She Snoops to Conquer Surveillance and the Right to...

Employers these days are becoming more and more concerned about employee theft and are making sure that they minimize these kinds of activities by using sophisticated and high-tech devices. However, it is essential to be honest about the actions and it is equally important to provide privacy in any kind of workspace. In case 9.3, Jean Fanuchi is a manager of a shopping mall in jewelry department. Since there were many recent incidents of theft and shoplifting, she decided to install hidden cameras and microphones without her employees knowledge. Since Jean Fanuchi invaded her employee’s privacy and dignity by doing something without letting them know, Jean Fanuchi acted immorally. According to Shaw, a costume jewelry department†¦show more content†¦It is possible that the viewer develops discomfort against the one who is being watched. At the beginning, Jean was aware of the consequences as she said â€Å"...what if our employees found out? How would they feel, being spied on?†(pg. 377). However, later on she changed her mind and decided to â€Å"spy† employees without their consent. With this decision, Jean should have been well aware to face many legal issues regarding employees privacy. First of all, her decision to install cameras and microphones was not completely wrong. Using Utilitarian point of view, the shrinkage or missing merchandise in jewelry department was a clear net harm to the company. For that reason, Jean had every right to minimize net harm and maximize benefits by installing cameras only in public place. Moreover, one has to be careful and should give privacy in a private place such as restrooms. However, if we take a moment to think we can ask ourselves; was this practice a ‘true’ utilitarianism? The answer would be no because she did not obtain employee’s consent prior to installing camera and microphones. According to and article by Edward, â€Å"if employees are informed of the possibility of surveillance, and it is not prohibited by contract or law, it is generally acceptable† (Hertenstein, 1997, page 44). It may be true that she wanted to maximize the store benefit and happiness by minimizing harms to the revenue cause from stealing but one can not measure greatest happinessShow MoreRelatedStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesCredits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear on the appropriate page within text. Copyright  © 2013, 2011, 2009, 2007, 2005 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form