60. “Employers should have no right to obtain information about their employees’ health or other aspects of their personal lives without the employees’ permission.”
“沒有雇員的同意時，雇主應該沒有權力去了解他的雇員的健康狀況和其他的私人生活方面的信息?！?BR> 1， 員工的私人生活狀況，很可能影響工作效率。productivity and turnover，所以雇主有理由關心。比如，健康問題，良好的健康狀況顯然是保障正常穩(wěn)定生產的基礎，雇主付出相同的錢，expect to get certain productivity. 而員工隱瞞健康狀況，造成的低效率高成本，會使公司suffer。在雇傭時擁有對稱的信息，很重要。
2， 同時，員工的私人狀況，如果會危害到其他員工，那么應該有權得這知。比如，健康狀況，犯罪的歷史等等重大事件。健康，會infect other employee/ 暴力 history of crimes violence 很可能會對其他的員工造成傷害。這些都是必須要知道的。
3， 但有一些其他的私人生活，與工作效率無關，而且不是threat to others。employer 沒有權力獲取。比如，婚姻狀況marital status, religion, race…這些都應該是員工自愿提供的with permission，而不能強制獲得force。
View1: as human resources is one of the most important fortunes to a company, companies should know the health conditions of their employees. Decide whether a worker is competent for a job, decide cost on medical cares, ensure productivity
View2: other aspects of employees’ personal life, if not directly related to work performance, are not need to expose to employers.
Determining whether employers should have access to personal information about employees requires that the interests of businesses in ensuring productivity and stability be weighed against concerns about equity and privacy interests. On balance (adv. 總而言之), my view is that employers should not have the right to obtain personal information about current employees without their consent.
A business’ interest in maintaining a stable, productive workforce clearly justifies right of access to certain personal information about prospective employees. Job applicants can easily conceal personal information that might adversely affect job performance, thereby damaging the employer in terms of low productivity and high turnover. During employment, however, the employee’s interests are far more compelling than those of the employer, for three reasons.
First, the employer has every opportunity to monitor ongoing job performance and to replace workers who fail to meet standards, regardless of the reason for that failure. Second, allowing free access to personal information about employees might open the floodgates to discriminatory promotions and salary adjustments. Current federal laws—which protect employees from unfair treatment based on gender, race, and marital status, may not adequately guard against an employer’s searching for an excuse to treat certain employees unfairly. Third, access to personal information without consent raises serious privacy concerns, especially where multiple individuals have access to the information. Heightening this concern is the ease of access to information which our burgeoning electronic Intranets make possible.
In sum, ready access to certain personal information about prospective employees is necessary to protect businesses; however, once hired, an employee’s interest in equitable treatment and privacy far outweighs the employer’s interest in ensuring a productive and stable workforce.
“沒有雇員的同意時，雇主應該沒有權力去了解他的雇員的健康狀況和其他的私人生活方面的信息?！?BR> 1， 員工的私人生活狀況，很可能影響工作效率。productivity and turnover，所以雇主有理由關心。比如，健康問題，良好的健康狀況顯然是保障正常穩(wěn)定生產的基礎，雇主付出相同的錢，expect to get certain productivity. 而員工隱瞞健康狀況，造成的低效率高成本，會使公司suffer。在雇傭時擁有對稱的信息，很重要。
2， 同時，員工的私人狀況，如果會危害到其他員工，那么應該有權得這知。比如，健康狀況，犯罪的歷史等等重大事件。健康，會infect other employee/ 暴力 history of crimes violence 很可能會對其他的員工造成傷害。這些都是必須要知道的。
3， 但有一些其他的私人生活，與工作效率無關，而且不是threat to others。employer 沒有權力獲取。比如，婚姻狀況marital status, religion, race…這些都應該是員工自愿提供的with permission，而不能強制獲得force。
View1: as human resources is one of the most important fortunes to a company, companies should know the health conditions of their employees. Decide whether a worker is competent for a job, decide cost on medical cares, ensure productivity
View2: other aspects of employees’ personal life, if not directly related to work performance, are not need to expose to employers.
Determining whether employers should have access to personal information about employees requires that the interests of businesses in ensuring productivity and stability be weighed against concerns about equity and privacy interests. On balance (adv. 總而言之), my view is that employers should not have the right to obtain personal information about current employees without their consent.
A business’ interest in maintaining a stable, productive workforce clearly justifies right of access to certain personal information about prospective employees. Job applicants can easily conceal personal information that might adversely affect job performance, thereby damaging the employer in terms of low productivity and high turnover. During employment, however, the employee’s interests are far more compelling than those of the employer, for three reasons.
First, the employer has every opportunity to monitor ongoing job performance and to replace workers who fail to meet standards, regardless of the reason for that failure. Second, allowing free access to personal information about employees might open the floodgates to discriminatory promotions and salary adjustments. Current federal laws—which protect employees from unfair treatment based on gender, race, and marital status, may not adequately guard against an employer’s searching for an excuse to treat certain employees unfairly. Third, access to personal information without consent raises serious privacy concerns, especially where multiple individuals have access to the information. Heightening this concern is the ease of access to information which our burgeoning electronic Intranets make possible.
In sum, ready access to certain personal information about prospective employees is necessary to protect businesses; however, once hired, an employee’s interest in equitable treatment and privacy far outweighs the employer’s interest in ensuring a productive and stable workforce.