Work privacy and autonomy

Lippke (William and Vicent, p. 456) states that privacy is a core aspect towards realizing human autonomy in work places. Privacy involves keeping of one’s personal information confidential so that a third party cannot access it. It involves two key things, individuals have power to control some information over themselves, and they also control who experiences or observes them for whatever reason. Autonomy refers to the capacity of an individual to make rationally positive choices concerning their ends and activities. Methods such as close supervision and constant correction for every mistake leads individuals into viewing themselves as less worth of autonomy because they lack the space of learning things on their own. The freedom to learn from one’s mistakes gives individuals a sense of satisfaction that they can act autonomously which builds confidence in them enhancing workplace productivity.

In the contemporary world, organizations subject workers to tests and surveillance procedures which interfere with their own privacy. For instance, workers have shown consistent resistance in the urine tests that most US organizations subject individuals to before employing them. While the organizations hold that the tests are purely to protect the health of co-workers and consumers besides enhancing that they employ productive individuals, the tests have ignited debates on concerning their integrity. The contractual model introduces the aspect of legal framework to enhance the success of the contract. According to DeJardins, he employer reserves the right to ensure that the contract is fraud less by collecting prospective employee’s relevant job information such as background qualifications and academic qualifications and individual experience.

The accessed information should be solely for the purpose of making decision whether a particular individual is viable for hiring. Brenkert adds that Job relevance puts a limit on the information that an employer acquires from an employer. His arguments also support that employee social and moral conduct such as honesty, industriousness and willingness to work with others form part of job relevance information. The more the employers subject workers to tests or surveillances of any kind, the less control they have over working environment. As a natural reaction to protect their own privacy, workers will start viewing their places of work as oppressive environment where they rights to privacy get violated. Researches have surprisingly how employees submit to urine tests with little resistance in spite of the test interfering with their privacy.

Such submissions may indicate that workers have come to accept that they have little control over their privacy in their working places and all that they need to do is to comply with the existing policies to make their lives smooth. DesJardins and Brenkert’s contractual method overlooks key aspects that define employer/employee relationship in work places. He also notes that some of the information that employees gather from workers serve as a tool for oppressing them further and interfere with their privacy in their work places. He points out that property rights together with socio-political institutions have granted some individuals powers to step into other people’s autonomy. The process of gathering employee information interferes with worker’s autonomy and privacy value but, organizations also need to protect their property value by employing workers that they understand.

There is however, need to review the methods of protecting employee privacy in places of work because property rights differ from privacy rights. It is not possible to have a situation where both employer and employees enjoy equal rights in a realistic organizational situation. Lippke’s argument by large seem to support the idea that employers should acquire information from the employees although he states that there should be boundaries beyond which employers should not go to protect worker privacy and autonomy. However, he also states that all the power lies on the hands of the employer because workers need the job more than employers need them. It becomes difficult to set boundaries for employers who have total control of the job market.