The surveillance of a person in the workplace: how legitimate this is
The surveillance of people in offices has long become the norm of life. We will not take the moral and ethical side of this issue, let's look at how legitimate this is?
According to employers, the surveillance of a person onworkplace is legitimate and justified. The company management explains the video surveillance of personnel by the fact that only in this way they can control what employees do, how they use office equipment, whether they violate internal rules, etc. The staff from such close attention is not enthusiastic and regards the surveillance as interference in personal life. To which management immediately responds that at work there can be no personal life. Who is right?
It all depends on how the surveillance is carried outman: open or not. That is, the problem rests on the question of whether a person knows about the installed cameras and additional programs on the computer that "drain" all information to the administrator. A hidden observation, in fact, is illegal. True, there are nuances: if an employee is suspected of criminal activity, for example, theft or the transfer of confidential information to competitors, such surveillance is fully justified. That is, the more violations revealed by hidden observation, the greater the chances that it will be considered legitimate in the conflict of the parties.
In all other cases, surveillance of a personmust be conducted with his written consent. But this does not mean that if the employee is against video surveillance, then he may demand to remove the cameras and remove the monitoring programs from the computer.The maximum that he can do is to quit andFind another job, if it does not suit such a situation. Therefore, carefully read the employment contract and the annex to it. It is there that the conditions for control over personnel should be prescribed. In addition, the employee should familiarize himself with the internal rules of the company, for violation of which follow punitive measures. These include how to use the Internet, a list of permitted sites, a regulated rest period during the working day, etc. This is just the case when ignorance absolves from responsibility.
One more question: "Where exactly can I install video devices?" Some employers are not limited only to an office space, but also control over rest rooms, dining rooms, corridors, showers and toilets. In the last two cases, you can safely sue.
In order to install video surveillance in such places, the employer must have very good reasons.
Another controversial issue is the surveillance of a person onworkplace with the help of wiretapping phones. Such control can only be carried out over corporate telephones, otherwise it will be considered an interference in private life. Information obtained by wiretapping phones and having a personal character (conversation with a doctor, lawyer, etc.), is not subject to disclosure. And this is the main problem of many companies: the leakage of personal information, because of which employees are categorically against any control.
There are quite a lot of controversial issues in such situations, so monitoring employees is a classic example of the fact that technological progress has overtaken the creation of a well-developed legal framework.