Privacy is one of the most significant ethical concerns in the modern working environment. People live and work in a world where technological advancements allow the proliferation of our lives to the extent that there is hardly any information that we can consider to be private. Moreover, the political and economic dynamics bend the public's will to accepting excessive intrusion. In the article, ‘Work, Privacy, and Autonomy, ’Richard Lippke discusses the various considerations for the need for privacy, as well as those that undermine its importance. He also explores the implications of privacy on the productivity and autonomy of the employees.
After an impartial analysis of the contemporary employee-employer relationship, Lippke concludes that the preservation of the employees' privacy contributes to the improvement of their working autonomy (Lippke, 2016). He demonstrates, in brief, how autonomy is desirable for the workers and beneficial to the business. To expound on his argument, Lippke offers two explanations on how privacy contributes to autonomy. The first proposition is that privacy is critical in developing a person's concept of autonomy. The idea is that one is in full control of all aspects of their lives. There must be some person, organization, or activity that is subject to another's actions, intentions, and thoughts. Moreover, one must be aware of the control they possess. Privacy, therefore, contributes to the creation and sustenance of autonomy among individuals by providing them with the means to decide with home to share their physical and psychological experiences. Thus, privacy promotes autonomy. Privacy also fosters the concept of self-worth among people. For example, if an organization does not invade the privacy of its employees, they are more likely to recognize the intrinsic trust that the business has in them. The upholding of privacy, therefore, allows individuals to act and make decisions without the crippling fear of criticism, ridicule, or punishment. They might make mistakes, but they are likely to consider such experiences positively, learn from them, and take better courses of action in the future. Resultantly, they establish healthier personal and professional relationships, they are more confident, and their general productivity improves. Contrary, the invasion of privacy makes people lose their sense of value and are therefore heavily dependent on the decisions of others.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I agree that the need for autonomy significantly increases the value of privacy. However, privacy affects other working aspects other than autonomy. In a workplace where supervisors monitor and control the actions of other employees there would be problems worse than the lack of professional independence. For example, supervisors are likely to notice and admonish an employee that takes multiple bathroom breaks within a short period. The worker could lose their self-respect over something as trivial as a congenitally weak bladder or digestive tract illnesses. It is worse if the confrontation occurs in front of the other workers. The experience would be humiliating, resulting in loss of respect for oneself and from others. Such a working environment is unpalatable. There would be low morale and high employee turnover, both of which prevent the business from achieving optimal productivity.
After shedding light on his argument, Lippke proceeds to establish the most practical approach and rationale in the acquisition of information by a business from its current and prospective employees. He cites George Brenkert's and Joseph Desjardin's proposition of the contractual model of employment (Lippke, 2016). This model places the burden of responsibility on the employer and the duties on the employee. While Lippke agrees that the contract is a significant improvement from the previous principal-agent framework, he criticizes it. The contractual model provides that the two parties are equal, and they arrive at an agreement without coercion or duress and that the information both parties provide is truthful and does not seek to manipulate the other unfairly. Also, contracts generally provide that either party has the right to confirm the accuracy and authenticity of information that the other presents. It is the validation of the facts in the contracts that often leads employers to invade the privacy of their prospective and current employees. Both Brenkert and Desjardin propose that the extent of employers' information acquisition should be within what is relevant to the performance of the individual while on the job. Lippke vehemently disagrees with them.
First, Lippke argues that the contractual model upon which Brenkert and Desjardin base their proposition is not realistic. He finds that the idea that the employer and employee are equal parties, as a contract suggests, is false. Employers generally have a higher bargaining power than employees because many jobs require little to moderate training. Hence it is easy to replace uncooperative workers. Employees also need jobs more than the business needs them. Consequently, unemployment has far more devastating effects on individuals than underemployment has on employers. It is difficult, therefore, to imagine a scenario in which a prospective employee inquires about the company's working conditions, promotion policies, and financial stability. Such a person would most likely not get that information, and on the off chance they do, the company would most likely not hire them. The balance of power weighs heavily on the employer, and workers often resign their fate to the former’s decisions. This dynamic prevents the validation of the contractual model as a basis for establishing what information and employer should acquire from their employees.
Another reason for Lippke’s rejection of Brenkert’s and Desjardin’s arguments is that any information can be relevant depending on the existing conditions of the work environment. He exemplifies his case by proposing a work environment where the current crop exercise political and religious conservativism, then it is prudent for an employer to seek out someone who will not upset the harmony. However, he cautions that the readers that he does not propose the support of workplace prejudices. He is merely expounding that any information: recreational habits, past judicial incidents, sexual preferences, financial behavior, among others, can affect the workplace environment. Their distinction of job relevance is, therefore, inconsequential.
Lippke’s arguments compel me to agree with him. He acknowledges the gap between the theoretical ideology of a contract and the contemporary practical nature of the relationship between the employer and employee. However, while he attacks the contractual model of employment, he does not offer any insight as to what would be the ideal scenario. It is difficult to imagine how the job market in the United States, and indeed the rest of the world would drastically change and offer an equal opportunity to both parties. In most cases, the employer will have an advantage over their workers. His second reason is the more persuasive one. Various industries in different societies demand varying ways of workplace interaction. It is therefore impractical, and unfair to employers to stipulate that they cannot acquire certain types of information from their employees. Also, providing a vague statement of job relevance will result in malicious misinterpretation by employers to justify the gathering of information that they might not need. I, therefore, agree with Lippke that the argument does not accomplish anything regarding providing a solution to the problem of employee privacy.
Lippke advocates for the establishment of employee privacy so that they can operate autonomously. As such, he opposes the acquisition of some types of information that would inhibit the establishment of privacy. He uses the concept of the value of privacy he established earlier on to justify his opposition. He argues that if an employer acquires all sorts of information, and use it to make employment decisions, corporations will unfairly influence the lives of people. People will be unwilling to experiment with new actions or ideas for the fear that such behavior may result in their failure to get or keep a job. Sadly, some of these activities do not have to be work-related. They could be things one may wish to do during their high school or college years or while on vacation. Companies would, therefore, control the lives of people from birth and throughout their productive years just so that they can successfully go through the job recruitment and evaluation processes. Also, even if the actions are work-related, the rigidity of the working environment would prevent employers from exploring their creativity for fearing that the information from such action would work against them in the future. In light of these reasons, Lippke agrees with Brenkert’s and Desjardin’s propositions that restrictions are necessary to try and establish some power balance between the employer and employee (Lippke, 2016).
Lippke also opposes the use of specific methods to acquire information. While he acknowledges that the information may be relevant to the job, he fails to concur that the end justifies the means. His first reason, though he quickly cautions against using it as a primary argument, is that many methods are either inaccurate or provide non-contextual information. He identifies the flaw in that argument as that it is possible for scientific advancements to make such procedures reliable and essentially irreproachable. However, their ability to offer the right information does not justify their usage. Lippke instead chooses to focus on the problem of intrusion. He argues that the invasion could be physical, as in the case of a polygraph test. However, it is the psychological invasion that causes more significant concern. Despite the intrusion, one can still argue that much of the information from these processes is relevant to the job, and there are no other ways of getting it. While some might be slightly more inconvenient, there is nothing astronomically wrong with them. As such, Lippke goes further to explore the effects of these methods on the workers. He identifies two possible reactions. The first is that the techniques are a constant reminder to the employees of the imbalance of power in the job market. Many of the employees cannot refuse to undertake the tests, or reject surveillance cameras, as it would lead to their termination and unceremonious replacement. Moreover, if an employer chooses to, they can abuse the power they have over their employees. They can coerce or threaten the workers with the termination of their contracts if they fail to act in a certain way. Some may ask for sexual favors from their subordinates. Others might demand that the employee acts unprofessionally or impartially in executing their duties. Secondly, testing and surveillance without a due cause imply that the workers are not trustworthy. Lippke notes that the apparent distrust has no merit, since only about a sixth of all employees have a history of drug-related issues, theft or dishonesty. The lack of trust inhibits autonomy. In turn, the lack of autonomy creates a mundane working environment, where most people view having a job as a necessary evil instead of an opportunity for growth.
I agree that there exists a grave imbalance in the employment setup. Despite multiple arguments against the acquisition of random employee information, it is hard to ignore its importance to a business. Also, proprietors establish rigid authoritative structures that aim at providing success to the stakeholders. Employees are, therefore, the collateral damage. The curtailment of their freedom and invasion of their privacy is the cost of doing business. Also, the fluctuating employment demand means that an individual's employment status is at the mercy of their employer. Therefore, it is essential to establish both the employer's and employee's rights. Some people view the two as antagonizing elements, but Lippke offers that privacy rights should complement the power gap that the property rights establish. The question at hand, he elaborates, should be finding the extent of power for each set of rights. He further postulates that it would be essential to curtail the current dominance of the authoritarian establishment since it tends to create a negative reaction on the employees. People tend to show up to work while intoxicated or are dishonest while executing their duties since the current framework does not seek to establish the cause of such behavior. Instead, employers want to eliminate it. Therefore, I feel the inclination to agree with that observation since the rigid authoritative structure makes the workplace unstimulating and depressing. Indecent behavior, thus, could very well stem from the need to break the structural, functional, and interactive dynamics of the workplace.
Privacy breeds autonomy. In turn, autonomy improves productivity. While this causal relationship may appear obvious, many employers focus on the profits. As long as they are happy with the numbers, the welfare of their employees is of little concern to them. Therefore, it is paramount that we re-evaluate the dynamics of the employment relationship, re-assess the value of employee privacy and autonomy, and establish policies that maintain a healthy balance of power between the two parties.
References
Lippke, R. L. (2016). Work, Privacy, and Autonomy. In W. Shaw and V. Barry (Ed.), Moral Issues in Business (473-479). Boston, MA: Cengage.
