VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF EMPLOYEES.   Term Paper ID:30142 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Examines benefits to employers and privacy issues of employees.... More...

10 Pages / 2250 Words 4 sources, 7 Citations, MLA Format $40.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Examines benefits to employers and privacy issues of employees. Current state of the law (federal & state). Political and moral issues. Differing views of labor and business groups. Cites legal cases & decisions. Difference between a supervisor watching & employee video cameras. Employee rights advocates. Paper Introduction: Should an employer be allowed to conduct video surveillance of its employees in the workplace? No, say employees, who feel that such surveillance violates their right to privacy. Yes, say employers, who argue that employees have no right to privacy in the employer’s workplace, and the employer’s need to prevent misconduct and maximize productivity outweigh the privacy interests of employees. This paper will examine this question, focusing on the current state of the law (both federal and state) and the continuing political and moral debate among labor and business groups. Employers utilize video surveillance for a variety of reasons. Situations that require scrutiny include suspicion of drug use, conducting personal business on company time, revealing trade secrets, surfing the Internet, and harassment issues (sexu Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Thesecameras usually do not record sound and usually are placed in obviouspositions to deter criminals. Berosini, an animal trainer atthe Stardust Hotel, was videotaped hitting one of the animals backstagebefore a show. Thus, an employee would never have to face such scrutiny.Even if the employee did face such scrutiny, he or she would have no moreexpectation of privacy than if they shared an office with another person. 1996), a California court ruled in favor of an employer whoutilized a silent video camera to monitor the jail cashier's office becauseof a theft of inmate money. Co., 11 F.3d 174 (1st Cir. The court upheld the surveillance becauseemployee privacy expectations were diminished in the jail setting andbecause the office was accessible to a number of people, including inmates,thus warranting monitoring for jail security concerns. As these and other cases make clear, courts recognize no general rightto privacy for employees in the workplace. This also returns the debate to the question of efficacy. Communication will sufferamong employees because of their fear of the all-seeing eye. In most workplaces, aperson sitting at their desk has an "expectation of privacy." Thatexpectation includes the knowledge that they are not being observed whilethey are doing their job. The person making the videotape was a Stardust employee.Berosini argued that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy backstagebecause his contract called for the area to be from "distracting intrusionand interference with his animals." The court disagreed, finding that thevideotaping did not interfere with his handling of the animals, and thusdid not "intrude upon Berosini's expected seclusion." By contrast, a Hawaii court ruled in favor of employees who had beensubjected to video surveillance by their employer. Now consider an employee in his or her private office. Bobby Berosini, 111 Nev. The court concluded by declaring, "The bottomline is that since [the employer] could assign humans to monitor the workstation continuously without constitutional insult, it could choose insteadto carry out that lawful task by means of unconcealed video cameras notequipped with microphones, which record only what the human eye couldobserve." Employees can find some protection from video surveillance in otherparts of the federal code. But as two federal courts-the Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts ofAppeals-have made clear, federal laws banning wiretapping and theinterception of communications do not apply to video-only surveillance(Hymowitz 11-12). Employers have legitimate concerns, and in someinstances, video surveillance is the only way to address those concerns.But the practice needs to be regulated. The employer has intentionally created theemployee's expectation of privacy by providing a private office. "Employee Monitoring: Privacy in the Workplace?" S.A.M. Of course, thefederal ban on intercepting communications still applies to the audio ofthe video. Unions have permitted some video surveillance, but only in limitedcircumstances and with significant restrictions. While it is pure folly to argue that employees have noexpectation of privacy in the workplace, simply winning that battle willnot resolve the issue. The Wal-Mart employees had nothing to lose; they had already beenfired. The employees sued and won a huge verdict-$2 million. The employee becomes so afraid of making amistake that he or she becomes overly cautious. The court dismissed the employees' arguments out of hand, finding "nolegitimate expectation of privacy exists in objects exposed to plain viewas long as the viewer's presence at the vantage point is lawful." Thus,according to the court, if a person could have observed the illegal act,then why not a video camera? With thedoor closed, that employee can do whatever he or she wants without beingobserved. State courts have produced mixed results, though most generally followthe reasoning adopted by the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Permitting employers to use videosurveillance for any purpose, no matter how trivial, invites abuse. "Privacy Limitations for Electronic Surveillance and Genetic Testing in the Workplace." American Bar Association annual meeting. 1997). Tonab a thief, the cameras will have to be hidden or the plan will not work.Thus, employees will not act self-consciously because they won't know aboutthe cameras. Nevertheless, problems persist. For example, video monitoring of hallways, lunchrooms andother public areas is almost always permissible. v. Similarly, in P.E.T.A. 4-14.Poynter, Chris. Yes, say employers, whoargue that employees have no right to privacy in the employer's workplace,and the employer's need to prevent misconduct and maximize productivityoutweigh the privacy interests of employees. They mustappear to be working at all times. www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/annual/99/annual 7.pdf, p. Nevertheless, anAmerican Management Association survey found that 75 percent of largeemployers utilize electronic surveillance of some kind (Bowker). The law does not apply in certain situations,including when the employer has the consent of one party to thecommunication. 1997). The jurorswere outraged, not only about the videotaping, but also because the taperecorded the employees' conversations about highly personal subjects.Moreover, the store had an unwritten policy that allowed employees to eatfood from damaged packages (Poynter 1). See Vega-Rodriguez v.Puerto Rico Tel. Ironically,video surveillance may result in reduced productivity, according to oneresearcher. However, the union must show that the video surveillanceactually interfered, restrained, or coerced employees to succeed on thisissue in federal court (Hymowitz 12). Advocates are pushing Congress toamend the laws on wiretapping to cover video surveillance because thecourts have placed so many limits on employees' expectation of privacy.They say that the court's logic defies common sense. Congress needs to intercede because ofseveral factors. Today's more sophisticated technology allows employers to conductvideo surveillance of employees without the employees' knowledge.Miniature cameras, placed in ceiling sprinklers and other unobtrusivelocations, can provide complete videos, including audio. Should an employer be allowed to conduct video surveillance of itsemployees in the workplace? This barapplies to private actors (such as employers) as well as state actors (suchas police agencies). 3, Summer 1998, pp. The Privacy for Consumer and Workers Act been proposed inCongress twice since 1993, but has yet to reach the floor for a vote. Most employees will not or cannot sue their employer over surreptitiousvideotaping. 63, No. Several thefts fromthe lockers and reports that employees were bringing weapons on campusprompted the college administrators to install video surveillance in thestorage room/locker area. In U.S. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), forexample, bars employers from interfering in certain protected activitiesrelated to the formation and management of labor unions. An employee with a mortgage and a familydoes not have much incentive to take on an employer who installs videocameras. Video surveillance appears to offer employers only modest benefits, ifany. No, say employees, who feel that suchsurveillance violates their right to privacy. Conversely, retail establishments have long utilized cameras, not tomonitor their employees but to discourage criminal acts by outsiders.Markets, banks, and liquor stores, among others, often employ black-and-white cameras that help police identify perpetrators of crimes. http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/ 12.Botan.surveillance.html, April 2 1.Hymowitz, Steven, and Bendana, David. The system videotaped the fouremployees stealing nuts and candy from damaged packages, prompting themanager to dismiss them (Poynter 1). 615, 895 P.2d 1269(1995), the Nevada Supreme Court found no expectation of privacy for ananimal trainer working in a backstage area. That is the only relevant exception to this discussion(Hymowitz 4). The employerhas provided this office to the employee presumably so the employee canwork uninterrupted-in private. County of Sacramento, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d834(Cal.Ct.App. For employees, it is akin to having a supervisor look overyour shoulder while you work. Advanced Management Journal. Few laws regulate video surveillance because the technology isrelatively new. A federal law banning video surveillance in theworkplace is the only way to end the daily degradation of employees.Second, employees will not receive any greater protection as result ofcivil verdicts, such as the Wal-Mart case, because they are isolated cases. The manager of thatstore, who suspected employees of stealing, installed a video monitoringsystem that also recorded conversations. This situation, which has not been addressed by the courts,clearly presents a much tougher question than placing video cameras in thelunch room. For example, anemployer could institute surveillance to ensure against a "hostileworkplace," one of the causes of action under a sexual harassment suit.Similarly, surveillance could be used to ferret out instances of racialdiscrimination committed by employees but actionable against the employer.Employers in heavily regulated industries, such as nuclear power plants,also utilize videotaping to demonstrate compliance to federal authorities(Hymowitz 1). Those criteria appear to influence other courts, which seem to followthe rule that the more "open" an area, the more likely video surveillancewill be allowed. 1. In State of Hawaii v.Bonnell, 856 P.2d 1265 (Haw. Theproposed legislation would limit electronic monitoring and requireemployers to notify employees of monitoring. and Crampton, Suzanne M. In such an unequal environment, where employers wield adisproportionate share of the power in their relationship with employees,the federal government must intercede. The preliminary findings of Carl Botan, a professor at Purdue,indicate that employees who know they are being monitored "have less of asense of control over their workplace experiences than non-monitoredworkers and that can undermine confidence and quality of work life."Moreover, the surveillance creates the belief that the employer is moreinterested in quantity than quality, so employees produce reams of apparentwork at the expense of actually productive activities. As one court wrote, however, if a supervisor could stand and watch anemployee work, why can't the supervisor examine a videotape that capturesthe same event? So it should come as nosurprise that a court held for the employer in a case when it announced andthen installed four video cameras (without sound) to monitor employees'work space-an open area with no offices or cubicles. It is simplynot plausible. Many Americans shared the jurors' outrage over the issue of employersconducting video surveillance. The answer is that the comparison fails because they arenot the same. So far, employee-rights advocates have not been able to convinceCongress. "Wal-Mart Verdict Puts End to Shame, Ex-Workers Say." The Courier-Journal, January 25, 1999, p. That case involved videosurveillance in the locker area used by the college's security guards tostore their rain gear, radios, and personal items. denied, 5 6 U.S.1 5 (1992), the defendant attempted to overturn his conviction on thegrounds that a videotape made by federal agents violated the Omnibus CrimeControl Act. First, employees need to be protected from these attackson their privacy. Supp. 5 1 (D. Kan. 1, 1999.Mishra, Jitendra M. Johnson County Community College, 93 F. According to employee advocates, video surveillance should be bannedbecause the asserted interests of employers are do not justify such ablatant invasion of privacy. The most celebrated case involved fouremployees of a Wal-Mart store in Monticello, Kentucky. (Employees may have a specificright to privacy in limited areas of the workplace, such as in men's andwomen's bathrooms and locker rooms.) In some situations-such ascommunication-they may have an expectation of privacy, but otherwise theyhave no expectation of privacy as they conduct their daily business onproperty owned or leased by the employer. However, they could feel violated once the presence of thecameras is revealed and the videotapes are seen. "Workplace Surveillance May Inhibit Productivity." Purdue Journal. Those meager benefits are often achieved at a high price foremployees. Courts haveconsistently held that video surveillance, even without the audiocomponent, violates the NLRA because it tends to interfere, restrain, orcoerce employees. Surveillance of an employeewould be limited to two hours per week (Mishra and Crampton 12). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, finding thatthe act did not apply to video-only surveillance. That situation contrasts markedly with the severe limitsplaced on eavesdropping by federal law. In other words, an employer cannotunilaterally impose video surveillance over the objections of its union.An employer can only gain that right via a collective bargaining agreement. A better case can be made for an employer that installs video camerasto prevent theft or to expose a thief. 1996),aff'd, 1 8 F.3d 1388 (1 th Cir. Such sights couldbe embarrassing, not the kinds of things that any person would want toshare with co-workers. Moreover, the NLRB has decreed that video surveillance is a mandatoryissue for collective bargaining. The court held that the employees did not have a reasonableexpectation of privacy in the space because the locker area was notenclosed (the lockers were located along one wall of a storage room),employees' activities could be viewed by anybody walking into or throughthe locker area, and the area was not reserved for their exclusive use. This paper will examine thisquestion, focusing on the current state of the law (both federal and state)and the continuing political and moral debate among labor and businessgroups. Therefore, according to federallaw, an employer can conduct video surveillance (without sound) in theworkplace except in limited circumstances. A federal district court in Kansas, in a case affirmed by the TenthCircuit Court of Appeals, applied that holding to the workplace in Thompsonv. Title III of the Omnibus CrimeControl and Safe Streets Act of 1968 prohibits the interception, disclosureor intentional use of wire, oral or electronic communications. While these four employees won redress forthe harm they suffered, most employees do not have the resources or thecourage to fight such battles. The security guardsalso occasionally used the area as a changing room. The videotapes, alongwith catching a thief, will inevitably capture employees in unguardedmoments because they do not know they are being taped. More common, however, are instances where employers utilize videosurveillance as part of an effort to increase productivity. Works CitedBowker, Sharon. Employees have enjoyed more success by pursuing civil cases againstemployers for invasion of privacy. v. Employers utilize video surveillance for a variety of reasons.Situations that require scrutiny include suspicion of drug use, conductingpersonal business on company time, revealing trade secrets, surfing theInternet, and harassment issues (sexual and otherwise). 1993), the court found that the employees hadan expectation of privacy in a break room because it was neither a publicplace nor subject to public view. In SacramentoCounty Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. If anemployee knows they are being observed, they will act different, no doubt.As Botan's research indicates, productivity actually suffers in suchsituations. A supervisor could not devote his or her entire day towatching an employee or a group of employees do their job. Vol. Koyomejian, 97 F.2d 536 (9th Cir.), cert. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.