ployee from doing something uncharacteristically wrong in a moment of chaos or weakness.

The above comments standing on their own merit, people are only people and will from time-to-time fall prey to human nature. I do believe that good employer’s weigh all sides of issues before rendering decisions. An employee’s full disclosure of past negative history or immediate acceptance of current wrong doing won’t always guarantee a favorable outcome, but it will in fact demonstrate contrition and understanding of the need for accountability while insuring that the employer had the opportunity to know all relevant facts.

Simply put, if as a potential employee you are not willing to play by the emplo

The subject matter surrounding an employer’s right to information vs. an employee’s right to privacy seems to be an ever proliferating area of complexity and contention. The text that follows will not delve into a discussion on the legalities of the issue, but rather my opinions based upon personal experience and what I believe to be a common sense approach.

During my career I have been lucky enough to be both employer and employee, as well as to serve as a professional to both, and regardless of which role I have played my opinion has never wavered with regard to the subject matter at hand. It is this author’s opinion that employment is a privilege and not a right. A job is something an employee has to compete for to secure, as well as perform up to certain expectations to retain. It is effort expended on the employee’s behalf in return for remuneration and the privilege of remaining employed. A job is not something to be viewed as a right of entitlement.

So why does an employer need to have so much access to the personal information of its employees? The answer is really quite simple…An employee is a direct representative of the company and his/her actions (either on, or in some cases, off the job) are a direct reflection on the employer’s brand, reputation and image in the marketplace. Companies are in reality most frequently judged upon the quality, integrity and character of their employees.

Unless the employer crosses a clear legal boundary all is fair in the employer’s pursuit of corporate protection. In my book drug tests, recording phone conversations, monitoring e-mail, web browsing habits and information stored on company computers are perfectly acceptable measures for an employer to take in safeguarding the reputation and security of the enterprise.

All reputable companies have employee handbooks, job descriptions and/or employment agreements that the employee is asked to read and sign prior to commencing work for the employer. These documents clearly outline company practices, procedures and processes. All employees should have very clear visibility with respect to company expectations before they ever show-up for their first day of work. Moreover there are normally human resources intake interviews and initial training periods that go over company policies in greater detail. Employees are normally well informed as to company practices and have the ability to make an informed decision with respect to whether or not they desire to comply with said policies for the compensation being offered in return.

The bottom line in my opinion is that if an employee conducts themselves properly then they should have nothing to fear with regard to being closely monitored. In fact, close scrutiny on the employer’s part may well be the invisible boundary that keeps an employee from doing something uncharacteristically wrong in a moment of chaos or weakness.

The above comments standing on their own merit, people are only people and will from time-to-time fall prey to human nature. I do believe that good employer’s weigh all sides of issues before rendering decisions. An employee’s full disclosure of past negative history or immediate acceptance of current wrong doing won’t always guarantee a favorable outcome, but it will in fact demonstrate contrition and understanding of the need for accountability while insuring that the employer had the opportunity to know all relevant facts.

Simply put, if as a potential employee you are not willing to play by the emplo

has to compete for to secure, as well as perform up to certain expectations to retain. It is effort expended on the employee’s behalf in return for remuneration and the privilege of remaining employed. A job is not something to be viewed as a right of entitlement.

So why does an employer need to have so much access to the personal information of its employees? The answer is really quite simple…An employee is a direct representative of the company and his/her actions (either on, or in some cases, off the job) are a direct reflection on the employer’s brand, reputation and image in the marketplace. Companies are in reality most frequently judged upon the quality, integrity and character of their employees.

Unless the employer crosses a clear legal boundary all is fair in the employer’s pursuit of corporate protection. In my book drug tests, recording phone conversations, monitoring e-mail, web browsing habits and information stored on company computers are perfectly acceptable measures for an employer to take in safeguarding the reputation and security of the enterprise.

All reputable companies have employee handbooks, job descriptions and/or employment agreements that the employee is asked to read and sign prior to commencing work for the employer. These documents clearly outline company practices, procedures and processes. All employees should have very clear visibility with respect to company expectations before they ever show-up for their first day of work. Moreover there are normally human resources intake interviews and initial training periods that go over company policies in greater detail. Employees are normally well informed as to company practices and have the ability to make an informed decision with respect to whether or not they desire to comply with said policies for the compensation being offered in return.

The bottom line in my opinion is that if an employee conducts themselves properly then they should have nothing to fear with regard to being closely monitored. In fact, close scrutiny on the employer’s part may well be the invisible boundary that keeps an employee from doing something uncharacteristically wrong in a moment of chaos or weakness.

The above comments standing on their own merit, people are only people and will from time-to-time fall prey to human nature. I do believe that good employer’s weigh all sides of issues before rendering decisions. An employee’s full disclosure of past negative history or immediate acceptance of current wrong doing won’t always guarantee a favorable outcome, but it will in fact demonstrate contrition and understanding of the need for accountability while insuring that the employer had the opportunity to know all relevant facts.

Simply put, if as a potential employee you are not willing to play by the emplo

loyees.

Unless the employer crosses a clear legal boundary all is fair in the employer’s pursuit of corporate protection. In my book drug tests, recording phone conversations, monitoring e-mail, web browsing habits and information stored on company computers are perfectly acceptable measures for an employer to take in safeguarding the reputation and security of the enterprise.

All reputable companies have employee handbooks, job descriptions and/or employment agreements that the employee is asked to read and sign prior to commencing work for the employer. These documents clearly outline company practices, procedures and processes. All employees should have very clear visibility with respect to company expectations before they ever show-up for their first day of work. Moreover there are normally human resources intake interviews and initial training periods that go over company policies in greater detail. Employees are normally well informed as to company practices and have the ability to make an informed decision with respect to whether or not they desire to comply with said policies for the compensation being offered in return.

The bottom line in my opinion is that if an employee conducts themselves properly then they should have nothing to fear with regard to being closely monitored. In fact, close scrutiny on the employer’s part may well be the invisible boundary that keeps an employee from doing something uncharacteristically wrong in a moment of chaos or weakness.

The above comments standing on their own merit, people are only people and will from time-to-time fall prey to human nature. I do believe that good employer’s weigh all sides of issues before rendering decisions. An employee’s full disclosure of past negative history or immediate acceptance of current wrong doing won’t always guarantee a favorable outcome, but it will in fact demonstrate contrition and understanding of the need for accountability while insuring that the employer had the opportunity to know all relevant facts.

Simply put, if as a potential employee you are not willing to play by the emplo

to company expectations before they ever show-up for their first day of work. Moreover there are normally human resources intake interviews and initial training periods that go over company policies in greater detail. Employees are normally well informed as to company practices and have the ability to make an informed decision with respect to whether or not they desire to comply with said policies for the compensation being offered in return.

The bottom line in my opinion is that if an employee conducts themselves properly then they should have nothing to fear with regard to being closely monitored. In fact, close scrutiny on the employer’s part may well be the invisible boundary that keeps an employee from doing something uncharacteristically wrong in a moment of chaos or weakness.

The above comments standing on their own merit, people are only people and will from time-to-time fall prey to human nature. I do believe that good employer’s weigh all sides of issues before rendering decisions. An employee’s full disclosure of past negative history or immediate acceptance of current wrong doing won’t always guarantee a favorable outcome, but it will in fact demonstrate contrition and understanding of the need for accountability while insuring that the employer had the opportunity to know all relevant facts.

Simply put, if as a potential employee you are not willing to play by the emplo

ployee from doing something uncharacteristically wrong in a moment of chaos or weakness.

The above comments standing on their own merit, people are only people and will from time-to-time fall prey to human nature. I do believe that good employer’s weigh all sides of issues before rendering decisions. An employee’s full disclosure of past negative history or immediate acceptance of current wrong doing won’t always guarantee a favorable outcome, but it will in fact demonstrate contrition and understanding of the need for accountability while insuring that the employer had the opportunity to know all relevant facts.

Simply put, if as a potential employee you are not willing to play by the employer’s rules then don’t take the job.