A Critique of "Privacy Rights: The New Employee Relations Battlefield"

Anyone who has ever applied for a job knows that most employers require a drug test, reference check, and a background check. Employers are also taking measures such as monitoring email and phone conversations, installing video surveillance, and conducting locker searches. These sorts of measures can cause many questions to arise in the workplace. Many reports of privacy right violations are not even heard of until and employee feels as if their privacy rights have been violated and a law suit is filed.

In his article William S. Hubbartt asks the question "why are conflicts over privacy increasing?"(623). Hubbartt informs his readers that employers are not intentionally trying to spy on their employees, but are merely trying to protect the assets and the interest of the company. Employers have taken these actions after suffering losses caused by drug abuse and theft. Hubbartt argues that "such common deterrents as drug testing and workplace surveillance are extremely sensitive and can offend employees if they are not explained adequately and implemented with care" (623). These types of issues are the cause for lawsuits to be filed against an employer for invasion of their privacy rights.

Workplace privacy issues are confusing and many employees are unaware of their legal rights. Hubbartt explains that our privacy rights on the job are much more limited than most of may think. "The constitution affords only limited privacy protections and local laws vary from state to state and like federal laws, are subject to judicial interpretation"(624). Hubbartt continues to inform his readers that privacy rights are not guaranteed in the workplace and can cause conflict between employees and employers.

The issues that Hubbartt discusses are extremely sensitive due to the fact that privacy rights in the workplace are not guaranteed. In the case of Arlene Kurt who was denied employment for not signing an affidavit stating that she had not used tobacco products for one year prior to seeking employment with the city. Kurtz was not offered the job because she refused to sign the affidavit. Kurtz then filed a law suit against the city for denying her employment for this reason. She did not win the lawsuit because the city was able to justify its smoking policy.

The case of Arlene Kurtz is a good example of how privacy rights in the workplace are not fundamentally guaranteed. Kurtz felt that her privacy rights had been violated because it interfered with her personal life. This case offers evidence that employers are now taking a step further to monitor their employers. How far can an employee go when it comes to monitoring employees? This is a question that comes to mind when such lawsuits are being filed against employers.

What an employee does off the job is his or her business or is it? This is another question that Hubbartt asks. Hubbartt asks us to consider the case of Robin Joy Brown who applied to the Sate of Georgia for a position as a state's attorney. Brown was an excellent candidate for the job and met all the perquisites. Brown was offered the job and her offer for employment was withdrawn after Attorney General Bowers learned that Brown planned to wed another woman. Brown filed a lawsuit stating that she was fired due to her participation in a private religious ceremony of marriage. Brown won the case because the employer had violated her constitutional right of intimate association.

Employers are now taking monitoring their employees to another level. But how far is to far. This is where there is a thin line concerning privacy rights in the workplace. As Hubbartt states "employee beliefs and lifestyles may be related to religion, marital status, or sexual preference and these issues are highly personal, and improper handling of them can lead to privacy invasion or other legal claims" (626). Employees need to be aware of their employer's policies concerning privacy rights. As stated previously privacy rights are not guaranteed and employees need to be aware of their rights to ensure that they are protected.

Employees are exposed to many types of privacy invasion in the workplace. These include email and telephone monitoring, drug testing, and video surveillance. There are very few laws in place to protect employees from privacy invasion. "In all aspects of out lives, certain individual freedoms are given up in order to accommodate the needs of the public, the government, or an organization such as an employer" (626). I find this statement to be very true and agree with all aspects of this article. Hubbartt informs us of how our rights in the workplace can be violate while never taking the employee or employers side.

William S. Hubbartt is right to focus on the rights of the employee. Since many laws are not in place to protect the employee Hubbartt does a good job of making his readers aware of how privacy invasion claims may arise. The strength of this article is the specific court cases listed throughout the article. It provides an insight to how and why such issues occur. "Privacy rights in the workplace seem to be diminishing and employer prying seems to be growing" (627). This statement made by Hubbartt is true in my opinion. Employers need to reconsider the degree in which it is necessary to monitor their employees. Work Cited

Hubbartt, William S, Annette TRottenberg, and Donna Winchell. "Elements of Argument." . Privacy Rights: The New Employee Relations Battlefield 8((2006)): 627-627.