---
Continued from page 13
time on the phone or downloading Friends re-runs than actually working before firing them.
Staples, who is also the author of Everyday Surveillance, says the validity of these concerns is questionable. He says, for example, that a company claiming to monitor employees "to stop them from wasting resources," while at the same time providing million-dollar severance pay for recently fired executives, may have other motives.
Staples says many employers use surveillance as a way to control employees. He says the knowledge that you are being watched by your boss and the fear of getting in trouble really keeps you in line."The more you watch people, the more likely it is that they will be submissive and not confront management," Staples says.
Because an employer owns the computer and pays for the Internet, employees should expect that they will be monitored. Legally, Flynn says an employee has no expectation of privacy when it comes to the company's computer system.
What can they do?
You know your boss can keep track of what you are doing, but what are the consequences? Well, let's just say dilly-dallying while the boss is out of the room is a thing of the past. Flynn says firing employees solely based on information gathered through surveillance is fairly common.
Flynn says 25 percent of companies have fired workers for misusing the Internet and another 26 percent have terminated employees for abusing e-mail privileges. That means no more spending the day writing e-mails to your sister complaining about how boring your job is. Moreover, Flynn asserts that employees are fired on a regular basis for posting negative comments on their personal blogs about anything from their superiors to their companies' products.
Recently, workers fired for blogging have set a blaze to news headlines. This list includes Jessica Cutler, a staff assistant on Capitol Hill, who, in 2004, was fired after only two weeks of blogging about her sexual exploits with a few high-up government staffers. Nadine Haobsh was fired from Ladies Home Journal this summer after blogging about the inner-workings of her office.
Outraging or understandable?
Lauren Airey, former KU student from Lenexa, just began working at a small lobbying firm in Washington, D.C. While her organization has no policy on monitoring employees, she says it is justified in monitoring company computers. She says, because her employers own the equipment and pay for the broadband,
they have every right to watch what she does online, just like a parent can track what his child does online.
Lewis, who worked at a Rhode Island architecture firm, says his superiors once reprimanded one of his co-workers for wasting time. He says they knew how much time he was spending online and which sites he was visiting. None of which were job-related. Lewis says he was happy the surveillance caught his fellow employee, mostly because he didn't want to have to do more work to make up for someone else's lack of effort.
"I think I should be able to do my job and be trusted to do my job without having people worry about monitoring me."
Monitoring phone conversations takes surveillance one step further into an employee's comfort zone. Green, from Capitol One Home Loans, says that although he has yet to be monitored while on the phone, the idea of his boss listening to his conversation rubs him the wrong way. He says that kind of monitoring makes him feel as though he isn't trusted. "I think I should be able to do my job and be trusted to do my job without having people worry about monitoring me", he says.
He isn't alone. More than 80 percent of the public believes employers have no right to monitor phone calls at work, according to The Naked Employee, a book on surveillance by Frederick S. Lane. In this day of ever-changing technology, however, employers continually find new ways to literally spy on employees.
Gillium also says drug testing is often referred to in offices as "comically useless." He says if you are using drugs and coming to work high, then the effect on your job performance should be obvious to those around you. On the other hand, he says, if you are one of the millions of Americans who smokes pot occasionally on the weekends and doesn't let it affect your work, then your habits really are none of your employers' business.
In his book, Lane writes that nearly all Fortune 500 companies conduct drug tests on employees before they are hired, as well as randomly throughout their employment. Staples says drug testing is a much more sensitive area. He says many employees who have no problem with computer surveillance have severe reservations about providing urine samples. Once the monitoring becomes physical, he says, it turns into a different issue.
John Gilliam, author of Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance and the Limits of Privacy, says the most common way employers test for drugs is through a urine sample. He says usually someone stands outside of the bathroom stall and listens for the sound of normal urination and, in some cases, an employee is forced to urinate in direct view of the testing official.
-Joe Green, Olathe senior
Genetic testing for diseases through an employee's urine is also practiced in some organizations.
Lane writes about a recent case where the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad was sued for conducting secret genetic tests on workers from blood collected for drug tests. This company utilized the tests to cut down on worker compensation claims for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, taking surveillance one step closer to the world of "Big Brother."
The big picture
Working at a job where your boss monitors you can have negative effects on your job performance and your sanity. Emily Smith and David Lyon of The Surveillance Project at Queen's University in Canada say surveillance at work demonstrates a lack of trust by employers. They say research has shown that intensive monitoring creates a "highly stressful and dehumanizing environment for workers" which can harm a worker's health.
Staples says the forms of surveillance used by corporations also create an aura of intimidation. In an age where fewer and fewer employees have union representation, he says surveillance is just one more instrument of power that employers hold over workers. The decrease of union presence means many employees don't object to the surveillance because no one will stand up for them if they do. Most workers don't even realize they have the right to object, he says.
Students who've worked in these situations say the reason they don't mind surveillance in the workplace is because they aren't doing anything wrong. Giliom says the issue of surveillance is much more complex than that. When different kinds of surveillance are introduced, they only slice out a small deviant behavior that the majority of society isn't guilty of, such as the cameras that catch people who run yellow lights or drug tests that catch potheads. But, he says, once you begin putting these small pieces of surveillance together, a surveillance society emerges.
"Do you want to look up in 15 years to find that any part of our privacy and autonomy is gone?" Gillium asks.
Ultimately, Smith and Lyon say employees should decide where the limits of privacy are in the workplace and convey that message to their employers.
Whether you have experience with electronic monitoring in the workplace or not, employee surveillance will likely be as common as locks on the doors in whatever occupation you pursue. The best you can do is try to understand how your boss monitors you and not be afraid to voice your opinion.
14
Jayplay 09.22.05