[link|http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Workplace/|http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Workplace/]

In 1993 a bill was passed:
[link|http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Workplace/s984_consumer_workplace_priv.bill|http://www.eff.org/P...rkplace_priv.bill]

There is an Electronic Communications Privacy Act as well, how it relates to workplace computer monitoring is here:
[link|http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Workplace/galkin_workpriv_122895.article|http://www.eff.org/P...iv_122895.article]

In fact, it does not matter what Corp USA thinks, there are laws against this sort of abuse. So they own the equipment? Big deal. So they are responsible for employee use of it? Big deal.

According to this article:
"The effects of computerized performance monitoring: An ethical perspective"
Hawk, Stephen R. Journal of Business Ethics. Dordrecht: Dec 1994. Vol. 13, Iss. 12; pg. 949, 9 pgs

Few issues in the information system profession have generated as much controversy as computerized performance monitoring (CPM). Employers under increasing pressure to boost productivity have adopted these systems with the hope that the increased feedback and control they provide will lead to increased productivity. Despite the limited evidence concerning the impact of CPM on work quantity and quality (Grant and Higgins, 1991; Marx and Sherizen, 1986), many employers appear to be convinced of the benefits of this technology. According to one estimate, approximately 6 million workers in the United States have some or all of their work evaluated through computerized performance reports (Office of Technology Assessment [OTA], 1987). A more recent survey found that 73 out of 186 firms representing a variety of industries relied on some form of CPM (Rule and Brantley, 1992). Although there is need to better understand the effects of CPM on productivity, concerned scholars appear to be most interested in the harmful effects of CPM on monitored workers. Because of these presumed effects, many knowledgeable observers have raised questions about the ethics of CPM usage.

There is an ethical issue here besides invasion of privacy.

ETHICS AND COMPUTERIZED PERFORMANCE MONITORING

Even CPM's critics agree that this technology could be used humanely (Nussbaum and duRivage, 1986; Westin, 1986). This suggests that the choices employers make in how they use CPM ultimately determine the degree to which a particular system represents a humane or inhumane use of this technology. Many decisions must be made beyond the basic choice of whether or not to use a computerized performance monitor. What will the CPM measure? What information is to be reported and how will it be presented? Who will receive CPM output? What means are provided to employees to allow their input into the use of CPM data? These choices, or design alternatives, will largely determine the effects of a CPM on monitored workers (Marx and Sherizen, 1986). It would therefore appear to be more useful to examine the ethical considerations surrounding these more detailed design decisions rather than CPM in general. Before examining the potential problems surrounding various design alternatives, we first need to clarify the relationship between CPM and ethics. Ethical theory provides the basis for evaluating the morality of a given CPM. Two dominant ethical theories, Utilitarianism and Kantianism (Beauchamp and Bowie, 1993), both provide some insight into this issue.

Utilitarianism suggests that the morality of acts can be judged on the basis of their consequences. An action would be judged ethical to the extent that it results in the greatest good for all concerned parties. Business owners, employees, customers, and society in genera may all benefit from CPM. The profits returned to business owners could be increased if CPM improved the efficiency and quality of work performed by monitored employees. Employees could potentially benefit if such profitability resulted in increased wages or employment stability. Customers could benefit if monitoring brought about improvements in service/product quality, or lower prices. Finally, society in general could benefit from an increased efficiency and effectiveness of its workforce. These benefits, of course, need to be weighed against the potential harms resulting from CPM usage. The literature clearly presumes that monitored employees bear the brunt of CPM's harms. As noted earlier, research indicates that CPM causes stress and health problems, that it creates the potential for unfair performance evaluations, and that it is an invasion of privacy (OTA, 1987). Utilitarianism suggests that decisions surrounding CPM need to evaluate both the benefits and harms and choose the option that results in the greatest net good.

Kantian ethical theory suggests that the inherent features of an action mate it right or wrong. This perspective places importance on the intrinsic worth of individuals, emphasizing the obligation of business to respect the right of privacy, the dignity and the autonomy of their employees. For this reason, under the Kantian approach, monitoring systems would be judged to be unethical to the extent that implementing them breached these obligations. Consider, for example, a CPM system used to report on minute to minute actions of an employee. Whether or not the benefits to the employer of such a system outweighed the costs to the employee, a Kantian would reject the monitoring as morally objectionable if she concluded that it violates the employee's right of privacy, offends his dignity, or undermines his autonomy.

So now you know the viewpoints of two ethical models on this issue.

The measures of the monitoring:

Reliance on CPM data for employee evaluation was measured using a procedure outlined by Hoffman (1960). Subjects were asked to estimate the weight their supervisors placed on CPM data during their performance evaluation relative to weights given other data sources (e.g. qualitative, non-computerized data). Scores on this measure can vary from 0 to 100 indicating a range of use from none to complete reliance on CPM data. Task coverage was measured using Grant and Higgins' (1991) instrument. This instrument asks subjects to indicate whether or not the computer keeps records on each of seven performance dimensions. Example dimensions are counting transactions, counting mistakes and recording terminal idle time. The task coverage score was determined by summing those dimensions for which the computer kept records. Three 5-point items were used to measure discussion of monitoring output (e.g. "to what extent do you have the ability to challenge the correctness of the monitoring information?", very little to very much). Frequency with which CPM output was received by supervisors and employees were each measured by a single item asking how often computer output which summarized the employee's performance was received by the supervisor and employee respectively. Each was measured on a five-point scale (never to daily).

Health problems was measured by presenting subjects with eight health complaints and asking them to place a check mark next to those problems they had experienced routinely during the past year. These items represent those complaints found by Smith et al. (1981) to be significantly different for monitored and non-monitored workers (e.g. headaches, stiff or sore wrists, and severe fatigue and exhaustion). A scale was constructed by adding up the number of checked health problems. Stress was measured using four 5-point items developed by Chalykoff and Kochan (1989). (e.g. "I experience tension on the job"--strongly disagree to strongly agree). Evaluation satisfaction was measured by using four 5-point items developed for this study. An example item is "the extent to which work quantity is only one of a well-rounded set of performance criteria"--very dissatisfied to very satisfied.

Measures of the following three non-CPM job characteristics were also included in the questionnaire; hours of computer use, task repetitiveness and task analyzability. Task analyzability refers to the degree to which there are well-know straightforward procedures that govern the performance of a task. Hours of computer use, task repetitiveness and task analyzability tend to increase the likelihood of monitoring (OTA, 1986). Because these job characteristics are also likely to affect stress and health problems, (Gardner et al., 1988). we need to control for them when examining the effects of CPM. Unless they are accounted for, the results will tend overstate the effects of CPM. Hours of computer use measured by asking subjects to estimate how many hours per day (on average) they worked on a computer terminal. Task repetitiveness and task analyzability were measured using an instrument developed by Withey et al. (1983). Three 5-point items measured task repetitiveness (e.g. "people in this unit do about the same job in the same way most of the time", strongly disagree or strongly agree). Three items measured task analyzability (e.g. "there is a clearly known way to do the major types of work I normally encounter", strongly disagree to strongly agree).

Monitoring can lead to health issues according to this study.

Now tell me again as to how it is ethical? I've just cited an article that shows that not only is it unethical, but it can lead to health issues in the employees.

Corp USA does not make the laws and regulations of the country. Corp USA does not vote in government officals. Corp USA also does not always follow its own code of ethics. Corp USA also does not always do what is best for the economy or country or citizens.

Bah all the more reason why I want to start up my own business, I am tired of working for crooks, cheats, and other unethical people in Corp USA.

seeing only the viewpoint of the USA Corps and not the workers, government, ethical models, law, and how it effects the USA economy. I see the bigger picture, and all you see is what the USA Corps see.

I see the USA Corps' viewpoint, but I do not agree with it.

There was no point, the point is moot.

If $2 is a princely sum in Brownpeepulistan...
...it matters not one jot what it's worth in the USA.

Oh yes it does, for foreign exchange rates, and what the USA Corporation pays. It matters very much, you've said so yourself as you said it saves the USA Corps money. Hence that point of it not mattering what it is worth in the USA is moot.

Corporatism is what made the USA (and Western Europe, and Japan, and Australia) what it is today. Problem is, corporatism - transglobal corporatism - eats its young, to whit: you.

Invalid term, Capitalism/Consumerism made the USA, etc what it is today. Labor helped to create that capital. The labor is paid money to help grow the economy by consuming things. Hence you have consumerism, cut out the consumer by sending their jobs to another country, and you have damaged the USA Economy. This is the start of a downward spiral as money is no longer in the hands of the consumer, which used to provide the labor. Three guesses what that does to the USA economy? So what happens when the top 10% of the economy has the wealth/capital and the other 90% does not? See where this is going? The only reason for past sucess of Capitalism was due to consumers consuming, getting money into the hands of the people. Hence Capitalism/Consumerism is what made the USA, etc what it is today. No point there as your point is invalid.

Understand this: all that matters is the bottom line, and if it's legal (or even probably legal) it's ethical.

If all that matters is the bottom line, then I guess the USA Corps are ignoring labor laws, their code of ethics, and other laws, and doing what they can to boost money for the company? If so, this is not only unethical, it is illegal. In this situation you end up with an evil corporation that will get caught eventually. Once again, an invalid point. Also something could be legal but unethical, I already covered that. That was the first thing we learned in Business Management, taking the same classes I am taking would show you that. What you are talking about is Classical Management which is a dinosaur that is going away and being replaced by Organizational Management. You need to update your information.

Some reading material for you:
[link|http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0809105543/qid=1078960779/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_11_2/026-3081265-2589249|http://www.amazon.co...6-3081265-2589249]
[link|http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0712656871/qid=1078960732/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_11_2/026-3081265-2589249|http://www.amazon.co...6-3081265-2589249]
[link|http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1881052869/qid=1078960681/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_10_4/026-3081265-2589249|http://www.amazon.co...6-3081265-2589249]

US Amazon links for people in the USA interested in the new Business Management:
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0809125277/103-8324986-9935818?v=glance|http://www.amazon.co...-9935818?v=glance]
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385260954/103-8324986-9935818?v=glance|http://www.amazon.co...-9935818?v=glance]
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1881052869/103-8324986-9935818?v=glance|http://www.amazon.co...-9935818?v=glance]

These books talk about team work, empowerment, mentoring, leadership, total quality management, facilitation, developing a code of ethics and sticking to it, etc. The bottom line is not always about how much money an organization can make, one has to look at the bigger picture. If all an organization cared about was money, they would eventually go out of business by ignoring the other aspects of the business.

Globalization is not an easy thing to master, there are many barriers one must overcome. You just learned that the USA has a different definition of secular than the UK has, imagine what else is different? One has to overcome language, cultural, religious, and governmental issues before doing a sucessful global business, most USA Businesses are not prepared for this. Just because people speak the same language does not necessarily mean that these issues are automatically dealt with.

Take for example a Help Desk in India, almost everyone I've spoken to who has called a Help Desk that is based in India has told me about their poor communication, lack of understanding, lack of quality, etc. Is Dell, HP, etc really better off by using cheaper labor? I say this because when they start losing customers or customers do not return to buy newer products, how are they going to make any money?

Read about Dell's woes here:
[link|http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5110933.html|http://zdnet.com.com...03_2-5110933.html]

Now I ask you, did they have these woes when the Help Desk was located in the USA?

Seems to be a lot of people seeing this problem:
[link|http://comment.cio.com/comments/14247.html|http://comment.cio.c...mments/14247.html]



Speaking about the Bottom Line:
[link|http://www.ovum.com/go/content/c,39608|http://www.ovum.com/go/content/c,39608]

When any investment is not delivering a sufficient economic return to your organisation you should be looking at more than reducing its cost, you should be questioning its fundamental value. If it turns out to have less value than you forecast for it, then you may have the option of cutting it out altogether.

Of course you can\ufffdt even start this exercise until you start measuring the economic returns as well as the costs of IT. Simply passing chunks of your business to India or Russia will not resolve any underlying value issues that your organisation may have. It will simply shift those issues further away from the core of your business, and may ultimately make them even more difficult to resolve.

Consider that it might be making things more difficult to resolve. Which in turn can come back and bite the USA Company later.

I submit to you that Offshoring may have hidden costs and may not be cheaper than hiring USA Citizens:
[link|http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/16/BUGTR32G6L1.DTL|http://sfgate.com/cg...6/BUGTR32G6L1.DTL]

It just boggles the mind that the USA Corporations did little to no research over the effect that Offshoring will have on their business. Hence you can now see why your points are either invalid or moot.