Electronic Surveillance in the Workplace: Needing Surveillance?

Cubicle in a Petri Dish

Today’s workplace is dependent on the electronic communication tool of e-mail. It allows users to send the same information out to a mass group of receivers and also eliminates the nebulous reasons that phone messages and paper memos may be lost in transmission. It has become a vital means for communicating to all branches of a corporation, and as such, has developed security issues as the majority of employers are now using surveillance methods to monitor the e-mail and other electronic communications that their employees use. Researchers Nord, McCubbins, and Nord (2006) found in one study that over 75% of all U.S. firms “are recording and/or reviewing the email messages, telephone calls, Internet connections, and computer files of their employees” (p. 73).
Such surveillance measures are of concern for many employees, who initially may assume that they have basic privacy rights for electronic communication like they would for a personal phone call or letter. But the confidentiality that one may expect of a password-protected e-mail account has proven to be a false security. There have been many lawsuits over such instances in recent years, and “most of the court cases in which employees have charged that their privacy rights were violated by their employers have been decided in favor of the employers” (Hacker, Goss, Townley, & Horton, 1998, p. 423-424). Such results are making waves for U.S. employees, as they are not only losing these court battles, but their jobs as well. It is important that privacy legislation for electronic communication in the workplace is established to better protect employee rights.

Nord, D. G., McCubbins, T. F., & Nord, J. H. (2006). E-monitoring in the workplace:
Privacy, legislation, and surveillance software. Communications of the ACM, 49, 73-77.

Hacker, K. L., Goss, B., Townley, C., & Horton, V. J. (1998). Employee attitudes regarding
electronic mail policies: A case study. Management Communication Quarterly, 11(3), 422-
452.

Legal Protection…Of Loopholes?

Today there is little legal protection for worker’s rights in terms of electronic communication. Legislation that protects the current needs for these communication rights are important as there is a clear difference between what employers and employees view as appropriate monitoring of workplace communications. Researcher Botan (1996) recounts in one article how a supervisor interviewed by researcher Coates justifies reading his employee’s e-mails. The supervisor explains that “I’m only reading official letters….I don’t feel that’s spying” (p. 296). In fact, this same study found that 60% of the management felt that there was nothing wrong with monitoring their employee’s electronic communications, including reading e-mails.
Most U.S. citizens simply assume that they are constitutionally guaranteed privacy from intrusive surveillance. This sentiment is expected from the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Such protections apply to state and federal workers, but “private-sector employees must look elsewhere for protection” (Nord et al., 2006). The enactment of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act in 1986 also caused Americans to expect certain securities at the workplace. The legislation was initially celebrated as a great achievement, but researcher Gandy (1989) explains that it is “seriously flawed and serves primarily to legitimate the very assaults the laws were designed to prevent” (p. 72).
Such flaws are described by researchers to be centered upon three “exceptions.” The first of these three is the “provider exception.” In this statement, if the employer is hosting Internet services from a provider other than him or herself, the employer is less at fault in the case of an employee privacy suit. But as the employer is “providing” a provider, the courts have granted a generous interpretation of this exception and allowed protection for the employer in such cases.
The second of such exceptions is that of the “ordinary course of business.” In this situation, the employer may monitor an employee’s electronic communications so long as it is done for “legitimate business objectives.” These objectives are vague, and may be “assuring quality control, preventing sexual harassment, and preventing unauthorized use of equipment” (Nord et al., 2006, p. 75).
The last exception, that of “consent,” does not offer privacy protection if “at least one party to the communication is either the party who intercepts the communication or gives consent to the interception” (p. 75). In the precedent-setting case, Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company, this exception of consent applied even when an e-mail’s sender had been told that his communication to a co-worker would remain confidential. The sender, Smyth, was fired based on the fact that his e-mails, sent from a home computer, contained “unprofessional language” (p. 75). These exceptions are rather large loopholes, and it will take specific, more limiting legislation to ensure the proper rights for employee electronic communications.

Botan, C. (1996). Communication work and electronic surveillance: A model for predicting
panoptic effects. Communication Monographs, 63.

Gandy, O. H. (1989). The surveillance society: Information technology and bureaucratic
social control. Journal of Communication, 39(3).

Nord, D. G., McCubbins, T. F., & Nord, J. H. (2006). E-monitoring in the workplace:
Privacy, legislation, and surveillance software. Communications of the ACM, 49, 73-77.

Two Sides

As with any story, there are always two sides. For this specific story, there are the two views of those who think that workplace surveillance is appropriate and necessary, and those who view it as exploitative, damaging, and unjust. Each side has several arguments to support these claims.
One such argument for the pro-electronic monitoring side is that such surveillance is essential for increasing productivity and quality. This surveillance is implemented by computer-based systems that can compared a worker’s performance with corporate standards and expectations (Gandy, 1989, p. 66). Some employers feel that surveillance is a means of “coaching” employees, as they were found to work faster knowing they were being monitored than without (Alder & Tompkins, 1997, p. 264). This cuts back on time and expense for the corporation.
This side also argues that such surveillance “benefits employees by improving performance feedback and evaluation” (p. 265). As an employee’s work performance may be constantly under surveillance, employers will be able to make known productivity achievements and needs for improvement to their employees. This knowledge will work to eliminate any uncertainty an employee may have about his or her work.
Conversely, there are also several arguments against electronic workplace surveillance. The opposition argues that the monitoring of non-work related communication, such as private e-mails sent to colleagues “can make employees feel as though their privacy has been eroded and as though their dignity has been compromised” (p. 261). One such instance of this occurring is when employers kept track of the amount of time employees spent in the restroom.
Such practices also place unnecessary stress upon the employee. One study found that monitored employees were significantly more depressed and anxious than those that were not under surveillance (p. 262-263).
Although the pro-monitoring side argues that surveillance of employees increases worker productivity, opponents argue that although there may be an increase in quantity, surveillance also causes a significant decrease in quality. One study found that workplace surveillance caused employees to “focus on the quantity of work produced and to sacrifice customer service,” (p. 263). Decreases in team morale also evolved.
Electronic surveillance in the workplace must have boundaries if it is not to completely exploit the worker. It must not occur without the employee’s knowledge, and only be used for work-related communication. When a form of electronic communication is assured to be confidential and private, an employer must not interfere with such private documents. The implementation of new, more specific legislation is extremely important if employees are to attain any electronic communication rights. This is important for many reasons, such as increasing employee performance, teamwork and morale, decreasing stress and anxiety levels, and trust between the employer-employee relationship. America’s workforce is becoming more and more dependent upon electronic communication, and it can only benefit from greater protections for its use.

Alder, G. S. & Tompkins, P. K. (1997). Electronic performance monitoring: An organizational justice and
concertive control perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 10(3), 259-258.

Gandy, O. H. (1989). The surveillance society: Information technology and bureaucratic social control.
Journal of Communication, 39(3).

***