Has much as employees have a right to privacy, so does a company on the need for protection of its assets. According to Picchi (2015), employers can do surveillance on their employees. However, the extent of the monitoring is restricted to areas that would not interfere with the personal right to privacy. In essence, there is a legal provision that allows enterprises to investigate their workers, although the installation of microphones and cameras in the restrooms is illegal since it affects the privacy of individuals. Video tapping areas of the store in most cases, are permissible by law; however, audio tapping should be limited to areas that would not infringe privacy regulations.
A view of Jean’s actions
Initially, Jean was stuck with the permissible level of surveillance companies can place on their employees. However, with the persistence of the situation, she was obliged to commit an offence by interfering with employee and customer privacy. By installing cameras and audio devices in the restrooms, the duo contravened ethical stipulations. Moreover, if information leaks on the surveillance in the private sections of the company, the firm is likely to face a lawsuit. Despite solving the situation, the extent of surveillance is both unethical and illegal. In essence, Jean’s actions are wrong; hence, the manager should have focused on other alternatives instead of infringing the right to privacy.
Handling Surveillance information
Surveillance information acquired is essential for companies; however, such kind of data should be private. The monitoring affects both customers and employees, a factor if known to the public, would cost the company a lot in reputation. Since the information was gathered under illegal circumstances, the best option would be to discard the data. The choice to discard the data would prevent any impending legal suits for the company.