NEGATIVE EMPLOYMENT CASE TURNS 342
EMPLOYERS HAVE JUSTIFICATION FOR SPYING
PRIVACY IN THE WORKPLACE MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST THE EMPLOYERS RIGHT TO KNOW
Margaret Graham Tebo, ABA Journal, March, 2000 TITLE: No Peeking: Efforts to restrict monitoring of workers' outside activities gain favor // acs-VT2001
Palefsky agrees. Privacy is a balancing of rights, he says, and many employers just don't comprehend that they have to respect employees' rights.
So where is the appropriate line between employee privacy and employers' legitimate need to know the backgrounds of the people they hire?
"The only one that makes sense is whether the information has an actual impact on employees' performance of their job," says Palefsky. "Not whether it might, but whether it does."
EMPLOYEES ARE MONITORED TO PREVENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Jeffrey Rosen, associate professor at the George Washington University Law School, The New York Times April 30, 2000, SECTION: Section 6; Page 46; TITLE: The Eroded Self // acs-EE2001
The most common justification for Internet and e-mail monitoring in the workplace is fear of liability under sexual harassment law, which requires companies to protect workers from speech that might be construed to create a "hostile or offensive working environment." Because employers cannot be sure in advance what sort of e-mail or Web browsing a particular employee might find offensive, they have an incentive to monitor far more Internet activity than the law actually forbids.