Psychological and Sociological Effects - Electronic Surveillance in the Workplace

Surveillance Technology

By Diane Robinson

Technology, Society, and Culture FALB11 Sec M

Professor: Marnie Binder

February 18, 2012

Psychological and Sociological Effects - Electronic Surveillance in the Workplace

As of today, almost all jobs are subject to some type of electronic surveillance. Some jobs more than others are particularly susceptible to monitoring practices. In the United States, it has become the norm for employees to be monitored on the job. The monitoring consists of counting keystrokes, listening to telephone calls: This can include the duration, time between each call, and number of calls taken. Monitoring also includes looking on to workers computer screens and electronic mail. The use of nametags in some companies helps keep track of an employee's movements and locations. Computers are being used to set tasks and performances for all levels of workers.

There are limits set for surveillance techniques by government agencies such as the FBI but for the private employer there are no constraints. "They may view employees on closed-circuit TV; tap their phones, E-mail, and network communications; and rummage through their computer files with or without employee knowledge or consent--24 hours a day." (besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/impact/s94/students/mike/mike_paper.html)

For employees of call centres in particular, monitoring has become an essential feature of the workplace. During the early days of surveillance, it was primarily limited to information that a supervisor could observe and record firsthand, now with the computer age, it has become all encompassing, constant, and instantaneous.

The debate of this issue has not been without business interest. Supporters of the electronic monitoring of workers find it an efficient means of managing modern enterprise to ensure quality customer service, and increase productivity. While abusers of this monitoring are recognized and may occur quite often, these can be avoided with an introduction of the new technology along with participation from the workers, allowing them to have some input into the design and implementation of the monitoring systems. With the help of employees and getting their feedback, it will enable for more improvement on performance. One example would be having a meeting to advise the employees that there will be a new monitoring system in the office so that they will be what are going on and why. The employee may still not like the idea, but at least they will know what to expect and handle the situation accordingly.

Employers believe they have a legitimate right to conduct surveillance for the benefit of themselves and/or the community around them. They feel that it can show a detection of fraud and other crimes, and may deter criminal actions, and comply with the laws such as discrimination and defamation law. In addition to electronic monitoring directly linked to performance assessment, employers may engage in surveillance practices involving the scanning of employee email and Internet use, often for the purpose of meeting obligations to prevent employees from using these technologies to harass colleagues or access prohibited websites.

Electronic surveillance of employees at work can sometimes obtain results that are beneficial to the employer. Suspicious behavior by employees will prompt the review of electronic records. Many employers have the capacity and reason to use electronic surveillance of employees, but choose not to practice electronic surveillance.

There are reasons why an employer might not want to use electronic surveillance of employees, and this depends on the company and the work environment that the employer has created. The level of freedom that is allowed in a company or the employer is one of the main reasons why or why not the employer would use electronic surveillance on their employees. If they feel that employees are not doing what they were supposed to do, or suspect that the job is not being performed as they would like, the employer would more than likely use surveillance to weed out employees who are desirable and those who are not.

Companies that employ new college graduates, who have blurred lines and are online all day, are an example. It has been studied and a fact that, 99% of the population would be fine without electronic surveillance and less than 1% of employees cause damages that allow the bad stuff that employers find out about and punish the rest of the employees.

D'Urso, S. C. (2006), Who's Watching Us at Work? Toward a Structural-Perceptual Model of Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance in Organizations.

Electronic surveillance of employees seems to affect the relationship between employer and employee. When you have an employee who is doing the right thing and what they are supposed to do by focusing on their work and using the technology that is given to them at work, they feel that they are being targeted because of the employees who abuse the system. It does not help when you have the 1%, who does not use their time wisely by using it for personal use, with Facebook, Twitter, etc. Electronic surveillance puts a strain on their relationship with the employer. http://www.surveillance-and-society.org

A major concern of some employers is the potential damage to a work culture that fosters trust, employee commitment, and motivation. There have been major concerns by employers as to sites that the employees visit because of the potential nature of the site and may create a hostile work environment. Employee-forwarded emails and jokes can cause concern to employers, who want to be able to trust their employees to practice good judgement, but with studies that are done, it is not always the case. Employers are concerned about creating an environment of harassment if employees surf to inappropriate places and share the URLs. After September 11, 2001, employers more than ever want to make sure that employees are not engaging in any type of criminal activity in the workplace.

www.publicdefenders.nsw.gov.au

The arguments against electronic surveillance point to real and systematic abuses, such as - the creation of call centres, also known as "electronic sweatshops." They have been described as modern day servants of the twenty first century' and, contrarily as progressive, team based and non-fulfilling work environments. "Employees face increased stress through constant surveillance - real or perceived. Results gathered from monitoring are used to determine pay and promotion. However, these opponents have still accepted the need