With the increased use of social media and technology in the workplace, employers have implemented more electronic monitoring of their employees.
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse is a California-based nonprofit corporation that has many goals, the primary of which being to raise consumer awareness of how technology affects personal privacy.  Recent surveys done on workplace monitoring revealed that the majority of employers in the workforce are monitoring their employees, according to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
Electronic monitoring is defined by the Office of Technology Assessment as “the computerized collection, storage, analysis and reporting of information about employees’ productive activities.”  According to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, employers focus on telephone, computer, email, social media and video monitoring.
The most recent survey conducted in 2007 by the American Management Association and the ePolicy Institute found that two-thirds of employers monitor their employees’ website visits in order to prevent inappropriate use, and 65 percent use software to block web sites that the employer deems unnecessary.
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse states, “close to half of employers track content, keystrokes and time spent at the keyboard. As part of monitoring for their company, 12 percent monitor blogs to see what is being written about their company, while 10 percent monitor social networking sites.”  
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse states that employers are also allowed to monitor calls with clients or customers for quality control purposes, but parties that have entered the call should be notified somehow that the call is being monitored. An exception to the rule is personal phone calls:  as soon as an employer notices that a phone call is a personal call, they are required to stop monitoring unless the company has specifically stated that the phone is not to be used for personal calls.
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse also outlines a few variations of computer monitoring that employers can use. The first is that employers can use software that allows them to see what is on the screen of the monitor and what is stored on the terminal. They can monitor the use of the Internet, web surfing and e-mail.
A second way employers can monitor computers is keystrokes. This type of monitoring allows employers to see how many keystrokes an employee is doing per hour and compare to see if they are above or below the requirement. Along with this type of monitoring comes health problems, which include stress disabilities and problems like carpal tunnel syndrome.
A third way to monitor is by tracking the amount of time an employee spends away from the computer, or idle time on the terminal.
When it comes to email, the basic rule that applies is that if the email system used is owned by the company, then they are allowed to look at the content. Also, if employees use the company’s computer to send emails, they can be monitored, even if they are sent from servers such as Yahoo or Hotmail.
According to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, when it comes to companies monitoring social media sites, it depends on the rules of the company and on state laws. Companies have policies in place stating what employees can or cannot post about the company online. Companies can also hire other companies to monitor employees on social networking sites.
The last type of major monitoring companies do is video monitoring. As stated by Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, “Video monitoring is a commonplace method of deterring theft, maintaining security and monitoring employees.” The major condition of video monitoring is that it will not be used if it is “physically invasive, such as hidden cameras in a locker room or bathroom.”
Monitoring of the workplace has been a tool used to monitor customer services and employee production.
The measurement of work by computer is a legitimate management tool that should be used wisely. Used appropriately, monitoring and related techniques, such as incentive pay or promotion based on productivity, can increase both organization effectiveness and the employees’ ability to advance,” the Computer Business and Equipment Manufacturers Association said.
Comprehensive monitoring policies should “state the specific business purposes for monitoring, clearly state the ownership of company computers, networks, files and e-mail, define acceptable use of company networks and e-mail, explain how monitoring activities are advantageous to employees, clients and the company, determine the consequences for policy violations and a few other items employees should know about what is expected,” according to the Information Systems Audit and Control Association.
One of the concerns of employees is the invasion of privacy.
According to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, “Electronic surveillance invades workers’ privacy, erodes their sense of dignity and frustrates their efforts to do high-quality work by a single-minded emphasis on speed and other purely quantitative measurements.”
As far as legislation goes for monitoring, there is nothing that specifically addresses email privacy and electronic monitoring activities, as stated by the Information Systems Audit and Control Association.
One of the actions an employee can take is in regards to the tort of intrusion on seclusion, but there are three hurdles that the employee must go through for the tort to take effect. The employee must define intrusion at first, then provide that the intrusion was intentional, and lastly what is an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, the National Work Rights Institute states.
According to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, when accepting a position at a company, employees are advised to review the policies set in place to avoid any future controversies.
Some students feel that employers have the right to monitor their activities.
Katie Lively, family and consumer science sophomore from Plaquemine, said, “To a certain extent, it is okay for the employer to know what the employee is doing on their computers while on the clock.”
Some students also felt that if a company pays for the equipment, they should be able to monitor its use.
“If it is something the company is paying for, it is their right to monitor it,” Malory Landry, senior accounting major from Morgan City, said.