privacy commissioner's office says surveillance of employee activities is a case-by-case matter. It says that as long as there are legitimate reasons for capturing the data and it's stored securely under privacy legislation rules, there's no hard and fast policy on the practice.
Not every company is comfortable with such stringent measures.
"We do get prospective clients who investigate our software and then decide it's just not for them," says SpectorSoft's Taylor.
The key is consent, Fitzgibbon says. Companies should tell employees if they are being monitored and be clear about what the guidelines are for personal internet use.
Still, to be on the safe side, you might want to stop reading this story and get back to work.
Managers now have the technical means to monitor employees. Managers can listen to their staff's telephone calls, read their email, and search their internet activity. Many managers believe they should monitor employees because they need to measure productivity, gather information for performance reviews, and prevent legal problems for the company. They also feel justified in keeping track of their employees' actions because technology is owned by the company. The majority of employers using electronic-monitoring technology notify the employees that they will be monitored.
1. What do you think of this management practice?
2. Is it ethical, moral and legal?
Adults have to work, teeanagers have to study. As for me, it's hard to image what is like to be monitered during work but if someone is keeping an eye on me while I am finishing my homework, I will say 'no'. From the managers' side, knowing what their employees do is significant due to the productivity, performance reviews, and legal problems. All companies want to have a sense of which worker can bring more benefit for them and which worker they should keep when layoffs. However, this action is not ethical, moral, and it shouldn't be legal. According to the privacy law, nobody can listen to your phone calls, read your email, or track down your internet activity and managers aren't exceptions. The productivity of every worker can be shown at the end of the project so being far away from facebook during work doesn't mean people can produce more. On the other hand, being monitoring isn't comfortable at all. Even though it's a company, people need to trust each other. In addition, people may be feel stressful so they can't put as much attention as what they used to on work while they look like 'being concentrated'. To sum up, monitoring employees' behavior during working shouldn't be encouraged and it's not ethical, moral from my point of view.
ReplyDeleteI like how you brought up some information of the privacy law as it supports your already good current points on the whole topic. Also, I agree with your point on how that despite it a company people should trust each other as I believe that we need to have more trust within each other. As well as companies want a good atmosphere of productivity but by monitoring is them is not the best way to do that as it's just going to be people looking closely at workers while they are trying to do their job with the distraction of supervisors which will not make them productive workers and should probably leave them to their work instead.
DeleteI love your points, privacy is more important. Even in daily life monitoring phone calls is illegal, manager shouldn't be a step too far.
DeleteI totally agree with your point that people should not be monitored during any time, and all monitoring without permission should be illegal.
DeleteProductivity in companies is rather important, managers have the right to know if employees spent to much time on social networks and other not related-to-work things. However, the management practice above is a step too far. Managers can read staffs' email, search their internet activity and even listen to their staff's telephone calls! You will be tracked as long as you are in the company. There is no privacy and personal spaces. What's more, the management above should just be legal but not moral or ethnical.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, what I think feasible is that managers are able to know which website or who you are calling, but they can't know what exactly you are talking about and can't listen to the whole conversation. In this way, not only the privacy of employees will be protected, but also the productivity of companies will improve.
i never thought of how much the manager can see when they have control over the internet. You used some good points to support your reasoning of how it shouldn't be allowed.
DeleteMaybe knowing a little bit of what workers are talking on phones is still disrespectful but I understand you want to make the privacy and the monitoring balanced.
DeleteI believe you're right. Productivity matters much more than surveillance. Managers are ok to have bits and snippets of their employees life but all employees should have a right to privacy.
DeleteI feel that managers should be able to go through their employees work life and emails as when you are at work you should be working. Wether or not your working is wether or not there making money. When you work for a company they own your intellectual property and have the ability to go through your work related info. However this should stay at work, Managers have no right to go through your personal information as long as it doesn't relate to your work in anyway. I feel that it is ethical moral and legal as managers have the right to know who is working for. Everything that the employee does effects the company so therefor your conduct represents the company and its profits.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right, as I said, this system is completely fine as long as the managers don't cross certain lines relating to this product, for example if they continue to listen on phone calls or if they continue to monitor what you're doing on your computer at home and completely away from work I think that that's a little too much and there's a certain point where the monitoring becomes spying or stalking. I like the point that you bring up about the managers have the right to know who is working for them but then again there's a certain line that can't be crossed.
DeleteWhen doing any form of work, being on task and productive is key in order to do or finish your work. While though I do believe that being monitored is a good way for you to stay concentrated on what you need to do; I also think that its a message saying that people, workers, employees, etc can't be trusted to do their job and must be watched even though the workers/employees must had been depended on for their work. If they weren't working then they would be fired then. But that still means there are some safety catches that are still necessary though for both monitors and the workers in a work setting. Some examples are that of looking through worker's browser history, emails, notifications on social media, etc. Nevertheless, their safety is crucial to the managers and supervisors, but I think that the management should be optional for those who may need help or can't seem to concentrate when doing their job. This will also then have their right for their privacy not violated either and no ways for any one to hack into other people's accounts as well. This will make everything run smoothly creating a good atmosphere among the work setting.
ReplyDeleteI think you are completely right on the fact that you say being productive and being on task is key to finishing your work. I also like the fact that you bring up the violation of privacy thing since I too believe that this could easily be abused if it falls into the wrong hands and that the companies with a system such as this needs to be careful.
DeleteI completely agree with the examples you mentioned, and productive is indeed most important. However, we should think more about our privacy. If the manager could see everything their employees browsed, employees would be rather uncomfortable. I think their limits of authority should be limited.
DeleteI believe that you give valuable reasoning on the problem of employees getting distracted while on duty, because of their phones. The manager do have to enforce some rules upon to stop the employees rom being on their phone.
Deletei agree and that it is managements job to keep you working and they should do that by any means nessary
DeleteWhile I admit that your point makes sense but monitoring is for me not an ethical thing to do, so I think companies should not monitor anyone in any condition.
DeleteFor companies to gain money, they need to be productive and to have dedicated workers towards their jobs. To do that, precautions need to be enforced by controlling what employees are doing on the internet, when on duty. Knowing what your employees are doing, then the manager can confront that employee and make sure that employee works more efficiently during work hours. It is legal, because the employees are using the company’s internet not their own. On the other hand, management should not be spying on their employees during their break time. “The key is consent, Fitzgibbon says. Companies should tell employees if they are being monitored and be clear about what the guidelines are for personal internet use.” from that the manager should tell their employees that they are being watched, so they would never go on their phones to get fired.
ReplyDeletei agree with your comment as the employees are the main contributor and workforce to a companies success.
DeleteI think your idea is convincing because a successful company is mostly contributed by its employees.
DeleteI believe that this mangement practice is one that will both benefit and detriment a company. because this system is more convenient for the employers rather than the employees. What I mean by this is that yes it is useful to see who is being productive with their time, and to see who is wasting their time; although, is believe their is a certain line that employers must not cross, for example listening in on phone calls is a little too much, there also has to be trust between an employer and the employees, that's simply how a company/business works. So ,all in all, I think this practice is okay as long as the employees sign agreement where it says where and when they are being watched so at least they know. I do not think this system/product is moral or ethical, but I do think that if the people being watched signed a contract or some form then it is perfectly legal. I do not think that it is moral because there is supposed to be trust between them. For a company to run successfully you need to have a good foundation, and I believe that foundation is trust.
ReplyDeleteI think it depends on various factors. The amount of supervision should vary depending on the company, field of work, how long a worker has been with the company, the position the worker is in and more. However, I feel that tracking keystrokes and searching for keywords may be a little far for most cases. I understand that these could be multi million dollar companies and the way to make money is having hard workers. I think having access to search history on company computers if a far enough gesture that people will not waste there time searching pointless things and not focusing on work. I am a very firm that privacy is important and if there is someone breathing down your neck 24/7 then you won't feel safe and that if not a healthy work environment which will lead to a less productive worker. I think workers should be supervised but for the most part just check ups face to face with their respective superiors. Also trust is a two way street. If your bosses don't trust you how can they expect you to trust them. Which again results in a less productive worker. So, I think it is important people are supervised to stay concentrated but listen to phone calls and tracking keywords in emails is not necessary in the slightest.
ReplyDeleteI think companies can monitor employees because of 3 reasons. Monitor can stop employees misconduct: according to the big company which has a lot of people such as IBM, apple and at & t, staff visit the pornographic websites during work time, and pornography is obvious waste time; spend a lot of time on other sites, such as gaming websites and social media networks such as Facebook or Twitter, are non-dedicated staff to bring the capacity of risk. This can be seen as a breach of the work contract and a waste the company's money. "The basic principle is value for money," says Forbes magazine columnist Joseph Gabor. "If you don't provide value for your salary, you're lying in a sense." Employee monitoring can protect company property: when companies worry about using e-mail to steal proprietary information, we can consider monitoring. The electronic transmission of the information of the employer may lead to the leakage of the trade secret, thus bringing huge economic losses. The PC magazine cited events at HP in 2006, which hired information sources identified by private investigators. By monitoring, they learned about the employee's disclosure process,. As a result, six members of the HP board of directors resigned or were dismissed. Employee monitoring can maintain professional company: a lack of supervision of the environment may cause to the working environment, such as inappropriate jokes, racist or other objectionable material mail may lead to serious legal risks within the company. So that is why I think companies should monitor employees, it can help a lot.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your 3 reasons of why they can or should be monitored in order to see who's productive with their work and who's not. But I think it should be optional like before work starts you can ask another person to monitor you if you think you can't focus without someone in your vicinity. Also, I believe that the people working should really be focused on their work if they don't want to be fired and that of how if there was someone watching you, you wouldn't really want to get sidetracked. Even if someone wasn't really watching you, there could be other ways for them to watch you like surveillance cameras for example.
DeleteA controversial issue of employees being monitored during work time has raised my concern. Everyone in the world deserves the right of privacy disposition and protection, so people should not be monitored at all to some extent. However, people get paid to work but not surfing on the Internet, so in order to insure the efficiency of employees, monitor might be used in a benevolent way. People will never like others know what they are doing all the time, because they will feel unsafe and worried, even though in work, employees want to work at their own pace, For example, they might want to relax for 10 minutes, but the monitor make it really hard and awkward. From my perspective, monitor should only be used when employee are told that they will be monitored and agreed with it, or else it is not even legal.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your comment, if someone doesn't want to be monitored in there workspace then they should find a different job, If the choice is available to not be monitored then obviously no one is going to want to be monitored.
DeleteI don't agree with your comment Jason for the reason that you don't get privacy if someone is paying for your time and your technology and if you don't like that maybe you need a new job.
Deleteto start i do think that it is the right of management to be able to be able to see as they are paying for not only the technology but also for their time and if they arent working then it is imposrtant for the management to know and that is why it is more than ethical in fact if i was in management i would moniter my employs internet and phone use.
ReplyDeleteI agree that you should monitor your employees computers but I think that someones phone is personal. Seeing that you say you would monitor your employees I would like to know how often you plan to check them and how deep your monitoring will go.
DeletePrivacy is important to people. Not everyone likes their life spilled out in front of someone with just a simple surveillance system. I agree that some systems are a little too extreme and some employers are so lets say nosy that its even hard to keep a personal life personal. But on the other side of the argument, with the technology that people are inventing and all the social media it truly is hard to hide anything. Surveillance is something more and more places are learning to use. If an employee doesn't like the amount used then they either have to outsmart the system or get a new job at a place with comfortable about of surveillance for them.
ReplyDelete