American Workers Beware: BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), May, 1999 by Charles Lewis

Those arguments won considerable sympathy from Capitol Hill lawmakers. "The notion that electronic monitoring has become a valuable tool of management is evidenced by the diverse universe of companies that use it," noted Rep. Marge Roukema (R.-N.J.), who had offered an amendment to the previous version of the bill, exempting financial institutions from regulation. (Roukema received $250,000 in campaign contributions from banks and financial-services companies from 1988 to 1996.)

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R.-Mich.) was more blunt: "I believe the key question for discussion here is: What is the expectation of privacy in the workplace? Given the information glut that has been produced by new technology, how far can business go to use electronic devices to improve productivity and performance quality? What level of privacy can an employee expect when on company time, using official phones, or using company computers or cash registers?"

In the Senate, the most vigorous opponent of Simon's bill was Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.), who maintained that "businesses are finding it essential to use electronic monitoring as a means of staying competitive in the 1990s and into the next century," and that employees' privacy "must be balanced against the need of businesses to maintain quality services in a competitive market."

Ultimately, both the Simon and Williams versions of the bill were killed in committee. Since then, no new workplace-privacy legislation has surfaced in Congress, and the surveillance of employees continues. Eighty percent of American companies test employees for drug use, compared with 21% a decade ago. A 1996 survey of Fortune 500 companies found that 70% gave personal information about workers to credit grantors and 47% to landlords. An Arlington, Va., company markets an artificial-intelligence software program that automatically can scan employees' e-mail for offensive language. In place of polygraphs, businesses compel job applicants to take psychological tests that not only purport to reveal whether the person is dishonest, but give detailed scores for an array of traits, from compassion to stubbornness. (According to a 1990 OTA report, in addition to direct questions about whether or not a person thinks stealing is wrong, such tests also contain "veiled purpose" questions such as "On the average, how often a week do you go to parties?" or "How often do you blush?") Video surveillance in restrooms and locker rooms is legal in all but three states (although the California legislature is considering a law to bar it). Thanks to Congress, when millions of Americans go to work each day, they leave their privacy rights at home.

Mr. Lewis is executive director, the Center for Public Integrity, Washington, D.C., a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that examines public-service and ethics-related issues.