A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
1. If tracking employees through technology is not illegal, why should Megan be concerned if she is not involved in any misconduct? Employers have the technological means, and occasionally the inclination, to find out what employees are doing on their own time. However, their right to monitor what the employee does off the job and make decisions based on that conduct is limited. Employees of government and public entities have a constitutional right to privacy that protects them from most employer monitoring of, or even inquiring about, their off-the-job conduct. For this reason, public employees are largely protected from monitoring. In the private sector, a number of laws prohibit employers from intruding into their employees’ lives outside of work. Some state constitutions specifically include a right to privacy, which prevents private employers from looking into their employees’ off-duty activity. Some states have laws prohibiting employers from taking any job-related action against a worker based on that worker’s lawful conduct off the job, however in the State of Florida is an “at will”
What that means is an employer has the ability to terminate your employment for any reason, or for no reason at all however the State of Florida also recognizes an implied-contract exception as an exception to at-will employment. Under the implied contract exception, an employer may not fire an employee “when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, even though no express, written instrument regarding the employment relationship exists.” (Summers, 2000, page. 65). Even in states that don’t provide private workers with a constitutional or statutory right to privacy, it is generally illegal for an employer to intrude unreasonably into the “seclusion” of an employee. This means that physical areas in which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy are off-limits to employers, unless there is a very good reason to intrude. The same balancing approach often applies to private information. Generally speaking, an employer may not inquire or otherwise obtain facts about employees’ private lives. For example, an employer may not ask an employee about her medical condition which is protected information as indicated on ((Ferrell, 2015, page.29).
Megan should become more familiar with the organization’s policies and procedures and follow the “chain of command” when presenting the findings of her investigation. 2. At this point, what are Megan’s alternatives to resolve her current dilemma about her involvement and knowledge about GAC’s tracking employees? When Debbie stated, “I hope you have not spoken to anyone about these cases because that violates confidentiality.” At that moment, it is crucial, in my opinion, for Meagan to communicate to her supervisor what occurred previously with Jeremy and the details of the conversation stating the truth. Unfortunately, rumors are a part of any organization and they should be reduced to a minimum or not happen at all, however with an organization that employees 1000 workers for example, or even 10 employees, it is almost impossible to prevent them, since they are actions that do occur daily especially if the working relationship is friendly. I personally respect an employee more for being up front and honest than an employee who attempts to cover mistakes that can lead to administrative action. In my opinion, we can train an employee, however we cannot teach honesty.
Honesty is understood in a working relationship and choices are made every day that leads to one or the other. I would suggest for Meagan to be honest and accept any course of action from administration, than being caught in a lie that would lead to termination regardless. 3. Who should have a stake or an interest in how GAC tracks and monitors its employees? Stakeholders: Investors, shareholders, employees, government agencies, communities who share a claim or role on company products, operations, and outcomes (Ferrell, 2015, page. 32).
Summers, C. (2000). Journal of Labor and Employment Law. Employment at Will: The Devine Rights of Employers (Vol. 3, p. 65). Philadelphia, PA: U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L.
Ferrell, O., & Fraedrich, J. (2015). Stakeholder Relationships, Social Responsibility, and Corporate Governance. In Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases (10th ed., p. 31). Stamford, CT: CENGAGE Learning.