Technology creates employer-employee rights and policy issues in many ways. First, employees have a right to privacy. However, it is observed that more often, technology provides for close monitoring of the employees. Monitoring of employees is done by recording all the undertaking that an employee makes on computers within the organization. Employers can use the company cell phones to record and track employees’ whereabouts at all times. Such actions violate the rights of employees to privacy. On the other hand, employers may be undertaking such records under the belief that it is their right to ensure company safety. Technological surveillance has been enhanced by policies such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which allows full monitoring of employees’ email messages and telephone calls ( SHRM, 2019) . Monitoring of employees' emails and phone calls occurs either in the course of business, when employees consent, or when employers provide workers with the email system.
While policies encourage employees’ surveillance, some acts have been drafted to prohibit disclosure or interception of electronic communication. For instance, the ECPA 1986 forbids unlawful access and disclosure of electrical information. Also, the Act provides that only the intended recipient of electronic communication has the right to disclose the information, and institutions such as the government can only access the electronic information by first acquiring a court order or search warrant. There are many examples of technological surveillance which exist in the current organization settings. Therefore, employers should establish ways to maintain their rights of ensuring organizational safety while protecting employees' privacy and rights. According to SHRM (2019), HR should ensure that the surveillance is not tailored and that substantial business justifications support the need for monitoring. Regarding social media, no specified laws are governing the rights of employers and employees. However, it is noted that employees should err willingly on the side of caution because there is no law protecting their electronic lives from employer surveillance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The arguments that should be given more focus from the case study are those based on the employee handbook, company policy, and labor agreement. The organizational code of conduct is governed by the employee handbook, company policies, and labor agreement. Thus, any employee action that violates the stipulated standards require just cause from the human resource department. Looking at the case of Jesse Stansky, it is observed that when the disagreement heated up between him and Gary Lindekin, he became the first to place his hands on Gary's shoulder forcefully. Often, intention justifies commission, and thus, the human resource department was rightful in terming Stansky's actions as fighting a co-worker.
Nonetheless, it is outlined in the labor agreement that just causes termination can include actions such as dishonesty, unprofessional conduct, inefficiency, violation of company policy, destruction of property, or being under the influence of alcohol and narcotics ( Snell et al., 2015) . One of Phoenix Semiconductor Company's primary policies is maintaining a cordial work environment, prohibiting fighting between workers in the job place. The argument between Stansky and Gary was about how to calibrate a sensitive piece of production equipment effectively.
Because Stansky had received a three-day suspension for a "system control failure" earlier, it is worth arguing that he feared when the equipment is not effectively calibrated, he may be suspended again. However, it is ethical to observe the company policies. As such, he was supposed to report the disagreement to human resources for a proper solution, rather than become upset and show an intention to fight a fellow employee. Unprofessional conduct refers to workplace behaviors ranging from harassment of other employees, habitual absence or tardiness, or bringing personal issues to the workplace ( Tricco et al., 2018) . If I were the arbitrator, I could have terminated Stansky because, first, his record shows he had received several disciplinary warnings for poor attendance. This is one of the unprofessional codes of conduct. Secondly, he harassed another worker, which still breaks the professional conduct. Often, unprofessional conduct should be dealt with as quickly as possible because it can disrupt the entire organization. Thus, I would terminate Stansky to warn the rest of the employees and ensure the organization is not disrupted.
References
SHRM. (2019, October 24). Managing workplace monitoring and surveillance . https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/workplaceprivacy.aspx
Snell, S., Morris, S., & Bohlander, G. W. (2015). Managing human resources . Cengage Learning.
Tricco, A. C., Rios, P., Zarin, W., Cardoso, R., Diaz, S., Nincic, V., Mascarenhas, A., Jassemi, S., & Straus, S. E. (2018). Prevention and management of unprofessional behavior among adults in the workplace: A scoping review. PLOS ONE , 13 (7), e0201187. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201187
