On the other hand, many workers frown upon this level of monitoring. Is eyeing an employee's every move, including in the locker rooms and in the restrooms via video camera, necessary? Is the risk of causing health problems to workers for the sake of meeting numerical figures even considered? Is rating a worker's job performance based on production alone an accurate means of assessing a worker's performance? How about the quality of a worker's performance, isn't it important as well?

For the most part, courts favor the employers on the issue of electronic monitoring. According to the American Civil

Corporate security is a concern of many employers. Corporate spying and theft can seriously put a corporation at risk. "A business victimized by corporate spying will find itself at a strong competitive and strategic disadvantage" (Cozic, 1994, 64). To employers, monitoring e-mail and computer networks are necessary. "Computers offer ready points for entry for spies, thieves, disgruntled employees, sociopaths, and bored teens. Once they're in a company's network, they can steal trade secrets, destroy data, sabotage operations, even subvert a particular deal or career" (Behar, 1997, 2). With the possibility of confidential information being retrieved via the computer network or a corporate spy in the corporation sending confidential information by e-mail to a competitor, electronic computer network monitoring is one shield that may offer employers some protection.

Liberties Union (1996) "laws to protect employees require only that employees be treated equally. Employers are, therefore, free to do whatever they wish to their employees as long as they do so in a non-discriminatory manner" (p.1). Employees have limited rights concerning electronic monitoring. "Union contracts, for example, may limit the employer's right to monitor. Also, public sector employees may have some minimal rights under the U.S. Constitution, in particular the Fourth Amendment which safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure" (Center for Public Interest Law, 1994, p.6). The courts seem to weigh the reasonableness of an employee's expectation to privacy against the legitimate business interests of the employer.

American Civil Liberties Union (1994). The rights of employees. ACLU briefing paper. [Online]. Available: http://www.aclu.org/library/pbp12.html

Employers also want employees to understand their rights to protect their businesses with means best suitable. The suitable means include electronic monitoring which may at times be at odds with employees' rights to privacy. Cozic (1994) points out that, "Card keys and other authorization measures used by the Department of Defense for security control access to areas containing classified data rely on personal identifying information and, by their very nature, track employee movements (p. 65)."

Employers realize to run a successful business enterprise takes good employees. They have to be able to recognize good and bad employees by justly assessing both the employees' character and productivity. With the aid of electronic monitoring, employers believe that employees would receive more exposure than they would receive without monitoring. According to Cozic (1994) "such data received from monitoring may assist the employer in assessing an employee's character, productivity, or loyalty (p. 64)."

Many employees also believe the use of electronic monitoring by emp

Some common words found in the essay are:
Public Law, According Cozic, St Louis, Information Age, Aided Manufacturing, According Cameron, Liberties Union, CAM American, Department Defense, electronic monitoring, According ACLU, cozic 1994, employees believe, public law 1994, computer network, keystroke monitoring, video surveillance, monitoring employers, civil liberties, center public law, public law, according cozic, according cozic 1994, employees' rights privacy, civil liberties union,
Approximate Word count = 1902
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)