Saturday, July 24, 2004
More on employers monitoring our email
OK, Rhu. I'll respond to your previous post, despite the rather ham-fisted way you set the bait.
You're correct when you say that employers' monitoring of employees' email is legal, at least in most situations. But it certainly isn't right. In fact, it's wasteful, dangerous, and counter-productive.
It's wasteful, in that an employer needs to spend resources (human, financial and technological) to monitor email. What is the perceived threat that a corporation is reacting against? Spouses sending each other grocery lists? I submit that most monitoring of email is the result of fetishistic voyeurism on the part of the employer, rather than some legitimate business interest.
It's dangerous, because of liability. If an employee IS using company email to engage in criminal acts, such as terrorism or kiddie porn, the employer randomly monitoring email has now become an accomplice to the crime.
It's like this: the phone company isn't liable when somebody uses a phone to plot a crime, because the phone company doesn't monitor people's phone calls. By the same token, FedEx isn't liable when somebody ships blueprints for a nuclear bomb via their service, because FedEx won't inspect packages without probable cause. But airlines ARE being held liable for lax security leading up to Sept. 11, because they DID search passengers and therefore, they SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT the jerkoffs boarding their planes with box-cutters. This "right" to monitor email is really a gigantic white elephant. Employers would be wise to ask congress for a law forbidding them from monitoring employees' email, thereby absolving them of culpability in dicey situations.
Lastly, monitoring employees' email is counter-productive. A company that spends thousands of dollars on insulting and ill-conceived "team-building" excursions can't then send those same employees back to the office to be monitored like criminals. Even those employees that are too dumb to know what irony is will get the message that, in the end, they're inmates, not team members.
I work for a company that has told us that our phones will not be tapped, and our emails will not be monitored. They recognize that we make personal calls, and that we send personal emails. However, we're judged by how well we perform our duties. Giving us the freedom to speak costs my company nothing, and improves morale. It's a no-brainer.
You're correct when you say that employers' monitoring of employees' email is legal, at least in most situations. But it certainly isn't right. In fact, it's wasteful, dangerous, and counter-productive.
It's wasteful, in that an employer needs to spend resources (human, financial and technological) to monitor email. What is the perceived threat that a corporation is reacting against? Spouses sending each other grocery lists? I submit that most monitoring of email is the result of fetishistic voyeurism on the part of the employer, rather than some legitimate business interest.
It's dangerous, because of liability. If an employee IS using company email to engage in criminal acts, such as terrorism or kiddie porn, the employer randomly monitoring email has now become an accomplice to the crime.
It's like this: the phone company isn't liable when somebody uses a phone to plot a crime, because the phone company doesn't monitor people's phone calls. By the same token, FedEx isn't liable when somebody ships blueprints for a nuclear bomb via their service, because FedEx won't inspect packages without probable cause. But airlines ARE being held liable for lax security leading up to Sept. 11, because they DID search passengers and therefore, they SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT the jerkoffs boarding their planes with box-cutters. This "right" to monitor email is really a gigantic white elephant. Employers would be wise to ask congress for a law forbidding them from monitoring employees' email, thereby absolving them of culpability in dicey situations.
Lastly, monitoring employees' email is counter-productive. A company that spends thousands of dollars on insulting and ill-conceived "team-building" excursions can't then send those same employees back to the office to be monitored like criminals. Even those employees that are too dumb to know what irony is will get the message that, in the end, they're inmates, not team members.
I work for a company that has told us that our phones will not be tapped, and our emails will not be monitored. They recognize that we make personal calls, and that we send personal emails. However, we're judged by how well we perform our duties. Giving us the freedom to speak costs my company nothing, and improves morale. It's a no-brainer.
