Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Work Place Broadcasting Companies - 1,613 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Workplace privacy has always been monitored by employers on their employees. Each and every communication made by employees is monitored by the employers. This system although prevalent today in most western countries, it has met resistance from employees who feel that their privacy has always been violated. Workplace monitoring is done on telephone, electronic mails and voice mails as well as computers are being monitored by the employers. Workplace monitoring is done in order to ensure that employees dont indulge in criminal activities like Intellectual property crimes; employees dont waste time on surfing and concentrate on other sites. It is also done to ensure that secrecy of the company is maintained as well as employees dont file cases against the company.

CONTENTS. PAGE. Definition of workplace privacy 3 CURRENT CASES ON WORKPLACE PRIVACY 3 WORKPLACE PLACE TRENDS RELATED TO CASES ABOVE 4 Pros and cons of workplace privacy 5 Key learnings 6 Conclusion 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 7 WORK PLACE PRIVACY Definition of workplace privacy Work place privacy refers to a situation where employees in the organization are exposed to monitoring by employer while at their place of work. CURRENT CASES ON WORKPLACE PRIVACY CASE 1. Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. , No.

S 059692, 2001 Cal. LEXIS 3900 (Cal. Sup. Ct. June 24, 2001) Mark Sanders worked for the Psychic Marketing Group (PMG) as a "tele psychic, " giving readings to customers who telephoned the company's 900 number. In 1992, Stacy Lescht, a journalist for American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), as part of an investigation of the tele psychic industry, obtained work as a tele psychic for PMG.

During her employment with PMG, Lescht covertly videotaped conversations with her coworkers, including Sanders. Specifically, Lescht taped 2 conversations with Sanders: (1) the first conversation when Sanders and Lescht were standing in the aisle outside Lescht's cubicle; and (2) a second conversation which took place inside Sanders' cubicle. Sanders sued Lescht. With respect to the invasion of privacy claim, however, the jury found that even though Sanders might expect his conversations to be overheard by coworkers, he had a limited right of privacy against being videotaped by a journalist in the workplace. The jury awarded compensatory damages to Sanders of $ 335, 000, and exemplary damages of about $ 300, 000. CASE 2: Trotter v.

Grattan Ltd, (2004) al l. Eng report. Mr Trotter was employed by Grattan at Anchor House as a senior analyst programmer from January 1997. He objected to the implementation of the stop and search policy at Anchor House and made his objections plain to his line manager but lodged no formal grievance before the policy was introduced on 28 May 2001. On 5 June 2001, pursuant to the policy, he was stopped by a Security Officer; he refused to be searched. He offered to be searched by the Police if they were called; they were not.

He was briefly suspended but thereafter, as the Tribunal found, there was substantial dialogue between Grattan and Mr Trotter about the policy and his objections to it. The Tribunal found that Grattan listened to what he said and, indeed, made a change to the policy by providing that, on refusal to permit a random search, an employee should only be suspended if there were reasonable grounds to suspect him of dishonesty. Mr Trotter then lodged a formal grievance; that grievance went through all stages of Grattan's grievance procedure and concluded without agreement. The Tribunal found that Mr Trotter wanted the abolition of random stop and search but was prepared to agree to stop and search on reasonable grounds; at paragraphs 31 and 32 of their decision they identified 2 specific objections to the policy which Mr Trotter held namely objections to random body searches and to random searches of mobile phones. WORKPLACE PLACE TRENDS RELATED TO CASES ABOVE. From above case of Sanders any employee who is monitored in his place of work where the policy clearly states that he will not be monitored and in furtherance of that he / she is being monitored then, the employee is free to bring a cause of action against that company.

However, where the policy is silent on the position of work place privacy being monitored, then it means the employees are subject to workplace monitoring. If an employee is monitored in his private capacity while not in workplace performing his duty even though within the premises of his workplace then he will be entitled for damages. In this regard Sanders being monitored while out of his duty but within the premises is a clear violation of his privacy and therefore he was rewarded damages. Further workplace privacy cases are favoring corporate than employees.

There is no clear legal framework has been put in place to guard against workplace privacy. It is provided that unless accompany policy provides at there is no snooping or spying then companies are free to spy or monitor employees activities at their place of work. In Trotter v. Grattan co. Ltd. above, It has been provided by the tribunal that, an employer has a reasonable right to interference on the privacy of an employee at work place.

Therefore in this regard Trotter was unlikely to succeed service the policy had provision providing for stop and search policy. Therefore the only solution is for the employees to subject themselves to monitoring but it is easy for them to get out of this work place privacy troubles. Another trend arising out of the cases is that most corporate or companies are loosing employees due to its system of monitoring. Most employees are against work place monitoring.

Most employees are against work place monitoring and therefore they decide to quit their jobs. Most of the organization or companies feel that through monitoring their secrecy will be maintained and they can be able to determine any activities carried out which are against the state. On the other hand employees are not agreeing to this. They feel that their privacy is being violated since they should be left free without being monitored while at their place of work. Work place spying or monitoring need to be addressed since today there are so many cases pending in courts against employees monitoring on workers. Pros and cons of workplace privacy.

Workplace privacy has its own advantages and disadvantages they can be enumerated as follows: Advantages (pros) of workplace privacy. Work place privacy assists the company to cut down expenses or costs. Once employees are aware of monitoring they dont misuse the company property for example telephone, emails and other office equipments. Maintains secrecy / privacy of the company; Due to monitoring employees maintains the secrets of the company.

They fear to reach out any company information. Reduces gossiping in the offices: In most of the organizations employees like gossiping by calling one another top chat unnecessary issues. By monitoring they are unable to make such calls. However work place privacy has its disadvantages (cons) equally. These are: - Kills the working morale of employees: Monitoring kills the morale of employees. The employees might be working but they do it under duress because it is necessary that they should work.

No privacy of employees: Employees privacy is interfered with at work place. Employees are not able to maintain their privacy. Each talk they make either to friends, relatives or family members is not kept a secret since employees monitor these talks. High rate of employee leaving their jobs: Most employees leave their jobs because of monitoring, since they are monitored, they feel insecure and opt to leave their job because their privacy is infringed. Key learnings Key learning in this study is how workplace privacy has affected the employees in their place of work.

This system has not been embraced by the employees. They feel that their privacy have been violated and therefore they are not comfortable with the system. On the other hand the organizations feel that it is the only way they are able to maintain their secrecy and get their staff down to work. This system has brought a conflict between employers and employees. The employees contend that their hands are tied up since every communication they make is monitored.

This has led to many employees terminating services opting to look for jobs elsewhere. In the United States of America, many cases are pending in courts regarding violation of workplace rights. In this employees feel that their workplace rights are personal rights that have been violated and they should be compensated. Employers and employees should therefore reach consensus and agree as to what extent this workplace monitoring should be done. The absence of such consensus will see more accumulation of workplace cases in courts of law. Conclusion Conclusively as much as workplace privacy is important and beneficial to the organization, it should be applied reasonably so as to ensure that the interests of employees are taken into consideration equally.

Employees make an organization and therefore there should always be comfortable at their place of work. This will enhance their morale of working. In this regard, excess monitoring should be avoided and if any a reasonable one. In the current trend most employees are leaving their jobs due to this practice. Others are seeking legal redress because they feel that their rights to work have been violate To eliminate or create a universally accepted system there should be a legalized law regulating this workplace privacy. Most employees feel that they are unfairly treated.

It is important also that employees which are not subject to monitoring by employers. BIBLIOGRAPHY REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY? , S. Not, universiteit Tilburg, 2006. Work place journal, Institute of personnel management, quarterly publication, 2006.


Free research essays on topics related to: broadcasting companies, employees feel, workplace, privacy, work place

Research essay sample on Work Place Broadcasting Companies

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com