ALT-9 Should Employers Monitor Employees Internet use – Yes
Running a workplace is very similar to running a home. No one comes to your home and tells you how to take care of your business. A home is called a home and not a house because the manager or managers of the home look into how they want to run the home and how everyone one is to work together for everything to run smoothly. A workplace is not entirely different. Those who employ workers are managers who have responsibility to observe that their business runs smoothly. Just as a homeowner does not expect to be run off by a guest, a business owner should not expect to be run out of business by mismanaging their workers.When most people accept a job position, it is with the assumption that their employer carefully monitors their business in order to keep it successful. Though one may be embarrassed, it is not likely that many employees would be surprised or offended if their boss surreptitiously walked in and found them in an awkward position. It is an employer's job to safeguard their assets!In an ideal world, employers would not have to worry that any of their employees are using their equipment for anything other than business. Employees are employed by their company to work. While they are there, they do the work. It should not matter whether their computer is being monitored or not. If an employee is honest, their employer should be able to walk in at any time, with or without warning, and look at the work that he or she assigned you. The same is true of the equipment.It is saddening to see how so many employees can be demanding leisure and luxury at work at the expense of the employer. It is not that employees should not have a reasonably comfortable place to work; what should be considered appalling are those who expect to put personal expenses on the company's ticket. When an employee asks their employer to ignore their Internet usage, they are clearly not aware of the risks that might be associated with his or her negligence. There are many expenses that can result from this.Isn't it amazing that we as a society seem to have lost perspective on the meaning of the workplace as a place for WORK?Let's say for the sake of argument employers should not monitor Internet use. If this is not how they want to run their business is it possible that they are looking for trouble? If an employee brought a computer to work, and operated it at their leisure time, then they would have the right to manipulate it at their discretion. Now, if they are manipulating a piece of equipment that does not belong them, and are expected to use it within the stipulated and clearly defined employment terms, then the employer has duty to assureadherence to regulations in place and therefore to monitor use of the equipment. Depending on how the employer associates with his employees there may only be expectation to monitor this equipment.First, this question calls for a clear understanding of use of modal verbs in English Grammar. Without this understanding of language, responses to these questions are likely to concoct different behaviors of the modal verb "should" used to express obligation or expectation. In my view, it is when there is a clear distinction of these applications that responses follow patterns much easier to grasp.For example, if you choose "should" to express obligation, i.e. should he employer..., "should" becomes imperative. It does not exist in the negative form. If you choose "should" to express something between obligation and expectation, it can exist in the negative form. Were you to prefer "should" as an expectation, then it would also exist in the negative form. So, you see if you were to associate an employer with the first application of "should", then he or she has no choice but to monitor Internet use.If you place the same employer with the second or third application of this modal verb, "should", there is a choice to monitor or not to monitor the Internet use. It is my understanding of the category of the employer as one who is obligated, one who is sometimes obligated and sometimes only expected, or one who is just strictly expected to monitor work equipment and will dictate handling the Internet usage.An employer with an obligation to monitor employees within given guidelines has an obligation also to monitor equipment, furniture, etc. under the same framework. An employer in the second and third non-obligatory categories has a choice to monitor or not monitor the Internet use.
In a "normal" workplace, one would hope that an employer would not leave the workers to wrestle with the ambiguities of modal verbs, and such but instead explain to the workers how to relate to each other. Employers know whether or not monitoring Internet usage is the right thing for their companies. They know what consequences and hazards there are in leaving internet doors open to workers and any one else to hop on or of the net at will.
