E-mail communication Essay Example

tests may aim to safeguard employee health, it is essential for workers to give their voluntary consent before undergoing them, as employers cannot impose testing on unwilling employees.

If employers choose not to conduct drug tests, it could violate their employees' privacy. Brian B (2009) states that drug testing is an important measure for employers to ensure that their workforce is mentally and physically capable of fulfilling their responsibilities. Neglecting these tests may result in decreased company profits due to employees using drugs, potentially leading to a business decline. To protect the company's interests, employees may be required to give up their right to privacy. Furthermore, it is crucial for employers to handle these tests discreetly so as not to intrude on their employees' privacy (Boreman B, 2009).

Employers have the right to ask employees to give up their privacy rights for video surveillance, as long as there is a valid business reason. The main purpose of using video monitoring is to prevent crime and gather evidence, not to violate the privacy of employees. Video surveillance is commonly used in workplaces (2008). According to a survey conducted by the American Management Association in 2007, almost half of employers use video surveillance to deter theft, violence, or sabotage. Furthermore, 7% of surveyed employers use it for monitoring employee performance.

While video monitoring can be beneficial in deterring theft and improving security, employees should voice their concerns about placing cameras in certain areas at work, such as restrooms and designated rest areas. For example, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom allocated $700,000 for the implementation of citywide video surveillance cameras to prevent criminal activities. However, employers should avoid installing camera surveillance

equipment in spaces like employee lounges, locker rooms, and restrooms that are meant for employee relaxation. As a result, the placement of camera installation plays a vital role in determining privacy invasion.

Phone recording is another method of monitoring that has minimal impact on employees' privacy rights. The extent to which this monitoring invades employees' privacy depends on the actions of employers, whether they are done openly or secretly. According to a report from the American Management Association (2008), employers spend 45% of their time monitoring call numbers and 16% recording phone conversations. The purpose of monitoring conversations between employees and customers is to ensure work quality and protect business information. In general, most companies have regulations in place that require employees to be notified before they are monitored on the phone.

According to California state law, individuals must be informed when their phone conversation is being recorded (Joseph.E, 1983). However, some employees use office phones for personal calls, which negatively affects work productivity and the company's success. To solve this problem, it is advised that employees use their personal mobile phones or pay phones for personal calls.

When employees consent to being monitored in their computer activities, they may willingly forfeit their right to privacy. This can be advantageous for both the company and the consumer in terms of legal protection. Based on a report by the American Management Association (2008), more than half of U.S. companies currently monitor employee email messages, marking a 12 percent increase from around 15 percent in 1997. If employers establish a policy that explicitly states computer systems are solely intended for business purposes, they possess the authority to monitor office computers

used by employees (American Management Association, 2008). However, it is often observed that employees fail to read policies regarding the use of office tools and matters concerning privacy when these policies are provided on their first day of employment.

According to Manny Avramidis, employers must go beyond simply providing a written policy. Thus, employers may overlook the employee's right to privacy. While certain information on computers may be private, employers monitor email correspondence between clients and employees as a means of ensuring quality control. As an example, a testimonial on the BBC website in 2002 featured a person from South Africa who discovered an email on an employee's private computer that resembled client-employee correspondence. However, it turned out that the employee was engaging in fraudulent activity by accepting payment directly into their personal bank account while conducting company work.

Hilley (2008) suggests that computer information in the workplace, including email, serves as written documentation comparable to DNA evidence and mirrors employees' online work activities. As a result, employers enforce computer monitoring to promptly identify problems and track customer service. Nevertheless, employees still maintain their privacy rights when it comes to using the internet and computers for personal reasons.

In summary, employees have the right to privacy at work but may need to give it up to protect the company's interests. However, if employers monitor without valid reasons, they should inform employees beforehand to minimize invasion of privacy. In these cases, employees have the right to defend their privacy.