Nuwe resepte

Die Olimpiese Spele breek af op onwettige voedselvragmotors

Die Olimpiese Spele breek af op onwettige voedselvragmotors

Onwettige bakkies wat kos verkoop tydens die Olimpiese Spele sal geskut word, sê die owerhede

Die Voedselstandaarde -agentskap is besig om onwettig af te skrik koswaens tydens die Olimpiese Spele in Londen in 2012, en het drie plekke gehuur om vragmotors wat onwettige kos by die spele hou, vas te lê, berig die Telegraph.

Die agentskap sal op soek wees na "enige tipe nie-vaste ondernemings, soos roomyswaens en worsbroodjies", lui die verslag. Die ekstra versigtigheid in voedselveiligheid is om te verhoed dat die 1 miljoen verwagte besoekers voedselgoggas of maagprobleme opdoen. Die VL het ook restaurante en polisiebeamptes opgelei in voedselveiligheidshigiëne en berei voor op 'noodtoestande' as beamptes teen kitskosondernemings moet optree. Tydens die Olimpiese Spele in Beijing in 2008 is byna 99 persent van die voedsel wat tydens die wedstryd getoets is, as veilig geag; die stad het toe soortgelyke standaarde vir voedselveiligheid gehad.

Moenie bekommerd wees as u nog steeds 'n worsbroodjie wil hê tydens die wedstryde nie - Londen organiseerders LOCOG het reeds 12 verskillende spysenieringsondernemings aangemeld om honger toeskouers tydens die wedstryde te voed. Die organiseerders beskou dit as deel van die "voedselvisie" -plan vir die spele, die "grootste spysenieringsbedryf ter wêreld."


Werknemer vind verborge kamera in badkamer

Videobewaking het algemeen geword op baie Amerikaanse werkplekke, maar nou het hierdie soort elektroniese snuffel 'n nuwe grens bereik: die badkamer van werknemers.

Hierdie onbekende feit is hierdie week deur ontsteld werkers by die Consolidated Freightways-vragmotorterminal in die Riverside County-gemeenskap van Mira Loma ontdek. Baie van die 600 werknemers van die terminale is woedend nadat hulle verneem het dat hul toiletbesoeke moontlik op video vasgelê is.

'Ons behoort nie hierdie soort Gestapo -taktiek hier te hê nie,' sê Robert Westreicher, 'n gekonsolideerde hawewerker met 15 jaar werk.

Alhoewel snuffelwerkers nog steeds ver van die norm onder werkgewers is, het privaatheidskenners gesê die Mira Loma-voorval beklemtoon dat dit nie meer ongewoon is nie en dat dit moontlik versprei. Hulle sê dit vind meestal plaas by maatskappye waar bestuurders die werkers wil vermy wat glo toilette gebruik as wegkruipplekke om dwelms of gesteelde goedere te hanteer.

Gekonsolideerde amptenare het gesê hul geheime kameras is etlike maande gelede in die badkamers van twee mans by die Mira Loma -fasiliteit geïnstalleer om die vermeende gebruik en verkoop van onwettige dwelms deur werknemers op te spoor. Die maatskappy het gesê dat dit die afgelope anderhalf jaar agt tot tien werkers by die Teamsters-vakbond wat deur die vakbond verteenwoordig is, ontslaan het op grond van dwelms of alkohol.

Michael Brown, 'n woordvoerder van Consolidated, het beklemtoon dat die videokameras gerig is op die ingange, voor die wasbakke en, in een geval, op 'n oop gebied in die hoek waar dwelms vermoedelik verkoop word. Die kameras was gefokus "nêrens naby die urinoirea of ​​die [toilet] stalletjie nie," het hy gesê.

Die ontdekking van die toilet -toesig is Dinsdag kort voor middernag gedoen deur 'n werknemer wat opgemerk het dat een van die muurspieëls oor die wasbakke skeef was. Toe hy verder kyk, blykbaar om die spieël reg te stel, kom hy op die versteekte kamera af.

Die departement van balju van die Riverside County, wat ingeroep is om ondersoek in te stel, het spoedig versteekte kameras by 'n tweede badkamer gevind. Brown het gesê nog sewe badkamers is nagegaan, maar geen ander toesigstoerusting is gevind nie.

Besonderhede bly Donderdag onbeskryflik, maar Brown en 'n woordvoerder van die balju se departement het gesê daar is op twee of drie kameras uit die twee badkamers beslag gelê, asook verskeie videobande. Die saak word steeds ondersoek.

Die woordvoerder van die balju se departement, Mark Lohman, sê afgevaardigdes ondersoek of die onderneming die staatswet oortree wat toesig blokkeer waar mense 'n "redelike verwagting" van privaatheid het. Alhoewel nie die staats- of die federale wetgewing spesifiek video -toesig in werknemers se badkamers belemmer nie, beslis regters gewoonlik sulke gevalle deur die werkers se verwagtinge te balanseer teen die behoefte van die onderneming om 'n veilige, produktiewe werkplek te handhaaf.

Volgens regskenners is ander sleutelfaktore die vraag of die werkgewer probeer om die indringendheid van die toesig en die tydsduur wat dit gebruik, te beperk, eerder as om bloot die kameras onbepaald te laat rol.

Brown het gesê dat sy onderneming in Menlo Park, een van die grootste vragmotors in die land, bekommerd is oor die privaatheid van werknemers. Maar, het hy gesê, die bestuurders van die terminale, die grootste sodanige gekonsolideerde fasiliteit in die land, het opgetree weens die veiligheidsbedreigings wat die moontlike dwelmgebruik onder vragmotorbestuurders en ander terminale werkers inhou.

'Ons eerste prioriteit is om ons werknemers te beskerm en die vrag van ons kliënte te beskerm,' het hy gesê. Veral in die veiligheidsgevoelige vervoeronderneming, het Brown bygevoeg, 'moet u beskerm teen werknemers wat benadeel word.'

'Daar was meer as 'n redelike oortuiging,' het hy gesê, 'dat dwelmaktiwiteit plaasgevind het, plaasgevind het en sou plaasvind.' Hy het egter gesê dat hy nie weet of die onderneming ooit klagtes by die polisie ingedien het oor die probleem nie.

Die afgelope twee dae het baie werknemers gerook. 'N Woordvoerder van Local 63 van die Teamsters -vakbond, wat die meeste werkers van die terminale verteenwoordig, het gesê dat hy sy regsopsies hersien.

Westreicher (43) het gesê die bestuur van die terminale moet afgedank word. 'Ek kom redelik goed oor die weg met die bestuur, anders as sommige ander hier, maar om uit te vind dat hulle kameras in die badkamer het. . . dit is afgryslik, ”het hy gesê.

Hy het gesê dat die gebruik van die versteekte badkamerkameras "te veel onder die gordel was, te stiek, wat my betref. As hulle die dwelmprobleem probeer opruim, is dit prysenswaardig. Maar om dit op hierdie manier te doen, is belaglik. ”

Pat Knutzen, 'n mededokwerker en 'n Teamsters -rentmeester, het bygevoeg dat "die meerderheid mense baie ontsteld is daaroor om die uitvoerende hoof en president te kontak."

'Hulle wil hê koppe moet daaroor rol,' het Knutzen bygevoeg. 'Hulle voel dat die onderneming 'n paar grense oorskry het wat hulle nie moes oorgesteek het nie.

In een uitdrukking van die woede van werknemers, het werkers om 'n strooibiljet gegaan met 'n prentjie van 'n man wat voor 'n urinoir staan. Daarop was 'n slagspreuk van die onderneming: 'Kyk hoe ons nou aflewer.'

Sulke sake het elders in die hofsale gekom. Drie jaar gelede het 'n regter in Wes -Virginia 'n nutsmaatskappy, Monongahela Power Co., beveel om toesigkameras uit 'n kleedkamer te trek. Drie werknemers is $ 80 000 skadevergoeding toegestaan ​​weens inbreuk op privaatheid en emosionele nood.

Terwyl die program beweer dat dit dwelmhandel probeer bekamp, ​​beweer werkers dat die kamera bedoel was om vakbondaktiwiteite te bespied.

In 'n saak wat by die staatshof in Massachusetts aanhangig is, dagvaar vyf huidige of voormalige werkers in 'n Sheraton-hotel die onderneming omdat hulle hulle en ander werkers in die kleedkamer van die manlike werknemers in 1991 in 'n sewe weke tyd op video geneem het. Die werkers sê dat hulle is verneder nadat hulle ontdek het dat sommige van hulle op videoband vasgelê is. Die maatskappy het in die hof aangevoer dat die video -opname bedoel was om dwelmhandel te ondersoek, en dat 'n 'oënskynlike dwelmtransaksie' opgemerk is.

Die jongste groot opname oor elektroniese toesig op die werkplek, 'n peiling onder 906 groot en mediumgrootte Amerikaanse werkgewers wat in Mei bekend gemaak is, het bevind dat 35,3% ten minste af en toe een of meer soorte elektroniese snuifwerk op hul werkers doen. Hierdie aktiwiteite sluit in die luister na werknemers se telefoonoproepe of stemposboodskappe en die lees van elektroniese pos- of rekenaarlêers, sowel as die opnames van werkers se aktiwiteite.

Boonop het die opname bevind dat selfs al is ondernemings dikwels inbreuk op privaatheidsgedinge kan afweer deur werknemers vooraf te waarsku, het byna een uit ses van die snuffelwerkgewers gesê dat hulle nie hul werkers waarsku nie.

As alle soorte monitering in ag geneem word-insluitend byvoorbeeld video-toesig by geriefswinkels en banke om diefstal te bekamp-styg die aandeel van werkgewers wat aan sulke aktiwiteite deelneem tot 63,4%. Die opname is gedoen deur die non -profit American Management Assn. en die nuusbrief Employment Testing: Law and Policy Reporter.


Werknemer vind verborge kamera in badkamer

Videobewaking het algemeen geword op baie Amerikaanse werkplekke, maar nou het hierdie soort elektroniese snuffel 'n nuwe grens bereik: die badkamer van werknemers.

Hierdie onbekende feit is hierdie week ontdek deur bedroefde werkers by die Consolidated Freightways-vragmotorterminal in die Riverside County-gemeenskap van Mira Loma. Baie van die 600 werknemers van die terminale is woedend nadat hulle verneem het dat hul toiletbesoeke moontlik op video vasgelê is.

'Ons behoort nie sulke Gestapo -taktieke hier te hê nie,' sê Robert Westreicher, 'n gekonsolideerde hawewerker met 15 jaar werk.

Alhoewel snuffelwerkers nog steeds ver van die norm onder werkgewers is, het privaatheidskenners gesê die Mira Loma-voorval beklemtoon dat dit nie meer ongewoon is nie en dat dit moontlik versprei. Hulle sê dit vind meestal plaas by maatskappye waar bestuurders die werkers wil vermy wat glo toilette gebruik as wegkruipplekke om dwelms of gesteelde goedere te hanteer.

Gekonsolideerde amptenare het gesê hul geheime kameras is etlike maande gelede in die badkamers van twee mans by die Mira Loma -fasiliteit geïnstalleer om die vermeende gebruik en verkoop van onwettige dwelms deur werknemers op te spoor. Die maatskappy het gesê dat dit die afgelope anderhalf jaar agt tot tien werkers by die Teamsters-vakbond wat deur die vakbond verteenwoordig is, ontslaan het op grond van dwelms of alkohol.

Michael Brown, 'n woordvoerder van Consolidated, het beklemtoon dat die videokameras gerig is op die ingange, voor die wasbakke en, in een geval, op 'n oop gebied in die hoek waar dwelms vermoedelik verkoop word. Die kameras was gefokus "nêrens naby die urinoirea of ​​die [toilet] stalletjie nie," het hy gesê.

Die ontdekking van die toilet -toesig is Dinsdag kort voor middernag gedoen deur 'n werknemer wat opgemerk het dat een van die muurspieëls oor die wasbakke skeef was. Toe hy verder kyk, blykbaar om die spieël reg te stel, kom hy op die versteekte kamera af.

Die departement van balju van die Riverside County, wat ingeroep is om ondersoek in te stel, het gou versteekte kameras by 'n tweede badkamer gevind. Brown het gesê nog sewe badkamers is nagegaan, maar geen ander toesigstoerusting is gevind nie.

Besonderhede bly Donderdag onbeskryflik, maar Brown en 'n woordvoerder van die balju se departement het gesê daar is op twee of drie kameras uit die twee badkamers beslag gelê, asook verskeie videobande. Die saak word steeds ondersoek.

Die woordvoerder van die balju se departement, Mark Lohman, sê afgevaardigdes ondersoek of die onderneming die staatswet oortree wat toesig belemmer waar mense 'n "redelike verwagting" van privaatheid het. Alhoewel nie die staats- of die federale wetgewing spesifiek video -toesig in werknemers se badkamers beperk nie, besluit regters gewoonlik oor sulke gevalle deur die werkers se verwagtinge te balanseer teen die behoefte van die onderneming om 'n veilige, produktiewe werkplek te handhaaf.

Volgens regskenners is ander sleutelfaktore die vraag of die werkgewer die indringendheid van die toesig en die tydsduur wat dit gebruik, probeer beperk, eerder as om bloot die kameras vir onbepaalde tyd te laat rol.

Brown het gesê dat sy onderneming in Menlo Park, een van die grootste vragmotors in die land, bekommerd is oor die privaatheid van werknemers. Maar, het hy gesê, die bestuurders van die terminale, die grootste sodanige gekonsolideerde fasiliteit in die land, het opgetree weens die veiligheidsbedreigings wat die moontlike dwelmgebruik onder vragmotorbestuurders en ander terminale werkers inhou.

'Ons eerste prioriteit is om ons werknemers te beskerm en die vrag van ons kliënte te beskerm,' het hy gesê. Veral in die veiligheidsgevoelige vervoeronderneming, het Brown bygevoeg, "moet u beskerm teen werknemers wat benadeel word."

'Daar was meer as 'n redelike oortuiging,' het hy gesê, 'dat dwelmaktiwiteit plaasgevind het, plaasgevind het en sou plaasvind.' Hy het egter gesê dat hy nie weet of die onderneming ooit klagtes by die polisie ingedien het oor die probleem nie.

Die afgelope twee dae het baie werknemers gerook. 'N Woordvoerder van Local 63 van die vakbond Teamsters, wat die meeste werkers van die terminale verteenwoordig, het gesê dat hy sy regsopsies hersien.

Westreicher (43) het gesê die bestuur van die terminale moet afgedank word. 'Ek kom redelik goed oor die weg met die bestuur, anders as sommige ander hier, maar om uit te vind dat hulle kameras in die badkamer het. . . dit is afgryslik, ”het hy gesê.

Hy het gesê dat die gebruik van die versteekte badkamerkameras "te veel onder die gordel was, te stiek, wat my betref. As hulle die dwelmprobleem probeer opruim, is dit prysenswaardig. Maar om dit op hierdie manier te doen, is belaglik. ”

Pat Knutzen, 'n mededokwerker en 'n Teamsters -rentmeester, het bygevoeg dat "die meerderheid mense baie ontsteld is daaroor om die uitvoerende hoof en president te kontak."

'Hulle wil hê koppe moet daaroor rol,' het Knutzen bygevoeg. 'Hulle voel dat die onderneming 'n paar grense oorskry het wat hulle nie moes oorgesteek het nie.

In een uitdrukking van die woede van werknemers, het werkers om 'n strooibiljet gegaan met 'n prentjie van 'n man wat voor 'n urinoir staan. Daarop was 'n slagspreuk van die onderneming: 'Kyk hoe ons nou aflewer.'

Sulke sake het elders in die hofsale gekom. Drie jaar gelede het 'n regter in Wes -Virginia 'n nutsmaatskappy, Monongahela Power Co., beveel om toesigkameras uit 'n kleedkamer te trek. Drie werknemers is $ 80 000 skadevergoeding toegestaan ​​weens inbreuk op privaatheid en emosionele nood.

Terwyl die program beweer dat dit dwelmhandel probeer bekamp, ​​beweer werkers dat die kamera bedoel was om vakbondaktiwiteite te bespied.

In 'n saak wat by die staatshof in Massachusetts aanhangig is, dagvaar vyf huidige of voormalige werkers in 'n Sheraton-hotel die onderneming omdat hulle hulle en ander werkers in die kleedkamer van die manlike werknemers in 1991 in 'n sewe weke tyd op video geneem het. Die werkers sê dat hulle is verneder nadat hulle ontdek het dat sommige van hulle op videoband vasgelê is. Die maatskappy het in die hof aangevoer dat die video -opname bedoel was om dwelmhandel te ondersoek, en dat 'n 'oënskynlike dwelmtransaksie' opgemerk is.

Die jongste groot opname oor elektroniese toesig op die werkplek, 'n peiling onder 906 groot en mediumgrootte Amerikaanse werkgewers wat in Mei bekend gemaak is, het bevind dat 35,3% ten minste af en toe een of meer soorte elektroniese snuffels op hul werkers doen. Hierdie aktiwiteite het ingesluit om na werknemers se telefoonoproepe of stemposboodskappe te luister en elektroniese pos- of rekenaarlêers te lees, asook die werk van videobande.

Boonop het die opname bevind dat selfs al is ondernemings dikwels inbreuk op privaatheidsgedinge kan afweer deur werknemers vooraf te waarsku, het byna een uit elke ses van die werkers wat gesnuffel het, gesê dat hulle nie hul werkers waarsku nie.

As alle soorte monitering in ag geneem word-insluitend byvoorbeeld video-toesig by geriefswinkels en banke om diefstal te bekamp-styg die aandeel van werkgewers wat aan sulke aktiwiteite deelneem tot 63,4%. Die opname is gedoen deur die non -profit American Management Assn. en die nuusbrief Employment Testing: Law and Policy Reporter.


Werknemer vind verborge kamera in badkamer

Videobewaking het algemeen geword op baie Amerikaanse werkplekke, maar nou het hierdie soort elektroniese snuffel 'n nuwe grens bereik: die badkamer van werknemers.

Hierdie onbekende feit is hierdie week deur ontsteld werkers by die Consolidated Freightways-vragmotorterminal in die Riverside County-gemeenskap van Mira Loma ontdek. Baie van die 600 werknemers van die terminale is woedend nadat hulle verneem het dat hul toiletbesoeke moontlik op video vasgelê is.

'Ons behoort nie hierdie soort Gestapo -taktiek hier te hê nie,' sê Robert Westreicher, 'n gekonsolideerde hawewerker met 15 jaar werk.

Alhoewel snuffelwerkers nog steeds ver van die norm onder werkgewers is, het privaatheidskenners gesê die Mira Loma-voorval beklemtoon dat dit nie meer ongewoon is nie en dat dit moontlik versprei. Hulle sê dit vind meestal plaas by maatskappye waar bestuurders die werkers wil vermy wat glo toilette gebruik as wegkruipplekke om dwelms of gesteelde goedere te hanteer.

Gekonsolideerde amptenare het gesê hul geheime kameras is etlike maande gelede in die badkamers van twee mans by die Mira Loma -fasiliteit geïnstalleer om die vermeende gebruik en verkoop van onwettige dwelms deur werknemers op te spoor. Die maatskappy het gesê dat dit die afgelope anderhalf jaar agt tot tien werkers by die Teamsters-vakbond wat deur die vakbond verteenwoordig is, ontslaan het op grond van dwelms of alkohol.

Michael Brown, 'n woordvoerder van Consolidated, het beklemtoon dat die videokameras gerig is op die ingange, voor die wasbakke en, in een geval, op 'n oop gebied in die hoek waar dwelms vermoedelik verkoop word. Die kameras was gefokus "nêrens naby die urinoirea of ​​die [toilet] stalletjie nie," het hy gesê.

Die ontdekking van die toilet -toesig is Dinsdag kort voor middernag gedoen deur 'n werknemer wat opgemerk het dat een van die muurspieëls oor die wasbakke skeef was. Toe hy verder kyk, blykbaar om die spieël reg te stel, kom hy op die versteekte kamera af.

Die departement van balju van die Riverside County, wat ingeroep is om ondersoek in te stel, het spoedig versteekte kameras by 'n tweede badkamer gevind. Brown het gesê nog sewe badkamers is nagegaan, maar geen ander toesigstoerusting is gevind nie.

Besonderhede bly Donderdag onbeskryflik, maar Brown en 'n woordvoerder van die balju se departement het gesê daar is op twee of drie kameras uit die twee badkamers beslag gelê, asook verskeie videobande. Die saak bly ondersoek.

Die woordvoerder van die balju se departement, Mark Lohman, sê afgevaardigdes ondersoek of die onderneming die staatswet oortree wat toesig blokkeer waar mense 'n "redelike verwagting" van privaatheid het. Alhoewel nie die staats- of die federale wetgewing spesifiek video -toesig in werknemers se badkamers belemmer nie, beslis regters gewoonlik sulke gevalle deur die werkers se verwagtinge te balanseer teen die behoefte van die onderneming om 'n veilige, produktiewe werkplek te handhaaf.

Volgens regskenners is ander sleutelfaktore die vraag of die werkgewer probeer om die indringendheid van die toesig en die tydsduur wat dit gebruik, te beperk, eerder as om bloot die kameras onbepaald te laat rol.

Brown het gesê dat sy onderneming in Menlo Park, een van die grootste vragmotors in die land, bekommerd is oor die privaatheid van werknemers. Maar, het hy gesê, die bestuurders van die terminale, die grootste sodanige gekonsolideerde fasiliteit in die land, het opgetree weens die veiligheidsbedreigings wat die moontlike dwelmgebruik onder vragmotorbestuurders en ander terminale werkers inhou.

'Ons eerste prioriteit is om ons werknemers te beskerm en die vrag van ons kliënte te beskerm,' het hy gesê. Veral in die veiligheidsgevoelige vervoeronderneming, het Brown bygevoeg, 'moet u beskerm teen werknemers wat benadeel word.'

'Daar was meer as 'n redelike oortuiging,' het hy gesê, 'dat dwelmaktiwiteite plaasgevind het, sou plaasvind en sou plaasvind.' Hy het egter gesê dat hy nie weet of die onderneming ooit klagtes by die polisie ingedien het oor die probleem nie.

Die afgelope twee dae het baie werknemers gerook. 'N Woordvoerder van Local 63 van die Teamsters -vakbond, wat die meeste werkers van die terminale verteenwoordig, het gesê dat hy sy regsopsies hersien.

Westreicher (43) het gesê die bestuur van die terminale moet afgedank word. 'Ek kom redelik goed oor die weg met die bestuur, anders as sommige ander hier, maar om uit te vind dat hulle kameras in die badkamer het. . . dit is afgryslik, ”het hy gesê.

Hy het gesê dat die gebruik van die versteekte badkamerkameras "te veel onder die gordel was, te stiek, wat my betref. As hulle die dwelmprobleem probeer opruim, is dit prysenswaardig. Maar om dit op hierdie manier te doen, is belaglik. ”

Pat Knutzen, 'n mededokwerker en 'n Teamsters -rentmeester, het bygevoeg dat "die meerderheid mense baie ontsteld is daaroor om die uitvoerende hoof en president te kontak."

'Hulle wil hê koppe moet daaroor rol,' het Knutzen bygevoeg. 'Hulle voel dat die onderneming 'n paar grense oorskry het wat hulle nie moes oorgesteek het nie.

In een uitdrukking van die woede van werknemers, het werkers om 'n strooibiljet gegaan met 'n foto van 'n man wat voor 'n urinoir staan. Daarop was 'n slagspreuk van die onderneming: 'Kyk hoe ons nou aflewer.'

Sulke sake het elders in die hofsale gekom. Drie jaar gelede het 'n regter in Wes -Virginia 'n nutsmaatskappy, Monongahela Power Co., beveel om toesigkameras uit 'n kleedkamer te trek. Drie werknemers is $ 80 000 skadevergoeding toegestaan ​​weens inbreuk op privaatheid en emosionele nood.

Terwyl die program beweer dat dit dwelmhandel probeer bekamp, ​​beweer werkers dat die kamera bedoel was om vakbondaktiwiteite te bespied.

In 'n saak wat by die staatshof in Massachusetts aanhangig is, dagvaar vyf huidige of voormalige werkers in 'n Sheraton-hotel die onderneming omdat hulle hulle en ander werkers in die kleedkamer van die manlike werknemers in 1991 in 'n sewe weke tyd op video geneem het. Die werkers sê dat hulle is verneder nadat hulle ontdek het dat sommige van hulle op videoband vasgelê is. Die maatskappy het in die hof aangevoer dat die video -opname bedoel was om dwelmhandel te ondersoek, en dat 'n 'oënskynlike dwelmtransaksie' opgemerk is.

Die jongste groot opname oor elektroniese toesig op die werkplek, 'n peiling onder 906 groot en mediumgrootte Amerikaanse werkgewers wat in Mei bekend gemaak is, het bevind dat 35,3% ten minste af en toe een of meer soorte elektroniese snuifwerk op hul werkers doen. Hierdie aktiwiteite sluit in die luister na werknemers se telefoonoproepe of stemposboodskappe en die lees van elektroniese pos- of rekenaarlêers, sowel as die opnames van werkers se aktiwiteite.

Boonop het die opname bevind dat selfs al is ondernemings dikwels inbreuk op privaatheidsgedinge kan afweer deur werknemers vooraf te waarsku, het byna een uit ses van die snuffelwerkgewers gesê dat hulle nie hul werkers waarsku nie.

As alle soorte monitering in ag geneem word-insluitend byvoorbeeld video-toesig by geriefswinkels en banke om diefstal te bekamp-styg die aandeel van werkgewers wat aan sulke aktiwiteite deelneem tot 63,4%. Die opname is gedoen deur die non -profit American Management Assn. en die nuusbrief Employment Testing: Law and Policy Reporter.


Werknemer vind verborge kamera in badkamer

Videobewaking het algemeen geword op baie Amerikaanse werkplekke, maar nou het hierdie soort elektroniese snuffel 'n nuwe grens bereik: die badkamer van werknemers.

Hierdie onbekende feit is hierdie week deur ontsteld werkers by die Consolidated Freightways-vragmotorterminal in die Riverside County-gemeenskap van Mira Loma ontdek. Baie van die 600 werknemers van die terminale is woedend nadat hulle verneem het dat hul toiletbesoeke moontlik op video vasgelê is.

'Ons behoort nie sulke Gestapo -taktieke hier te hê nie,' sê Robert Westreicher, 'n gekonsolideerde hawewerker met 15 jaar werk.

Alhoewel snuffelwerkers nog steeds ver van die norm onder werkgewers is, het privaatheidskenners gesê die Mira Loma-voorval beklemtoon dat dit nie meer ongewoon is nie en dat dit moontlik versprei. Hulle sê dit vind meestal plaas by maatskappye waar bestuurders die werkers wil vermy wat glo toilette gebruik as wegkruipplekke om dwelms of gesteelde goedere te hanteer.

Gekonsolideerde amptenare het gesê hul geheime kameras is etlike maande gelede in die badkamer van twee mans by die Mira Loma -fasiliteit geïnstalleer om die vermoedelike gebruik en verkoop van onwettige dwelms deur werknemers op te spoor. Die maatskappy het gesê dat dit die afgelope anderhalf jaar agt tot tien werkers by die Teamsters-vakbond wat deur die vakbond verteenwoordig is, ontslaan het op grond van dwelms of alkohol.

Michael Brown, 'n woordvoerder van Consolidated, het beklemtoon dat die videokameras gerig is op die ingange, voor die wasbakke en, in een geval, op 'n oop gebied in die hoek waar dwelms vermoedelik verkoop word. Die kameras was gefokus "nêrens naby die urinoirea of ​​die [toilet] stalletjie nie," het hy gesê.

Die ontdekking van die toilet -toesig is Dinsdag kort voor middernag gedoen deur 'n werknemer wat opgemerk het dat een van die muurspieëls oor die wasbakke skeef was. Toe hy verder kyk, blykbaar om die spieël reg te stel, kom hy op die versteekte kamera af.

Die departement van balju van die Riverside County, wat ingeroep is om ondersoek in te stel, het spoedig versteekte kameras by 'n tweede badkamer gevind. Brown het gesê nog sewe badkamers is nagegaan, maar geen ander toesigstoerusting is gevind nie.

Besonderhede bly Donderdag onbeskryflik, maar Brown en 'n woordvoerder van die balju se departement het gesê daar is op twee of drie kameras uit die twee badkamers beslag gelê, asook verskeie videobande. Die saak bly ondersoek.

Die woordvoerder van die balju se departement, Mark Lohman, sê afgevaardigdes ondersoek of die onderneming die staatswet oortree wat toesig blokkeer waar mense 'n "redelike verwagting" van privaatheid het. Alhoewel nie die staats- of die federale wetgewing spesifiek video -toesig in werknemers se badkamers beperk nie, besluit regters gewoonlik oor sulke gevalle deur die werkers se verwagtinge te balanseer teen die behoefte van die onderneming om 'n veilige, produktiewe werkplek te handhaaf.

Volgens regskenners is ander sleutelfaktore die vraag of die werkgewer probeer om die indringendheid van die toesig en die tydsduur wat dit gebruik, te beperk, eerder as om bloot die kameras onbepaald te laat rol.

Brown het gesê dat sy onderneming in Menlo Park, een van die grootste vragmotors in die land, bekommerd is oor die privaatheid van werknemers. Maar, het hy gesê, die bestuurders van die terminale, die grootste sodanige gekonsolideerde fasiliteit in die land, het opgetree weens die veiligheidsbedreigings wat die moontlike dwelmgebruik onder vragmotorbestuurders en ander terminale werkers inhou.

'Ons eerste prioriteit is om ons werknemers te beskerm en die vrag van ons kliënte te beskerm,' het hy gesê. Veral in die veiligheidsgevoelige vervoeronderneming, het Brown bygevoeg, 'moet u beskerm teen werknemers wat benadeel word.'

'Daar was meer as 'n redelike oortuiging,' het hy gesê, 'dat dwelmaktiwiteite plaasgevind het, sou plaasvind en sou plaasvind.' Hy het egter gesê dat hy nie weet of die onderneming ooit klagtes by die polisie ingedien het oor die probleem nie.

Die afgelope twee dae het baie werknemers gerook. 'N Woordvoerder van Local 63 van die Teamsters -vakbond, wat die meeste werkers van die terminale verteenwoordig, het gesê dat hy sy regsopsies hersien.

Westreicher (43) het gesê die bestuur van die terminale moet afgedank word. 'Ek kom redelik goed oor die weg met die bestuur, anders as sommige ander hier, maar om uit te vind dat hulle kameras in die badkamer het. . . dit is afgryslik, ”het hy gesê.

Hy het gesê dat die gebruik van die versteekte badkamerkameras "te veel onder die gordel was, te stiek, wat my betref. As hulle die dwelmprobleem probeer opruim, is dit prysenswaardig. Maar om dit op hierdie manier te doen, is belaglik. ”

Pat Knutzen, 'n mededokwerker en 'n Teamsters -rentmeester, het bygevoeg dat "die meerderheid mense baie ontsteld is daaroor om die uitvoerende hoof en president te kontak."

'Hulle wil hê koppe moet daaroor rol,' het Knutzen bygevoeg. 'Hulle voel dat die onderneming 'n paar grense oorgesteek het wat hulle nie moes oorgesteek het nie.

In een uitdrukking van die woede van werknemers, het werkers om 'n strooibiljet gegaan met 'n prentjie van 'n man wat voor 'n urinoir staan. Daarop was 'n slagspreuk van die onderneming: 'Kyk hoe ons nou aflewer.'

Sulke sake het elders in die hofsale gekom. Drie jaar gelede het 'n regter in Wes -Virginia 'n nutsmaatskappy, Monongahela Power Co., beveel om toesigkameras uit 'n kleedkamer te trek. Drie werknemers is $ 80 000 skadevergoeding toegestaan ​​weens inbreuk op privaatheid en emosionele nood.

Terwyl die program beweer dat dit dwelmhandel probeer bekamp, ​​beweer werkers dat die kamera bedoel was om vakbondaktiwiteite te bespied.

In 'n saak wat by die staatshof in Massachusetts aanhangig is, dagvaar vyf huidige of voormalige werkers in 'n Sheraton-hotel die onderneming omdat hulle hulle en ander werkers in die kleedkamer van die manlike werknemers in 1991 in 'n sewe weke tyd op video geneem het. Die werkers sê dat hulle is verneder nadat hulle ontdek het dat sommige van hulle op videoband vasgelê is. Die maatskappy het in die hof aangevoer dat die video -opname bedoel was om dwelmhandel te ondersoek, en dat 'n 'oënskynlike dwelmtransaksie' opgemerk is.

Die jongste groot opname oor elektroniese toesig op die werkplek, 'n peiling onder 906 groot en mediumgrootte Amerikaanse werkgewers wat in Mei bekend gemaak is, het bevind dat 35,3% ten minste af en toe een of meer soorte elektroniese snuifwerk op hul werkers doen. Hierdie aktiwiteite sluit in die luister na werknemers se telefoonoproepe of stemposboodskappe en die lees van elektroniese pos- of rekenaarlêers, sowel as die opnames van werkers se aktiwiteite.

Boonop het die opname bevind dat selfs al is ondernemings dikwels inbreuk op privaatheidsgedinge kan afweer deur werknemers vooraf te waarsku, het byna een uit elke ses van die werkers wat gesnuffel het, gesê dat hulle nie hul werkers waarsku nie.

As alle soorte monitering in ag geneem word-insluitend byvoorbeeld video-toesig by geriefswinkels en banke om diefstal te bekamp-styg die aandeel van werkgewers wat aan sulke aktiwiteite deelneem tot 63,4%. Die opname is gedoen deur die non -profit American Management Assn. en die nuusbrief Employment Testing: Law and Policy Reporter.


Werknemer vind verborge kamera in badkamer

Videobewaking het algemeen geword op baie Amerikaanse werkplekke, maar nou het hierdie soort elektroniese snuffel 'n nuwe grens bereik: die badkamer van werknemers.

Hierdie onbekende feit is hierdie week deur ontsteld werkers by die Consolidated Freightways-vragmotorterminal in die Riverside County-gemeenskap van Mira Loma ontdek. Baie van die 600 werknemers van die terminale is woedend nadat hulle verneem het dat hul toiletbesoeke moontlik op video vasgelê is.

'Ons behoort nie hierdie soort Gestapo -taktiek hier te hê nie,' sê Robert Westreicher, 'n gekonsolideerde hawewerker met 15 jaar werk.

Alhoewel snuffelwerkers nog steeds ver van die norm onder werkgewers is, het privaatheidskenners gesê die Mira Loma-voorval beklemtoon dat dit nie meer ongewoon is nie en moontlik versprei. Hulle sê dit vind meestal plaas by maatskappye waar bestuurders die werkers wil vermy wat glo toilette gebruik as wegkruipplekke om dwelms of gesteelde goedere te hanteer.

Gekonsolideerde amptenare het gesê hul geheime kameras is etlike maande gelede in die badkamers van twee mans by die Mira Loma -fasiliteit geïnstalleer om die vermeende gebruik en verkoop van onwettige dwelms deur werknemers op te spoor. Die maatskappy het gesê dat dit die afgelope anderhalf jaar agt tot tien werkers by die Teamsters-vakbond wat deur die vakbond verteenwoordig is, ontslaan het op grond van dwelms of alkohol.

Michael Brown, 'n woordvoerder van Consolidated, het beklemtoon dat die videokameras gerig is op die ingange, voor die wasbakke en, in een geval, op 'n oop gebied in die hoek waar dwelms vermoedelik verkoop word. Die kameras was gefokus "nêrens naby die urinoirea of ​​die [toilet] stalletjie nie," het hy gesê.

The discovery of the lavatory surveillance was made shortly before midnight Tuesday by an employee who noticed that one of the wall mirrors over the sinks was askew. When he checked further, apparently to readjust the mirror, he came across the hidden camera.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, which was called in to investigate, soon found hidden cameras at a second bathroom. Brown said seven more bathrooms were checked, but no other surveillance equipment was found.

Details remained sketchy Thursday, but Brown and a spokesman for the sheriff’s department said two or three cameras were seized from the two bathrooms, along with several videotapes. The case remained under investigation.

The sheriff’s department spokesman, Mark Lohman, said deputies are looking into whether the company violated state law barring surveillance where people have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy. Although neither state nor federal law specifically bars video surveillance in employee bathrooms, judges normally decide such cases by balancing workers’ expectations against the need for the company to maintain a safe, productive workplace.

Other key factors, legal experts said, involve whether the employer tries to limit the intrusiveness of the surveillance and the length of time over which it is used, rather than simply letting the cameras roll indefinitely.

Brown said his Menlo Park-based company, one of the nation’s largest trucking concerns, is concerned about employee privacy. But, he said, the managers of the terminal, the biggest such Consolidated facility in the nation, acted because of the safety threats posed by possible drug use among truck drivers and other terminal workers.

“Our first priority is to protect our employees and to protect our customers’ freight,” he said. Particularly in the safety-sensitive transportation business, Brown added, “you have to protect against employees being impaired.”

“There was more than a reasonable belief,” he said, “that drug activity had taken place, was taking place and would take place.” He said, however, that he didn’t know if the company had ever filed complaints with police about the problem.

Over the last two days, many employees have been fuming. A spokesman for Local 63 of the Teamsters union, which represents most of the terminal’s workers, said it is reviewing its legal options.

Westreicher, 43, said the terminal’s management should be fired. “I get along with management rather well, unlike some others here, but to find out that they had cameras in the bathroom . . . it’s appalling,” he said.

He said use of the hidden bathroom cameras “was just too under the belt, too sneaky, as far as I’m concerned. If they’re trying to clean up the drug problem, that’s commendable. But to do it this way is ridiculous.”

Pat Knutzen, a fellow dockworker and a Teamsters shop steward, added that “the majority of people are very upset about it, to the point of wanting to contact the CEO and president.”

“They want heads to roll over it, Knutzen added. “They feel that the company has crossed some lines that they shouldn’t have crossed.”

In one expression of employee anger, workers passed around a flier with a picture of a man standing in front of a urinal. Printed on it was a company slogan: “Watch us deliver now.”

Such cases have made their way into courtrooms elsewhere. Three years ago, a West Virginia judge ordered a utility company, Monongahela Power Co., to pull surveillance cameras from a locker room. Three employees were awarded $80,000 in damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress.

While the utility claimed it was trying to combat drug trafficking, workers claimed the camera was intended to spy on union activity.

In a case pending in state court in Massachusetts, five current or former workers at a Sheraton hotel are suing the company for secretly videotaping them and other workers in the male employees’ locker room over a seven-week period in 1991. The workers say they were humiliated after discovering that some of them were captured on videotape. The company has argued in court that the videotaping was intended to investigate drug dealing, and that one “apparent drug transaction” was spotted.

The latest major survey on electronic surveillance in the workplace, a poll of 906 large- and medium-sized U.S. employers released in May, found that 35.3% at least occasionally conduct one or more kinds of electronic snooping on their workers. Those activities included listening to employees’ phone calls or voicemail messages and reading electronic mail or computer files, along with videotaping workers’ activities.

What’s more, the survey found that even though companies often can fend off invasion-of-privacy lawsuits by alerting employees in advance, nearly one out of six of the snooping employers said they don’t warn their workers.

If all kinds of monitoring are taken into account--including, for example, video surveillance at convenience stores and banks to combat theft--the share of employers engaging in such activity rises to 63.4%. The survey was conducted by the nonprofit American Management Assn. and the newsletter Employment Testing: Law and Policy Reporter.


Employee Finds Hidden Camera in Bathroom

Video surveillance has become commonplace in many American workplaces, but now this type of electronic snooping has reached a new frontier: the employee bathroom.

That little-known fact was discovered this week by chagrined workers at the Consolidated Freightways truck terminal in the Riverside County community of Mira Loma. Many of the terminal’s 600 employees are furious after learning that their restroom visits may have been captured on video.

“We shouldn’t have those kinds of Gestapo tactics here,” said Robert Westreicher, a Consolidated dockworker with 15 years on the job.

Although employee-restroom snooping still is far from the norm among employers, privacy experts said the Mira Loma incident underscores that it no longer is uncommon and may be spreading. They say it most often takes place at companies where managers want to crack down on workers believed to be using restrooms as hide-outs to deal in drugs or stolen merchandise.

Consolidated officials said their secret cameras were installed in two men’s bathrooms several months ago at the Mira Loma facility to track down the suspected use and sale of illegal drugs by employees. The company said that over the last year and a half, it has dismissed eight to 10 workers at the Teamsters union-represented terminal on drug- or alcohol-related grounds.

Michael Brown, a Consolidated spokesman, emphasized that the video cameras were aimed toward the entrances, in front of the sinks and, in one case, at an open area in the corner where drugs supposedly were sold. The cameras were focused “nowhere near the urinal area or the [toilet] stall area,” he said.

The discovery of the lavatory surveillance was made shortly before midnight Tuesday by an employee who noticed that one of the wall mirrors over the sinks was askew. When he checked further, apparently to readjust the mirror, he came across the hidden camera.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, which was called in to investigate, soon found hidden cameras at a second bathroom. Brown said seven more bathrooms were checked, but no other surveillance equipment was found.

Details remained sketchy Thursday, but Brown and a spokesman for the sheriff’s department said two or three cameras were seized from the two bathrooms, along with several videotapes. The case remained under investigation.

The sheriff’s department spokesman, Mark Lohman, said deputies are looking into whether the company violated state law barring surveillance where people have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy. Although neither state nor federal law specifically bars video surveillance in employee bathrooms, judges normally decide such cases by balancing workers’ expectations against the need for the company to maintain a safe, productive workplace.

Other key factors, legal experts said, involve whether the employer tries to limit the intrusiveness of the surveillance and the length of time over which it is used, rather than simply letting the cameras roll indefinitely.

Brown said his Menlo Park-based company, one of the nation’s largest trucking concerns, is concerned about employee privacy. But, he said, the managers of the terminal, the biggest such Consolidated facility in the nation, acted because of the safety threats posed by possible drug use among truck drivers and other terminal workers.

“Our first priority is to protect our employees and to protect our customers’ freight,” he said. Particularly in the safety-sensitive transportation business, Brown added, “you have to protect against employees being impaired.”

“There was more than a reasonable belief,” he said, “that drug activity had taken place, was taking place and would take place.” He said, however, that he didn’t know if the company had ever filed complaints with police about the problem.

Over the last two days, many employees have been fuming. A spokesman for Local 63 of the Teamsters union, which represents most of the terminal’s workers, said it is reviewing its legal options.

Westreicher, 43, said the terminal’s management should be fired. “I get along with management rather well, unlike some others here, but to find out that they had cameras in the bathroom . . . it’s appalling,” he said.

He said use of the hidden bathroom cameras “was just too under the belt, too sneaky, as far as I’m concerned. If they’re trying to clean up the drug problem, that’s commendable. But to do it this way is ridiculous.”

Pat Knutzen, a fellow dockworker and a Teamsters shop steward, added that “the majority of people are very upset about it, to the point of wanting to contact the CEO and president.”

“They want heads to roll over it, Knutzen added. “They feel that the company has crossed some lines that they shouldn’t have crossed.”

In one expression of employee anger, workers passed around a flier with a picture of a man standing in front of a urinal. Printed on it was a company slogan: “Watch us deliver now.”

Such cases have made their way into courtrooms elsewhere. Three years ago, a West Virginia judge ordered a utility company, Monongahela Power Co., to pull surveillance cameras from a locker room. Three employees were awarded $80,000 in damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress.

While the utility claimed it was trying to combat drug trafficking, workers claimed the camera was intended to spy on union activity.

In a case pending in state court in Massachusetts, five current or former workers at a Sheraton hotel are suing the company for secretly videotaping them and other workers in the male employees’ locker room over a seven-week period in 1991. The workers say they were humiliated after discovering that some of them were captured on videotape. The company has argued in court that the videotaping was intended to investigate drug dealing, and that one “apparent drug transaction” was spotted.

The latest major survey on electronic surveillance in the workplace, a poll of 906 large- and medium-sized U.S. employers released in May, found that 35.3% at least occasionally conduct one or more kinds of electronic snooping on their workers. Those activities included listening to employees’ phone calls or voicemail messages and reading electronic mail or computer files, along with videotaping workers’ activities.

What’s more, the survey found that even though companies often can fend off invasion-of-privacy lawsuits by alerting employees in advance, nearly one out of six of the snooping employers said they don’t warn their workers.

If all kinds of monitoring are taken into account--including, for example, video surveillance at convenience stores and banks to combat theft--the share of employers engaging in such activity rises to 63.4%. The survey was conducted by the nonprofit American Management Assn. and the newsletter Employment Testing: Law and Policy Reporter.


Employee Finds Hidden Camera in Bathroom

Video surveillance has become commonplace in many American workplaces, but now this type of electronic snooping has reached a new frontier: the employee bathroom.

That little-known fact was discovered this week by chagrined workers at the Consolidated Freightways truck terminal in the Riverside County community of Mira Loma. Many of the terminal’s 600 employees are furious after learning that their restroom visits may have been captured on video.

“We shouldn’t have those kinds of Gestapo tactics here,” said Robert Westreicher, a Consolidated dockworker with 15 years on the job.

Although employee-restroom snooping still is far from the norm among employers, privacy experts said the Mira Loma incident underscores that it no longer is uncommon and may be spreading. They say it most often takes place at companies where managers want to crack down on workers believed to be using restrooms as hide-outs to deal in drugs or stolen merchandise.

Consolidated officials said their secret cameras were installed in two men’s bathrooms several months ago at the Mira Loma facility to track down the suspected use and sale of illegal drugs by employees. The company said that over the last year and a half, it has dismissed eight to 10 workers at the Teamsters union-represented terminal on drug- or alcohol-related grounds.

Michael Brown, a Consolidated spokesman, emphasized that the video cameras were aimed toward the entrances, in front of the sinks and, in one case, at an open area in the corner where drugs supposedly were sold. The cameras were focused “nowhere near the urinal area or the [toilet] stall area,” he said.

The discovery of the lavatory surveillance was made shortly before midnight Tuesday by an employee who noticed that one of the wall mirrors over the sinks was askew. When he checked further, apparently to readjust the mirror, he came across the hidden camera.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, which was called in to investigate, soon found hidden cameras at a second bathroom. Brown said seven more bathrooms were checked, but no other surveillance equipment was found.

Details remained sketchy Thursday, but Brown and a spokesman for the sheriff’s department said two or three cameras were seized from the two bathrooms, along with several videotapes. The case remained under investigation.

The sheriff’s department spokesman, Mark Lohman, said deputies are looking into whether the company violated state law barring surveillance where people have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy. Although neither state nor federal law specifically bars video surveillance in employee bathrooms, judges normally decide such cases by balancing workers’ expectations against the need for the company to maintain a safe, productive workplace.

Other key factors, legal experts said, involve whether the employer tries to limit the intrusiveness of the surveillance and the length of time over which it is used, rather than simply letting the cameras roll indefinitely.

Brown said his Menlo Park-based company, one of the nation’s largest trucking concerns, is concerned about employee privacy. But, he said, the managers of the terminal, the biggest such Consolidated facility in the nation, acted because of the safety threats posed by possible drug use among truck drivers and other terminal workers.

“Our first priority is to protect our employees and to protect our customers’ freight,” he said. Particularly in the safety-sensitive transportation business, Brown added, “you have to protect against employees being impaired.”

“There was more than a reasonable belief,” he said, “that drug activity had taken place, was taking place and would take place.” He said, however, that he didn’t know if the company had ever filed complaints with police about the problem.

Over the last two days, many employees have been fuming. A spokesman for Local 63 of the Teamsters union, which represents most of the terminal’s workers, said it is reviewing its legal options.

Westreicher, 43, said the terminal’s management should be fired. “I get along with management rather well, unlike some others here, but to find out that they had cameras in the bathroom . . . it’s appalling,” he said.

He said use of the hidden bathroom cameras “was just too under the belt, too sneaky, as far as I’m concerned. If they’re trying to clean up the drug problem, that’s commendable. But to do it this way is ridiculous.”

Pat Knutzen, a fellow dockworker and a Teamsters shop steward, added that “the majority of people are very upset about it, to the point of wanting to contact the CEO and president.”

“They want heads to roll over it, Knutzen added. “They feel that the company has crossed some lines that they shouldn’t have crossed.”

In one expression of employee anger, workers passed around a flier with a picture of a man standing in front of a urinal. Printed on it was a company slogan: “Watch us deliver now.”

Such cases have made their way into courtrooms elsewhere. Three years ago, a West Virginia judge ordered a utility company, Monongahela Power Co., to pull surveillance cameras from a locker room. Three employees were awarded $80,000 in damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress.

While the utility claimed it was trying to combat drug trafficking, workers claimed the camera was intended to spy on union activity.

In a case pending in state court in Massachusetts, five current or former workers at a Sheraton hotel are suing the company for secretly videotaping them and other workers in the male employees’ locker room over a seven-week period in 1991. The workers say they were humiliated after discovering that some of them were captured on videotape. The company has argued in court that the videotaping was intended to investigate drug dealing, and that one “apparent drug transaction” was spotted.

The latest major survey on electronic surveillance in the workplace, a poll of 906 large- and medium-sized U.S. employers released in May, found that 35.3% at least occasionally conduct one or more kinds of electronic snooping on their workers. Those activities included listening to employees’ phone calls or voicemail messages and reading electronic mail or computer files, along with videotaping workers’ activities.

What’s more, the survey found that even though companies often can fend off invasion-of-privacy lawsuits by alerting employees in advance, nearly one out of six of the snooping employers said they don’t warn their workers.

If all kinds of monitoring are taken into account--including, for example, video surveillance at convenience stores and banks to combat theft--the share of employers engaging in such activity rises to 63.4%. The survey was conducted by the nonprofit American Management Assn. and the newsletter Employment Testing: Law and Policy Reporter.


Employee Finds Hidden Camera in Bathroom

Video surveillance has become commonplace in many American workplaces, but now this type of electronic snooping has reached a new frontier: the employee bathroom.

That little-known fact was discovered this week by chagrined workers at the Consolidated Freightways truck terminal in the Riverside County community of Mira Loma. Many of the terminal’s 600 employees are furious after learning that their restroom visits may have been captured on video.

“We shouldn’t have those kinds of Gestapo tactics here,” said Robert Westreicher, a Consolidated dockworker with 15 years on the job.

Although employee-restroom snooping still is far from the norm among employers, privacy experts said the Mira Loma incident underscores that it no longer is uncommon and may be spreading. They say it most often takes place at companies where managers want to crack down on workers believed to be using restrooms as hide-outs to deal in drugs or stolen merchandise.

Consolidated officials said their secret cameras were installed in two men’s bathrooms several months ago at the Mira Loma facility to track down the suspected use and sale of illegal drugs by employees. The company said that over the last year and a half, it has dismissed eight to 10 workers at the Teamsters union-represented terminal on drug- or alcohol-related grounds.

Michael Brown, a Consolidated spokesman, emphasized that the video cameras were aimed toward the entrances, in front of the sinks and, in one case, at an open area in the corner where drugs supposedly were sold. The cameras were focused “nowhere near the urinal area or the [toilet] stall area,” he said.

The discovery of the lavatory surveillance was made shortly before midnight Tuesday by an employee who noticed that one of the wall mirrors over the sinks was askew. When he checked further, apparently to readjust the mirror, he came across the hidden camera.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, which was called in to investigate, soon found hidden cameras at a second bathroom. Brown said seven more bathrooms were checked, but no other surveillance equipment was found.

Details remained sketchy Thursday, but Brown and a spokesman for the sheriff’s department said two or three cameras were seized from the two bathrooms, along with several videotapes. The case remained under investigation.

The sheriff’s department spokesman, Mark Lohman, said deputies are looking into whether the company violated state law barring surveillance where people have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy. Although neither state nor federal law specifically bars video surveillance in employee bathrooms, judges normally decide such cases by balancing workers’ expectations against the need for the company to maintain a safe, productive workplace.

Other key factors, legal experts said, involve whether the employer tries to limit the intrusiveness of the surveillance and the length of time over which it is used, rather than simply letting the cameras roll indefinitely.

Brown said his Menlo Park-based company, one of the nation’s largest trucking concerns, is concerned about employee privacy. But, he said, the managers of the terminal, the biggest such Consolidated facility in the nation, acted because of the safety threats posed by possible drug use among truck drivers and other terminal workers.

“Our first priority is to protect our employees and to protect our customers’ freight,” he said. Particularly in the safety-sensitive transportation business, Brown added, “you have to protect against employees being impaired.”

“There was more than a reasonable belief,” he said, “that drug activity had taken place, was taking place and would take place.” He said, however, that he didn’t know if the company had ever filed complaints with police about the problem.

Over the last two days, many employees have been fuming. A spokesman for Local 63 of the Teamsters union, which represents most of the terminal’s workers, said it is reviewing its legal options.

Westreicher, 43, said the terminal’s management should be fired. “I get along with management rather well, unlike some others here, but to find out that they had cameras in the bathroom . . . it’s appalling,” he said.

He said use of the hidden bathroom cameras “was just too under the belt, too sneaky, as far as I’m concerned. If they’re trying to clean up the drug problem, that’s commendable. But to do it this way is ridiculous.”

Pat Knutzen, a fellow dockworker and a Teamsters shop steward, added that “the majority of people are very upset about it, to the point of wanting to contact the CEO and president.”

“They want heads to roll over it, Knutzen added. “They feel that the company has crossed some lines that they shouldn’t have crossed.”

In one expression of employee anger, workers passed around a flier with a picture of a man standing in front of a urinal. Printed on it was a company slogan: “Watch us deliver now.”

Such cases have made their way into courtrooms elsewhere. Three years ago, a West Virginia judge ordered a utility company, Monongahela Power Co., to pull surveillance cameras from a locker room. Three employees were awarded $80,000 in damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress.

While the utility claimed it was trying to combat drug trafficking, workers claimed the camera was intended to spy on union activity.

In a case pending in state court in Massachusetts, five current or former workers at a Sheraton hotel are suing the company for secretly videotaping them and other workers in the male employees’ locker room over a seven-week period in 1991. The workers say they were humiliated after discovering that some of them were captured on videotape. The company has argued in court that the videotaping was intended to investigate drug dealing, and that one “apparent drug transaction” was spotted.

The latest major survey on electronic surveillance in the workplace, a poll of 906 large- and medium-sized U.S. employers released in May, found that 35.3% at least occasionally conduct one or more kinds of electronic snooping on their workers. Those activities included listening to employees’ phone calls or voicemail messages and reading electronic mail or computer files, along with videotaping workers’ activities.

What’s more, the survey found that even though companies often can fend off invasion-of-privacy lawsuits by alerting employees in advance, nearly one out of six of the snooping employers said they don’t warn their workers.

If all kinds of monitoring are taken into account--including, for example, video surveillance at convenience stores and banks to combat theft--the share of employers engaging in such activity rises to 63.4%. The survey was conducted by the nonprofit American Management Assn. and the newsletter Employment Testing: Law and Policy Reporter.


Employee Finds Hidden Camera in Bathroom

Video surveillance has become commonplace in many American workplaces, but now this type of electronic snooping has reached a new frontier: the employee bathroom.

That little-known fact was discovered this week by chagrined workers at the Consolidated Freightways truck terminal in the Riverside County community of Mira Loma. Many of the terminal’s 600 employees are furious after learning that their restroom visits may have been captured on video.

“We shouldn’t have those kinds of Gestapo tactics here,” said Robert Westreicher, a Consolidated dockworker with 15 years on the job.

Although employee-restroom snooping still is far from the norm among employers, privacy experts said the Mira Loma incident underscores that it no longer is uncommon and may be spreading. They say it most often takes place at companies where managers want to crack down on workers believed to be using restrooms as hide-outs to deal in drugs or stolen merchandise.

Consolidated officials said their secret cameras were installed in two men’s bathrooms several months ago at the Mira Loma facility to track down the suspected use and sale of illegal drugs by employees. The company said that over the last year and a half, it has dismissed eight to 10 workers at the Teamsters union-represented terminal on drug- or alcohol-related grounds.

Michael Brown, a Consolidated spokesman, emphasized that the video cameras were aimed toward the entrances, in front of the sinks and, in one case, at an open area in the corner where drugs supposedly were sold. The cameras were focused “nowhere near the urinal area or the [toilet] stall area,” he said.

The discovery of the lavatory surveillance was made shortly before midnight Tuesday by an employee who noticed that one of the wall mirrors over the sinks was askew. When he checked further, apparently to readjust the mirror, he came across the hidden camera.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, which was called in to investigate, soon found hidden cameras at a second bathroom. Brown said seven more bathrooms were checked, but no other surveillance equipment was found.

Details remained sketchy Thursday, but Brown and a spokesman for the sheriff’s department said two or three cameras were seized from the two bathrooms, along with several videotapes. The case remained under investigation.

The sheriff’s department spokesman, Mark Lohman, said deputies are looking into whether the company violated state law barring surveillance where people have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy. Although neither state nor federal law specifically bars video surveillance in employee bathrooms, judges normally decide such cases by balancing workers’ expectations against the need for the company to maintain a safe, productive workplace.

Other key factors, legal experts said, involve whether the employer tries to limit the intrusiveness of the surveillance and the length of time over which it is used, rather than simply letting the cameras roll indefinitely.

Brown said his Menlo Park-based company, one of the nation’s largest trucking concerns, is concerned about employee privacy. But, he said, the managers of the terminal, the biggest such Consolidated facility in the nation, acted because of the safety threats posed by possible drug use among truck drivers and other terminal workers.

“Our first priority is to protect our employees and to protect our customers’ freight,” he said. Particularly in the safety-sensitive transportation business, Brown added, “you have to protect against employees being impaired.”

“There was more than a reasonable belief,” he said, “that drug activity had taken place, was taking place and would take place.” He said, however, that he didn’t know if the company had ever filed complaints with police about the problem.

Over the last two days, many employees have been fuming. A spokesman for Local 63 of the Teamsters union, which represents most of the terminal’s workers, said it is reviewing its legal options.

Westreicher, 43, said the terminal’s management should be fired. “I get along with management rather well, unlike some others here, but to find out that they had cameras in the bathroom . . . it’s appalling,” he said.

He said use of the hidden bathroom cameras “was just too under the belt, too sneaky, as far as I’m concerned. If they’re trying to clean up the drug problem, that’s commendable. But to do it this way is ridiculous.”

Pat Knutzen, a fellow dockworker and a Teamsters shop steward, added that “the majority of people are very upset about it, to the point of wanting to contact the CEO and president.”

“They want heads to roll over it, Knutzen added. “They feel that the company has crossed some lines that they shouldn’t have crossed.”

In one expression of employee anger, workers passed around a flier with a picture of a man standing in front of a urinal. Printed on it was a company slogan: “Watch us deliver now.”

Such cases have made their way into courtrooms elsewhere. Three years ago, a West Virginia judge ordered a utility company, Monongahela Power Co., to pull surveillance cameras from a locker room. Three employees were awarded $80,000 in damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress.

While the utility claimed it was trying to combat drug trafficking, workers claimed the camera was intended to spy on union activity.

In a case pending in state court in Massachusetts, five current or former workers at a Sheraton hotel are suing the company for secretly videotaping them and other workers in the male employees’ locker room over a seven-week period in 1991. The workers say they were humiliated after discovering that some of them were captured on videotape. The company has argued in court that the videotaping was intended to investigate drug dealing, and that one “apparent drug transaction” was spotted.

The latest major survey on electronic surveillance in the workplace, a poll of 906 large- and medium-sized U.S. employers released in May, found that 35.3% at least occasionally conduct one or more kinds of electronic snooping on their workers. Those activities included listening to employees’ phone calls or voicemail messages and reading electronic mail or computer files, along with videotaping workers’ activities.

What’s more, the survey found that even though companies often can fend off invasion-of-privacy lawsuits by alerting employees in advance, nearly one out of six of the snooping employers said they don’t warn their workers.

If all kinds of monitoring are taken into account--including, for example, video surveillance at convenience stores and banks to combat theft--the share of employers engaging in such activity rises to 63.4%. The survey was conducted by the nonprofit American Management Assn. and the newsletter Employment Testing: Law and Policy Reporter.


Employee Finds Hidden Camera in Bathroom

Video surveillance has become commonplace in many American workplaces, but now this type of electronic snooping has reached a new frontier: the employee bathroom.

That little-known fact was discovered this week by chagrined workers at the Consolidated Freightways truck terminal in the Riverside County community of Mira Loma. Many of the terminal’s 600 employees are furious after learning that their restroom visits may have been captured on video.

“We shouldn’t have those kinds of Gestapo tactics here,” said Robert Westreicher, a Consolidated dockworker with 15 years on the job.

Although employee-restroom snooping still is far from the norm among employers, privacy experts said the Mira Loma incident underscores that it no longer is uncommon and may be spreading. They say it most often takes place at companies where managers want to crack down on workers believed to be using restrooms as hide-outs to deal in drugs or stolen merchandise.

Consolidated officials said their secret cameras were installed in two men’s bathrooms several months ago at the Mira Loma facility to track down the suspected use and sale of illegal drugs by employees. The company said that over the last year and a half, it has dismissed eight to 10 workers at the Teamsters union-represented terminal on drug- or alcohol-related grounds.

Michael Brown, a Consolidated spokesman, emphasized that the video cameras were aimed toward the entrances, in front of the sinks and, in one case, at an open area in the corner where drugs supposedly were sold. The cameras were focused “nowhere near the urinal area or the [toilet] stall area,” he said.

The discovery of the lavatory surveillance was made shortly before midnight Tuesday by an employee who noticed that one of the wall mirrors over the sinks was askew. When he checked further, apparently to readjust the mirror, he came across the hidden camera.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, which was called in to investigate, soon found hidden cameras at a second bathroom. Brown said seven more bathrooms were checked, but no other surveillance equipment was found.

Details remained sketchy Thursday, but Brown and a spokesman for the sheriff’s department said two or three cameras were seized from the two bathrooms, along with several videotapes. The case remained under investigation.

The sheriff’s department spokesman, Mark Lohman, said deputies are looking into whether the company violated state law barring surveillance where people have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy. Although neither state nor federal law specifically bars video surveillance in employee bathrooms, judges normally decide such cases by balancing workers’ expectations against the need for the company to maintain a safe, productive workplace.

Other key factors, legal experts said, involve whether the employer tries to limit the intrusiveness of the surveillance and the length of time over which it is used, rather than simply letting the cameras roll indefinitely.

Brown said his Menlo Park-based company, one of the nation’s largest trucking concerns, is concerned about employee privacy. But, he said, the managers of the terminal, the biggest such Consolidated facility in the nation, acted because of the safety threats posed by possible drug use among truck drivers and other terminal workers.

“Our first priority is to protect our employees and to protect our customers’ freight,” he said. Particularly in the safety-sensitive transportation business, Brown added, “you have to protect against employees being impaired.”

“There was more than a reasonable belief,” he said, “that drug activity had taken place, was taking place and would take place.” He said, however, that he didn’t know if the company had ever filed complaints with police about the problem.

Over the last two days, many employees have been fuming. A spokesman for Local 63 of the Teamsters union, which represents most of the terminal’s workers, said it is reviewing its legal options.

Westreicher, 43, said the terminal’s management should be fired. “I get along with management rather well, unlike some others here, but to find out that they had cameras in the bathroom . . . it’s appalling,” he said.

He said use of the hidden bathroom cameras “was just too under the belt, too sneaky, as far as I’m concerned. If they’re trying to clean up the drug problem, that’s commendable. But to do it this way is ridiculous.”

Pat Knutzen, a fellow dockworker and a Teamsters shop steward, added that “the majority of people are very upset about it, to the point of wanting to contact the CEO and president.”

“They want heads to roll over it, Knutzen added. “They feel that the company has crossed some lines that they shouldn’t have crossed.”

In one expression of employee anger, workers passed around a flier with a picture of a man standing in front of a urinal. Printed on it was a company slogan: “Watch us deliver now.”

Such cases have made their way into courtrooms elsewhere. Three years ago, a West Virginia judge ordered a utility company, Monongahela Power Co., to pull surveillance cameras from a locker room. Three employees were awarded $80,000 in damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress.

While the utility claimed it was trying to combat drug trafficking, workers claimed the camera was intended to spy on union activity.

In a case pending in state court in Massachusetts, five current or former workers at a Sheraton hotel are suing the company for secretly videotaping them and other workers in the male employees’ locker room over a seven-week period in 1991. The workers say they were humiliated after discovering that some of them were captured on videotape. The company has argued in court that the videotaping was intended to investigate drug dealing, and that one “apparent drug transaction” was spotted.

The latest major survey on electronic surveillance in the workplace, a poll of 906 large- and medium-sized U.S. employers released in May, found that 35.3% at least occasionally conduct one or more kinds of electronic snooping on their workers. Those activities included listening to employees’ phone calls or voicemail messages and reading electronic mail or computer files, along with videotaping workers’ activities.

What’s more, the survey found that even though companies often can fend off invasion-of-privacy lawsuits by alerting employees in advance, nearly one out of six of the snooping employers said they don’t warn their workers.

If all kinds of monitoring are taken into account--including, for example, video surveillance at convenience stores and banks to combat theft--the share of employers engaging in such activity rises to 63.4%. The survey was conducted by the nonprofit American Management Assn. and the newsletter Employment Testing: Law and Policy Reporter.


Kyk die video: Luvo Manyonga se sprong (November 2021).