Legal scholars will always argue that new laws are absolutely in need for defining the current parameters of the acceptable workplace monitoring and for respecting personal privacy. Supervision of the employees used to have some of the limits. Managers should not just watch every employee always and all the time. It is no longer true in this current day. As discussed in some of the drafts, technology enables invasive and pervasive monitoring.
As the dispersed workforce are becoming quite common, there is always more incentive to just rely on the technology as alternative to the current face to face based interactions with the mangers right now. With some of the advents of the ubiquitous network records, phone apps, browser history retention, wearable fitness tracks, electronic sensors, facial recognition system and thermal sensors, there can always be limitless worker surveillance now. These are some of the major examples of business security systems Philadelphia for you to consider.
Rights given to the companies:
Companies now have the right and even obligation to operate in an efficient manner. Some oversight of the employees is always necessary but as legal scholars might argue, limitless worker surveillance might raise discrimination and privacy concerns.
Sometimes, it might be easier for you to see whenever the workplace surveillance goes too far off. The surveys even site that outrage has followed in some cases when workers discovered OccupEye sensors, placed right under desks to track worker attendance under pretense of just gathering energy efficiency data. The outcry has finally ended the project.
Some real life incidents to consider:
The issue of work life surveillance has its share of nuances as well. It was in May 20165 when a woman was fired from wok. After she deleted the Xora employee tracking app from her phone. In her defense, she said that the managers used to monitor her movements even when not at work.
The defendant in such case responded to the allegations made by the woman. By arguing that the plaintiff has consented to use of the tracing app on her company based phone. And she violated company policy by failing to turn the app off during non-working hours despite being trained for it.
Furthermore, the company claims that she worked for another firm. While adding up with this firm, holding two positions as full-time worker. Which is violation of the conflict of interest policy. The complain of the plaintiff claims that the supervisor of the woman had accepted such arrangement. So her medical benefits from prior employment might remain in effect until coverage from the recent company took place.
Always in a dilemma:
Going through the notions, it is hard to determine whether surveillance systems in business area is leaning more towards worker privacy or the business efficiency. There always needs to be a balance in this regard as it is the only way out over here. For any other details in this regard, it is always mandatory to catch up with the companies dealing with these systems now.