BUSINESS ETHICS

CASE STUDY 6.3

-

ELECTRONIC PRIVACY AT WORK

Group's Member

• Nguyen Thach Giang

• Ha Thi Ha Huyen
• Ho Si Quoc Dung
• Dinh Van The Hien
 TABLE CONTENT

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 3
1.1 Research background ........................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Rationale of research ........................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Research objective ............................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Research limitation ................................................................................................................................. 4
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 5
2.1 Ethical Issues in the Workplace ........................................................................................ 5
2.2 The Right to Privacy ......................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Human Right ............................................................................................................................................ 6
III. ANALYZE .................................................................................................... 8
3.1 General view ..................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Case study................................................................................................................................................ 10
IV. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 14
V. REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 16
 I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research background

Nowadays, a technological revolution has huge effects on business world. An

interesting view was expressed by Tom Hogan (Senior Vice President of Software, 2009)
that “The CIO has got this massively more complex job with fewer dollars, less
disposable resources to meet that challenge and deliver on expectations to the
business…Technology has become the core fabric of how a company operates.”It has
created as many challenges as opportunities for firms which especially use technological
devices to run their business and maintain day-to-day operations. One of the most
important challenges is the impact of that electronic revolution to employee privacy and
employee workplace monitoring.
Privacy issues in the workplace raise ethical issues involving individual rights as well
as those involving utilitarian consequences. Because of its speed and overall convenience,
electronic devices have replaced the inter-office memorandum as the preferred method of
communication; so many employees are using them for just business objectives.
However, the problems arise when employees use business resources for non-business
related tasks. Therefore, businesses are responding to legal risks by proactively combating
problems of employee non-work Internet use.

“Privacy in the workplace” actually covers a broad range of topics, this research will
particularly focus on analyzing electronic privacy problems in the workplace. It helps
clarify that need to have what reasonable behaviors to face it.

1.2 Rationale of research

The progress of science and technology to make all aspects of life becomes simpler.
But if the abuse of technology, any people can making things more complicated. Any
enterprises put technology in the workplace that is make difficult decisions because
technology has good and effects to their employees and they can answer the question how
their staff will misuse the technology. Besides, currency this issues is the controversy no
escape so the group select this issues to clarifying this problem.
 1.3 Research objective

Research objectives are the points of determining information from research. Thus, the
group will focus on the main characteristics:

 To make an overview of the impact of electronic devices on the privacy of the

employees.
 To identify how employers legitimately monitor the employees’ Internet behavior.
 To analyze the relationship of employers management and privacy of employees in
the workplace.
 To draw conclusion as well as propose recommendation to balance interests
between employees and the firms.

1.4 Research limitation

As an external party, the authors cannot get full access to the database of companies
under research. In additional, time limitation given some difficulties on our research
performance because the researchers did not have enough time to cover all of the issues
related the topic. Moreover, the research was done by non-graduate students, so, it could
not complete perfectly due to the lack of real experiences in the workplace.
 II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Ethical Issues in the Workplace

Business ethics is a specialized branch of ethics focusing on how moral standards

apply to business organizations and behavior (Velasques, 1998). The code of ethics is an
important cultural sense-making and learning mechanism in an organization. The code of
ethics legitimizes the appropriate behavior, teaches those who are not certain what
behavior is appropriate in the organization, and warns those who do not operate according
to the code about sanctions for unethical behavior (Trevino and Nelson, 2005; Valentain
and Fleishman, 2008; Schwartz, 2004).
Ethics in the employment context is perhaps the most universal topic in business
ethics because almost every person will have the experience of being employed. Ethics at
work and in human resource management is about our relationship with others and with
our organizations. All have decisions to make about how we will treat others in the
workplace and how we will ask to be treated.

Employers might decide to treat employees well as a means to produce greater

workplace harmony and productivity in terms of the creation of a better workplace for all.
Employers can tell employees what to do, and when, and how to do something. They can
exercise such control because they have the ability to discipline or fire an employee who
does not comply with their authority. However, basis fairness demands that this power be
used justly. Therefore, building good relationship between employers and employees has
been particularly important for the success of each company.

2.2 The Right to Privacy

Right to privacy is one of the few basic rights that at the same time can and cannot be
described in few words. Right to privacy is the individual right to have a private and
domestic life that no one could track or get involved in without the consent of the
[Link] general and connected understandings of privacy can be found in the legal
and philosophical literature on this topic: privacy as a right to be “left alone” within a
person zone of solitude, and privacy as the right to control information about oneself
(Laura [Link], JoseptDesJardins, Chris Macdonald, Business Ethics).
The right to privacy is derived from several sources in the law, including the US. and
state constitutions, federal status, and state common law. According to The Washington
state constitution,“No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home
invaded, without authority of law”. The Constitution (1999) states the essential rights to
privacy in two articles: Firstly, nobody can inviolable in the domestic home, the domicile
and any private place. They cannot be searched unless judicially ordered to prevent
commission of a crime or to comply, in accordance with the law, with decisions issued by
the courts, always respecting the dignity of the human being; Secondly, all persons are
entitled to the protection of their honor, private life, intimacy, their own image,
confidentiality and reputation. The law shall limit the use of information systems to
guarantee the honor and both the personal and family intimacy of the citizens and the full
exercise of their right.

Each employee is a human with private thoughts, private communications, and a

private life. Privacy can be legally protected in three ways: by the constitution (federal or
state), by federal and/or state statutes and by the common law. Thus, employers can avoid
violating the privacy rights of their employees only by understanding when the various
laws apply and what conduct they protect.

2.3 Human Right

According to the theory of moral rights, human beings have certain fundamental rights
that should be respected in all decisions: the right to free consent, privacy, and freedom of
conscience, free speech, and due process (Cavanagh et al., 1981). Human rights protect
individuals from being treated in ways that would violate their dignity and that would
treat them as mere objects or means. A common way of expressing this insight is to say
that each and every human being possesses a fundamental human right to be treated with
respect, and that this right creates duties on the part of every human to respect the rights
of others. Human have their own ends and purposes and therefore should not be treated
simply as a means to the ends of others.
Rights theories distinguish between negative and positive rights. In the case of
negative rights, the duty is to allow the party to act freely within the domain covered by
the right. In the case of positive rights, the obligation is to provide the party with a benefit
of some type. The moral force of a right depends on its strength in relation to other moral
considerations applicable to the context in question (Jones et al., 2007).People who rely
on rights theory to reason their actions emphasize the entitlement of individuals
(Cavanagh et al., 1981). Restrictions on behavior should prevent harm to others, but
unless your actions harm others, you should be free to do as you please. Such human
rights, or moral rights, have played a central role in the development of modern
democratic political systems.
 III. ANALYZE
3.1 General view

The acknowledgement of total privacy for employees would lead to prohibit any
monitoring by employers. The employees could spend their working time loitering on the
Internet without taking care of their tasks. Pervasive and boundless monitoring by
employers is not an option, but some monitoring is necessary to control the functioning of
their [Link] social media can help people in many ways improving human life,
forms their personality and conveniently communicate with others. This is a reason why
technological has significant increase over the world.

Table 1: World Internet Penetration Rates by Geographic Regions – 2014 Q2

(Source: Internet World States – [Link]/[Link] Penetration Rates

estimated Internet users on June 30, 2014.)

However, the Internet can be easily misused to serve the personal aim. An interesting
survey was found that “during a typical workday, 61% of workers send personal emails,
65% conduct web searches unrelated to work, and 58% of those with social media
profiles check their profiles” (Amy Chulik, 2011). Therefore, without effective
monitoring, the opportunities for inappropriate or criminal use of the Internet increase
significantly.

On the other hand, leaving aside the assessment of the economic consequences of an
indiscriminate use of the Internet in the workplace, other healthy and formative activities
could be allowed if it could help the employees release stress, such as reading, listening or
playing chess. Surely an Internet break is ethically justified but the risks for working time
diversions are higher. Moreover, some illicit activities (such as defamation, sexual
harassment, copyright violations) can be conducted on the Net, during working hours by
using the employer’s personal computers and Internet connection, the employer could be
held liable for them.

Thus, a firm chooses to monitor its employees for numerous reasons. Employers need
to manage their workplaces to place workers in appropriate positions, to ensure
compliance with affirmative action requirements, or to administer workplace benefits.
Monitoring also allows the manager to ensure effective, productive performance by
preventing the loss of productivity to inappropriate technology use.

On the other hand, employee advocates suggest limitations on monitoring for several
reasons. First of all, because it reduces the level of worker autonomy and respect as well
as worker’s right to control their environment, there is a concern that monitoring may
create a suspicious and hostile workplace.A second concern is monitoring may limit
effective performance and having the potential to cause physical disorder such as stress,
anxiety, severe fatigue or exhaustion, etc. Last but not least, employees claim that
monitoring is an invasion of privacy violating their fundamental human right to privacy.

Therefore, where should the line be drawn between employer and employee rights? It
is hard to maintain that there is a right to a personal use of the electronic devices. From
the researchers’ aspect, that is up to the company to decide if workers are allowed to use
the electronic devices for personal reasons and the extent to which this is permissible.
Additionally, as long as technology exists to allow for privacy invasions, should the
employer have the right to use it? The monitoring policy should follows some targets: No
monitoring in private areas; Monitoring limited to within the workplace; Employees
should have access to information gathered through monitoring; No secret monitoring-
advance notice required; Monitoring should only result in attaining some business
interest; Employer may only collect job-related information; Agreement regarding
disclosure of information gained through monitoring; Prohibition of discrimination by
employers based on off-work activities.

That means, a balance interest must be applied, inspired by principles of

reasonableness and fairness, and through the consultation and participation of employees
and labor unions to commit.

3.2 Case study

Employers want to be sure their employees are doing a good job, but employees do
not want their jobs even the smallest attention also. That's the essential conflict of
workplace monitoring. Technology makes it possible for employers to monitor many
aspects of their employees' jobs, especially on telephones, computer terminals, through
electronic and voice mail, and when employees are using the Internet. Such monitoring is
virtually unregulated. Therefore, unless company policy specifically states otherwise (and
even this is not assured), your employer may listen, watch and read most of your
workplace communications. Various technologies can provide insight into individual
employee behavior based on their work created each day in the workplace. This
behavioral modeling technology can piece together all of these electronic records to
provide behavior patterns that employers may utilize to evaluate employee performance
and conduct. For example, it might look for word patterns, changes in language or style,
and communication patterns between individuals. In fact, employer monitoring of its
communication systems generally is considered to be a responsible business practice. A
majority of employers monitor their employees. They are motivated by concern over
litigation and the increasing role that electronic evidence plays in lawsuits and
government agency investigations.
 According to utilitarianism theory, utilitarianism has a strong impact to business and
business ethic. It pays most of attention on maximizing the benefit and consequence in
industry. In these cases, to compare between using technology controlling and non-using,
employer will easily manage time, workload, cost and all activities of employee with a
good aim (contribution for business). In the second case study, in development of
technology in this modern life, private security is needed to be clearer and stricter.
Moreover, Facebook is the most popular social network where people can share anything
on their mind publicly. It also means that everyone know that. Nowadays, everyone has
one Facebook account at least. Following anything employees post on their own
Facebook to get their emotion to share at that time is necessary. It ensures that employer
can understand more information; for example, they will know that reason why
employees were not punctual, or why they missed the deadline, even though knowing
their family’s situation which can affect to their performance. Furthermore, employee
should take responsibility on whatever they shared. It is likely important belief from
employer in oneself. So, they won’t surprise about why their employers know things they
do or think after sharing on Facebook.

In detail, the researchers analyze specifically through four cases that related to
electronic privacy problem at work. All of the employees in those cases used technology
for taking privacy information without highly considering the consequences of their
activities. First of all, Jeff Quon was a police officer for the city of Ontario, California. He
was provided a pager to serve his job. However, he abused that device to personal interest
which was sending message to his girlfriend. The second case is mentioned about
Kimberly Swann. Because of using her Facebook page to post and comment too much
negative opinion about her feeling while work in her company. Kevin Colvin and Dan
Leone was the similar cases affected their job because of Facebook activities. Specially,
in the third one, Kelvin Colvin posted his photo on Facebook also denounced about his
leaving from work for Halloween party. That’s why he showed his non-honest
accidentally, the employer can be lost the faith in him and firing him is possible. As a
result, all of them mentioned above were impacted due to their electronic devices usage.
Although everyone has the privacy right, each person should think clearly before doing
something which related to others and organizational benefits. Avoiding such activities
are necessary thing to maintain the good relationship with others and contribute the bright
image of their firm.

On the other hand, in recent, employers use privacy information in human operating in
order to evaluate employee’s working attitude, but it could create many ethical issues that
we should discuss. For more detail, Ms. Swann’s boss fired her when discovered Swann
usually was not happy and enjoy her work via her Facebook posts. In this case, the boss
made a decision which depended on what the boss’s thinking and evaluation through what
he read, but not based on the employer’s working performance, or give Swann a chance to
explain. Similarly, the employees could be discovered what they did and how they live
through what they write on their own Facebook page. Because of that, their boss might
use such information in hiring decision. Seriously, in this situation, the boss of Kevin
Colvin publicizes his real absent reason found in Kevin’s page to other employees.
Although Kevin Colvin has made a fake reason to miss work, but the way to resolve it of
his employer is not legal solution in the workplace. By this way, Swann and Leone should
try their best to having a communication between employer and employee. This is the one
solution for them as well as opportunity to back work because employer had evidence. If
they are not fired, they will be punished strictly. Moreover, Leone was fired by his
organization after he posted some bad words involved his company’s operations. It can be
clearly see that Philadelphia Eagles relied on employees’ behavior which they showed in
their privacy page to decide what they should treat to their employees. Base on the human
rights and legal rights, employer should give the employee an option to explain or appeal
their decisions, should not follow their employee’s activities all time working. However,
limitation the fee such as telephone, wireless, etc which are in contractual rights, are
important to make sure that employee do not use for personal oneself (pay attention on
working aim only). In the other hand, in Kimberly Swann’s situation, it is not necessary
for employer to read her Facebook’s status with the firing result (influence in feeling free
thinking of oneself, no-persuade with evidences).
 In authors’ aspect, the employees could or could not be fired over what they post on
social media sites depending on the policies the employer has created in the organization
and in the State law. When you work in a more open and flexible company, it is easy to
forget that many people, particularly in larger organizations, are subject to fairly intense
monitoring or policing of access to social networks. And, somewhat worryingly, the
policies adopted towards use of social media do not just apply to the workplace, but
outside of it as well. According to [Link], there are 71% block social networks
in the workplace. The issue here is not so much in considering social media as a place to
chat to friends, but in viewing it as a value source of information. Yes, restricting access
to chat with your friends on Facebook is one thing, but restricting access to Twitter for
example, is quite another when you consider the role that it plays in the circulation of
information news.

Table 2: A global survey of social media in the workplace

(Source: [Link])

A large proportion of companies have policies that cover use of social networks
outside of the workplace as well. This is a difficult reality for many people and it is an
outcome of what is private becoming public. When one you used to leave work and have
your private life to yourself, for many, that private life is now broadcast online, as you
choose. For organizations however, this poses a risk if you are linked to your company in
any way. Anything you say or do online could indirectly implicate.
 Companies should ensure that its telecommunications resources are not abused by
employees. To this end, the following are recommended to ensure that the business runs
effectively but also to ensure compliance with legislation. Every company should prepare
a detailed policy regarding the use of company resources, such as only use for business,
or some private use, etc. The policy must recognize an employee’s right to freedom of
expression and right to privacy. However, as neither of these rights are absolutes in the
Constitution, they need not be absolutes in the company’s policy. Additionally, the
employer has to inform employees of the policy and provide them a period for comment
and feedback. To implement the policy consistently and effectively, the managers should
be trained to understand clearly about the policy and how to monitor their employees
without violate the human privacy in the workplace.

IV. CONCLUSION

Over the world, the issue of privacy in workplace is very common. It's important that
both employers and employee also know how to be true extent. Employees have clear and
specific rights to privacy in the workplace, but these rights are balanced against their
employers' privileges to monitor their business operations. Courts often look at whether
employees were informed that their calls or emails might be monitored in the workplace,
whether there was a valid business justification for the monitoring, and whether the
employer complied with established policy.

From the analysis of electronic privacy at work, some conclusion can be drawn.
Company provided their employees many electronic devices to support their work, such
as computers, online access, email access, etc. Therefore, employees have no rights to
personal use of technical devices. It can happen if it is expressly allowed in their company
policies. Besides, the employer can monitor the employee’s use of electronic privacy if it
is served to the aim business of their organization under the conditions, the policy of the
company and the authority of law. Any legal use of the outcomes of an illicit monitoring
is equally precluded. The employees’ rights to electronic privacy in the workplace are not
absolute subject. In fact, the employees’ reasonable privacy expectations depend on the
employer’s electronic privacy policy. The content of such policy should include the range
of employees’ personal activities allowed, in accordance with the legislation in force and
the surveillance level of the employers.
 V. REFERENCES

Amy Chulik, “It’s Getting Personal: Workers, Employers, and Internet Use at Work”, The
Hiring Site (November 28, 2011), [Link]
getting-personal-workers-employers-and-internet-use-at-work/

[Link], “The CIO Squeeze”, Forbes (January 5, 2009),

[Link]

Internet World Stats (June 30, 2014), [Link]/[Link]

Jones, T.M., Felps, W., and Bigley, G.A. 2007. Ethical Theory and Stakeholder – Related
Decisions: The Role of Stakeholder Culture Academy of Management Review, 32(1):
137-155.

Kish-Gephart, J.J., Harrison, D.A., and Trevino, L.K. 2010. Bad Apples, Bad Cases, and
Bad Barrels: Meta – Analytica Evidence about Sources of Unethical Decisions at Work.
Journal of applied Psychology, 95(1): 1-31

Laura P. Hartman, Josept Des Jardins and Chris Macdonald (2006), Business Ethics,
3rded, McGraw-Hill International Edition.

Schwartz, M.S. 2004. Effective Corporate Codes of Ethics: Perceptions of Code Users.
Journal of Business Ethics 55: 323-343.

The Constitution, Article 47, Article 60, Privacy Rights, 1999

The Washington state constitution, Article 1, Section 7

Valentine, S. and Fleischman, G. 2008. Ethics Programs, Perceived Corporate Social

Responsibility and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 77: 159-172.

Velasquez, M.G.1998. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (4thed). Upper Saddle River.
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ha Huyen: Introduction + Report

Giang + Hien: Analysis

Dung: Literature + Conclusion