Employee monitoring

Employee monitoring is the act of surveying employee activity. Organizations engaged in employee monitoring to track performance , avoid legal liability, protect trade secrets , and address other security Concerns. The practice can impact employee satisfaction due to its impact on privacy .

Employee monitoring software

Main article: Employee monitoring software

Employees use company computers for their work, which are often used by their employees. For example, what emails were received, what applications were used and what keys were pressed.

Telephone tapping

Main article: Telephone tapping

Employees’ conversations can be recorded during monitoring. The exact number and duration of each call, and the idle time between calls. [1] In the United States, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968provides some privacy protections for employees. See Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 § Employee Privacy .

Video surveillance

One of the most effective forms of employee monitoring is the use of video surveillance equipment. Video feeds of employee activities are fed back to a central location where they are recorded or monitored by another person. “This is a benefit because it provides an unbiased method of performance evaluation and prevents the interference of a manager’s feelings in an employee’s review” (Mishra and Crampton, 1998). Management can review the performance of an employee by checking the monitoring and detecting problems before they become too costly. [2]

Email monitoring

In the United States, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act provides some privacy protections regarding the monitoring of employees’ email messages and other electronic communications. See Electronic Communications Privacy Act § Employee Privacy .

Location monitoring

For employees who do not work in a static location, supervisors may choose to track their rental. Common examples of this are delivery and transportation industries. In this case, it is the case that the location of the customer is determined by the location of the location and the location of the location.

Employee surveillance can lead to an executive’s decision on whether or not to promote or even fire.

Different techniques can be used, eg employees or mobile phone tracking .

In arenas where they are not paid to their full labor product, mass surveillance is an industrial organization method deployed to psychological tactics on the psyche. Conceived by FW Taylor, though not available for the second time thereafter. This method is favored in housekeeping staff.

Employee privacy and ethical issues

Employee monitoring is often in conflict with employees’ privacy . [3] This study is often not related to work-related activities. There are no limits to what should be collected. Monitoring in the workplace can be used to protect personal interests. Employees want to maintain privacy while employees are not misused. In any case, companies can maintain ethical monitoring policies by avoiding indiscriminate monitoring of employees’ activities. [4] The employee needs to understand what is expected of them while employing needs to establish that rule.

Legal issues

In Canada , it is illegal to perform invasive monitoring, such as reading an employee’s emails, unless it can be shown that it is a necessary precaution and there are no other alternatives. [5] In Maryland, everyone in the conversation must give consent before the conversation can be recorded. The state of California requires a certain number of conversations to be kept in mind, and it may be necessary to inform the audience that the conversations may be recorded. Other states, including Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Jersey, also have laws relating to when a conversation can be recorded

The following uses of legal information:

  • Find needed business information when the employee is not available.
  • Protect security of proprietary information and data.
  • Prevent or investigate possible criminal activities by employees.
  • Prevent personal use of employing facilities.
  • Check for violations of corporate policy against offensive offensive or pornographic email.
  • Investigate complaints of harassment .
  • Check for illegal software .

According to Computer Monitoring: The Hidden War Of Control, “The employer of today has the ability to read and write a review of the computer. anonymous actions is an illusion Every action between a network and the computers connected to it can be tracked every time by an individual worker on a computer can be tracked, analyzed and used against the employee The protections and freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are there to protect the individual from the Government and to apply to the normal employee / employer relationship. ” [6]

There is a similar situation in Europe. In January 2016, European Court of Human Rights issued to landmark ruling in the case of Bărbulescu v Romania (61496/08) regarding monitoring of employees’ computers. The employee Mr. Bărbulescu accused the use of private life and ‘correspondence’ in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights [7] . But the Court has stated that it has been used in this field by the employer, and that it is not a breach of company policy. This historic ruling is confirmed that it is not unreasonable for employers to monitor their employees’ computer activity and such monitoring does not violate their human rights.

A year later, in July 2017, German court also ruled that computer monitoring of employees is excessive [8] .

Despite the fact that there are some areas of employment, there is a lot of gray areas. Even employee monitoring software developers is in a position to provide advice to the public and to provide a written agreement with such monitoring [9] .

Financial benefits

Employee Monitoring can be used to monitor the safety and productivity of employees. From the dishonest employee, who is in the process of employing and managing a small business. The monitoring of employees can help in the protection of employees and it can help in the protection of employees. According to the American Management Association almost half (48%) of the companies surveyed video surveillance to counter theft, violence and sabotage. Only 7% use video surveillance on track employees’ on-the-job performance.[10] In an article in Labor Economics , it has been argued that, on the job performance, it is possible that it should be used. [11]

See also

  • Mass surveillance
  • Right to privacy
  • surveillance
  • Workplace privacy


  1. Jump up^ SHERMAN, MARK. “GOV’T OBTAINS WIDE AP PHONE RECORDS IN PROBE” . Archived from the original on May 14, 2013 . Retrieved May 13, 2013 .
  2. Jump up^ Gordon Amsler; Henry Findley; Earl Ingram (January 1, 2011). “Performance Monitoring: Guidance for the Modern Workplace”. Supervision . p. 16.
  3. Jump up^ Mishra, JM & Crampton, SM (1998). “Employee monitoring: Privacy in the workplace?” . SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075) . 63(3): 4.
  4. Jump up^ Burks, F.Ethical Issues & Employer Monitoring Internet Usage. Chron.com, 2010.
  5. Jump up^ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/supreme-court-rules-employees-have-right-to-privacy-on-work-computers/article4625660/
  6. Jump up^ Kevin, PP, & Tammy, YA (2011). Computer monitoring: The hidden war of control. International Journal of Management and Information Systems, 15 (1), 49-58. Retrieved fromhttp://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/IJMIS/article/view/1595
  7. Jump up^ EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, JUDGMENT (2016-12-01). “itemid”:% 5b “001-159906″% 5d} / “CASE OF BĂRBULESCU v. ROMANIA (Application No. 61496/08)” .
  8. Jump up^ Catalin Cimpanu (2017-05-08). “Companies Can not Use Keyloggers to Spy on Employees, Says German Court” .
  9. Jump up^ “How Companies Monitor Their Employees” . 2016-09-23.
  10. Jump up^ “Training Solutions for Individuals, Organizations and Government Agencies” . permanent dead link ]
  11. Jump up^ Schmitz, Patrick W. (2005). “Workplace surveillance, privacy protection, and efficiency wages” . Labor Economics . 12 (6): 727-738. doi :10.1016 / j.labeco.2004.06.001 .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *