Sheridan 1

Brian Sheridan
CST 300
October 4, 2018
Employer Rights VS Employee Rights

Employers have always sought new ways to monitor their employees to help increase

productivity. Different methods have evolved throughout history dating back to the construction

of the pyramids in ancient Egypt. As technology advances, new and innovative ideas have

entered the workforce. With the introduction of factories during the Industrial Revolution,

employers found a need to track working hours to ensure employees arrived on time and they

were paid for hours worked (Unqiue:IQ, n.d.). The internet has provided a completely new set of

challenges to employers. Companies began to monitor online usage to safeguard against

employee misuse and potential harmful websites. Surveillance systems were installed in many

workplaces to prevent theft from both consumers and employees. Today new technology is on

the market that allows companies to monitor individuals with bracelets, wearable GPS locators,

implanted microchips, and biometric scanners. With these innovations, companies now have the

ability to monitor almost every aspect of their employees from vitals and biometrics to

movements. The argument then becomes, does the employer have the right to collect massive

amounts of information on their employees and what rights do the employees have.

The employer is the first major stakeholder and has to remain focused on four main areas:

the products they provide, managing company assets, security, and their employees. To be

effective in these areas companies have adopted many different monitoring devices and software.

Companies can monitor movements of their employees to identify areas they can improve to

increase production or coordinate services. They can apply GPS trackers to monitor company

assets like vehicles, or adopt microchip implants to help safeguard trade secrets and monitor
 Sheridan 2

employee health. Each employee is considered a valuable asset, and therefore the company has a

vested interest in each individual.

Employees stand as the second major stakeholder and are expected to voluntarily give up

some of their privacy as they walk through the door of their employer. Every employee is

looking for a safe, comfortable working environment in which they are paid competitively for

the work they perform. Employees are concerned that every move they make may be under a

microscope and it could jeopardize their careers.

There are four different scenarios that can apply to the current climate. The first is that

the employer has the right to monitor their employees to further advance company goals to

improve productivity and increase security at the expense of privacy. In the second scenario,

employees would have the right to privacy in the workplace at the expense of security and safety.

In the last two scenarios, the government could get involved through either regulation or

litigation to impose new restrictions on the use of technology in the workplace.

The business model for most companies is framed around what is best for the group. This

is a utilitarianism framework that focuses on people giving up privacy to allow for the best

outcome to help the collective. Whereas, the respect for autonomy framework could be applied

to the employees because they feel that they should be able to make decisions that could affect

their lives despite the needs of their employer.

Amazon recently received patents for a pair of bracelets to be used by warehouse

employees to help them navigate their hand movements to find the proper items through a series

of vibrations (Ong, 2018). The wristbands would also free up employees’ hands from having to

maneuver a handheld scanner (Ong, 2018). The idea is companies that use the technology would
 Sheridan 3

be able to increase productivity by correcting actions when the employee is moving toward the

wrong bin and would allow for one movement instead of the multiple movements that it takes to

scan the item, put down the scanner, retrieve the item, and then retrieve the scanner (Ong, 2018).

There are many benefits that this technology can provide. It can relieve some of the stress on the

employees’ body by reducing repetitive motions and reduce the time searching for items. If

misused, this type of technology could create many downfalls. Employees are concerned that if

Amazon is able to track their movements that the information they could collect can be used

against them. Some of the issues that have been brought forward are timed restroom breaks and

workers achieving a set goal per hour (Ong, 2018). There are many people that feel that this is

going to cause a hostile working environment and the data collected could be used to negate

performance evaluations. The question then becomes, does Amazon have the right to track their

employees if it can increase productivity and possibly reduce health-related concerns or do the

employees have the right to opt out of such a venture?

Recently, other types of technology have hit the market, such as microchips that can be

implanted under the skin. There are a whole host of reasons why companies might consider such

a venture. The company Three Square Market is putting some these devices to use. The

microchip is about “the size of a grain of rice” that is implanted between the index finger and the

thumb and allows for employees to access secure locations inside their employers’ buildings

with the swipe of their hand (Maggie, 2017). Three Square Market, the maker of the microchip,

plans to have it used in a wide spectrum from storing personal medical records to replacing the

need to carry a wallet (Three Square Market, n.d.). This device provides endless opportunities

not only to people at the workplace but in their personal lives as well. The government could use

this to verify passengers in airports, the medical field would be able to access your medical
 Sheridan 4

records and identify you if there was an accident, and employees could use it to log in at their

company computers (Three Square Market, n.d.). There are a few concerns about the chip. With

the amount of information that can be stored on the chip, it could allow employers to get access

to more information than the employee wants them to have for example your medical records

(Maggie, 2017). If your employer sees that you have a medical condition, the employer could

take action to mitigate any potential risk which could include dismissal or loss of benefits. There

is also the health factor of implanting hardware inside your body that could cause unwanted

reactions. Does the employer have the right to implant microchips inside their employees in

order to increase the security and protect trade secrets or does the company have to respect the

rights of the individual to take part in the program?

Biometric data has been another hot topic for debate. Biometric data is being used by

companies around the world to identify personnel and grant them access into secure areas.

Companies like eyeLock have been installing devices that can scan an employee’s iris to verify

proper identification and is only second to DNA in making a positive match to an individual’s

identity ( EyeLock LLC, 2016). If the company’s claims are true then the benefit to protect

corporate data in this fashion would be second to none. There are some issues that could arise in

the future if personnel biometric data is not safeguarded correctly. Although the security to the

physical area is unsurpassed by biometric scanners, if a hacker was able to penetrate the database

where the information is stored and change a person’s biometric data then trying to identify the

employee in the future could be a daunting task (Zaller, 2018). There is also the issue of if you

allow the employer to take your biometric data and the company sells it to a third party, then you

might not have a voice on how they use your information (Zaller, 2018). What is more important

corporate security or personal identity?

 Sheridan 5

As technology makes leaps and bounds the government has had a hard time keeping up

with the trends. There are two ways that the government can get involved. They can do it

proactively in the form of regulations, or reactively by litigation. There are a few states that have

been proactive about creating regulations that limit the scope of what an employer can or cannot

do. For example, there are twenty-six states that have enacted laws that prevent employer access

to personal social media accounts (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2018). There have

also been a few states that have passed laws preventing employers from mandating employees to

have a microchip implanted in one’s body (Ella & Lewis, 2016). The issue is the government has

a hard time determining what the repercussions will be when they create regulations.

When the government is reactive, it is through the process of a lawsuit. Technology is

made available to employers in which they mandate down to the employees. Problems arise

when people feel that their rights have been infringed upon and they file a lawsuit to have the

issues heard by the courts. When this happens, it sets a precedent in which other employers have

to follow or be at risk of being sued. One lawsuit over privacy that came before the California

courts in May 2015 was Myrna Arias versus Intermex Wire Transfer (Gardella, 2015). The

lawsuit was filed with the courts when the plaintiff claimed she suffered wrongful termination

due to uninstalling a tracking app on her phone that monitored her movements outside of

working hours (Gardella, 2015). The lawsuit points out an example when company policies

infringe on an employee’s rights. Although this case did not create precedence, due to being

settled outside the courts, others did. Vega Rodriquez versus Puerto Rico Telephone Company

concluded that companies can have video surveillance in the workplace open area and that the

right to privacy does not extend to these areas (Ella & Lewis, 2016).
 Sheridan 6

To put this into perspective, the government trying to resolve all the issues that

technology brings to the work environment will never succeed. The reason for this is that the

government would need all the facts to make an informed decision as to whether there will be

issues with privacy in the future. Also, in most cases the issues do not arise until the technology

has been implemented. When issues do present themselves companies tend to take care of them

before they get to court. The few that do make it through court proceedings set guidelines for

future implementation and how the current usage is governed.

There are really only two options that you can apply to the argument. The first option is

the respect for autonomy framework of the employee to have the choice to participate in the

company’s implementation of various technical monitoring systems. The second, and the best

option, would be the utilitarianism framework of the employer to allow them to take steps

necessary to protect company secrets, increase productivity, and create a safe working

environment at the cost of the employees’ privacy. There are many reasons this option is the best

fit for the current environment due to the multiple requirements that the employer has to

maintain either through government compliance or employee expectations. First, the employer

has an obligation to create a safe working environment for all its employees. Monitoring

employees may be able to stamp out issues in the workplace like sexual harassment and abuse.

Second, if a company is able to increase productivity, this would result in increased profits, and

depending on the morals of the company could result in higher pay for the employees. The last

reason is it could mitigate stress placed on the employees that could result in health problems.

Employees need to have trust in the company they work for, and although they have to

give up some of their privacy at work for the betterment of the company they do not have to sit

idly by when they learn of something egregious. Participation in company endeavors is the only
 Sheridan 7

way corporate policies will improve. If an employee learns of something that they do not agree

with or it’s a major violation according to current regulations, it is the responsibility of the

employee to speak up and bring the issue to management. If the employer does not respond, then

there is always the government that can step in to help resolve the dispute.

Companies have to do what’s best for both the employees and the company. It is the

active participation of the employees that can create a pleasant working environment. The

employer and the employee both share in the burden. If a company’s security is able to be

exploited then there is a chance that they could go out of business in which every employee loses

their jobs. On the other hand, if an employer infringes too much on the privacy of their

personnel it could cause unrest in the workplace and affect the retention of their employees. It is

the choice of the employee to work at a specific company and there is no requirement that they

must stay in their job even with the implementation of new technology. The employer must have

a valid reason to fire an employee, whereas an employee is free to leave without justification or

notice.
 Sheridan 8

References

EyeLock LLC. (2016). EyeLock. Retrieved from

https://www.eyelock.com/index.php

Ella, V. J., & Lewis, J. (2016, April 6-8). EMPLOYEE MONITORING AND WORKPLACE

PRIVACY LAW. Retrieved from

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/2016/04/tech/papers/mo

nitoring_ella.authcheckdam.pdf

Gardella, A. (2015, June 5). Employer Sued For GPS-Tracking Salesperson 24/7. Retrieved from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adrianagardella/2015/06/05/employer-sued-for-gps-

tracking-salesperson-247/#618b0d7623e3

Maggie, A. (2017, July 25). Microchip Implants for Employees? One Company Says Yes.

Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/technology/microchips-wisconsin-company-

employees.html

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2018, January 2). State Social Media Privacy Laws.

Retrieved from

http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/state-

laws-prohibiting-access-to-social-media-usernames-and-passwords.aspx

Ong, T. (2018, Febuary 1). The Verge. Retrieved from

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/1/16958918/amazon-patents-trackable-wristband-

warehouse-employees
 Sheridan 9

Three Square Market. (n.d.). Three Square Market. Retrieved from

https://32market.com/public/32chip.html#top-of-page

Unqiue:IQ. (n.d.). A History of Time Cards. Retrieved from

https://www.uniqueiq.co.uk/history-time-cards/

Zaller, A. (2018, April 13). Biometrics in the workplace: Private or not? Retrieved from

https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2018/04/biometrics-workplace-private-

not/