Jump to content

PIPEDA


Recommended Posts

There is no law regulating the treatment of an employee oppose to patient, customer etc information in Ontario in private and provincially regulated companies.

What are your views on extending PIPEDA application to all companies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear RB,

I am in agreement in principle that personal information is sacrosanct. However, after looking at the gov't regs I sincerely hope it never affects my business. I don't think we have had much of a problem with the inappropriate dissemination of personal information in the private sector thus far, and the last thing my small business needs is even more federal paperwork.

Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Currently PIPEDA applies to federally regulated organizations.

If you live in Quebec, BC or Alberta then you do have privacy laws as it relates to employment

Most employers are reporting that it takes a long time to examine their practices and polices for implementation - but thats the only noted negative

I mean where are the fundamental rights of workers to protect their privacy. Employers have to be accountable for the information they collect and how the information is manipulated, or its usage and its disclosure or retention

I mean look at the video surveillance cameras. There is no restriction in Ontario. An employee wanting to question the appropriateness of surveillance currently have to recourse. I mean there is no recourse under either statute or common law. Neither can an employee sue an employer for breach of privacy. There is a case Centre for Addiction and Mental Health v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union where the employer lacks reasonable basis for intrusion

Same with e-main monitoring and the Internet. When you computer announces "You've got mail" The boss knows.

Here is a survey from Hoffman 2003:

92% of companies monitor email

26% monitor all the time

38% monitor randomly

34% monitor in response to good reason

50% of companies have no guidelines or written policies

More importantly, 2/3 of companies does not require the department or person monitoring to sign a confidentiality agreement.

Sorry if I err in spelling or otherwise I don't have time to re-check what I wrote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear RB,

I mean where are the fundamental rights of workers to protect their privacy. Employers have to be accountable for the information they collect and how the information is manipulated, or its usage and its disclosure or retention
Generally, employers have been very responsible with the collection and retention of information. An employer is one of the few people (or entities) that has your SIN #, age, D.O.B etc. I have heard of a few cases of this info being mishandled, but they are quite rare considering the enormous volume of people in the workforce.

As to privacy in the workplace, that is an iffy one. Why does an employee warrant or need privacy (except in the non-work areas, such as washrooms and lunch-rooms, etcc) in someone else's place of business?

Same with e-main monitoring and the Internet. When you computer announces "You've got mail" The boss knows.
A malady of the information age, I'm afraid. Why should an employer not monitor these things? If someone spent 50% of their time at work with personal phone calls, or with sending joke e-mails, I think the employer should have a right to try to get the employee to stop such activity, and get on with their work.

Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the harm in letting employers and employees decide this on their own? Is regulation necessary?

I would be surprised if the Bank of Nova Scotia doesn't record in some manner every action of a teller. Is it wrong if a video camera is installed to film tellers while they work?

If some employees dislike this intrusion, they are free to find another line of work.

Employers often go to great length to test potential employees to find the right one. If technology makes it easier for employers to find more quickly a good employee, then we would be foolish to forbid the technology.

Consider for a moment the consequences of banning workplace surveillance. Employers are reticent to hire someone because they fear misconduct and the difficulty of proving it. The result is more unemployment and more understaffed firms.

Can someone point out the down side to this?

(BTW, what is PIPEDA?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theloniusfleabag Posted on Apr 10 2005, 09:42 PM

Generally, employers have been very responsible with the collection and retention of information

The right to privacy has never been recognise as a separate right.

I mean that before information technology the right of people were protected on the basis of the practical difficulties of locating firstly then compiling records.

With information age flow of data is instantaneous to concerns about privacy is paramount. Monitoring reduces morale and compromises trust in the workplace. An employer might want to use the monitoring of browsing and keyboard strokes, with video taping to reenforce misconduct especially when the employee is unaware of this happening

Employees need to give consent and be aware of the information collected and its usage, they need to be aware that they are monitored etc.

Employers have to be accountable and give an explanation as to why there are collecting information and only collect information that is necessary

I mean if employers want to video tape employees there must be a direct relation as it relates to work and performace and to attached to perhaps constructive dismissal

You can't want to put a video camera to monitor employees on their smoke break and use it against them. There is a that case showed how the employer taped an employee washing his car in his driveway, watering his plants. The employee stated he was allergic to water.

I mean it is evidence but the surveillance is not ethical or NEAR cause of what is reasonable regardless of relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

August1991 Posted on Apr 10 2005, 10:46 PM

(BTW, what is PIPEDA?)

Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) requires federally regulated employers to comply as of January 1, 2001

PIPEDA as of January 1, 2004 applies to personal info collected, used, disclosed, in provincially regulated organizations in commercial activity includes selling, bartering, leasing donor, membership or fundraising list except if provinces have a similar legislation

PIPEDA - the ACT

I don't think privacy act is about finding the right person, or monitoring but more about offering a guide and forming a basis of ethical personal information practices

It follows that rules and monitoring are applied consistently to all employees in a fair manner. No one person should be targeted but some fair system being implemented

Employees need to know how their information is protected

Ok the computer usage - it is company property etc. If companies are using monitoring activities it should be communicated via policies the employer uses e.g. employers could state that e-mail is for business purposes only

There is a case of a long time employee who has used a personal laptop to store company information for years. All of a sudden the employer wanted to change system but when the employee suggested that the system is say incompatible, the employer seize the laptop and began immediate transferal of company's information.

The question of trust, and dedicated service now out of the door. But question is where are the rights of employees in this instance who was loyal? I mean the information was kept safe and he was respected for years non?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If some employees dislike this intrusion, they are free to find another line of work.

I don't think this rationale should be overused. The fact is that those who demand labour hold more and more of an advantage these days.

You could eliminate much labour legislation with this rationale. The fact is that people are willing to put up with a lot in order to keep a job. Legislation should exist to counteract the natural order of things, which is sometimes called the race to the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,816
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nibu
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...