Explain where an employee can reasonably expect to have privacy in the workplace.
Most employees are becoming self aware and frequently increasingly concerned about their privacy on daily basis, as their employers are constantly monitoring them electronically way more obvious than ever before. Thought, attempt had been tried to block this sneaking activity, but the number of failures at some state whom tried to prevent this monitoring activity still failing, as employers always have some strong various reasons to sneaking into their employee. The reasons could range from monitoring or spying on employee email, phone line to internet activity with the reason to ensure the productivity of ...view middle of the document...
Explain whether it makes a difference if an employee is in an open area or in an enclosed office.
In my opinion the point of closing the door in an enclosed office is to ensure privacy. When the door is closed, an employee reasonably expects to have privacy in most cases. It states in the text that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 1986 “allows employers to listen in on communications made in the ‘ordinary course of business’…where business interests such as efficiency or legal liability are at stake” (Halbert & Ingulli, 2011, p. 75).
Moreover I don’t think it will be a difference if an employee is in an open area or an enclosed office. Privacy must be respected at any time and in any environment during work time but not just the employer have to respect this privacy also the employees must understand that being in a closed office or in an open area such as the cafeteria they have to be always careful with what they say, and how they behave.
Explain if Herman’s need to know whether his salespersons are honest is a sufficient ground for utilizing electronic surveillance.
The situation with this sales person is border line in my opinion because he lies to his customers. Even though he does tell the customers in the end the correct information, one could easily turn the situation around as if he did not because the manner in which he does it.
His sells tactic could be misleading to some customers and easily construed. In Tony’s case Herman’s need to know whether his salespersons are honest may be sufficient ground for utilizing electronic surveillance in the manner in which he did because legal liability is at stake. I do not think it is grounds for him to utilize electronic surveillance in this manner for all salespersons without their prior knowledge. I am assuming that Herman is either wiretapping and/or using video surveillance with audio since he was using a headset.
Explain to what extent an employer can engage in electronic surveillance of employees.
Determining whether there was a "reasonable expectation of privacy" typically involves a balancing test, and many factors must be considered to decide whether the employee had a privacy right in answer to these questions. Items to be considered are, for example, the content of the employer's policies and whether employees were put on notice of a lack of privacy, how and whether the policies were regularly enforced, the sort of privacy right involved, the nature of the employer's business interest, the nature of the employee's privacy interest, the type of information involved, the level of intrusion by the employer, etc. Depending on the circumstances, an employee privacy right may or may not be found and/or enforced.
• Did an employee have a...