Their Employees Right To Privacy example essay topic

1. If you were Jean Fanuchi, how would you feel about your decision to order the installation of the viewing and listening devices? What other options did she have? Did she overlook any moral considerations or possible consequences? If I were Jean Fanuchi, I would feel bad about my decision.

I wouldn't want my every move and word being monitored so I assume my employees wouldn't either. After all people are prone to do a lot of things when they " re alone which they wouldn't otherwise do. Knowing someone has witnessed you doing something in private is embarrassing for both parties. And if only the viewer knows, it can still create un comfort and tension. Furthermore it is possible for words and actions to be misconstrued since although one can see and hear what people are doing, one can never know what they " re thinking. For example one employee on his way out the door may say to another 'I really hate that Fanuchi!' but once they " re outside clarify it with 'I don't really hate her, I'm just not happy about all the work she's dumping on us.

' Unfortunately, Fanuchi would just assume that the person really hates her and will probably start treating him differently. The first decision (not to install) would have been the right one. As Fanuchi mentioned, how would the public and employees react if they found out? Installing the viewing and listening devices brings up many ethical issues among which include privacy and informed consent. Privacy is held to be a fundamental human right and so it is immoral to violate anyone's privacy. Even when there seems to be a good reason, this does not justify it.

Since the workers were unaware of being monitored, they couldn't have consented to their privacy being invaded. By not informing the workers and allowing them to choose whether to be monitored or not, Fanuchi robbed them of their freedom of choice. Her first choice was the right one but she bowed under pressure from Katwalski and the continued shrinkage. Fanuchi had other options she could have taken. She could have called a general meeting, explained to the employees what was happening and asked them to come forward with any pertinent information. Alternatively the security people or plainclothes officers could have interrogated the employees.

Or she could have told the employees they were being monitored without actually installing the devices in order to deter the culprit. Even if she did install the devices she could have simply told the employees about it and asked for their consent. Of course it is highly unlikely they would agree just as she would balk at the thought of having a hidden camera at her office. Alternatively since the security department knew they were looking for a thief already, they could have just installed the video and not the listening devices. After all a microphone is not required to catch a thief red-handed.

If any of the employees were to find out Fanuchi could find herself losing employees, dealing with low morale and resentful employees or even worse, being slapped with a lawsuit. These scenarios are all likely and will have a negative impact on the company both internally and publicly. The question arises of the way the information about the culprit was obtained. If Fanuchi fires the person without giving the real reason, he / she could sue her for wrongful dismissal.

If she does reveal the reason the employee might spread the word and turn others against her or still sue for invasion of privacy. The same holds true of the consequences of using the information obtained through the microphones. It is a moral dilemma, for if the information gotten is used against the employees, it may lead to the problems mentioned above but if nothing is done, there will still be a negative effect on the company and they might even be liable to be charged with aiding and abetting a known criminal since they are aware of an employees drug abuse. The best action would be for Fanuchi to not use the information directly but instead monitor the employees' work closely and try to find a legitimate reason for letting them go. If they intend to keep the devices, all employees should be informed that they are being monitored. This will serve as a deterrent to all employees and may even encourage the already revealed employees to leave the company on their own.

2. Do you think Fanuchi acted immorally? Why or why not? Evaluate her actions by appeal to ethical principles. I believe that Fanuchi did not act morally according to Kant's ethics and prima facie principles but according to utilitarianism she could be morally right. Utilitarianism is concerned with the action that can bring about the greatest happiness for all, in the long run.

It cannot be conclusively proved that installing or not installing the devices would bring more happiness to all in the long run. Indeed it is possible that by not installing the device and just letting it go, Fanuchi's company would suffer, the problem would spread to other departments as Katwalski suggested, the department's shrinkage would continue to rise and the public and employees could charge Fanuchi with negligence. These may all have a greater adverse effect than that of installing the devices. If that is the case or Fanuchi believed it, then her actions could be morally justified. On the other hand it can be argued that since Fanuchi did not consult the employees, she couldn't obtain a proper measure of their happiness or lack thereof so she wasn't practicing 'true' utilitarianism in the workplace.

Fanuchi's action can be said to be morally wrong according to Kant's categorical Imperative. The categorical imperative states that an action is morally right if and only if we can will that the maxim (principle) represented by the action be a universal law. In other words the person performing a action should be willing to have that action done to him / her as well. So Fanuchi's action of installing the devices leads to the maxim: 'Although everyone has a right to privacy, I can violate that right whenever I feel justified in doing so without having to inform the people concerned'. This is very difficult to make universally acceptable and indeed it is unlikely Fanuchi would agree to it if situations were reversed.

A Prima facie obligation is an obligation that can be overridden by another more important obligation. Ordinarily it could be argued that Fanuchi felt that finding the culprit was more important than protecting her employees' privacy. The problem is that freedom of privacy is a moral right (specifically a human right) that every human is entitled to. So taking away that right cannot be justified without the permission of the individuals concerned or at the very least, their knowledge of it. Many organizations disregard their employees right to privacy and informed consent. They monitor their phone calls, e-mails and some even snoop in desks after office hours.

If employees give their consent, then there is no problem but if they are simply informed of it or not even told, this can great a lot of moral dilemmas and risks for the company concerned. WORKS REFERED TO: Business Ethics-Shaw, H. William, Canada: Wadsworth, 2002 Ethics: Reading and Cases in Corporate Morality-Hoffman, W.M. and Frederick, R.E. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995 web.