Receive an email every 2 months, informing you of updates to this article directory.
A look at the ways employers monitor what employees are up to - and why
By:
Yes, the boss is...watching
An employee enters an unauthorized area of the company, his smart-chip badge triggering a hidden surveillance camera. That sends an alert to a security officer, who uses his laptop or cell phone to monitor what the intruder is up to.
Once the realm of Tom Cruise movies, scenes such as this one are playing out now at a worksite near you.
What's more, employer surveillance of workers and property extends beyond the video screen: The boss can tell just what Web sites you've visited on office computers, the content of e-mail you haven't even sent, even your every move through cell phones equipped with global positioning. And coming soon: Employee identification through biometrics - measuring such biological components as fingerprints and voice pattern - as well as grain-of-wheat-sized chips implanted under the skin, turning you, in effect, into an EZPass.
All of which might lead the unsuspecting employee to ask: Just what privacy rights do I have when it comes to electronic monitoring? Darn few, says L. Camille Hebert, law professor at Ohio State University and author of "Employee Privacy Law" (Thomson West).
Certainly, bosses can cite significant reasons for tracking worker activity: Monitoring can go a long way toward cutting down on sexual harassment, workplace accidents and goofing off. Plus, in lawsuits, courts expect employers to be able to hand over electronic evidence. So such surveillance is on the increase: The use of video monitoring for theft, violence and sabotage rose last year to 51 percent of 526 employers surveyed by the American Management Association and ePolicy Institute; only 33 percent were using such monitoring four years earlier. And research company Frost & Sullivan estimates that by 2010, the surveillance and video technology industry will be an $8.64 billion business - more than double what it was in 2003.
The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 - amended in 2001 - gives employers what privacy experts call pretty much carte blanche. Nancy Flynn, executive director of the ePolicy Institute in Columbus, Ohio, says the provisions of the act can be translated this way: "The computer system is the property of the employer and as such the employer has the right to monitor Internet activity and e-mail. Employees should have no reasonable expectation to privacy."
The cost in morale
Still, the exchange of privacy for more efficiency and security carries costs when it comes to employee morale, says Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J. He poses these real and potential situations: A woman who found out she was pregnant, visited an expectant-mothers' Web site and then got confronted by her boss later that day. Or a worker who sends her doctor an e-mail containing terminology that could also have sexual meaning. Or those subjected to video surveillance in restrooms or changing rooms.
Most employers who use forms of surveillance say they notify their employees. The American Management/ePolicy Institute research found that 80 percent let workers know they're being monitored for computer content, keystrokes and keyboard time; 82 percent let them know computer files are stored and reviewed; 86 percent, that e-mail is tracked; and 89 percent, that Web visits are monitored. Most members of the human resources committee of the Hauppauge Industrial Association have monitoring policies, said Patty O'Connell, committee co-chairwoman and human resources vice president of People's Alliance Federal Credit Union, headquartered in Hauppauge. That institution's policy is clearly stated, she said, and covers all types of information systems, including faxing. And, as a financial institution, it does engage in video monitoring.
When used irresponsibly, that's the most invasive form of electronic surveillance, said Jeremy Gruber, legal director of the National Workrights Institute based in Princeton, N.J.
Before and after work, when her office at Salem State College in Massachusetts was empty, secretary Gail Nelson would change in and out of exercise clothes behind a tall partition. Her boss never told her she was being captured on tape by a hidden camera that had been set up to monitor for intruders.
She filed a lawsuit and lost the case. In a brief in support of her appeal, Gruber wrote: "Some cameras are entirely appropriate. Security cameras in stairwells and parking garages make us all safer without intruding on privacy. But employers often install cameras in areas that are indefensible ... where employees undress, including bathrooms, locker rooms, sometimes inside the stalls themselves. ... A thin line exists between surveillance and voyeurism."
Just three states - California, New York and Rhode Island - have statutes prohibiting video monitoring of workplace restrooms or other areas where employees undress.
Ed Wolm, 33, said that last year the staff in his network maintenance department at Cablevision were given cell phones that he said were equipped with GPS tracking. He said the system could not be de-activated as long as the phone was on - and it had to be on when workers were on call on their off time - so the belief was the company could monitor their whereabouts round the clock.
His feeling was "the company didn't trust you." At the time, he was engaged in union organizing activity for Local 1049, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and he said the potential for monitoring of location as well as numbers dialed had a chilling effect. He has since resigned and is now an apprentice lineman with Local 1049.
Though some cell phone devices come with GPS capability, additional software is necessary before an employer can track employee whereabouts and the company does not have that, said a Cablevision spokesperson, who added: "We don't monitor employee whereabouts."
Although some observers maintain the employee has drawn the short end of the stick in this age of surveillance, Craig Cornish, an attorney in Colorado Springs, Colo., with expertise in workplace privacy, says that's yet to be seen. Yes, he says, some courts "bend over backward to support the employer, but that's not universally true." And he said that so far, no case has reached the ultimate arbiter, the U.S. Supreme Court. Lewis Maltby of the National Workrights InstituteMaltby points to The Employee Changing Room Privacy Act (HR582) that's been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, with the goal of prohibiting restroom and changing room video surveillance.
Serving a purpose
Despite its potential for abuse, electronic monitoring can and does serve valuable workplace purposes. "Like everything - there's a good side and a bad," says Richard Soloway, chairman of NAPCO Security Inc. in Amityville, which manufactures site access and surveillance equipment.
He said he convenes think tanks for quarterly discussions for trends in corporate security and problem-solving amid privacy concerns.
Where it might work
Supporters of workplace surveillance point to evidence of its value:
Fourteen nursing home employees in Rochester were charged last month by State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer with fraud and falsifying records because they had moved call bells out of patients' reach so they could watch television or socialize. Their activity was captured when the room of a 70-year-old man with dementia was monitored through video surveillance cameras.
Such cameras can spot the license plate of a reported domestic violence abuser if he drives into the company parking lot, Soloway said; and a security officer at one Texas manufacturer noticed and reported boxes piled high on inventory shelves that were about to topple over, thus averting possible injury to workers.
Such systems are a deterrent to goofing off online, said Doug Fowler, president of SpectorSoft, a Vero Beach, Fla.-based Internet monitoring software maker. His Web site features a case study from a client, First National Bank of Long Island, which quotes the bank's information technology services manager as saying of employees, "A cup of coffee and checking the news online for five minutes in the morning, that's not a big thing. ... But the bridal registry or tiffany.com for two and a half hours a day ... take it easy!"
And security measures on the horizon have Maltby concerned. Two security professionals in Cincinnati voluntarily had tiny radio frequency identification chips embedded in their arms - to forgo carrying worker identification cards. Using such chips for recognition only is harmless enough, says Maltby. But long-term? "It's bad enough some employees have to carry a GPS tracking device in their hands. The thought of having the device implanted in your body is frightening."
Another concern - blogs, said O'Connell, a subject discussed at the most recent HIA committee meeting. Flynn agreed that employers need to learn more about blog monitoring applications, as well as become familiar with blog search engines - such as Technorati.com, Daypop.com and Blogpulse.com - where they can plug in the company name, names of executives and products to see just what's being said about them.
"Blogs," she says, "open up the business to all of the same risks posed by e-mails and instant messaging and Internet use."
Did you know?
If you're accessing your personal e-mail account at, say, AOL or Yahoo, through your work computer, your boss may well be able to monitor that e-mail.
The same goes for personal instant messaging. Employers can track your keystrokes - so they can tell what you've written, even if you end up deleting it. Along those lines, you may delete a file or e-mail, but it's still likely recoverable.
If you access your work server from your home computer, your keystrokes can be monitored.
Only employers in Connecticut and Delaware are required to notify employees they're being monitored.
Office staff who are in charge of monitoring don't regularly read through all the e-mail. Systems are set up to quarantine certain files and messages containing key words related to issues such as harassment or company secrets. Only those e-mails are viewed.
What bosses and workers can do ?
Yes, bosses could be more sensitive to employees' privacy concerns. But employees, too, can start asking questions and making requests.
First, workers can ask about policy beyond what's stated in the employee handbook. Assuming the company allows staff members to send personal e-mail, Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, said it would not be out of line for a person to say, "I sometimes send e-mail to my wife or children or physician and would like to know more about the procedure so I don't inadvertently compromise my privacy."
Maltby said employees can also ask their bosses to grant them a certain number of e-mail addresses - say to spouse, kids, physician - that are exempt from monitoring.
Bosses should let those with monitoring capability know - in no uncertain terms - that they are not to "monitor for fun," Maltby said. A significant number of employers have never told their computer staff not to snoop, he says.
Nancy Flynn, executive director of the ePolicy Institute in Columbus, says employers can host training sessions to spell out the reasons for monitoring, as well as the methods used. When she has conducted such sessions, she says people have walked away saying, "I had no idea the company could be sued or I could be fired or confidential information could be leaked that way."
Resources
National Workrights Institute www.workrights.org/index.html
ePolicy Institute, www.epolicyinstitute.com/index.shtml
American Management Association research,
www.amanet.org/press/amanews/ems05.htm
Nolo legal publishers, www.nolo.com/resource.cfm/catID/30960BF5-6C25-44B9-992E83CC50D5B17A/111/259/137/
Electronic Privacy Information Center,
www.epic.org/privacy/workplace/
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse,
www.privcyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm
National Employment Lawyers Association, www.nela.org/home.com
Big brother
Percentage of employers monitoring some or all of their employees in the following ways:
Monitoring and reviewing Web Sites visited
76%
Storing and reviewing e-mail messages
55%
Using smartcard technology to control building / data center access
53%
Monitor time spent on the phone and numbers called
51%
Using video surveillance to counter theft, violence, sabotage
51%
Saving and reviewing employees' computer files
50%
Monitoring time employees spend on computer, content, keystrokes entered
36%
Taping employee phone conversations
22%
Using video surveillance to monitor performance
16%
Taping and reviewing voice mail messages
15%
Using global positioning technology to monitor/track company vehicles
8%
Using GPS technology to monitor/track employee ID/smartcards
8%
Using fingerprints scans to control building/data center access
5%
Using GPS technology to monitor/track company cell phones
5%
Using facial recognition technology to control building/data center access
2%
Using iris scan technology to control building access
0.5%
SOURCES: 2005 ELECTRONIC MONITORING & SURVEILLANCE SURVEY BY THE AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION AND EPOLICY INSTITUTE.
February 19, 2006
An employee enters an unauthorized area of the company, his smart-chip badge triggering a hidden surveillance camera. That sends an alert to a security officer, who uses his laptop or cell phone to monitor what the intruder is up to.
Once the realm of Tom Cruise movies, scenes such as this one are playing out now at a worksite near you.
What's more, employer surveillance of workers and property extends beyond the video screen: The boss can tell just what Web sites you've visited on office computers, the content of e-mail you haven't even sent, even your every move through cell phones equipped with global positioning. And coming soon: Employee identification through biometrics - measuring such biological components as fingerprints and voice pattern - as well as grain-of-wheat-sized chips implanted under the skin, turning you, in effect, into an EZPass.
All of which might lead the unsuspecting employee to ask: Just what privacy rights do I have when it comes to electronic monitoring? Darn few, says L. Camille Hebert, law professor at Ohio State University and author of "Employee Privacy Law" (Thomson West).
Certainly, bosses can cite significant reasons for tracking worker activity: Monitoring can go a long way toward cutting down on sexual harassment, workplace accidents and goofing off. Plus, in lawsuits, courts expect employers to be able to hand over electronic evidence. So such surveillance is on the increase: The use of video monitoring for theft, violence and sabotage rose last year to 51 percent of 526 employers surveyed by the American Management Association and ePolicy Institute; only 33 percent were using such monitoring four years earlier. And research company Frost & Sullivan estimates that by 2010, the surveillance and video technology industry will be an $8.64 billion business - more than double what it was in 2003.
The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 - amended in 2001 - gives employers what privacy experts call pretty much carte blanche. Nancy Flynn, executive director of the ePolicy Institute in Columbus, Ohio, says the provisions of the act can be translated this way: "The computer system is the property of the employer and as such the employer has the right to monitor Internet activity and e-mail. Employees should have no reasonable expectation to privacy."
The cost in morale
Still, the exchange of privacy for more efficiency and security carries costs when it comes to employee morale, says Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J. He poses these real and potential situations: A woman who found out she was pregnant, visited an expectant-mothers' Web site and then got confronted by her boss later that day. Or a worker who sends her doctor an e-mail containing terminology that could also have sexual meaning. Or those subjected to video surveillance in restrooms or changing rooms.
Most employers who use forms of surveillance say they notify their employees. The American Management/ePolicy Institute research found that 80 percent let workers know they're being monitored for computer content, keystrokes and keyboard time; 82 percent let them know computer files are stored and reviewed; 86 percent, that e-mail is tracked; and 89 percent, that Web visits are monitored. Most members of the human resources committee of the Hauppauge Industrial Association have monitoring policies, said Patty O'Connell, committee co-chairwoman and human resources vice president of People's Alliance Federal Credit Union, headquartered in Hauppauge. That institution's policy is clearly stated, she said, and covers all types of information systems, including faxing. And, as a financial institution, it does engage in video monitoring.
When used irresponsibly, that's the most invasive form of electronic surveillance, said Jeremy Gruber, legal director of the National Workrights Institute based in Princeton, N.J.
Before and after work, when her office at Salem State College in Massachusetts was empty, secretary Gail Nelson would change in and out of exercise clothes behind a tall partition. Her boss never told her she was being captured on tape by a hidden camera that had been set up to monitor for intruders.
She filed a lawsuit and lost the case. In a brief in support of her appeal, Gruber wrote: "Some cameras are entirely appropriate. Security cameras in stairwells and parking garages make us all safer without intruding on privacy. But employers often install cameras in areas that are indefensible ... where employees undress, including bathrooms, locker rooms, sometimes inside the stalls themselves. ... A thin line exists between surveillance and voyeurism."
Just three states - California, New York and Rhode Island - have statutes prohibiting video monitoring of workplace restrooms or other areas where employees undress.
Ed Wolm, 33, said that last year the staff in his network maintenance department at Cablevision were given cell phones that he said were equipped with GPS tracking. He said the system could not be de-activated as long as the phone was on - and it had to be on when workers were on call on their off time - so the belief was the company could monitor their whereabouts round the clock.
His feeling was "the company didn't trust you." At the time, he was engaged in union organizing activity for Local 1049, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and he said the potential for monitoring of location as well as numbers dialed had a chilling effect. He has since resigned and is now an apprentice lineman with Local 1049.
Though some cell phone devices come with GPS capability, additional software is necessary before an employer can track employee whereabouts and the company does not have that, said a Cablevision spokesperson, who added: "We don't monitor employee whereabouts."
Although some observers maintain the employee has drawn the short end of the stick in this age of surveillance, Craig Cornish, an attorney in Colorado Springs, Colo., with expertise in workplace privacy, says that's yet to be seen. Yes, he says, some courts "bend over backward to support the employer, but that's not universally true." And he said that so far, no case has reached the ultimate arbiter, the U.S. Supreme Court. Lewis Maltby of the National Workrights InstituteMaltby points to The Employee Changing Room Privacy Act (HR582) that's been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, with the goal of prohibiting restroom and changing room video surveillance.
Serving a purpose
Despite its potential for abuse, electronic monitoring can and does serve valuable workplace purposes. "Like everything - there's a good side and a bad," says Richard Soloway, chairman of NAPCO Security Inc. in Amityville, which manufactures site access and surveillance equipment.
He said he convenes think tanks for quarterly discussions for trends in corporate security and problem-solving amid privacy concerns.
Where it might work
Supporters of workplace surveillance point to evidence of its value:
Fourteen nursing home employees in Rochester were charged last month by State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer with fraud and falsifying records because they had moved call bells out of patients' reach so they could watch television or socialize. Their activity was captured when the room of a 70-year-old man with dementia was monitored through video surveillance cameras.
Such cameras can spot the license plate of a reported domestic violence abuser if he drives into the company parking lot, Soloway said; and a security officer at one Texas manufacturer noticed and reported boxes piled high on inventory shelves that were about to topple over, thus averting possible injury to workers.
Such systems are a deterrent to goofing off online, said Doug Fowler, president of SpectorSoft, a Vero Beach, Fla.-based Internet monitoring software maker. His Web site features a case study from a client, First National Bank of Long Island, which quotes the bank's information technology services manager as saying of employees, "A cup of coffee and checking the news online for five minutes in the morning, that's not a big thing. ... But the bridal registry or tiffany.com for two and a half hours a day ... take it easy!"
And security measures on the horizon have Maltby concerned. Two security professionals in Cincinnati voluntarily had tiny radio frequency identification chips embedded in their arms - to forgo carrying worker identification cards. Using such chips for recognition only is harmless enough, says Maltby. But long-term? "It's bad enough some employees have to carry a GPS tracking device in their hands. The thought of having the device implanted in your body is frightening."
Another concern - blogs, said O'Connell, a subject discussed at the most recent HIA committee meeting. Flynn agreed that employers need to learn more about blog monitoring applications, as well as become familiar with blog search engines - such as Technorati.com, Daypop.com and Blogpulse.com - where they can plug in the company name, names of executives and products to see just what's being said about them.
"Blogs," she says, "open up the business to all of the same risks posed by e-mails and instant messaging and Internet use."
Did you know?
If you're accessing your personal e-mail account at, say, AOL or Yahoo, through your work computer, your boss may well be able to monitor that e-mail.
The same goes for personal instant messaging. Employers can track your keystrokes - so they can tell what you've written, even if you end up deleting it. Along those lines, you may delete a file or e-mail, but it's still likely recoverable.
If you access your work server from your home computer, your keystrokes can be monitored.
Only employers in Connecticut and Delaware are required to notify employees they're being monitored.
Office staff who are in charge of monitoring don't regularly read through all the e-mail. Systems are set up to quarantine certain files and messages containing key words related to issues such as harassment or company secrets. Only those e-mails are viewed.
What bosses and workers can do ?
Yes, bosses could be more sensitive to employees' privacy concerns. But employees, too, can start asking questions and making requests.
First, workers can ask about policy beyond what's stated in the employee handbook. Assuming the company allows staff members to send personal e-mail, Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, said it would not be out of line for a person to say, "I sometimes send e-mail to my wife or children or physician and would like to know more about the procedure so I don't inadvertently compromise my privacy."
Maltby said employees can also ask their bosses to grant them a certain number of e-mail addresses - say to spouse, kids, physician - that are exempt from monitoring.
Bosses should let those with monitoring capability know - in no uncertain terms - that they are not to "monitor for fun," Maltby said. A significant number of employers have never told their computer staff not to snoop, he says.
Nancy Flynn, executive director of the ePolicy Institute in Columbus, says employers can host training sessions to spell out the reasons for monitoring, as well as the methods used. When she has conducted such sessions, she says people have walked away saying, "I had no idea the company could be sued or I could be fired or confidential information could be leaked that way."
Resources
National Workrights Institute www.workrights.org/index.html
ePolicy Institute, www.epolicyinstitute.com/index.shtml
American Management Association research,
www.amanet.org/press/amanews/ems05.htm
Nolo legal publishers, www.nolo.com/resource.cfm/catID/30960BF5-6C25-44B9-992E83CC50D5B17A/111/259/137/
Electronic Privacy Information Center,
www.epic.org/privacy/workplace/
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse,
www.privcyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm
National Employment Lawyers Association, www.nela.org/home.com
Big brother
Percentage of employers monitoring some or all of their employees in the following ways:
Monitoring and reviewing Web Sites visited
76%
Storing and reviewing e-mail messages
55%
Using smartcard technology to control building / data center access
53%
Monitor time spent on the phone and numbers called
51%
Using video surveillance to counter theft, violence, sabotage
51%
Saving and reviewing employees' computer files
50%
Monitoring time employees spend on computer, content, keystrokes entered
36%
Taping employee phone conversations
22%
Using video surveillance to monitor performance
16%
Taping and reviewing voice mail messages
15%
Using global positioning technology to monitor/track company vehicles
8%
Using GPS technology to monitor/track employee ID/smartcards
8%
Using fingerprints scans to control building/data center access
5%
Using GPS technology to monitor/track company cell phones
5%
Using facial recognition technology to control building/data center access
2%
Using iris scan technology to control building access
0.5%
SOURCES: 2005 ELECTRONIC MONITORING & SURVEILLANCE SURVEY BY THE AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION AND EPOLICY INSTITUTE.
February 19, 2006