ALT-8 Should Employers Monitor Employees Internet use – Yes
Whilst acknowledging that not every job is the most invigorating of experiences, it never ceases to amaze me how employees, and their representatives, seem to find ever more reasons to obtain allowed-access to external distractions whilst they are in the workplace.
I can still remember the days when an employee was literally locked-in to the workplace from the moment they arrived in the morning until the hooter went at shut-down. I would not argue that type of regime was healthy, far from it, and as I progressed through my working life from worker into management, then ultimately senior management, I did not forget how unpleasant it could be to work in such conditions, and therefore exercised tolerance and common sense wherever possible.
However, in doing so I also became aware that human nature is not a consistent trait, and there are destructive elements that will seek to take advantage of any perceived weakness by attempting to exploit that perception to their own advantage. As a consequence, it becomes necessary to have clearly-stated policies within a workplace, ostensibly to ensure fairness. Ultimately, in my experience, these create an entirely unfair environment of polarised monotones where the previous relaxed shades of grey were infinitely more even-handed in the long run.
The vast majority of workers are conscientious in their work, and if they consider that their employer is overstepping the mark by placing overzealous restrictions on them during their time at work, they will vote with their feet. Similarly, the vast majority of employers recognize that this is the 21st Century, and they need to make allowances for the occasional needs of their employees to address private life issues during working time. As in all life, compromise prevails to the benefit of all parties, and most Company policies do little more than confirm, in writing, the status quo that is already accepted as fair by everybody within the business.
Consequently, I cannot understand the viewpoint of the privacy advocates. They claim that the relationship between an employer and an employee should be founded entirely on trust. As one company is just a small part of our culture, it should logically be possibly to extend that utopian argument to Society in general, but unfortunately we all know that cannot be done, which is why every society has laws. Almost all of the population will observe these laws, as they are the best way of perpetuating fairness. However, there will always be a minority that will not do so, which is why we maintain a police force. If you break a law, the police are there to catch you, and you will then have to face the consequences. Ignorance is no defence, neither is the standpoint that if the policeman had not seen you, you would have got away with it'. The prosecution case will always be, you knew that what you were doing was against the law, so why did you do it in the first place?
Company rules are no different, in terms of their specific applicability within the workplace. If a company policy states that users should not access a specific website, then there will be a sound business reason for this, and it therefore follows that they will police it. So if you don't want to be in trouble, then don't break the rule. Yet a minority of workers will always see a particular company policy that they personally disagree with, as unfair in general or, worse still, as non-binding upon them individually. In such circumstances, a company has no less right to snoop' on its employees whilst they are in the workplace, in order to identify potential rule-breakers, than the Police have to snoop' on the same person when they are outside of the workplace in the wider environment, in order to identify potential law-breakers.
But none of that will stop the more determined from attempting to find chinks in the armour of their perceived enemies. A debate has now commenced here in the UK surrounding the use, during working hours, of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace. Some employers see the use of such sites by their employees within the workplace, as providing an unnecessary distraction to their paid duties. Opponents to this viewpoint argue that they are just a bit of fun', and therefore their use is more likely to improve productivity due to the staff being happier through being able to interact with their outside friends whilst in their work environment.
Strangely, by modern standards, I used to find it quite fun to interact with my workmates whilst at work, as they were generally of a quite different nature to my non-work circle of friends. This is because, although one acquires friends through choice, one does not generally choose one's work colleagues. So they tend to come from all backgrounds and walks of life, and as such can provide interesting insights that one might not otherwise encounter in the occasionally restrictive atmosphere of a closed circle of friends. Having such varied actual contact with real people gave me a much more rounded view on life than the somewhat clinical virtual contact that I seem to maintain these days working from home, with people that I only meet through their words on a screen.
The debate has been launched by the Trades Union Congress, who are seeking to persuade employers to resist imposing blanket bans on employees using such sites whilst at work. Their general secretary, Brendan Barber, has been quoted in the media as saying that it is "..unreasonable for employers to try to stop their staff from having a life outside work, just because they cannot get their heads around the technology." During an interview on BBC Radio involving Sarah Veale, the TUC's Head of Equality, it was intimated that employers may be thought of having the attitude of a Victorian mill-owner towards the problem. Maybe some do, but is the statement by her boss any less of an echo from a bygone age?
Clearly, this approach by the TUC is thoroughly disingenuous to the majority of employers, who are already bending over backwards to square their need to make a profit for their Company from which they can pay their employees, with the ever-growing burden of employment legislation and practices that ensure that they must continually address the work-life balance of their staff. It also makes assumptions of internet access that are not universal across industry, and misses some very important aspects of legislation that the TUC itself fought long and hard to establish, and that no employer would wish to contravene.
For the bulk of office workers, whose job involves the use of a computer screen all day, it is very easy to access the internet whenever they like, in fact using that access may even be part of their job description. Their employers therefore expect them to exercise some self-discipline in carrying-out their duties. They also expect them to take breaks from the screen during work-time, and consequently provide facilities for them to be able to do this. In the same BBC radio interview, Sarah Veale intimated that, as staff are already allowed time to relax while working, they may wish to access a social networking site during such chill time'. This is blurring the line of distinction that has been made in actual Health and Safety legislation, which dictates that Every employer shall so plan the activities of users at workthat their daily work on display screen equipment is periodically interrupted by such breaks or changes of activity as reduce their workload at that equipment.' Either the TUC is recommending that workers disobey such legislation, and stay at their screen during breaks provided for their well-being, or they are arguing for additional breaks in their working duties to allow the staff to do something other than work.
The problem here is that there are swathes of workers who have no access to a computer at work whatsoever, so they are completely unaffected by such an initiative. If those workers wish to use Facebook, or indeed any other website, they have to do so in their own time, either at home or at an internet caf.
Surely as Head of Equality, a somewhat paradoxical choice of title in itself, Sarah Veale should be arguing for identical rights for all workers. And the only thoroughly fair methodology for that would be for the TUC to actually recommend that employers limit the private internet usage of those workers who are fortunate enough to have a computer at their fingertips during working hours, thus ensuring that they have to do so in their own time, like all of the rest of the workforce.
