Online Social Networks and the Right to Fire Employees

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction/Abstract/Thesis statement
Body of the paper
Conclusion
References

Introduction/Abstract/Thesis statement

As online social media sites increasingly become a popular medium for communication and collaboration, another trend has also come about wherein the actions of people online become the basis by which they are judged. This is in reference to cases where people have been fired from their positions, based on their online commentary or actions that they did, while on a social media network. Such actions come in the form of employees posting on Facebook or tweeting on Twitter about how they are generally dissatisfied with the organizations they work for. As a result, employees often end up being laid off. This paper promotes the idea that organizations do not have the right to fire employees, based on their behavior in the web-based social networks, since it is no different from how a person would normally complain to their friends regarding the job (an act that has been done multiple times by billions of people throughout history). Online social media sites are in fact communication-networks, which provide people with the opportunity to socialize and to discuss the issues of their shared interest.

Therefore, the views presented by employees are not meant to slander the company in any way. Rather, they are merely a medium by which employees communicate their thoughts and ideas to people they know. Based on the above-stated premise, this paper will seek to clarify the ethics behind dismissing an employee, based on the views they present online when no malicious intent was actually present. This can be conducted by examining the morality behind monitoring the activities of employees online, as well as the ethical impasse that apparently occurs wherein a company dismisses an employee on the grounds of activities that are performed outside of workplace environments. It is expected that through this investigation, the researcher will be able to show that the act of firing an employee, based on their behavior in the web-based social networks, is completely immoral because the concerned policy aims for nothing short of depriving employees of their most basic rights and freedoms, as citizens. In order to ensure the absence of biasness in the would-be-deployed line of argumentation, as to what accounts for the policy’s detrimental effects, this paper will also provide readers with insight into how the policy advocates may go about promoting their views on the subject matter at stake. However, every of the about to be mentioned objections to the paper’s idea that employee monitoring is highly immoral will be countered twice.

Body of the paper

One of the foremost detrimental effects, concerned with the policy of monitoring employees online and using the obtained surveillance-data, as such that justifies the act of firing these employees, is the fact that the policy in question is strongly unconstitutional. After all, by indulging in the online forms of socialization, such as posting messages on Facebook, people do take practical advantage of their constitutionally guaranteed right to express their opinions publicly. Therefore, the policy in question is being clearly inconsistent with the most fundamental premise of democracy – namely, with the assumption that in democratic countries, people’s entitlement to the freedom of expression cannot be restricted, by definition. This, of course, leaves only a few doubts that the discussed policy is indeed highly unethical because it does violate the provisions of a secular law, which is there to guarantee the ethical integrity of the society’s functioning.

The proponents of employee monitoring defend this policy by the mean of pointing out the fact that, when people sign an employment contract with a particular organization; they agree to be willing to adjust their workplace conduct with what happened to be this organization’s corporate rules and regulations. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the policy of firing employees, based on their online-activities having been deemed ‘inappropriate’ – by acting in such a manner, employers strive to ensure that, while in the workplace environment, employees never cease addressing their professional responsibilities, as their main priority (Hartman 1998). The validity of this argument can also be illustrated in regards to the fact that, if the main purpose of the commercial organization’s functioning was providing employees with the unrestricted opportunity to explore their constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms, this organization’s continual existence would have ceased making much of a rational sense. Therefore, the policy of monitoring the online activities of employees, as the mean of assessing the extent of their professional adequacy, is thoroughly legitimate.

Nevertheless, the main reason why Western societies are considered democratic is that in these societies it is specifically the Constitution’s legal provisions, which represent the voice of a ‘final authority’, within the context of how citizens go about addressing life-challenges. Therefore, the suggestion that under certain circumstances people’s right to enjoy the freedom of speech can be limited is socially counterproductive. It is understood, of course, that employees are expected to act in a manner, consistent with what are the affiliated organization’s corporate values. However, these values by definition cannot be concerned with depriving workers of what makes them human, in the first place. This is especially being the case in the situations when employees end up fired, as the consequence of having posted the ‘offensive’ online-messages in the privacy of their homes.

Even though, as of today, there are ‘monitoring departments’ in just about every large organization, these departments’ very existence cannot be considered thoroughly legal. The reason for this is apparent – in Western countries, the right to subject people to surveillance is solely delegated to these countries’ law-enforcement organizations. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that it is specifically the members of this type of organization, who are qualified enough to interpret the actual significance of messages, posted on the web-based social networks. What it means is that, by monitoring and firing employees (due to the essence of their online activities), managers entrusted with the task do not only violate the law, by they actually waste their own time, due to have not been trained to address this specific chore, in the first place.

The policy of monitoring employees online, as the mean of assessing the measure of their professional competence, causes the concerned individuals to experience a great deal of emotional anxiety, which in turn has a strongly negative effect on their ability to benefit the affiliated organization professionally. This simply could not be otherwise, because while suspecting that they are being watched, employees grow emotionally unstable to an extent. This is because, being the subjects of surveillance, employees grow to assume that they are in fact ‘guilty’, in one way or another (Sprague 2011). In its turn, the realization of their deep-seated ‘guilt’, on the part of employees, causes them to think that their present employment with the company in question is temporary – it will last only until the time when the earlier mentioned ‘guilt’ is being discovered. As a result, employees become less professionally committed – hence, causing the organization/company where they work to grow less operationally effective.

The possible objection to the above argument can be formulated as follows: despite the fact that there a certain moral dubiousness to the policy of monitoring employees, this policy is nevertheless justified, as it often results in increasing the measure of employees’ productivity. The rationale behind this suggestion is simple – while knowing that their online activities are being recorded and consequently reviewed, employees do not experience the temptation to take the unauthorized breaks from work. After all, as Kirsten and Freeman pointed out, “Seventy percent of porn traffic occurs during regular business hours” (2003, p. 354). What it means is that, while subjected to monitoring, employees are simultaneously provided with yet additional opportunity to ensure their career-advancement – pure and simple. Therefore, it is not only that the concerned policy benefits employers, but employees, as well. Those workers that do not agree with this suggestion simply lack the sense of a corporate responsibleness.

The earlier suggestion, however, does not stand much of a ground, because the realities of a post-industrial living are associated with the process of more and more managers switching in favor of the so-called ‘participative’ managerial strategies, which stand in the opposition to the ‘authoritarian’ managerial paradigm. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that, as the relevant studies indicate, those employees that are allowed to address their professional duties in the essentially unsupervised mode, are much more operationally effective, as opposed to the ones that are being constantly ‘watched’ by their superiors. This especially appears to be the case in the organizations, affiliated with the economy’s IT sector. Therefore, there can be no any legitimate reason to believe that the policy of monitoring employees is discursively justified. Quite on the contrary – the more workers suffer from the violations of their personal privacy, the less productive they become.

Moreover, the very assumption that the measure of one’s professional productivity can be increased by the mean of monitoring the concerned individual’s online-activities, contradicts the main premise of the free-market economic paradigm, according to which, it is only the intellectually liberated workers, who are able to generate the so-called ‘surplus product’. In its turn, the continual accumulation of this product makes it possible for the Western civilization to remain on the path of a socio-cultural progress. Thus, it is not only that the discussed policy does not make much of a sense from the ethical perspective, but from the socio-economic one, as well – by subjecting employees to online-monitoring, managers undermine the overall measure of the Western economy’s competitiveness. As such, the activity in question can hardly be considered ethical, which in turn raises certain questions about its legitimacy.

In addition, the policy of exposing employees to online monitoring substantially reduces the measure of the existential autonomy, on the affected individuals’ part. After all, while knowing that their online activities are the subject of the third party’s surveillance, employees will invariably strive to adjust their actions to be consistent with what they think is being expected of them. However, since there can be no all-inclusive criteria, as to what employees may or may not do online, this will result in them adopting a passive stance in life, which in turn will negatively influence these people’s chances to attain a social/professional prominence. Moreover, this will also have a negative effect on concerned individuals’ ability to adapt to the workplace environment. The reason for this is that, as of today, it is namely one’s ability to find quick solutions to the rapidly emerging professional dilemmas, which makes him a particularly valuable employee. However, in order to be able to do this, an employee must be intellectually flexible – the quality that one attains not the least by the mean of socializing with other people online.

The proponents of the idea that employees can in fact be online-monitored and if necessary, faced with the prospect of losing their job, challenge the earlier mentioned suggestions by pointing out to what they consider the indications of the policy’s ethical soundness. One of these indications is the assumption that employees’ very realization that they are being constantly watched, while online, will naturally cause them to be more prompted to become thoroughly familiarized with the organization’s corporal values (Ray 2012). The reason for this is that the employers’ awareness that they are under the watchful eye of their superiors, when browsing through the Internet, should tell them that the organization where they work makes a point in promoting only the ‘morally spotless’ ones. Consequently, after having absorbed these values, employees will be much more likely to realize their full professional potential.

Nevertheless, in order for employees to be able to benefit from their affiliation with the organization’s corporate values, they must relate to them emotionally. This, however, will prove rather challengeable, for as long as employees perceive the organization’s ways of treating its workforce as being intellectually oppressive. After all, as practice indicates, the rules of conduct that do not correlate with what happened to be people’s subliminal longings, are being rarely recognized as representing an undisputed truth-value. Apparently, employees experience a particularly hard time, while trying to relate to them emotionally. What it means is that the policy of monitoring employees online can only result in endowing the policy’s subjects with the sense of a ‘corporate resentment’ – hence, reducing the scope of employees’ professional outputs. This once again suggests that the policy in question is ethically dubious.

The earlier mentioned objection can also be countered, in regards to the fact that the practice of subjecting employees to online surveillance implies that the initiative’s advocates are in the position to consider their views on morality, as being necessarily superior to the moral views of subordinate workers. This, however, is far from being the actual case, because it is namely people’s animalistic instincts, which define the essence of their behavioral patterns – regardless of whether the concerned individuals represent the organization’s top-management or its force of manual laborers. Therefore, there can be no ethically sound rationale in assuming that the organization’s top-managers are indeed much more morally adequate, as compared to their subordinates. Yet, this assumption serves as the conceptual premise, upon which the policy of monitoring employees online continues to rest.

We can also mention the fact that the discussed policy creates objective preconditions for managers to be tempted to abuse their executive powers while setting a personal score with those employees that they are supposed to supervise. This could not be otherwise, because there is no ‘checks and balances’ mechanism to the policy in question, which would have prevented the self-appointed ‘guardians of morality’, representing the organization’s top-managerial circle, from being in the position to pursue their personal agenda, while monitoring employees online (Lind, Greenberg, Scott, & Welchans 2000). In its turn, this presupposes that, while monitored, employees will never cease experiencing the anxiety of being treated unfairly. As a result, the measure of employees’ professional enthusiasm will sustain a great deal of harm, which will consequently have a strongly negative effect on the overall effectiveness of the organization’s functioning. This will especially be the case if the concerned organization is known to use the obtained surveillance-data, as the legitimate excuse to lay off workers.

The policy’s proponents point out to the fact that the suggestion that managers may be willing to abuse their powers, by the mean of subjecting employees to online monitoring, is rather speculative. According to them, the only reason why this policy continues to become ever more popular among managers is that it presents them with the opportunity to provide employees with the additional stimulus to prioritize taking care of their professional responsibilities, while in the workplace. In essence, the activity of monitoring employees is meant to endow the latter with respect towards the very notion of discipline – hence, ensuring their continual employment (Liedekerke 2004). Since this suggestion implies the policy’s beneficence to employees, there can be very little rationale in assuming that it may lead to the deterioration of the manager-employee relationships within a particular organization. This is especially being the case nowadays, when due to the ongoing economic recession, people’s chances to secure a well-paid job continue to grow increasingly slimmer.

Contrary to the above-objection’s main premise, there can be no good reason in assuming that, while addressing their professional responsibilities, employees need to have a ‘guiding hand’, which is supposed to help them to remain professionally focused. In fact, if such a ‘hand’ is indeed required, it means that the concerned employees should not have been hired, in the first place, as they would have fit the environment of a kindergarten so much better. Thus, it appears that the de facto agenda, on the part of those who advocate the monitoring-policy’s legitimacy, is concerned with concealing the fact that, as time goes on, native-born employees in Western countries grow increasingly incapable of acting responsibly. However, as practice indicates, the actual enforcement of responsibleness upon workers, such as by the mean of subjecting them to online-monitoring, can hardly prove effective.

By monitoring how employees behave online, organizations contribute to the process of the surveillance subjects becoming increasingly mistrustful towards their superiors. This eventual development is fully explainable – the very fact that they are being watched causes workers to assume that the organization they work for, does not believe in their professional integrity. This, of course, prompts employees to pay this organization with the same token of respect – slowly but surely, their professional attitudes become essentially hypocritical, which in turn is being extrapolated by the affected workers’ tendency to refrain from speaking their mind in the situations when the organization in question undergoes a structural change. Thus, the concerned policy can be well-referred to, as such that undermines the affiliated organizations’ ability to adequately react to the competitive challenges that they periodically face.

The main preconditions for people to be able to develop creative skills, which increase their value as employees, is these people’s continual exposure the professionally relevant flows of information. In this respect, employee monitoring appears a strongly counterproductive policy, as it establishes barriers on the way of employees interacting with the surrounding social environment. By being unable to come up with witty (and consequentially politically-incorrect) responses to other people’s posts on the web-based social networks, employees end up having the extent of their perceptual and cognitive integrity substantially undermined. Consequently, this causes employees to become ever more incapable of offering innovative approaches towards dealing with a particular professionally relevant challenge. Such an eventual development, of course, can hardly be welcomed, because while growing incapable of addressing the organizational challenges in the quick-minded manner, employees cease to be considered professionally fit.

Even though that the policy’s defenders do agree that it does benefit employees being endowed with the sense of creativity, they nevertheless believe that can be no rationale in referring to the extent of their creativity, as such that negatively relates to the measure of the concerned individuals’ susceptibility to online surveillance. After all, the concerned policy by no means aims to prevent employees from being able to think creatively, but rather to discourage them from acting in a manner, inconsistent with the organization’s corporate values. Therefore, it would be much more appropriate to refer to employee monitoring as yet an additional tool of helping workers to achieve self-actualization, by the mean of channeling their creativeness in the corporately appropriate way. In its turn, this implies that those workers that oppose the policy’s implementation, are simply not committed enough to work hard, which raises doubts about the appropriateness of their continual employment.

However, we have to understand that, in order to be considered creative, an individual must be capable of spotting the fundamental inconsistencies between the currently predominant socio-political discourse, on the one hand, and the observable emanations of the surrounding social reality, on the other. Therefore, a creative employee is necessarily the one who is able to question the validity of ethical conventions, adopted by a particular organization, as part of its corporate culture. What it implies, is that there is a positive link between an employee’s tendency to indulge in the ‘inappropriate’ behavior online, on the one hand, and his or her ability to benefit this organization professionally. Given the fact that the online-monitoring’s main objective is to identify the measure of every individual employee’s ‘moral wickedness’, there can be only a few doubts, as to the policy’s own ethical wickedness.

Also, the practice of employee monitoring presupposes that, within the organization, the relationship between managers and their subordinates is based upon the principle of paternalism. That is, employees are being encouraged to think that the opinions of their superiors are in a priori more valid than those of their own. This, of course, poses an acute danger to the ‘paternalistic’ organizations’ systemic integrity. The rationale behind this suggestion is quite apparent – ‘paternalistic’ organizations are always the vertically hierarchized ones, which means that their functioning is greatly affected by the external circumstances. Thus, willingly or unwillingly, the advocates of online monitoring do contribute to the process of organizations, on behalf of which they act, to grow progressively weakened from within. This, of course, once again illustrates the ethical dubiousness of the practice of subjecting employees to online monitoring – not even to mention firing them from work.

The policy of monitoring employees online causes them to experience the sensation of a societal alienation (Greenberg & Grunberg 1995). The reason for this is that, while suspecting that they are being monitored, employees naturally strive not to exhibit what they think represent their worst psychological inclinations. In its turn, this is being achieved by the mean of employees building their own little mental ‘world’, within the boundaries of which they feel more or less comfortable, while trying not to venture outside of this world for as long, as possible. It is understood, of course, that this state of affairs cannot be considered thoroughly appropriate, because it will naturally result in the affected employees becoming emotionally unstable, which will negatively affect their professional careers, on the one hand, and the concerned organization’s competitiveness, on the other.

Those who support the policy in question strive to substantiate their stance on the subject matter by suggesting that employee monitoring helps to ensure that, as the organization’s functional elements, employees only address those subject matters that fall well within the sphere of their professional competence. In its turn, this is supposed to prevent the affiliated organization from becoming ‘liberalized’ to an extent of being plunged in the state of a functional chaos. After all, it does not account for much of a secret that, as of recent, many managers make a deliberate point in associating themselves with the ‘progressive’ managerial paradigm, which presupposes that there is no any qualitative difference between managers and the subordinated workers. As a result, the organizations in which this paradigm happened to be implemented, suffer from the extent of their operational efficiency being undermined rather substantially. This simply could not be otherwise, because just about any organization can be discussed in terms of a thermodynamic system, the stability of which negatively relates to the amount of ‘liberty’, enjoyed by the system’s integral elements (Donovan 2007). Therefore, the policy of monitoring employees online is fully justified, because its primary objective is to maintain the organization’s structural solidity.

The above-mentioned assumption that the measure of a particular organization’s stability reflects the subtleties of how the concerned systemic elements (managers and employees) interrelate is discursively valid. However, it will prove counterproductive to think that these elements affect each other in the strictly mechanical manner. Being thoroughly biological, it is in people’s very nature to seek the confirmation of their existential fitness, which in turn causes them to aspire to attain a social prominence. What it means is that, if denied the prospect of being treated with respect (such as by the mean becoming the subjects of surveillance), employees will eventually cease remaining loyal to their employers. In its turn, this will account for the first step on the way of the affected organization beginning to lose its competitive edge. Thus, it is not only that the discussed policy’s fallaciousness is being revealed discursively, but also systemically.

In addition, the paternalistic belief that it is in the employees’ best interest to think twice about what they post on the web-based social networks, as the consequence of experiencing a fear of being watched, does not make much of a rational sense. The reasons for this are as follows: a) it presupposes that the state of intellectual arrogance, on the part of employees, is highly desired, b) it implies the undisputed ‘moral purity’, on the part of those individuals, assigned with the task of monitoring employees online. Both propositions do not stand even slight criticism. There is, however, is even more to it – the fact that there is no methodological consistency to the policy in question (workers never know when they are being watched and when are not), amplifies the affected individuals’ angst even further. As a result, they become increasingly less capable of prioritizing their professional agenda, while at work. This proves the validity of an old saying that ‘the road to hell is made out of good intentions’. Apparently, the promoters of online monitoring do not quite realize that the policy that they advocate cannot prove beneficiary to the would-be-affected organizations, by definition.

It appears that those people that support the idea that employees should be monitored, while online, possess very little understanding of how the human brain actually functions. To illustrate the validity of this suggestion, we can well mention the likely possibility for the monitored employees to experience the sensation of a cognitive dissonance, on a periodic basis. The reason for this is that, while struggling with the temptation to get online to post a message (due to the fear of being watched), employees are being prompted to suppress some of their deep-seated subliminal desires, as non-existent. In its turn, this makes these people’s perceptions of the surrounding reality to be distorted to an extent and consequently causes them to experience the earlier mentioned sensation of a cognitive dissonance – all due to the fact that they perceive the ways of the ‘virtual world’ utterly inconsistent with the code of corporate ethics, imposed upon them forcibly (Martinie, Milland & Olive 2013). This situation cannot be considered tolerable.

The policy advocates’ counterargument can be outlined as follows: the discourse of post-modernity implies that it represents the matter of crucial importance for managers to make sure that, while at work, employees do not preoccupy themselves with trying to become too close and personal with each other, because this will have a number of detrimental effects on the organization’s very functioning. In this respect, online monitoring comes rather indispensable, because it does allow managers to identify the signs of unethical conduct, on the part of their subordinates. For example, online monitoring discourages employees from harassing each other sexually – the practice that became immensely popular in the web-based social networks. Therefore, far from being the instrument of depriving employees of their social freedoms, online monitoring is nothing but one among many of the currently deployed technical means that aim to ensure employees’ compliance with the provisions of a conventional morality.

Nevertheless, even though it is indeed utterly important for employers to ensure that workers do not indulge in the acts of sexual harassment, there can only be a few doubts that the hawks of political correctness deliberately hypertrophy the issue at stake. The reason for this is simple – for as long as the mentioned issue continues to be considered discursively acute, these individuals are able to benefit from it personally, by the mean of charging money/academic credits for expressing their highly ‘valuable’ opinions , in regards to the sheer ‘danger’ of men referring to women as ‘chicks’, for example. Therefore, the fact that online monitoring does discourage employees from becoming overly informal with each other, by no mean establishes the policy’s legitimacy. Quite on the contrary – it shows that there are no objective reasons for this policy to be considered ethically sound.

Moreover, the very fact that, while online, employees are expected to exercise caution deprives them of the opportunity to effectively address their work-related stress. After all, the very popularity of the web-based social networks is mainly concerned with the fact that they make it possible for people to lessen the severity of their unconscious anxieties, by the mean of extrapolating them in the manner that does not pose any immediate danger to the society’s well-being. In this respect, these networks can be discussed in terms of a tension-releasing instrument. Once being denied the earlier mentioned opportunity, employees will have no option but to go about addressing their work-related stress in the way that cannot be thought of as socially appropriate, such as growing ever more intolerable towards their coworkers, for example. In other words, the practice of online-posting, on the part of employees, is nothing but one of their methods to attain an emotional equilibrium.

Finally, the policy in question is deeply inconsistent with the discourse of post-modernity, which presupposes that, as time goes on, people grow progressively subjectified within the surrounding social environment (Rosenberg 1999). That is, they become increasingly aware of the fact that there is no reason for them to refer to the moralistically minded individuals in terms of an ‘authority’. After all, in light of the recent breakthroughs in the fields of physics and genetics, the very notion of morality appears utterly relativistic. Therefore, there can be no doubts that, by monitoring employees online, organizations make it less likely for the concerned individuals to adjust to the discursive aspects of a post-industrial living. This once again exposes online monitoring as an ethically dubious practice, which results in the affected individuals growing ever more incapable of attaining a social prominence.

While trying to validate employee monitoring, the policy’s proponents also suggest that the discourse of post-modernity cannot be discussed outside of how the realities of today’s living are being affected by the threat of international terrorism. This points out to the fact that online monitoring is indeed a fully appropriate policy, because it does contribute towards ensuring employees’ safety. If a particular employee exhibits the signs of being maliciously minded, while posting messages online, it will only be natural for the affiliated employer to have this individual fired. The monitoring policy is also justified, in regards to the fact that, as of late, there have been a number of mass shootings that involved maliciously minded employees, on the one hand, and their coworkers, on the other. Therefore, it is ethically appropriate for employers to take practical advantage of online monitoring, as an effective tool for ensuring organizational safety.

It is understood, of course, that online monitoring does in fact help organizations to address the challenges of post-modernity more adequately. However, the concerned activity’s effectiveness extends only so far, as the policy of online monitoring does not provide its practitioners with the 100 percent guarantee that conspiring employees would be identified before they cause any damage (Fairweather 1999). On the other hand, online monitoring paves the way for the misidentifications of the presumably ‘evil’ workers to occur on a permanent basis. If the situation continues to persist, it will only be the manner of time before the corporate atmosphere, within the affected organizations, grows intolerably tense. This, of course, will undermine these organizations’ structural integrity – hence, resulting in massive layoffs. Thus, online monitoring provides employees with only a short-term protection, while simultaneously denying them the chance to achieve a professional self-realization in the future.

The discussed policy’s ethical inappropriateness can also be illustrated, in regards to the fact that the very notion of ‘monitoring’ is essentially euphemistic. On a subconscious level, employees understand this very well, which is why, while subjected to surveillance, they do not considered themselves ‘monitored’ but rather ‘spied upon’. As a result, employees grow ever more mistrustful of their superiors and of each other. In its turn, this will prevent managers from being able to enjoy their subordinates’ respect. This, of course, will limit the range of these managers’ executive authority. In other words, the policy of employee monitoring only adds to the possibility for the affiliated organization to sustain an utter functional fiasco. As such, it can hardly be thought of as being ethically sound. On the contrary – the policy in question opposes the very basics of organizational ethics.

One of the discussed policy’s long-term negative effects, is that indirectly slows down the pace of the ongoing socio-cultural progress. This could not be otherwise, as it is specifically people’s undermined ability to comment freely on the issues of a socio-political importance, which ensures the linear vector of humanity’s advancement. Therefore, by imposing limitations on how employees are supposed to express themselves on the web-based social networks, organizations oppose the objective laws of history. However, as historians are being well aware of, those societies/organizations that strive to oppose these laws cannot be considered competitive, in the evolutionary sense of this word. This once again exposes the sheer immorality of employee monitoring, as such that based upon the thesis that it is indeed possible to transgress the laws of nature and to be able to get away with it.

The proponents of employee monitoring address this argument by suggesting that the laws of nature can only be made the subject of a discursive reference, for as long as they remain physically/socially observable. Therefore, the fact that online monitoring does limit the scope of employees’ social freedoms cannot be thought of as an indication of this policy’s overall illegitimacy. This is because, as of today, more and more people in Western countries express their willingness to trade some of their social rights in exchange for safety (Eivazi 2011). Given the process’s objectiveness (observability), we can well assume that it fully correlates with the laws of nature, which in turn implies that online monitoring is ethically sound. This policy simply reflects the fact that, as of today, the notion of ‘progress’ grows increasingly synonymous with the notion of ‘safety’. However, there can be no good reason to think of the earlier mentioned semiotic transformation as being incidental, rather than dialectically predetermined.

However, the fact that, as time goes on, people do grow increasingly preoccupied with safety does not validate employee online monitoring, at least in the discursive sense of this word. The reason for this is that people’s strongly defined concern with the issues of safety can be well interpreted, as an indication of their existential degradation – the validity of this interpretation can be shown in relation to the history of the Roman Empire, for example. Therefore, by deploying the policy of employee monitoring, organizations provide additional momentum to the process of Westerners being progressively deprived of their former existential vitality. Eventually, this process may well lead to the collapse of Western civilization, as we know it. In other words, the policy in question may be well thought of as being synonymous with the notion of regress. As such, it cannot be considered ethical.

Far from what is being proclaimed officially, the discussed policy’s actual objective is to make sure that, while exploited by their employers, workers will not be able to defend their constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms. The reason for this is apparent – it is only a matter of comparatively short time, before the world’s economy will experience yet another recession, which should prove much more devastating than the one of 2008-2009. Therefore, by monitoring employees online, capitalists simply strive to solidify their control over the workforce, in the wake of the impending crisis – pure and simple. Since the policy in question appears to serve only the interests of the rich and powerful, it cannot be considered ethical, by definition.

Conclusion

In the main part of this paper, it was established that, even though there a number of formally legitimate justifications for the enactment of the policy of firing employees, based on how they act online, these justifications do not stand an in-depth scrutinization. Because, as it appears from the paper, it does not account for much of a challenge to expose the sheer dubiousness of the discussed policy’s ethical defense, there can be no doubt that the deployed line of argumentation against employee monitoring, is indeed discursively valid.

References

Donovan, M 2007, ‘Ethics and reflecting processes: a systemic perspective’, Journal of Social Work Practice, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 225-233.

Eivazi, K 2011, ‘Computer use monitoring and privacy at work’, Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 516-523.

Fairweather, B 1999, ‘Surveillance in employment: the case of teleworking’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 39-49.

Greenberg, E & Grunberg, L 1995, ‘Work alienation and problem alcohol behavior’, Journal of Health & Social Behavior, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 83-102.

Hartman, L 1998, ‘The rights and wrongs of workplace snooping’, Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 16-19.

Kirsten, M & Freeman, E 2003, ‘Some problems with employee monitoring’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 353-361.

Liedekerke, V 2004, ‘Media ethics: from corporate governance to governance, to corporate social responsibility’, Communications: The European Journal Of Communication Research, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 27-42.

Lind, E, Greenberg, J, Scott, K, & Welchans, T 2000, ‘The winding road from employee to complainant: situational and psychological determinants of wrongful-termination claims’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 557-590.

Martinie, M, Milland, L & Olive, T 2013, ‘Some theoretical considerations on attitude, arousal and affect during cognitive dissonance’, Social & Personality Psychology Compass, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 680-688.

Ray, A 2012, ‘Three things every employer and employee need to know about social media ‘, Baylor Business Review, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 22-23.

Rosenberg, R 1999, ‘The workplace on the verge of the 21st century’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 3-14.

Sprague, R 2011, ‘Invasion of the social networks: blurring the line between personal life and the employment relationship’, University of Louisville Law Review, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 1-34.

Click Here To Order Now!