I've heard of bosses asking about whether they could monitor WFH employees personal conversations in their own homes. I think the answer was "there are loopholes". In the US there are very few protections for workers. The only buffering people can get is by reaching C level positions. But even then... It's only what you can negotiate.
> The only buffering people can get is by reaching C level positions.
Director and above is good enough at most orgs, but of course VP is the level where you really start to enjoy privileges.
You can't get to those positions without speaking smoothly and spinning situations. Unless you are completely incompetent you can always find a way out, when given a chance to do so. Being given the chance is a result of how good you are at forging relationships.
>I've heard of bosses asking about whether they could monitor WFH employees personal conversations in their own homes.
You probably signed an agreement to allow audio and visual recording. This is usually for the company to CYA to allow video conferencing but also for more nefarious reasons like you said. If you signed an agreement for audio recording (almost every Fortune 500 requires this), then assume your mic is always hot and that you cannot control when it records
Right, you have to agree to audio recording in certain states (google 2-way recording laws). To ensure they have that acceptance, they have you sign a disclosure that audio recording may happen while you are using work resources. Nothing federally that is being invalidated here, just CYA for all 50 states
Except that I live in Canada where the laws are different. You may be able to record employees with consent in the workplace, but that doesn't extend into allowing an employer to apply surveillance into an employees private spaces and personal life. I am saying 'private space' intentionally, because public spaces are regulated differently. The laws around employee monitoring are rapidly changing in Canada however. I am hoping that we will see stronger regulations in the future regarding the use of surveillance in the workplace. One party consent exists in Canada, but that assumes a call between two people where one person is recording the call. What is being described is an employer that is recording video and audio indiscriminately at all times. This also is not allowed in America.
The right to privacy in the constitution is most explicitly mentioned in Amendment I, Amendment III, and Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution. The privacy of belief, privacy of home, and privacy of the person and possessions is included in the U.S. Constitution.[19]
In regards to my comment about contracts, I have seen several contacts where employers think they can negate laws by adding clauses to their contracts. I am sure you have seen some of these these clauses, such as non-compete clauses. I know this is still legal in some states, but it isn't here, and adding such a clause is not enforceable.
My organization accounts for this by putting the onious on you to have a work safe environment in your background. Lack of compliance in this can lead to termination.
You're morally right, but they'd flip it around and ask why you chose to create a situation where inappropriate images are being stored on company infrastructure.
"How fucking dare you body shame my wife and kids!?" Now I'm threatening to call local news.
You see, its not really about having an airtight case to win a billion dollar settlement. It's about being able to bluster your way out of a situation that's trying to be used against you.
Wasn't this the game that some police officers in the US engaged in? Nothing illegal about them blasting Lady Gaga or whatever is popular while they work. But if you record the audio, you're unlikely to be able to share it anywhere without explicit permission from the rightsholders.
