NWI Electronic Monitoring Legislative Brief

These problems are made worse by the manner in which monitoring is generally conducted. For example, most employers make no effort to avoid monitoring personal communications. In fact, the majority of employers install systems that make no distinction between business and personal messages, even when more discriminating systems are available.

The final indignity is that employees don't even know when they are being watched. While most employers provide employees what is described as notice, the information provided is generally useless. The standard employer notice states only that the company reserves the right to monitor anything at any time. Employees do not know whether it is their e-mail, voice mail, Web access, or hard drive that is monitored. They do not know whether the monitoring is continuous, random, or as needed. They do not even know whether they are being monitored at all. Such notice is almost worse than no notice at all.

As bad as the situation is today, it is likely to be far worse in the future. Many people today do work for their employer on their home computers. The most direct example of this is telecommuting. According to a recent New York Times article, approximately 20 million employees and independent contractors now work at home at least one day per month, and this number is growing rapidly. Millions more have linked their home computer to their office network so they can work from home informally on evenings and weekends.

When this occurs, people's home computers are subject to monitoring by their employer. Workplace computer monitoring systems monitor the entire network, including a home computer that is temporarily part of the network. This means that personal communications in our home computers will be revealed to our employers. Personal e-mail sent from or received by our home computers will be disclosed to our employers, along with personal letters, financial records, and any other personal information in our home computers. Not only is this possible, it is highly likely. At a recent labor and employment law conference corporate attorneys uniformly replied in the affirmative when asked if they would be interested in having personal information from employees' home computers.

STRESS

Electronic monitoring has also produced substantial stress in the workplace. It affects self-esteem and employees' sense of dignity. The feeling that their employer is continually watching them in some way can be unnerving and distracting requiring constant vigilance should the employee do something to upset the watchful eye of the employer. Many employees who are electronically monitored not only feel added stress but less satisfaction with their jobs. Studies have shown that employers who introduce electronic monitoring into the workplace are likely to encourage their employees to favor quantity of work produced over the quality of work, contributing to stress. In a study headed by D. DiTecco, a Senior Consultant, of Management Sciences Consulting, Bell Canada, Montreal, entitled Operator Stress and Monitoring Practices, it was reported that 55% of all long distance and directory assistance operators experienced added stress due to some form of telephone monitoring. Increased stress can often lead to physical symptoms. In a study by the Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, out of the surveyed employees, higher levels of stress in monitored employees resulted in an increase in somatic complaints, including a 27% increase in occurrences of pain or stiffness in shoulders, a 23% increase in occurrences of neck pressure and a 21% increase in back pain experienced by employees. As a major occupational health problem, stress and stress related symptoms can create medical expenses, lost time and absenteeism. Ironically, the high level of stress caused by "Big Brother" electronic monitoring systems can diminish the productivity that these systems are designed to improve.
return to top of document

MORE EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS

Most employers are not voyeurs. More often than not, they would rather not know personal information about their employees that has no bearing on job performance. Yet there is rarely an attempt to be more discriminating in their practices or a balancing of employer needs with employee privacy concerns There are a variety of ways that employers can address specific concerns without monitoring highly personal information. The following are a few suggestions.

Businesses should properly train managers and supervisors to deal with employee issues and problems. Most businesses do not have managers that are properly trained to deal with sensitive employee subjects. These staffs need to be observant and reactive to employee needs. Properly trained managers are a company's best asset in terms of dealing directly with and correcting many of the concerns that prompt the adoption of electronic monitoring practices. Supervising staffs can set conduct guidelines, address concerns, mediate complaints, as well as monitor and deal individually with those employees that choose to abuse company resources.

Businesses should always conduct an in-house assessment to identify whether electronic monitoring is even necessary. This seems like an obvious point, but many businesses adopt large scale monitoring programs on the assumption that they will add benefits to their workplace without identifying their own specific requirements and whether the adoption of an electronic monitoring program would meet those requirements.

Often employers adopt random, across the board monitoring programs that are overbroad and unnecessary to meet their specific demands. They need to be much more discriminating. Once a business decides that they want to adopt an electronic monitoring program for one or more specific purposes, they should work to both limit the type and extent of their monitoring practices to the degree necessary to meet that objective.

If a company does choose to adopt a program of electronic monitoring, proper notice should be given well in advance of any monitoring practices. This notice should explicitly state what would be monitored as well as when this monitoring would occur. The American Management Association has recommended that employer's give notice of electronic monitoring since 1997.

Workplace Technologies

TELEPHONE MONITORING

The concern of employers that employees are spending too much time on company phones for personal reasons is a legitimate one. In order to curb overuse of company phones, employers could begin by doing the following:

Employers should only monitor business related employee calls. This is most important in the service industry where calls to and from customers are monitored for quality purposes. Employers in this situation should make sure that as soon as the call being monitored is determined to be of a personal nature, the monitoring device should be shut off.
To ensure that employees do not make personal calls on business phones, separate phones should be installed for personal use. Employers should not listen in on employee calls that are unrelated to the regular conduct of business. Employers who nonetheless intend to continue monitoring should do so only to meet specific concerns and should utilize a system of telephone call accounting where numbers are captured on an extension by extension basis and compared by a computer with a list of authorized numbers. As an alternative to content based monitoring, this method is less intrusive and will achieve similar results.

E-MAIL

Employers can monitor e-mail use without being intrusive. Employers need not read employee e-mails directly. Employers could instead record how much time an individual employee spends on their e-mail account. If the time recorded is excessive, then the employer can inquire further, but employers should not catalogue and record the content of all the e-mail an employee sends and receives. Monitoring time spent as opposed to content accomplishes the employer's objective and respects employee privacy.

Employers who nonetheless intend to continue monitoring should do so only to meet specific concerns and should utilize a system of e-mail message accounting where addresses are captured on a terminal by terminal basis and compared by a computer with a list of authorized addresses. As an alternative to content based monitoring, this method is less intrusive and will achieve similar results.

Employers who are concerned about the protection of trade secrets and confidential company documents should limit access to such files to only a select number of employees. Additionally a record should be kept of which employees have downloaded sensitive materials, and if possible such documents should be electronically marked. Tracking the documents themselves limits the need to monitor all operations in an employee's work space. Employers can also block the transmission of marked documents until proper clearance has been obtained. Another way to protect the interests of the company without infringing upon employee privacy is for employers to do specific critical word searches of electronic mail sent out by employees that would indicate an extremely high likelihood of improper activity regarding company secrets. This would allow employers to identify improper outgoing electronic correspondence without reading the contents of other messages. Such searches should be as circumscribed as much as possible to meet their objective.

Using the above strategies can also help with relieving pressure on a company's electronic system. Curbing the recreational use of e-mail would substantially reduce the threat of having to increase bandwidth. Nevertheless, employers need to regularly assess the needs of their businesses and determine whether their electronic systems have the capacity to maintain and grow with the business. Often personal use by employees is used as a scapegoat for the technical limitations of the employer's system generally.

INTERNET USE

Employers can monitor internet use without being intrusive. Employers need not inspect web site activity directly. Employers could instead record how much time an individual employee spends on the Internet. If the time recorded is excessive, then the employer can inquire further, but employers should not catalogue and record every web site employees use. Monitoring time spent as opposed to content accomplishes the employer's objective and respects employee privacy. In order to guard against employees accessing illicit web sites on company machines, companies should consider the option of using software that is specially tailored to block out web sites that employers find inappropriate for employees to view while working. This would eliminate the need for employers to inspect every web site that an employee visits.

VIDEO MONITORING

Video monitoring technologies should only be utilized for surveillance in safety sensitive areas such as parking garages and stairwells. Use of such techniques in investigations may sometimes be necessary, but only as a last resort. Wrongdoing can often be uncovered by quietly working with supervisors and rank and file employees. While few employees want to be identified as pointing the finger at a co-worker, if they can help identify a thief or drug dealer without being put in the spotlight they will often cooperate. If these options are unsuccessful, employers may need to take more aggressive steps, but they should utilize the least intrusive means possible to achieve their goals. Often independent professionals are better suited for these activities than the employer and its management staff. Video monitoring in private areas such as locker rooms and bathrooms is never appropriate.

INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL

No court has ever gone so far as to require an employer to pre-emptively monitor their workplace in order to shield themselves from claims of sexual harassment. Indeed some have argued that by monitoring their workplaces prior to any claim of sexual harassment an employer may be creating liability for herself should a claim for sexual harassment arise because by monitoring she should have known behavior was occurring even if it was not specifically brought to her attention. In order to guard against employees accessing illicit web sites on company machines, companies should consider the option of using software that is especially tailored to block out web sites that employers find inappropriate for employees to view while working. This would eliminate the need for employers to inspect every web site that an employee visits.

COMPANY SECRETS

Another way to protect the interests of the company without infringing upon employee privacy is for employers to do specific critical word searches of electronic mail sent out by employees that would indicate an extremely high likelihood of improper activity regarding company secrets. This would allow employers to identify improper outgoing electronic correspondence without reading the contents of other messages. Such searches should be as circumscribed as much as possible to meet their objective.

SYSTEM OVERLOAD

Using the above strategies can also help with relieving pressure on a company's electronic system. Curbing the recreational use of e-mail, the Internet, and the phone in these ways would substantially reduce the threat of having to increase bandwidth. Nevertheless, employers need to regularly assess the needs of their businesses and determine whether their electronic systems have the capacity to maintain and grow with the business. Often personal use by employees is used as a scapegoat for the technical limitations of the employer's system generally.

TRUST

In order for a company to really trust their employees, attention needs to be paid to a company's hiring practices. Taking time to hire those people that are not only qualified but demonstrate a vested interest in the company would reduce the need for such programs like electronic monitoring. If a company chooses to invest more time and energy into those employees it hires, the need for electronic monitoring would be reduced. Additionally, employers that work to create a healthy, friendly and fair workplace environment find that their investment is well worth the appreciation and trust created and a corresponding reduction in workplace abuses.
return to top of document

THE STATUS OF LAWS AFFECTING ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF EMPLOYEES

FEDERAL LAW:

The only relevant federal legislation to protect employee privacy is the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. The ECPA, with certain exceptions, prohibits the interception, disclosure, or use of a wire, oral or electronic communication. This protection applies to all businesses involved in interstate commerce and has also been interpreted to extend to most intrastate phone communications. It also applies to conversations between employees that employers may overhear because the employees are wearing headsets.

The Act creates both criminal and civil causes of action. Civil remedies may include compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees and other litigation costs. There are three exceptions to this blanket prohibition.

One exception allows wire and communications service providers (common carriers) to intercept communications if done for quality of service purposes. Under this exception, a telephone company can monitor its employees to ensure adequate job performance and supervise customer contacts.

A second exception allows interception when there is consent. A party to the communication may intercept the communication, or prior consent may be given by one of the parties to the communication. Generally, courts will not find implied consent. For instance, knowledge of the capability of monitoring alone will not substitute for actual consent. See Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F. 2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983). Consent will be implied where the employee is aware of a general monitoring program and uses a business-only phone to make a personal call when other phones are provided for that purpose. See Simmons v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 452 F. Supp. 392 (W.D. Okla. 1978), aff'd., 611 F 2d 342 (10th Cir. 1979).

The third and primary exception allows for wire eavesdropping when done in the "ordinary course of business": context and content.

Under a context analysis, emphasis is placed on the importance of the business policy served by the monitoring and extent to which the monitoring furthers that policy without unnecessarily interfering with employee privacy. Business units whose primary function involves customer contact via telephone have the strongest argument for the legitimacy of monitoring. The "unnecessary interference" element includes considerations of whether the monitoring was announced or covert and whether separate telephones were provided for personal calls.

A content analysis focuses on whether the monitored call was personal or business in nature. Regardless of their chosen approach, the courts have consistently held that an employer violates the act when it continues to monitor a purely personal phone call after learning of its personal nature. See U.S. v. Harpel, 493 F. 2d 346 (10th Cir. 1974) and U.S. v. Axselle, 604 F. 2d 414 (5th Cir. 1980). The employer may be limited to a "reasonable" length of time to make this determination. Courts which have considered this question have defined "reasonable" as anywhere from 10 seconds to 5 minutes (See Watkins and Axselle).

What limited protections ECPA does provide to employees have been greatly weakened because the statute has quickly become outdated. The ECPA does not apply to several modern monitoring techniques such as electronic mail monitoring, Internet monitoring and video surveillance. Since ECPA requires an "interception" of a communication, communications in a stored state are exempt. Additionally, as in the case of electronic mail, courts have so far found that company owned proprietary systems are exempt. See Shoars v. Epson, 90 SWC 112749 and 90 BC 7036 (Superior Court, Los Angeles County). Assurances by employers that monitored and stored employee e-mails are not reviewed by management is no guarantee that employers will not reprimand or terminate employees for the content of their e-mail messages. See Smyth v. Pillsbury & Co. 914 F. Supp. 97, 101 (E.D. Pa. 1996)

STATE LAW:

In addition to federal statute, employees sometimes also receive some privacy protection from various state constitutional, common law and statutory sources. Most states have a constitutional provision that reflects the proscriptions in the Fourth amendment regarding search and seizure. Some states have specific constitutional guarantees of privacy that extend beyond the Federal Constitution's privacy rights. Only California courts, however, have held that the state constitutional right of privacy applies with respect to both public and private employers. See Porten v. University of San Francisco, 134 Cal. Rptr. 839 (Cal Ct. App. 1976) In all other states, employees have successfully invoked the state constitutional right of privacy only after establishing the government as the employer. Some state courts, such as New Jersey and Alaska, have nevertheless determined that their state constitutions can form a basis for creating public policy arguments in favor of a private sector employee's right to privacy.

A majority of states do have statutes restricting the interception of wire communications by private individuals. These states, however, generally mirror the ECPA, and contain similar exceptions and exemptions. Although some states have shown a willingness to legislate in the employee privacy area, the efforts have only been piecemeal. Within the past year California has added a section to its Labor Code that prohibits an employer from monitoring, without a court order, employees in restrooms, locker rooms or other places designated by the employer for changing clothes. Labor Code, Sec 435 (a) to (c). Additionally, Connecticut added a section to its labor code requiring employers to give employees written notice of the types of monitoring which may occur. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec 31-48d. Nevertheless, state governments have not addressed the issue comprehensively or uniformly, and in most cases have not addressed it at all.

Finally, some limited protections exist in the common law of torts. The tort that most plaintiffs use to challenge employer monitoring and surveillance is the intrusion-on-seclusion tort. The classic conception of this tort, recognized in every state, is that it is used to punish highly offensive privacy invasions. There has been an attempt to apply the tort in the employment context to challenge workplace monitoring abuses. Under present law, however, formidable obstacles face the employee who wishes to bring such a privacy claim.

First, the intrusion-on-seclusion tort requires the employee to establish that the monitoring conduct is highly objectionable to a reasonable person. Because routine monitoring can appear harmless from some perspectives (especially that of a third party), and because the negative effects of such monitoring are often gradual and incremental, this standard frequently forecloses an employee claim. In particular, when the monitoring complained of has been arguably linked to work-related activities, those challenges have been unsuccessful. See Barksdale v. IBM 620 F. Supp. 1380 (W.D.N.C. 1985).

Additionally, courts have not been receptive to employee claims that their work environments contain sufficiently private spaces for an invasion of privacy to occur. See Ulrich v. K-Mart Corp., 858 F. Supp. 1087 (D. Kan. 1994). For example, an employee's office, desk or locker may be held to be the employer's property, and therefore not private. The combination of these elements typically defeats an employee's tort claim in all but the most egregious of circumstances, which usually involve monitoring in areas such as bathrooms or locker rooms. See, for example, Speer v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, 646 N. E. 2d 273 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1994).
return to top of document

CONCLUSION

As the emphasis in our economy moves from manufacturing to service, the American workplace is being rapidly transformed into an electronic office. There is a legitimate need for newer and better laws to deal with electronic monitoring in the workplace. Current laws are outdated, vague or more often silent on this issue. Additionally, less intrusive strategies must be developed to deal with emerging monitoring technologies. Monitoring without individual suspicion is a gross invasion of employee privacy. Both the needs of the employer and the privacy concerns of the employee need to be addressed. Nevertheless, employers must recognize that even the best solutions are imperfect and that some flexibility on corporate goals is required in order to have meaningful privacy protection. Otherwise, as America enters the twenty-first century, the American workplace will remain stuck in 1984.
return to top of document

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

DOESN'T ELECTRONIC MONITORING BOOST COMPANY PRODUCTIVITY? Not necessarily. While quantity of work is sometimes increased with the introduction of electronic monitoring, the quality of the work and service to customers usually suffers greatly. In a study done by Columbia University Professor A.F. Westin, when electronic monitoring was introduced, customer service employees found it difficult to maintain quality. The fact that employees were being monitored while doing work subjected them to added pressure, which in turn affected the quality of work performed. The inherent nature of electronic monitoring creates an expectation to produce more. It is assumed by employees, and rightly so, that by electronically monitoring them, employers want to ensure that employees are in fact working at their jobs on a constant basis. Therefore, employees feel a pressure to work as much and as fast as they can in order to yield more as they are being watched by management. It is assumed by employees that since they are being watched, management prefers quantity over quality of work.

DON'T EMPLOYERS NEED TO ELECTRONICALLY MONITOR THEIR EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO GUARD AGAINST POSSIBLE SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS? No, employers do not always need to introduce electronic monitoring in order to prevent sexual harassment claims. There is no legal requirement for employers to preemptively monitor employees to protect against possible future claims such as these. Employers need to strike a balance between the need for employee privacy and concerns over employee misconduct in the form of sexual harassment. If employers have just cause to suspect an employee is using his or her computer to engage in potentially sexually harassing behavior, then the monitoring of that employee would be justified and serve the interests of both management and the other employees. If no such incident of sexual harassment has occurred, there is no legitimate reason to use that excuse to electronically monitor all employees at all times. In order to guard against employees accessing illicit web sites on company machines, companies should consider the option of using software that is especially tailored to block out web sites that employers find inappropriate for employees to view while working. This would eliminate the need for employers to inspect every web site that an employee visits which has the potential to make the employer privy to very intimate details of employees' lives.

ISN'T ELECTRONIC MONITORING IN THE WORKPLACE NECESSARY TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIAL COMPANY TRADE SECRETS? No, it is not necessary to electronically monitor employees in order to protect the company. Even though employers are legitimately concerned about the possibility that employees might use computerized trade secrets in improper ways, including passing them on to competitors, intrusive monitoring is not necessary to shield the company. The general response to this threat of disclosing company secrets is to monitor virtually every action that takes place on employee's computers, including e-mail and documents on desk-top hard drives. Employers could protect trade secrets, without reading personal documents, by restricting access to sensitive information and electronically recording the identity of everyone who accesses or downloads classified documents. Tracking the documents themselves limits the need to monitor all operations in an employee's work space. Another way to protect the interests of the company without infringing upon employee privacy is for employers to do critical word searches of electronic mail sent out by employees that would indicate improper use of confidential information. The criteria for identifying such words should be specifically limited to those words that would identify only such information. This would allow employers to identify improper outgoing electronic correspondence without reading the contents of other messages. Such searches should be as circumscribed as much as possible to meet their objective.

WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT BE ENTITLED TO DICTATE HOW PRIVATE MANAGEMENT CAN RUN THEIR BUSINESSES? The government at times must act to ensure that management treats its workers fairly and justly. In the past, Congress has passed numerous laws placing restrictions on private business activities. Such laws include actions prohibiting private businesses from hiring children, discriminating against women and minorities, and paying sub-minimum wages. In addition , legislation has been enacted to ensure employees' rights to organize unions, and to receive prior notice of expected plant closings. Today, in order to protect employees' right to privacy and dignity, restrictions on electronic monitoring by employers must be enacted.
return to top of document

MODEL ELECTRONIC PRIVACY ACT

Definitions

The term "electronic monitoring" means the collection of information concerning employee activities or communications by any means other than direct observation, including the use of a computer, telephone, wire, radio, camera, electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo-optical system.
The term "employee" means any person who performs services for an employer in exchange for financial remuneration, including part time, leased, or former employees.
The term "employer" shall mean any person, partnership, corporation, or other organization engaged in commerce, or any other person or organization which obtains the services of individuals in exchange for financial remuneration.

Information Which May Be Collected

An employer may use electronic surveillance to collect any information so long as:
1. The information is collected at the employer's premises and
2. The information is confined to the employee's work.
3. Exception: electronic monitoring, including security cameras, whose sole purpose and principal effect is to collect information permitted by this act is not prohibited by section (ii) because it collects some information about employees which is not confined to the employee's work.

General Notice

Each employer which engages in any type of electronic monitoring shall provide prior written notice to all employees who may be affected.
This notice shall provide the following:
1. The information which is to be collected;
2. The means by which this information is to be collected;
3. The times at which the monitoring is to occur;
4. The location of the monitoring equipment;
5. The use to be made of the information which is collected;
6. The identity of the employees who will be monitored.
Exception: Where an employer has reasonable grounds to believe that employees are engaged in conduct which violates the legal rights of the employer or the employer's employees and involves significant harm to that party, and that electronic monitoring will produce evidence of this misconduct, the employer may conduct monitoring without giving notice.
Where an employer's monitoring program will include the employer's customers or members of the public, the employer shall provide notice to those affected. This notice may take any form that is reasonably calculated to reach the affected parties.

Simultaneous Notice

Employers which engage in random or periodic monitoring of employees' communications, such as telephone service observation or monitoring of electronic mail, shall inform the affected employees of the specific events which are being monitored at the time the monitoring takes place.
Exception: employers who are engaged in a bona fide quality control program need not provide simultaneous notice. A bona fide quality control prMISSING DATAback on the employer's evaluation of their performance at a time when they can reasonably be expected to remember the events upon which their evaluation is based.

Customer Notice
If an employer conducts electronic monitoring of oral communications between employees and customers, it shall:

Provide customers with a recorded announcement that their communication may be monitored and the reason for the monitoring,
Provide customers with an equally convenient method of communication which is not monitored.

Private Areas
No electronic monitoring shall take place in bathrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, or other similar private areas.

Disclosure
Information concerning employees which is collected through electronic monitoring may be disclosed only:

With the prior written consent of the employee (such consent shall not be a condition of employment);
To officers, employees, or authorized agents of the employer who have a legitimate need for the information in performance of their duties;
To appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Non-Retaliation
No employer may discharge, discipline, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee because the employee has asserted his or her rights under this statute, assisted other employees in asserting their rights, reported violations of this statute, or participated in enforcement actions under this statute.

Enforcement

Administrative
The Secretary of ______________ shall have the authority to investigate alleged violations of this act. Any employer who is found to have violated this act shall be fined an amount not to exceed $_____.
Private Right of Action
Any person whose rights under this act have been abridged may file a civil action. The Court may award:
1. actual damages but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500;
2. punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law;
3. reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation expenses reasonably incurred;
4. other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.

Waiver of Rights
The rights provided by this act may not be waived by contract or otherwise, unless such waiver is part of a written settlement to a pending action or complaint.

Preemption
Nothing in the Act shall be construed to preempt, modify, or amend any State, county, or local law, ordinance, or regulation providing greater protection to the privacy of employees or customers.

return to top of document

STRATEGIC ISSUES

Breadth of Coverage

Our model statute is comprehensive. It covers all significant electronic surveillance issues. We have learned from past experience, however, that many legislatures are unable to cope with this many issues in a single bill, especially when it is their first experience with the subject. It may be necessary to enact electronic surveillance legislation in a series of bills. If this is true in your state, the first bill should probably cover notice and or surveillance of private areas such as bathrooms and locker rooms. These issues are relatively simple and non-controversial. Once these protections are in place, the more difficult issues can be addressed in subsequent bills.

Coalitions

As with any legislation, coalition building is essential. The first alliance you will need is with organized labor. In most states, they will be the only ally which has real political muscle. The most active unions in this area are the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and the Service Workers International Union (SEIU).

The number of other organizations you can add to your coalition is larger than you might suspect. Privacy abuses such as cameras in bathrooms and reading personal e-mail strike a chord with many people who are not traditional allies on employment issues. In Connecticut, for example, we were able to recruit over a dozen different organizations to work on a notice bill including disability and religious organizations. While most of these groups were not political powerhouses, their collective influence made a substantial contribution to getting the bill passed.

Business

The business community is not uniformly opposed to our proposals in this area. It may well be possible to find significant employers who will support your bill. Any employer with a generally progressive reputation is worth a call. If this is unsuccessful, Business for Social Responsibility ( a national network of reasonably progressive employers) may be able to help. Please call the Institute and we will be happy to introduce you to them.

It may be worthwhile to contact mainstream business organizations such as the local chamber of commerce before introducing a bill. While it is highly unlikely that they will support you, their inclusion in the process early on will often minimize their opposition and could even secure their neutrality on a bill.
return to top of document

ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT ELECTRONIC MONITORING BY EMPLOYERS

American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2500

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
1625 L St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 429-1000

American Federation of Teachers
555 New Jersey Ave,. NW.
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 879-4400

Communications Workers of America
501 Third Street NW
Washington, DC 20001-2797
(202) 434-1100 Fax: (202) 434-1279
Contact: Lou Gerber

Consumer Federation of America
1424 Sixteenth Street, NW Suite 604
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 387-6121

Electronic Frontier Foundation
1550 Bryant Street, Suite 725
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 436-9333

Electronic Privacy Information Center
1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 483-1140

National Consumers League
1701 K Street, NW., Suite 1201
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 835-3323 Fax: (202) 835-0747

National Organization for Women
733 Fifteenth Street, NW, Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 628-8669 Fax: (202) 785-8576

9 to 5 National Association of Working Women
1430 W. Peachtree Street, #610
Atlanta, GA 30309
(800) 522-0925
Contact: Cyndia Cameron