![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsPrivate messages at work can be read by employers, says court
Employees in the EU better watch out from now on. Their bosses can snoop into their online communications, a human rights court has ruled. The whole case started with a scandal in 2007 where a Romanian engineer was fired after his boss had found out he was using Yahoo Messenger to chat not only for professional but also personal purposes. And the company's policy forbade that. The guy filed a lawsuit, arguing that his right of privacy had been violated. But the EU human rights court rejected his complaint, saying it was acceptable that an employer would want to make sure their employees are doing their professional tasks during worktime.
The court also absolved the company of any guilt, as it decided they had assumed they'd only find professional communications when looking into the guy's chat. The conclusion was that the company had achieved a balance between respecting personal space and upholding the interests of the employer. As we know, all EU human rights court decisions are valid for all member states that have ratified the European human rights convention, which means this precedent will send ripples throughout most of the continent now.
As you might've expected, I've been hearing two opposing views on this matter. One argues that when you're at work, you're supposed to work. That's what you get paid for. And that all those people complaining are probably spending a lot of time at work FB-ing and private-messaging, which is essentially stealing paid time from the employer. In the days before the Internet, if you were caught napping, chatting and wasting time, you could end up losing your job - unless you worked for the municipality council or some other state administration, where none of this seemed to matter.
There's also the rebel hipster sort of view, which argues that Europe is gradually turning into an American-type corporatocracy, and the EU court has clearly discredited itself by sucking up to the corporate interests of big business at the expense of the human rights that it's supposed to be upholding. The argument here is that constitutional rights, particularly the right of privacy, count for nothing these days. And while it's true that people shouldn't be doing anything related to their private life during paid work time (and certainly not using equipment that their employer provides), this case enters into a murky world where employers expect employees to use their own phones and computers for work, or issue zero or open hours contracts, and expect free overtime - and they clearly can't have it both ways.
So where do you stand on this issue? It's a fine line to tread between personal freedoms and professional obligations, granted. So I'd like to hear some opinions.
Employees in the EU better watch out from now on. Their bosses can snoop into their online communications, a human rights court has ruled. The whole case started with a scandal in 2007 where a Romanian engineer was fired after his boss had found out he was using Yahoo Messenger to chat not only for professional but also personal purposes. And the company's policy forbade that. The guy filed a lawsuit, arguing that his right of privacy had been violated. But the EU human rights court rejected his complaint, saying it was acceptable that an employer would want to make sure their employees are doing their professional tasks during worktime.
The court also absolved the company of any guilt, as it decided they had assumed they'd only find professional communications when looking into the guy's chat. The conclusion was that the company had achieved a balance between respecting personal space and upholding the interests of the employer. As we know, all EU human rights court decisions are valid for all member states that have ratified the European human rights convention, which means this precedent will send ripples throughout most of the continent now.
As you might've expected, I've been hearing two opposing views on this matter. One argues that when you're at work, you're supposed to work. That's what you get paid for. And that all those people complaining are probably spending a lot of time at work FB-ing and private-messaging, which is essentially stealing paid time from the employer. In the days before the Internet, if you were caught napping, chatting and wasting time, you could end up losing your job - unless you worked for the municipality council or some other state administration, where none of this seemed to matter.
There's also the rebel hipster sort of view, which argues that Europe is gradually turning into an American-type corporatocracy, and the EU court has clearly discredited itself by sucking up to the corporate interests of big business at the expense of the human rights that it's supposed to be upholding. The argument here is that constitutional rights, particularly the right of privacy, count for nothing these days. And while it's true that people shouldn't be doing anything related to their private life during paid work time (and certainly not using equipment that their employer provides), this case enters into a murky world where employers expect employees to use their own phones and computers for work, or issue zero or open hours contracts, and expect free overtime - and they clearly can't have it both ways.
So where do you stand on this issue? It's a fine line to tread between personal freedoms and professional obligations, granted. So I'd like to hear some opinions.
