1. Running head: ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER 1
Employee Surveillance – how elastic can rights be?
Irena Tsikaris
Baker College

2. ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER 2
Employee Surveillance – how elastic can rights be?
Introduction
According to an Academic article, retrieved from the ProQuest database, the statistics
about how employees manage their time while working “on the clock” is not very much in their
favor. “A recent survey of over 4,600 human resource managers and over 4,000 employees
indicates that approximately 65% of employees spend at least some work time on non-work
related Internet activity” (Sanders, Ross, & Patison, 2014, p. 1). The article further gives more
information about the kind of activity they perform: “Of those employees using social networks
sites, some 56% check their profiles during their typical workdays and 15% of this group spends
at least one hour a day browsing (Sanders et al., 2014, p. 1). With respect to the previous facts,
this paper further researches the issue, engaging relevant sources to elaborate on both opposed
approaches; on the side of the employers – they have all the rights to preserve company’s profits
and to protect it from any attempts to discredit and on the side of the employees – it’s a violation
of their privacy and the fact that they are on the pay roll does not give the company rights to put
them under surveillance. How elastic can really employees’ rights be and would they allow for
the employers to “squeeze in” regulation for random acts of surveillance?
Business interests vs worker privacy
With respect to the problem introduced above, most of the employers take two basic
steps: they monitor the email accounts of their employees and they block certain web- sites from
accessing. According to the following information published online: “Looking just at e-mail, a
1996 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 36 percent of
responding companies searched employee messages regularly and 70 percent said employers
should reserve the right to do so” (Schulman, 2014 , para. 5). There is statistics available for the

3. ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER 3
other step as well: “In 2007 employers seemed to be highly concerned with inappropriate web
surfing and cyberloafing; 65% of the companies monitoring employees used software to block
inappropriate websites, up 27% from 2001. Inappropriate sites that are blocked by companies
include those sites with adult content (96%), games (61%), social networking (50%),
entertainment (40%), shopping (27%) and sports (21%)” (Sanders et al., 2014, p. 2). In addition
to this a company might decide to opt for a more radical option, called “behavioral monitoring”
thus monitoring all kinds of activity connected to the workplace. This will not necessarily be
implemented only for the lower level of employees, but also for the technical and managing staff.
In the era when there is video surveillance everywhere, it is not that hard to implement it; and
again there are two approaches to this, it can be done openly or secretively.
It is debatable exactly what portion of his/her privacy, if any, an individual should give up
upon entering a certain workplace. Some would argue that the right to privacy is a part of the
“respectful” treatment they are entitled to, given the fact that one of every company’s greatest
assets is – the human capital.
Monitoring software, privacy & law
The use of the Internet for private research or engaging in social media poses a huge
problem to most businesses. One concept would be that the company is allowed to acquire some
monitoring programs: “the number of ways these programs can monitor an employee is
astonishing and now that the monitoring software product market is maturing, it is possible for
any company to cheaply and easily use software to monitor their employees” (Bassick,
McNamara & Sullivan, n.d., Monitoring Employee Internet Use: The Rights Approach Section).
The concept of privacy is also strictly related to the topic and the notion is that Internet
means – “end of privacy”. As stated in the following citation: “There are two differences

4. ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER 4
between the Internet and the “real world.” First, unlike its physical counterpart, the Internet
records everything. Second, it allows for far easier, remote, access to what is going on and the
record thereof — either by the person-of-interest’s design, with her permission, or (unfortunately
frequently) otherwise (Morrison & Bailey, 2011, p. 91). Another concept is the legal one, and
this is where “employees have little recourse; the most relevant federal law, the 1986 Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, prohibits unauthorized interception of various electronic
communications, including e-mail” (Schulman, 2014 , para. 6). The legal concept is very well
covered in the following citation:
Because of constitutional considerations public employers have a greater burden to
protect employee privacy. The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable
search and seizure may include employee privacy of messages sent electronically on the
employer’s equipment. The Fourth Amendment, as applied to the states and
municipalities through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the “right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures . . . .” Employees have Fourth Amendment rights only when they have “an
expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable. (Sanders et al.,
2014, p. 3)
Solutions
One of the possible solutions that would take both standpoints into consideration is an
approach in which there will be some kind of surveillance in place, but the extent to which it will
cover the workplace activities will be “loosely” defined, allowing for consideration for the needs
of the employees. This kind of approach has already been implemented in Saratoga Systems in
California, where “Employees know they are being monitored, but they also know the company

5. ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER 5
respects their occasional need to take care of personal business from the workplace” (Bassick,
McNamara & Sullivan, n.d., Monitoring Employee Internet Use: The Rights Approach Section).
Another proposed solution would be, the company can implement any kind of
monitoring, as long as the employees are well-informed about this; thus being able to exercise
their “right to be told the truth”. This also means that every employee will be given some kind of
list of the websites that are allowed to visit during working on company time and those that are
not, unless self-explanatory. Many employers have found ways to protect themselves from
possible lawsuits for invasion of privacy by making signing a policy that entitles them this rights
part of the employment package. There are lately many cases in the “case law” in favor of the
employers, provided there is a signed policy in place. Such is the case ruled out by the Supreme
Court in favor of the employer Ontario, California police department. The employer had a policy,
“Computer Usage, Internet and E-Mail Policy” and the plaintiff, their lieutenant had signed it.
Sources
Bassick, M.., McNamara, T., & Sullivan, D. (n.d.). Employee Surveillance: An Ethical
Consideration. Retrieved from http://www.ethicapublishing.com/ethical/3CH6.pdf
This is a research paper published on the website of Ethica Publishing, which is owned by Leeds
School of Business at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The research is based on a number of
scholarly articles and publicatons, including journals and other sources from established
authorities in the field of Ethics.
Ghoshray, S. (2013). EMPLOYER SURVEILLANCE VERSUS EMPLOYEE PRIVACY: THE
NEW REALITY OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND WORKPLACE PRIVACY. Northern
Kentucky Law Review, 40(3), 593-626.

6. ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER 6
This is an article by Ghoshray Saby, published in 2013, in the Northern Kentucky Law Review
Academic Journal, focusing on the surveillance as opposed to employee’s privacy, which is
exactly what this paper will be dealing with. It examines the “privacy” zone of the employees
and discusses the applicability of the First Amendment.
Morrison, C. D., & Bailey, R. L. (2011). Employee Privacy Rights: Employer Monitoring and
Investigating Employees' Electronic Activities and Communications. Energy & Mineral
Law Institute, (32), 66-173.
The article by David C. Morrison and Robert L. Bailey was published in 2011 in Energy &
Mineral Law Institute Academic Journal and focuses on the electronic activities and
communications in the place of employment. It brings about the restrictions imposed on the
employers by regulation in the field of intellectual property.
Sanders, D. E., Ross, J. K., & Pattison, P. (2013). ELECTRONIC SNOOPS, SPIES, AND
SUPERVISORY SURVEILLANCE IN THE WORKPLACE. Southern Law Journal,
23(1), 1-27.
Another article published in Southern Law Journal, in 2013; its authors are Donald E. Sanders,
John K. Ross and Patricia Pattison. The article examines federal and state legislation regulating
electronic monitoring of employees in the U.S with respect to U.S. Constitution Fourth
Amendment rights. It also offers guidance for the employers for successful implementation of a
surveillance system.
Schulman, M. (2014). LittleBrother is watching you. Retrieved from
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v9n2/brother.html
Meriam Schulman is an associate director of the Ethics Center at Santa Clara University. She
manages the communication, operations, and administrative activities of the Center and serves

7. ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER 7
on the Center's Management Committee. She also facilitates the Emerging Issues Group, which
brings Ethics Center staff and scholars together to discuss the ethical issues behind the news.
Discussing the arguments
Employers’ arguments in favor of the surveillance go anywhere from - they have to make
sure they get maximum productivity and high level of quality of their services, provided through
an undivided attention of their employees, to - an employee will use the social media to discredit
the company or a coworker and all that on company’s expense. It is a valid argument; moreover,
“such violations of compliance related to social media communication may not be easily
apparent to a supervisor, as it may only be identified either through tracking or through third-
party reporting” (Ghoshray, 2013, p. 602). Another very important argument on the side of the
employers is, they have to protect their stakeholders or the interest of protecting a third party.
Under stakeholders we would consider the customers, shareholders, suppliers, creditors,
neighbors to the workplace and others. Corporations are generally liable for their employee’s
behavior which kind of gives them the rights to monitor the workplace behavior. Any kind of
indiscretion on the part of the employees might directly affect some, if not all of the entities
stated above. These arguments are valid in favor of some surveillance being necessary to regulate
business activities.
Employees’ argument about invasion of privacy in the workplace is equally valid;
“Monitoring employee’s Internet use invades both physical and personal privacy. Regardless of
location or ownership of equipment, employees still possess these rights and by being placed
under such extreme scrutiny, they are being treated in an unethical manner” (Bassick, McNamara
& Sullivan, n.d., Monitoring Employee Internet Use: The Rights Approach Section). Some
employees argue that the whole idea is counter- productive because they spend time and energy

8. ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER 8
on finding a way to get around the surveillance procedures and take care of their personal
business, which is more time-consuming than if the resources were readily available to them. It
would be far more productive for the company to implement some kind of coaching approach
and train the employees on how to make ethical decision in the light on unrestricted personal
freedom on the workplace, instead of making them respond to rules and regulations. Some kind
of appreciation or reward system for their performance and an increased productivity might also
be more effective than simply applying restrictions.
Ethical theories applied
An application of Utilitarianism in search for the best solution would mean that we
should sacrifice the benefit of few for the benefit of many. In this case, the “invasion” of privacy
imposed on the employees will mean that they will be more productive in the workplace and they
will use more effectively their working hours. This is an input in the company’s overall success
that will benefit the whole society, as better products/services will be brought out to the market.
The enhancement of the company’s financial record will bring additional benefit not only to the
owners, but ultimately to the employees themselves. This will give a Paternalistic “touch” to the
applied Utilitarian theory, as the workers will be protected from themselves and their apparently
wrongful actions.
Kantian theory consists of two important points, as stated in our textbook. The first one
would be the “Golden rule”: “Kant says that we should follow those maxims (or ethical rules)
and only those maxims that we would want all persons to follow. This sounds a bit like the
“Golden Rule,” but it is intended as a test for universalizing, that is, for applying universally”
(Van Camp, 2013, p. 25). The second point “says that we should always treat all other persons
with dignity and respect in themselves and not as a mere thing to use for our own advantage”

9. ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER 9
(Van Camp, 2013, p. 25). If we make a discussion about his first point, the employers probably
should ask themselves how would they like the surveillance applied on themselves and someone
monitoring closely their activities in the workplace, and the second principle applied, will bring
about questions such as: “Are employees just a means for a company’s success or deserve to be
treated as ends themselves? This makes no surveillance justified under this approach, unless
some kind of individual rationale is in question or the employer really has a reason to suspect
that some of the employees is behaving unethically in the workplace, to the point that it really
interferes with the overall performance of the company.
Virtue ethics theory can also be applied, since privacy seems of little significance in the
eye of employers:
A company implementing this framework would rely on employees to conduct
themselves in an ethical manner. Based on character development, virtue ethics gives
employees the freedom to make their own decisions with the faith that their choices will
represent those made by a “good” person. Giving employees the ability to make their
own decisions may seem risky from management’s point of view, but evidence suggests
that this increased responsibility has increased morale and improved employer-employee
relationships. In fact, employees subject to surveillance have exhibited feelings of
decreased employer trust, increased stress, and subsequently decreased productivity.
(Bassick, McNamara & Sullivan, n.d., Monitoring Employee Internet Use: Philosophical
Models Section)
Elements of virtue ethics can be recognized in the modern trends some very famous
employers implement in their working environment, such as freedom for the employees to
organize their own time and activities, meaning they can even engage in a “leisure”, company

10. ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER 10
sponsored activities, while on the clock. This is with an intention of “unleashing” creativity, so
that not only the employee, but ultimately the company will benefit from that. Some of the
employers along this line are proven successful companies: Google, Facebook, SAA and others.
So, we not only speak of absence of classical surveillance, but total discretion for the employee
and their workplace activities. This would be in accordance with the Kantian reasoning, but is
not in conflict with the Utilitarian one as well, as we all know that many people, on many levels,
obviously benefit from successful companies like the ones stated above.
Recommended policy
A solution which would be a compromise is: a surveillance in place, but well thought out,
so that the workers can give up the exact portion of their privacy to account for the benefits of
being an employee of that certain company. Another aspect is fairness and honesty on the side of
the company, which will inspire same kind of response on the part of the workers. Any over-
excessive or too personal surveillance will directly violate workers’ rights as per the Kantian
theory and it is subject to debate whether it can still be justified under the Utilitarian approach.
The most popular and efficient approach would be the one under “virtue ethics” and more and
more companies decide to follow that line. It is an unconventional approach and is strongly
related to motivation (motivation is introduced as a prerequisite to releasing creativity).
Motivation itself is induced through self-determination and autonomy and this is one of the basic
rules in psychology. Given the fact that motivation further leads to creativity, makes it clear why
lack of motivation is one of the biggest problems, especially for companies producing
“sophisticated” and intangible goods. Surveillance and monitoring could never mitigate this nor
can a financial satisfaction always work. This moreover makes the approach under “virtue
ethics” justified not only in terms of privacy rights and good ethical standards, but all these and

11. ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER 11
then - an increased productivity. Of course this might not make sense in all kinds of
environments and job positions, but is certainly worth considering; we tend to behave much
better when we apply our own moral judgements then when we are simply asked for or even
forced to follow the rules.

12. ETHICS RESEARCH PAPER 12
References
Bassick, M.., McNamara, T., & Sullivan, D. (n.d.). Employee Surveillance: An Ethical
Consideration. Retrieved from http://www.ethicapublishing.com/ethical/3CH6.pdf
Ghoshray, S. (2013). EMPLOYER SURVEILLANCE VERSUS EMPLOYEE PRIVACY: THE
NEW REALITY OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND WORKPLACE PRIVACY. Northern
Kentucky Law Review, 40(3), 593-626.
Morrison, C. D., & Bailey, R. L. (2011). Employee Privacy Rights: Employer Monitoring and
Investigating Employees' Electronic Activities and Communications. Energy & Mineral
Law Institute, (32), 66-173.
Sanders, D. E., Ross, J. K., & Pattison, P. (2013). ELECTRONIC SNOOPS, SPIES, AND
SUPERVISORY SURVEILLANCE IN THE WORKPLACE. Southern Law Journal,
23(1), 1-27.
Schulman, M. (2014). LittleBrother is watching you. Retrieved from
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v9n2/brother.html
Van Camp, J.C. (2013). Ethics (1st ed). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.