Employee Privacy Rights Human Resource managers and their staff members have to be sure to be up to

Did you know that 58% of employers have fired workers for Internet and email misuse? And 48% justify employee video monitoring as an effort to “counter theft and violence?” According to the “2007 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey” of which 304 U.S. companies participated in, computer-monitoring results have led to the highest cause of employee termination. These companies used several tactics to eavesdrop on employees while claiming to be managing productivity or for security purposes. Some argue that surveillance is absolutely necessary to help protect and grow a business; others argue that employee and customer rights come first. However, companies that use such tactics often violate the privacy of individuals, exploit their private information and even punish those that do not conform to their standards.

Healthcare technology has grown and evolved over time. With the conversion to electronic medical records and the creation of social media just to name a few, ensuring patient privacy is of the utmost importance for healthcare facilities in this day and age. In order for an organization to avoid hefty fines, it is imperative that a healthcare administrator maintains compliance with the standards and regulations associated with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This paper will provide a summary

When that technology is used to view, collect or disseminate inappropriate content, again employers have cause for concern. Use of workplace computers to access and distribute pornography, for example, frequently results in discipline and workplace harassment complaints. In some cases it can even result in serious criminal investigations.

Employers have to monitor employees for security concerns relating to intentional or accidental release of sensitive data. Mohl, shows in a 2006 survey by Proofpoint Inc.

A process within healthcare that has changed as a result of HIPAA is medical information security. The laws have been tightened more. Privacy audits can be done with covered entities if they have had complaints, or even if there have been none. In the event of high-profile incidents, privacy audits can be done also. The privacy rule has also changes as a result. The privacy rule affects 3 different situations in which private health information is handled, use, disclosure, and request. Because of the minimum necessary standard, healthcare providers and covered entities have to limit the use, disclosure, and requests to only the amount of information necessary to complete this.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was signed into legislation in 1996, with the final version of its privacy rules going into effect in 2002. In addition to insurance and healthcare transaction regulations, HIPAA includes two key features. First, the portability of health care for workers who transition between jobs. Second, HIPAA regulates how patient’s health information must be secured with detailed privacy policies. It is important that HIPAA practices are employed by the clinic for several reasons. First and foremost, it is legally required by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HIPAA non-compliance can lead to financial penalties and lost accreditation with The Joint Commission which will have

In order to minimize the risks for potential privacy breaches, the health information management (HIM) director has to understand all facets of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). This should include conducting an audit of their practices. In this scenario, an audit would have been useful to detect the improper access by the employee sooner. HIPAA uses both its privacy and security regulations to “protect consumer’s health information, allow consumers greater access and control to such information, enhance health care, and finally to create a national framework for health care privacy protection” (Amaguin, n.d.). These privacy and security regulations serve as the “only national set of regulations that governs

Employers do have the right to monitor what an employee is doing on the web to make sure the employee is being productive. The monitoring process can help employers and the whole company from theft or other harm begin released by employees. If employees believe that they

A company's privacy protection can limit the company's liability in many ways. By monitoring employees work and progression, a company can ensure that the employee is being productive. By monitoring an employee's productivity, the company can ensure that employee is performing all their job duties and performing them correctly. If performed incorrectly, the company may be held responsible. Companies can also monitor employees to ensure all employees are using the company's assets for company related reasons and not conducting any personal or illegal activities that can

The most common form of an invasion, to employee privacy rights is email. With the massive use of computers, email has become the biggest communication tool of choice in the workplace. The concern of employers has grown tremendously with the use of email in the workplace. Employers' concern is that, employees can waste time by sending and receiving email for personal use, and they may provide easy access for hackers to entry their computer system. Employers can monitor an employee computer activity to ensure productivity in the workplace. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (2006) states, "Unfortunately, if an employee uses a company computer for email use, the employee employer has the right to review the contents of his or her email."

As much as a company should not invade the rights of its employees , it has the equal responsibility of ensuring that its privacy and that of its employees are not divulged or used in any personal intent by other employees . According to Nyman (2005 , more companies are being held accountable by employees whose privacy was compromised in the workplace because of what is seen as a lack in its measures to ensure their privacy . Therefore , if employers are being held accountable for such situations , Nyman believes that they should be given enough power to protect themselves from such liabilities

Workplace surveillance has become a controversial issue in the workplace environment. The technological surveillance has developed as a necessity, it doesn’t only help in monitoring what the workers’ do, but it also helps to know how they do it. The modern technological development may have helped the employers’ to have an aerial view of the workplace environment, but it has created a controversy between the employees’ and the employer about the employees’ right to privacy being violated. The employees’ believe the act of workplace surveillance to be hateful that violates their right to privacy and liberties. The surveillance at the workplace often effects workers mental health, productivity, future success in their work and their relationship with the employer, despite being a necessity for the employers’ to protect themselves against the liability, many employers’ in the process of achieving efficiency through surveillance mistakenly ruin their relationship with their employees. The workplace surveillance is helpful in improving the performance of workers or it is contributing towards degrading the performance of workers and their work relationships.

Generally, employers are concerned about the various issues that could transpire in the workplace such as poor performance, viewing of inappropriate and derogatory things on the organization's equipment, lower productivity, and injuries on the job (“Managing Workplace Monitoring”, 2016). Therefore, “employers also have a duty to their employees to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the personal information gathered and maintained in the course of employment (“Managing Workplace Monitoring”, 2016, para. 1). Moreover, the main reason for monitoring employees is solely tied into limiting the amount of litigation the organization can potentially be subjected to. Therefore, to minimize exposure and risk to

The law supports the claim that employees have a right to access employees’ emails, although most employees are of the opinion that their employers should not access their emails. The courts have not found any reasonable expectation for the employees to have privacy in the same and therefore, they have always granted permission to the employers to keep an eye on the employees’ activities as well as reviewing it. In a case of Smith v. Pillsbury Co., the plaintiff had sued the employer on the ground that he had wrongfully discharged him after the employer intercepted an email message he considered inappropriate (Jennings, 2005). Smith being an at-will kind of employee, his suit centered on whether by being discharged, it went against Pennsylvania’s public policy thereby falling into the exemption under the general rule which indicate that employees who are employed on the at-will basis can have their employment terminated any time. The defendant was given motion from dismissal of the case since it failed to state a claim. The employer was therefore found not guilty of either invading the employees’ privacy or violating public policy when he terminated smith (Wolkinson & Block, 1996). The employer had created email communication system but had told the employees that it was privileged and confidential. The employer also informed the workforce that their emails would not be intercepted

In The Los Angeles Times (2013) an article titled, “Tracking workers’ every move can boost productivity,” stated how employers are using surveillance software to monitor employees every movement. Employees are criticizing the monitoring software since it has caused harsher work environment. Employees feel with the monitoring system, employers see them as human machines a way to drive costs down and increase production (Semuels, 2013). Employees are finding that monitoring technology have cost jobs