by Elizabeth M Young

Created on: September 09, 2009   Last Updated: September 10, 2009

Ruling out any employer monitoring of Internet use outside of the workplace, employers are well served to monitor employees as they use the Internet on the job. The computer, paid time, and access to the Internet is property of the employer. Any abuse of those resources can cost the employer in wasted work hours, liability, and reputation.

For example, if an employee is stupid enough to engage in workplace gossip, harassment, or other misbehavior, the employing agency could be held liable for not preventing or stopping the harassment that was done on its premises and with its own equipment. Monitoring an employee's entire transaction activity is justified in order to determine quality of work, quantity of work, and whether inappropriate use of company assets is going on.

If an employee is engaging in more serious wrongdoing, such as running a private business or political campaign, accessing and using pornographic, racist, or gambling sites, or engaging in hours of gaming, the employer is better served by monitoring, so the activity can be identified and stopped as soon as possible.

Whatever gets a person fired gets a person fired, whether the actions are conducted on line or whether they are conducted in the real world. Employers can monitor for real world problems in behavior and actions. Computer activities become part of the person's real world behavior and actions. When company resources are misdirected from activities which benefit the bottom line, then it's the same as if company vehicles, supplies and equipment are taken and used for unauthorized purposes.

Finally, some people just don't get it. They think that, because they spread gossip about a coworker, badmouthed the company, or grossly disrespected the boss via a company computer, that they are exempt from the consequences because they decide that the computer is their "private" domain. No it's not. It's company property and everything that is done on the equipment is under the company's control.

In cases where a person wrote an e-mail that badmouthed the boss, violated company confidentiality, or hurt the reputation of the company, it does not matter that the written, recorded, and easily reproducible communications originated on a private computer and were done at home. The damage is far worse than if the person had spoken the words without a record of what was said. With e-mails and chat, there are endless possibilities of the record being exposed to a large number of people, and quickly, too.

Most employers have absolutely no right to intrude into or monitor a person's home computer or off duty on line activity. But proof of damaging and inappropriate behavior that affects the employer should be a reason for disciplinary action or termination even when the behavior was done on a home or non-work related computer.

Learn more about this author, Elizabeth M Young.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.