Employee's Right Of Privacy example essay topic

Ethics Final 1. Definition: Whistle blowing is the release of information by a member or former member of an organization that is evidence of illegal and / or immoral conduct in the organization or conduct in that is not in the public interest. It is something that can only be done by a member of the organization. The difference is due to the fact that an employee is expected to work only as directed, to go through channels, and especially, to act in all matters for the well-being of the organization. The information involved is typically obtained by the employee during his or her employment as part of the job, such information is usually regarded as confidential so that an employee has an obligation not to reveal it.

To go public with information that is damaging to the organization is generally viewed as violating a number of obligations that an employee has as a member of the organization. The information is generally evidence of some significant kind of misconduct on the part of an organization or some of its members. This could involve issues about practices that are legal but contrary to the public interest. Information of this kind could alert the public and aid consumers in counteracting the lobbying effort. The information must be released outside normal channels of communication. In both internal and external whistle-blowing, the information must be revealed in ways that can reasonably be expected to bring about a desired change.

The release of information must be something that is done voluntarily. Whistle-blowing must be undertaken as a moral protest, the motive must be to correct some wrong and not to seek revenge or personal advancement. Whistle-blowing is the voluntary release of nonpublic information, as a moral protest, by a member or former member of an organization outside the normal channels of communication to an appropriate audience about illegal and / or immoral conduct in the organization or conduct in the organization that is opposed in some significant way to the public interest. How morally justified: An agent has an obligation to obey all reasonable directives of the principal.

That is interpreted to exclude illegal or immoral acts. An agent is privileged to reveal information confidentially acquired in the protection of a superior inters of himself or a third person. Protecting oneself from legal liability can reasonably be held to be a superior interest as can preventing some serious harm to others. It is justified only when there are no morally preferable alternatives.

An employee is more justified in blowing the whistle when the wrongdoing concerns matters over which the employee has direct responsibility. The particular role that a whistler-blower occupies in an organization is important. A whistle-blower is justified because of some good to the public, it is important to blow the whistle only when there is a reasonable chance of achieving that good. Utilitarianism-rests on the contribution whistle-blowers make to society. There is a moral right to the freedom of speech and a right to follow ones own conscience. Why ethically problematic: Since he blows the whistle on his own team, his act is seen as a violation of loyalty.

In holding his position, he has assumed certain obligations to his colleagues and clients. He may even have subscribed to a loyalty oath or promise of confidentiality. The public service that the whistle-blowers provide has to be weighted against the disruptive effect that the disclosure of information has on bonds of loyalty. An employee is a principal agent of an employer-a person who is engaged to act in the interests of another person and is authorized to act on the person's behalf; they are hired to work for the benefit of the employer.

Specifically, an employee, as an agent, has an obligation to work as directed, to protect confidential information, and above all, to be loyal. All of these are violated when an employee blows the whistle. Whistle-blowing is clearly a violation of the legal profession's code of ethics. 2. Is there a right to blow the whistle?

Utilitarian right that rests on the contribution whistle-blowers make to society. There is a direct benefit in having instances of illegal corporate conduct, gross waste and mismanagement, and dangers to the public brought to light. These benefits must be balanced against the undeniable harm that a greater incidence of whistle-blowing would have on business firms. The right to freedom of speech Existing legal protection as described by Boat right: For: Anti-retaliation provisions of various pieces of federal legislation. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 forbids employers to retaliate against an employee who files a charge with the National Labor Relations Board.

The VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects employees who file a charge of discrimination, participate in an investigation or proceeding connected with a charge of discrimination, participate in an investigation or proceeding connected with a charge or oppose an activity of a company that the employee believes is discriminatory. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 also prohibits retaliation against any employee who files a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or testifies in a proceeding. The Federal False Claims Act of 1863 was originally passed by Congress to curb fraud during the post-civil war reconstruction period allowing private citizens who blow the whistle on government contractors to share in the financial recovery. It has been updated to encourage employees of defense industry contractors to report any fraud that they observe by entitling whistle-blowers to receive between 15% and 30% of the funds recovered in any suit. More than two-thirds of states have passed laws to protect whistle-blowers. Most of these state statutes specify the procedures that a whistle-blower must follow to receive protection and place requirements on the persons to whom the information is disclosed and on the kind of information that the whistle-blower discloses.

Another source of protection is state court decisions limiting the traditional right of employers to fire at will. Against: Whistle-blowing might be used by disgruntled employees to protest company decisions or to back at their employers. Employees might also find an excuse to blow the whistle in order to cover up their own incompetence or inadequate performance. Forbidding an employer to dismiss or discipline an employee who protects against illegal or improper conduct by management invites employees to take out anti-dismissal insurance by lodging a whistle-blowing complaint. Legislation to protect whistle-blowers would encroach on the traditional right of employers to conduct business as they see fit and would add another layer of regulation to the existing legal restraints on business, thereby making it more difficult for managers to run a company efficiently. The likely increase in employee litigation could also create an informer ethos at work that would threaten the spirit of cooperation and trust on which sound working relationships depend.

Reinstatement in the workplace, which is the usual remedy in union contract grievance procedures, may not be feasible in the case of employees who are perceived as being disloyal. As an alternative to reinstatement, though, whistle-blowers could be offered a monetary settlement to compensate them for the losses suffered by being wrongly dismissed. An award could be arrived at by negotiation or arbitration, or it could result by allowing dismissed employees to sue for tort damages. 3. Significance of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: 4. Jeffrey Wigand and ethical theories that were applicable to his behavior: the name Mr. Jeffrey Wigand is synonymous with whistle-blowing.

He received this title, when he revealed that his former employer knew exactly how addictive and toxic cigarettes were to one's health. The executives of Brown & Williamson chose to ignore, hide, and lie about the research and complaints that had exposed the true risks of smoking. Although he did betray his own company, and every other tobacco company in the industry, he simply was doing his job as head of research and development. Wigand followed the de ontological approach by fulfilling his duty to tell the truth, no matter what the consequences would bring. He took risks that would ruin his reputation, but produced a greater good among all people.

With all the consequences that his actions brought, including losing his job, life and family, he took a very important step to promote good health for everyone. At the point in time when the interview was aired and all this shocking information was exposed, he may have been viewed as causing more pain than pleasure; but now, there clearly is a reverse view on how meaningful and important his efforts have been in the fight against cancer. Children and adults, who choose to smoke in the 21st century, know and understand the risk of tobacco and can choose to make the right decision for themselves. Now many years later, he is praised for being so compassionate about other people over himself. He lives a very satisfied life, giving speeches at schools and promoting the Smoke Free Kids fund in the U.S. and over seas. 5.

Loyal agent argument against whistle-blowing: An employee is an agent of an employer. An agent is a person who is engaged to act in the interests of another person (principal) and is authorized to act on that person's behalf. This retaliation if typical of professionals who are called upon to use their skills in the service of a client. Employees are considered to be agents of an employer in that they are hired to work for the benefit of the employer.

An employee, as an agent, has an obligation to work as directed, to protect confidential information, and to be loyal. An agent is a person who is authorized to act for a principal and has agreed so to act, and who has power to affect the legal relations of his principal with a third party. Agents are employed to carry out tasks that principals are not willing or able to carry out for themselves. The main obligation of an agent is to act in the interest of the principal. An agent is subject to a duty to his principal to act solely for the benefit of the principal in all matters connected with his agency. The ethical basis of the duty of agents is a contractual obligation or an understood agreement to act in the interests of another person.

Why might loyalty not prohibit whistle-blowing? If loyalty means merely following orders and not "rocking the boat", then whistle-blowers are disloyal employees. But loyalty can also be defined as a commitment to the true interests or goals of an organization, in which case whistle-blowers are often very loyal employees. Loyalty may require employees to blow the whistle on wrongdoing in their own organization. Many times, the mistake of the whistle-blower lies not in being disloyal to the organization but in breaking a relation of trust with a few key members of an organization. Loyalty means serving the interests and goals of an organization, which can sometimes lead to divided loyalties and uncertainties about what is the best for an organization.

Members of an organization and people who deal with organizations can respond to dissatisfaction either by leaving the organization and having no further dealings with it or by speaking up and making the dissatisfaction known in the hope of bring about change. Loyalty is a factor that keeps people from exiting and it activates the voice option. As a result of loyalty, these potentially most influential members will stay on longer than they would ordinarily, in the hope or reasoned expectation that improvements or reform can be achieved from within. Employees typically have a number of loyalties both inside and outside an organization, which can come into conflict. The Code of Ethics for Government Service says, "Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or government department". 6.

Trade Secret definition: Information used in the conduct of business and is not commonly known by others. May consist of any formula, pattern, device or complication of information which is used in one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it. All forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information that the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret and the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally know to, and to being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public. Many trade secret disputes between companies could be subject to criminal prosecution.

Factors used to determine whether information is protected as a trade secret: 1) the extent to which the information is known outside his business. 2) The extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in the business. 3) The extent of measures taken by him to guard the secrecy of the information. 4) The value of the information to him and his competitors.

5) The amount of effort or money expended by him in developing the information. 6) The ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. 7. Locke's view of property.

We own the results of our own labor. As long as a company has paid an employee for their efforts and provides them with the wherewithal to do the work, then the company is the rightful owner. What constitutes the property of a person? Many companies require employees to sign an agreement turning over all patent rights to the employer.

How might intellectual discoveries be considered property? Inventors and writers who work with their minds and turn out such products as blueprints and novels should have the same right of ownership that is accorded to creators of more tangible objects. Intellectual property is created by individuals who have been hired by a company for that purpose and paid for their labor. 8.4 means of unethical competitor intelligence gathering? What moral considerations does each involve? 1) Theft and receipt of unsolicited information.

It involves a violation of property rights. Companies that receive the information from someone who offers it for reasons of revenge, monetary rewards or advancement at a new job, are receiving stolen property. 2) Misrepresentation. To gain information under false pretenses is a form of deception that violates a duty to be honest in all dealings.

This can include posing as a customer to obtain information, asking consulting firms to solicit information from competitors, and having someone make phony requests for bids from competitors. 3) Improper influence. To induce an employee to reveal information through bribery or some other means. The employment relation is built on trust and this undermines that trust. An employee who accepts a bribe and turns over a company's secrets has broken a bond with the employer, but the company that offers the bribe has obtained those secrets by inducing that break. Other forms are promising or holding out the possibility of a job or some other opportunity.

4) Covert Surveillance. Some methods for obtaining information intrude in ways that companies have not anticipated and taken steps to prevent. These violate acompany's right to privacy. Planting hidden microphones in a competitors place of business intrudes into an area regarded as private. Respecting a company's reasonable expectations of privacy is in everyone's best interests.

9.4 types of conflict of interest: Biased Judgment. The exercise of judgment is characteristic of professional whose stock in trade is a body of specialized knowledge that is used in the service of clients. Not only are professionals paid for using this knowledge to make judgments for he benefit of others but also part of the value of their services lies in the confidence that can be placed in a professional's judgment. The judgment in all matters should be used to make decisions that are in the best interests of the employing firm.

Accepting a gift for example can bias an employee's judgment. Gifts for any purpose, should be limited to those of nominal value and should be limited to standard advertising items displaying a supplier's logo. Direct Competition. An employee who engages in direct competition with his or her employer because an employee's judgment is apt to be impaired by having another interest and the quality of the employee's work might be reduced by the time and effort devoted to other activities. Direct competition is generally prohibited by companies even when it is disclosed and there is no danger of impaired judgment or diminished work performance.

Misuse of Position. Using your position of employment to enrich yourself or someone else for your personal interest. Taking the opportunity to advance one's personal interest while acting in the capacity as an official. Holding a position with a company gives a person powers and opportunities that would not be available otherwise, and an employee has an obligation not to use these powers and opportunities for personal gain. Extortion in a business setting occurs when a person with decision-making power for a company demands a payment from another party as a condition for making a decision favorable in that party. This person is violating an obligation to act in the position solely for the interests of the employer.

Violation of Confidentiality. The use of information acquired in confidence from a client to advance personal interests-even if the interests of that client is unaffected. Because a director of a company is privy to much information, it would be wrong to use it for personal gain or other business interests. Confidential business information compiled by a corporation in the course and conduct of its business is a species of property to which the corporation has the exclusive right and benefit. 10.

Proctor & Gamble case. What unethical intelligence gathering did they commit? Competitive intelligence sleuths hired by P&G had obtained some documents from their rival by sorting through the trash bins at Unilever's office. This is known as dumpster diving. They committed an act of covert surveillance by obtaining information that Unilever had not anticipated or taken steps to prevent. They violated the company's right to privacy.

They also violated the ethical and legal limits of competitor intelligence gathering by the method that was used to acquire the information. They performed theft and receipt of unsolicited information and violated Unilever's property rights. They tried to perform competitive analysis by contracting an outside firm to do investigation on competitors. Unilever also claimed that some people misrepresented themselves to competitors in efforts to gain access. They violated the ethics code of the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals because the bins were on private property. 11.3 Definitions of Privacy.

Which is most satisfactory and why? 1) Privacy is the right to be left alone. Protecting the privacy of private life from unwanted publicity with limits on the publication of information about the private lives of individuals. The most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.

The right of the individual to be free from unwarranted invasion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person's decisions. Individuals have the right to be left alone in matters of religion and politics but legal restrictions do not involve violation of privacy. A loss of liberty is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a loss of privacy. Greater clarity is achieved by limiting the concept of privacy to matters involving information and not stretching the concept to include all manner of intrusions into their private lives.

2) Privacy is expressed in terms of control over information about ourselves. Privacy is the claim of individuals to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others. But not every loss or gain of control over information about ourselves is a gain or loss of privacy. Individuals can relinquish their own privacy by voluntarily divulging all sorts of intimate details themselves.

Privacy cannot be identified with control. 3) A person is in a state of privacy when certain facts about that person are not known by others. The condition of not having undocumented personal knowledge about one possessed by others. This includes only those facts which most individuals in a given society at any given time do not want widely known. Some facts that individuals commonly seek to conceal are a matter of public record and can be known without prying into their private lives. There is no loss of privacy when an easily observable fact is known to others even if the person is sensitive about it and prefers that others not be aware of it.

12. Compare and Contrast the Utilitarian and Kantian arguments for viewing privacy as a right. Utilitarian argument. Great harm is done to individuals when inaccurate or incomplete information collected by an employer is used as the basis for making important personnel decisions.

This includes factual information that ought not be in an employees file that can cause needless harm that occurs repeatedly when employees are unable to examine their files and challenge the information in them. A certain amount of privacy is necessary for the enjoyment of some activities so that invasion of privacy changes the character of our experiences and deprives us of the opportunity for gaining pleasure from them. Ex. Monitoring and surveillance in the workplace affect job satisfaction and the sense of self worth of all workers. Weaknesses: It rests on an unproved assumption that could turn out to be false. It assumes that on balance more harm than good will result when employers amass files of personal information, use polygraph machines, drug test, eat.

Whatever harm is done to employees by invading their privacy has to be balanced in a utilitarian calculation, against the undeniable benefits that these practices produce for both employees and employers. The argument considers only the possible harmful consequences of privacy invasions. Critics object that there is little evidence that privacy has the benefits claimed for it or that the predicated harm would follow from limiting peoples privacy. Utilitarian arguments for a right to privacy are not able to show what is morally wrong when a person is secretly observed without any actual harm being done.

Strengths: Privacy is of value because of the role it plays in developing and maintaining a healthy sense of personal identity. Privacy enables us to relax in public settings, release pent-up emotions, and reflect on our experiences as they occur-all of which are essential for our mental well-being. Privacy is important in promoting a high degree of individuality and freedom of action among the members of society. Kantian arguments: Autonomy and respect for persons. Covert observation (spying) is objectionable because it deliberately deceives a person about the world, thwarting his attempts to make a rational choice.

One cannot be said to respect a man if one knowingly and deliberately alters his conditions of action, concealing the fact from him. Invading a person's privacy violates the principle of respect for persons and prevents a person form making a rational choice as an autonomous being. If people form incomplete or misleading impressions of us that we have no opportunity to correct, then we are denied the possibility of autonomous or self-directed activity, which is characteristic of human beings. Privacy is of value because it provides a rational context for some of our most significant ends, such as love, friendship, trust, and respect, sot that invasions of privacy destroy our very integrity as a person. These are intimate relations that make privacy essential and intimacy is created by the sharing of personal information about ourselves that is not know by others. Monitoring destroys the possibility of bestowing the gift of intimacy, and makes impossible the essential dimensions of love and friendship.

Trust cannot exist where there is monitoring or surveillance because trust is the expectation that others will behave in a certain way without the need to check up on them. Weaknesses: It is too strong to assert that all instances of watching a person unawares result of deceiving a person and depriving that person of a free choice. Intimate relations such as love and friendship do not consist solely in the sharing of information but involve the sharing of one's total self-one's experiences, aspirations, weaknesses, and values. These relations can exist and even flourish in the absence of an exclusive sharing of information. Both: Privacy is important in some way to dignity and well-being. Privacy is not absolutely essential to either one, except that we have come to depend on it.

Privacy has become an important value in our culture and now it needs to be maintained. Privacy is a necessary luxury that should not be considered less valuable just because we could get by without it. 13. Importance of Griswold vs. Connecticut case as it relates to the issue of privacy: Griswold vs. CT-19651. Pharmacist in CT selling contraceptives to a married couple-illegal to sell condoms 2. CT stature prohibited the use of drugs or assistance to prevent conception 3.

Gov. cannot deprive you of life liberty or the pursuit of happiness 4. liberty, contraceptives in the idea of right of privacy 14. Historical Model of Employee-Employer relations with regard to privacy: Viewing employment as a contractual relation between and employer and an employee provides a basis for granting a set of rights to both parties because the validity of contracts require that certain conditions be satisfied. An employer has a right to require applicants to provide enough information to make aptitudes and skills. Once hired, employees have an obligation to permit employers to monitor work performance and to gather whatever information is necessary to maintain an ongoing contractual relation.

A contract model of employment would not permit employers to collect information without the knowledge and permission of the employees affected. Surveillance and the use of private investigators would be incompatible with the view of employment as a contractual relation. An employer has no right to provide information to a person outside the company because the employer is justified in collecting and using information only for the purposes connected with the employee-employer relation. The employer has no justification in giving information out. Ex.

Medical records collected by a former employer ought not to be passed along to a subsequent employer without the employee's consent even if they both had a person that justified the gathering of that information. Employers do not have an exclusive or unrestricted right to access and control personal information like they do with a database. Employers bear a burden of proof for justifying the collection and use of personal information shows that ownership is inappropriate in this case. It is also not appropriate to describe the information in personnel files as belonging to employees or employers, because they relinquish some rights to it by virtue of entering into the employment relation. Justifying the means used to gather information is important because the use of certain means may violate an employee's right of privacy, even when the information gathered is of a kind that an employer is fully justified in possessing. Less intrusive means are morally preferable to those that are more intrusive.

An objection to constant monitoring, personality tests, and the use of polygraphs is that they collect more information than is necessary and that they collect it indiscriminately. These surveillance's deprive persons of an opportunity to exercise control over how they appear to others, which is essential to being an autonomous individual. As a person, we can shape how we appear to others and create an identity for ourselves. A machine that registers our involuntary responses denies us the power to do that.

If the information in personnel files is going to be used to make critical decisions, then it is only fair that the information be as accurate and complete as possible and that employees have access to their personnel files so that they can challenge the contents or at least seek to protect themselves from adverse treatment based on the information in them. Incomplete or inaccurate files used by employers violate the right of fair treatment but not the right to privacy. 15.5 employee rights and the purpose and meaning of each one: a. Right not to be terminated w / out just cause-must be justification for termination i.

Can't be fired arbitrarily ii. Workers have right to maintain self respect-if u r terminated w / out just cause you lose this self respect. Right to equal opportunity iv. Right t 0 participate in job related decisions.

Right to due process i. One of most important underlying rights ii. Affects all other rights. Procedural mechanisms iv. Mechanisms set in for right to due process: Grievance 1. Right to public hearing 2.

Right to peer evaluations 3. Right to get external arbitration 4. Right to an open mutually agreed upon grievance procedure c. Right to privacy i. Griswold vs. CT-19651. Gov. cannot deprive you of life liberty or the pursuit of happiness 4. liberty, contraceptives in the idea of right of privacy ii.

3 definitions to right of privacy 1. Right to be left alone a. Broad-many complaints-religion, politics. Some rights that others have a right to know.

Celebrities must trade that right to privacy d. Workplace-have supervisors, este. Mixes privacy and liberty (loss of liberty not necessarily a condition for loss of privacy 2. Right to have control over personal information a.

Must be voluntarily giving out info 3. Right not to have undocumented personal information know by others a. What is private to us people don't have the right to have that same knowledge. Right to workplace health and safety i. Right guaranteed by osha (occupation safety & health administration 1.

Workplace health, hazards-research, identify and determine a. Ex. Smoking in workplace e. Right to organize or to go on strike i.

2 kinds of boycott 1. Primary-union workers refuse to buy the companies product 2. Secondary-refuse to patronize a company who handles the strike company's products.