“Our people feel violated. You’re given an email address and you have a password, and
it’s yours. It’s personal” is the view of Abe Rosner, a national CAW representative.
CN, however, disagrees: “Email is to be used for CN business-approved activities
only. Flowing from this is that any communication exchanged on the system is
viewed as company property,” explains Mark Hallman, a CN spokesperson.
While most employees do not think managers should listen to their subordinates’
voice mail messages or read their emails, some managers disagree. More than 20
percent of managers surveyed recently said that they monitored their employees’
voice mail, email, and/or computer files. The managers argue that the company owns
the systems used to produce this material, and therefore they should have access to
the information.
Fred Jones (not his real name) was fired from a Canadian company for forward-
ing dirty jokes to his clients.^26 Until this incident, Jones had been a high-performing
employee who sold network computers for his company. Jones thought that he was
only sending the jokes to clients who liked them, and assumed the clients would
tell him if they didn’t want to receive the jokes. Instead, a client complained to the
company about receiving the dirty jokes. After an investigation, the company fired
Jones. Jones is still puzzled about being fired. He views his email as private; to him,
sending jokes is the same as telling them at the water cooler.
Jones was not aware that under current law, employee information, including
email, is not necessarily private. Most federal employees, provincial public sector
employees, and employees working for federally regulated industries are covered by
the federal Privacy Act and Access to Information Act, in place since 1985. Many pri-
vate sector employees are not covered by privacy legislation, however.Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, notes that
“employees deserve to be treated like adults and companies should limit surveillance to
rare instances, such as when there is suspicion of criminal activity or harassment.”^27
She suggests that employers use respect and courtesy when dealing with employees’
email, and she likens email to office phone calls, which generally are not monitored by
the employer. It is clearly important, in any event, that employees be aware of their
companies’ policies on email.
Instant Messaging
Instant messaging (IM), which has been popular among teens for more than a decade,
is now rapidly moving into business.^28
Instant messaging is essentially real-time email. Its growth has been spectacular. In
2002 Canadians sent 174 million text messages, in 2003 they sent 352 million text
messages, and in 2004 they sent more than 710 million text messages.^29 Experts estimate
that by 2005, more people will be using IM than email as their primary communication
tool at work.^30
IM is a fast and inexpensive means for managers to stay in touch with employees and
for employees to stay in touch with each other. It also provides several advantages over
email. There’s no delay, no inbox clutter of messages, and no uncertainty as to whether
the message was received. Managers also find that IM is an excellent means for monitoring
employees’ physical presence at their workstations. “With a glance at their contact lists,
users can tell who’s logged on and available right now.”^31 Service technicians at Ajax,
Ontario-based Pitney Bowes Canada started using IM rather than pagers, because “it’s
cheaper and it’s two-way.”^32 The company knows if messages are received.
IM isn’t going to replace email. Email is still probably a better device for conveying
long messages that need to be saved. IM is preferred for sending one or two-line mes-
sages that would just clutter up an email inbox. On the downside, some IM users find
the technology intrusive and distracting. IM’s continual online presence can make it
Chapter 6 Communication, Conflict, and Negotiation 195