In another thread the firing of someone for what was said in a "private" conversation was discussed.
In the "Partner sues PwC for race discrimination" article one sentence grabbed my attention, where it says - "In 2004 he was given a negative appraisal for dating a colleague (now his wife) without revealing the nature of the relationship to his bosses".
I am aware of many larger firms, (Tescos being one example), where staff who have had time off ill are required to submit to an "interview" (described to me by a Tescos employee as an interogation) by their personnel staff upon their return to work.
Now two team leaders in the benefits section of Carlisle City Council has ordered employees to clock out if having a non-work related conversation with fellow workers.
If an employee 'phones in sick, car giant Toyota despatch a member of their staff to visit the employees home to check that they are there and they are ill.
Accountants are expected to file money laundering reports if they "suspect" clients, but at what point is a client's financial dealings simply none of the accountants business. They may be secret gamblers, or lottery winners who simply dont want anyone to know they've won, but accountants are threatened with sanctions if they do not report unexplained monies, and are expected to do this work without payment.
CCTV, whilst useful on town centre streets, is now being introduced into some workplaces to spy on employees, and only last week it was reported that a schopl was planning to put CCTV in every classroom and even in the schools toilets & changing rooms (perfect for any perverts on the staff).
Is it really any business of an employer if his employees are courting? Is it any business of an employer what employees say in private. Does an employer really have the moral right to "check up" on employees, or to interrogate them when they've had a couple of days off ill?
Are they employees - or are they becoming slaves ?