In the two sections preceding you have had a chance to see both sides of the Monitoring in the Workplace issue. In the first part we presented the side of the employer. He currently has the legal system on his side, and he is of course ultimately in charge of achieving the biggest "Bottom Line" that he can. In the second part we showed the employee's concerns with monitoring: The increase in stress and other health-related concerns, the lack of standards that employers have to meet, and the often inaccurate means of measuring a "good employee." Both sides certainly have valid points. But where does this leave us?
Our group contends that neither side is wrong nor right, in an absolute sense. We advocate neither than monitoring is inherently wrong and should be outlawed, nor that employers should have "free-reign" over their employees, monitoring them secretly and at will. There is a middle ground in all this, and while there may be different ways to stand on it, there are certain aspects of this issue that must be adopted by any reasonable compromise.
Firstly, we advocate that the use of alternative monitoring techniques should be employed whenever possible. This is to say that computer monitoring and phone monitoring be done only when it is the only means to achieve an accurate assessment of the employee, or when the employee's actions are in reasonable suspicion. Obviously other monitoring techniques have been employed in the past before computer and phone monitoring was technologically possible, and these techniques are still reasonable. People who work directly with employees are certainly qualilfied to give an accurate report of their peers' efforts. Peer evaluations and confidential peer reports can be a successful means of employee evaluation. Supervisors are also clearly qualified and capable to give accurate reports of their employees' work ethic. That their experienced judgment should be cast out in lieu of a monitoring system is suspicious, especially since monitoring is often an inaccurate means of evaluating an employee.
If monitoring must be done, it would be preferable to monitor groups of employees rather than individual workers. This would be monumental in reducing the stress that any one individual employee experiences. It would also build team spirit and foster group motivation towards meeting a common goal. If one group member falls behind, other members can help compensate. This builds unity and trust among employees. This is the approach Japan has adopted in monitoring, and it has proven to work quite well.
Secondly, good leislation will be instrumental in ensuring that monitoring standards are set and adhered to, and that employers and employees alike are treated fairly. This legislation should work to set regulations which govern monitoring much like the heath and safety regulations govern factory workers today. Fair and reasonable monitoring standards must be met. In this respect, monitoring should be allowed only in a reasonable time frame. For instance, monitoring by the minute often contributes to higher stress levels in employees than monitoring by the hour, for example. This is because employees monitored on such a small time scale feel trapped, as if they can not lose seconds for fear of meeting the monitor's standard. Employers should be legally bound to tell employees when they're being monitored and by what criteria, so that employees have a reasonable chance to mentall prepare for their scrutiny. Finally, laws should be enacted which forbid employers to "snoop" into an employee's personal files or email barring a just cause. An employer should have a just cause to inspect an employee's personal items, be it their desk drawers or computer files. Personal items in cyberspace should be any different than personal items in real space.
Our final recommendation is simply this: Ultimately, both employers and employees have the same goals and preferences. Both desire favorable working conditions, reasonable stress levels, a successful business and large "bottom line", and good relations with the other side. If both parties can keep these common ideals in mind, it will help to further the bond between the employer and employees, and neither will feel slighted. Employers should strive to create very comfortable working conditions for their employees and to keep their employees' welfare at heart. Lilkewise, employees need to understand the goals of the employer and the common fact that a large bottom line means a successful business and ultimately successful careers for everyone involved.