Discussion Forum I need someone to complete a discussion question for me. The discussion question requires 3 short paragraphs in total. This question is based on unit 4 of the course. I have attached the course lessons for unit 4 below. Please review unit 4 to get an idea of the employment law terminology. Discussion Question: With the advance of technology, employers today have greater capacity to monitor their employees than ever before. This raises complex questions about employees right to privacy. How should we balance an employers right to manage their workplace with an employees right to privacy? What is your position on the use of video surveillance, keystroke monitoring, and other forms of employee monitoring? After reading the case, has your attitude changed regarding the monitoring of biometric data , such as retina scans, for security purposes? **Individual must ensure they use terminology from unit 4** Here are some example answers submitted by a couple of the students: Student #1 Despite the existence of privacy legislation, privacy-based regulatory bodies, privacy principles and even privacy-based torts (wrongful acts that lead to damages) there is still no clear right to privacy for many workers. This is because most privacy laws are not absolute. They have exceptions and exemptions or simply dont apply to the vast majority of employees. Employees detest the idea that a camera can be installed in their workplace but it can often be done. If there is a problem with theft or security and the camera is trained on a specific location, it is not illegal. Employers retain the right to monitor their staff in some situations, but only if this is done in good faith and where there is a reasonable belief that an offence is being committed. Employers often monitor employees workplace computers, their e-mails and their Internet usage. The same principles apply to monitoring employees social media profiles, except that snooping on the workers can begin even before any work does. Job candidates public online profiles are often reviewed by employers and recruiters as part of the hiring process. Provided that hiring decisions are made on the basis of legitimate job qualifications that are thereby revealed and not on any human rights grounds, there is currently nothing illegal about this practice, although some may view it as immoral. Although the rules are slowly changing, an employees personal privacy is still more of an expectation at work, rather than a right. As long the employees productivity is good, then there is nothing wrong with taking a 2 minute break to browse the web. After reading over the biometric case, I think they may be pushing just a little. Technology is advancing at a rapid pace and if it proves to have benefits in the workplace then we should accept it. Student #2 I believe employers must protect their interests, e.g., technology they develop, intellectual property, patents, copyrights and their investment in their human capital. I also believe they must protect their property including things such as pen and notebooks. I think they are responsible to find solutions to protecting all those things but I dont believe they have the right to protect at any and all expense. With technological advancements, there are endless tools available to protect property but I dont believe employees should be constantly monitored in their work activities. I would argue that the employer would not want to be discovered in a compromising position with regards to the activities of their employees, e.g., their employees should not access pornography of any kind using work computers so the employer must know what their employees are doing in this regard. I believe there are certain cases where employee activities must be monitored to protect the employer's investment and reputation; however, there is certain monitoring that the employer engages in where they are grapping at straws. An employee who chooses to do internet banking may do so using company computer for a reason, e.g., it is better protected from viruses and hackers and it is a timesaver for the employee from running to the bank everytime they need to do a simple transaction. Many employees work many long hours that there is no time to run errands and is exhausted from work to perform any tasks once they leave their place of employment. Looking at the cases of Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway and Turner v TELUS Communications Inc., I was quite surprised of the outcome of these cases. While CP had legitimate reasons for installing surveillance cameras and they were strictly only accessed if there was an incident. I believe the reasons for installing them were justified in certain areas but not in others. CP Rail believed they were installing them for legitimate reasons and their concerns were reasonable in order to protect their interests and investments as well as those of their subcontractors. The employee; however, was hostile against the employer for taking steps to protect its interests as well as its employees wellbeing. In cases where there is no direct violation against the employee, I believe employers must take those necessary steps. In cases where the area of video surveillance is still grey; I believe employers must ensure that employees understand the reasons for using the new technology and how it will affect the employee` work life. In the case of TELUS, I also believe the employer is justified in utilizing the new technology to protect its technology and investments. The employee felt that the new technology introduction was a direct result of mistrust on the part of the employer and violation of privacy. Using voice print is a way to protect both the employer and the employee to ensure that everyone was conducting legitimate business using the company`s technology. On a personal note, I would object to the employer installing video surveillance in an area that would monitor my work activities specifically. If the technology was not there prior to start of my employment, I would feel singled out for this type of monitoring; however, if the monitoring includes the entire workforce or specific areas that are sensitive, I would see the logic and would not feel singled out or threatened If an employee is doing what is expected of him or her, is not stealing from the employer or is not sabotaging the employer, video surveillance should not be a problem. With privacy rights and legislations and informed consent, employers must be careful when considering video surveillance systems and must provide adequate warning to employees when they plan to install new systems, not previously existing. Reference Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway, 2004 FC 852 (CanLII) Turner v TELUS Communications Inc. 2007, CarswellNat 172 (FED.CA)

Discussion Forum

I need someone to complete a discussion question for me. The discussion question requires 3 short paragraphs in total. This question is based on unit 4 of the course. I have attached the course lessons for unit 4 below. Please review unit 4 to get an idea of the employment law terminology.

Discussion Question:
With the advance of technology, employers today have greater capacity to monitor their employees than ever before. This raises complex questions about employees right to privacy. How should we balance an employers right to manage their workplace with an employees right to privacy? What is your position on the use of video surveillance, keystroke monitoring, and other forms of employee monitoring? After reading the case, has your attitude changed regarding the monitoring of biometric data , such as retina scans, for security purposes?

**Individual must ensure they use terminology from unit 4**

Here are some example answers submitted by a couple of the students:

Student #1
Despite the existence of privacy legislation, privacy-based regulatory bodies, privacy principles and even privacy-based torts (wrongful acts that lead to damages) there is still no clear right to privacy for many workers. This is because most privacy laws are not absolute. They have exceptions and exemptions or simply dont apply to the vast majority of employees.
Employees detest the idea that a camera can be installed in their workplace but it can often be done. If there is a problem with theft or security and the camera is trained on a specific location, it is not illegal. Employers retain the right to monitor their staff in some situations, but only if this is done in good faith and where there is a reasonable belief that an offence is being committed.
Employers often monitor employees workplace computers, their e-mails and their Internet usage. The same principles apply to monitoring employees social media profiles, except that snooping on the workers can begin even before any work does. Job candidates public online profiles are often reviewed by employers and recruiters as part of the hiring process. Provided that hiring decisions are made on the basis of legitimate job qualifications that are thereby revealed and not on any human rights grounds, there is currently nothing illegal about this practice, although some may view it as immoral. Although the rules are slowly changing, an employees personal privacy is still more of an expectation at work, rather than a right. As long the employees productivity is good, then there is nothing wrong with taking a 2 minute break to browse the web.
After reading over the biometric case, I think they may be pushing just a little. Technology is advancing at a rapid pace and if it proves to have benefits in the workplace then we should accept it.

Student #2
I believe employers must protect their interests, e.g., technology they develop, intellectual property, patents, copyrights and their investment in their human capital. I also believe they must protect their property including things such as pen and notebooks. I think they are responsible to find solutions to protecting all those things but I dont believe they have the right to protect at any and all expense.
With technological advancements, there are endless tools available to protect property but I dont believe employees should be constantly monitored in their work activities. I would argue that the employer would not want to be discovered in a compromising position with regards to the activities of their employees, e.g., their employees should not access pornography of any kind using work computers so the employer must know what their employees are doing in this regard. I believe there are certain cases where employee activities must be monitored to protect the employer's investment and reputation; however, there is certain monitoring that the employer engages in where they are grapping at straws. An employee who chooses to do internet banking may do so using company computer for a reason, e.g., it is better protected from viruses and hackers and it is a timesaver for the employee from running to the bank everytime they need to do a simple transaction. Many employees work many long hours that there is no time to run errands and is exhausted from work to perform any tasks once they leave their place of employment.
Looking at the cases of Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway and Turner v TELUS Communications Inc., I was quite surprised of the outcome of these cases. While CP had legitimate reasons for installing surveillance cameras and they were strictly only accessed if there was an incident. I believe the reasons for installing them were justified in certain areas but not in others. CP Rail believed they were installing them for legitimate reasons and their concerns were reasonable in order to protect their interests and investments as well as those of their subcontractors. The employee; however, was hostile against the employer for taking steps to protect its interests as well as its employees wellbeing. In cases where there is no direct violation against the employee, I believe employers must take those necessary steps.
In cases where the area of video surveillance is still grey; I believe employers must ensure that employees understand the reasons for using the new technology and how it will affect the employee` work life. In the case of TELUS, I also believe the employer is justified in utilizing the new technology to protect its technology and investments. The employee felt that the new technology introduction was a direct result of mistrust on the part of the employer and violation of privacy. Using voice print is a way to protect both the employer and the employee to ensure that everyone was conducting legitimate business using the company`s technology.
On a personal note, I would object to the employer installing video surveillance in an area that would monitor my work activities specifically. If the technology was not there prior to start of my employment, I would feel singled out for this type of monitoring; however, if the monitoring includes the entire workforce or specific areas that are sensitive, I would see the logic and would not feel singled out or threatened
If an employee is doing what is expected of him or her, is not stealing from the employer or is not sabotaging the employer, video surveillance should not be a problem. With privacy rights and legislations and informed consent, employers must be careful when considering video surveillance systems and must provide adequate warning to employees when they plan to install new systems, not previously existing.

Reference
Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway, 2004 FC 852 (CanLII)
Turner v TELUS Communications Inc. 2007, CarswellNat 172 (FED.CA)

Case can be found here:

Eastmond v. Canadian Pacific Railway
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2004/2004fc852/2004fc852.html