Many big companies today (in the USA) go out of their way to repeatedly remind contractors that they are not employees. (contraction != employee) For example, they have "employee only" meetings, mailing lists, and events. Even lectures and training are "employee only" except where an explicit need includes a contractor.

I'm surprised that industry isn't applying the same "contractors are not employees" effort to privacy. If the initial agreement says "nothing done at work is private" then they should repeatedly enforce that policy. They could spot-check email, review blogs, check phone messages. An occasional beep on the phone to indicate a call is being recorded is a great reminder. Some companies already spot-check with drug screening, why not apply their right to check your personal information?

Granted, enforcing "no privacy" will remove any happy work environments and productivity will drop, but the expectation of privacy would be removed.

If they are not going to enforce their own rules, then why have them in the first place? (And why make rules that are not enforceable?) In today's society (again, USA), the person with the most expensive lawyer wins -- why spend so much effort on policies when the lawyer is what really matters?

But back to the policies...
This entire issue begs the question: Which is more important to companies -- productivity or lack of employee privacy?


[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/421/34031#34031