I took it for granted the Los Angeles Times had shed the
employees they deemed a threat, but there I go again
assuming incorrectly.
The Tribune Company is an extremely paranoid business,
especially when it comes to it's own employees, and is
concerned the workers are not earning their keep.
I'm told security cameras have been installed throughout the Olympic Production Facility, at 8th and Alameda Streets, for reasons we can only guess, such as catching the workers actually using a chair.
Video monitoring – Video monitoring is often
considered very invasive to employees. In many states, an expectation
of privacy extends to the work environment. In California, the state
constitution grants individuals at work a right to
privacy. Additionally, California statutes protect employees
from being videotaped in areas where they are getting dressed or
undressed. The gray area is when video recording of employees is
primarily meant to deter crimes at the workplace.
In Hernandez v. Hillside, Inc., the California Court of
Appeals held that employees have an expectation of privacy and that
being surreptitiously videotaped is a violation of this
expectation. However, the court did find that there might be acceptable
ways to videotape– e.g., when you provide notification of the company
policy that they are subject to being videotaped.
Audio Recording – In many states, recording conversations – including phone conversations – violates not only the individual’s right to privacy but also may be illegal. In California there is a penal code section that states that it is a misdemeanor to record another person without their consent. This statute also creates civil liability for individuals for such actions.
Accordingly, this law protects individuals at work and also trumps
one-consent audio recording states — meaning that if someone from a
Texas is talking to someone in California and records the conversation,
courts have held that California will apply its law and the taping will
considered illegal.
Generally your company’s written policy will determine the
expectation of privacy an employee has at work. The broader the policy
and the more detailed it is as to different technologies used for
monitoring the better the chance that the courts will find that the
employee had a diminished expectation of privacy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
no more faking injuries, playing with cell phone, long breaks on short runs etc. every move someone may b watching or it may be recording. if you dont like it, Quit
Hmmm, I remember Pressmen being treated with respect and appreciation, like the 10th floor "Pressmen's Cafeteria". But that was when the Times was a Conservative paper that believed in FREEDOM. Now it's owned by LIBERALS who DON'T believe in freedom. God, I'm glad I left.
i dont remember pressman being treated with with respect. lmao. the Educated journalist, accountants ceos etc. would not get in elevator if a pressman was in elevator. they would just wait for next elevator and wouldnt even look are way in cafe
Post a Comment