Is Electronic Surveillance At The Workplace The Iron Cage?

Employers have several reasons for utilizing electronic surveillance systems. They do not see surveillance through electronic means as new, but rather simply as an extension of existing managerial practices (Wood 1991:141). Since all aspects of corporations have been advanced by technological recourses, managerial practices should also be enhanced. Employers justify the use of surveillance because it is another tool to reduce problems that may reduce profit margin (Pipe 1993: 281). Employers argue that electronic surveillance is the best and most effective way to ensure that employees are not withholding production. For example, General Electric said that their 96% customer satisfaction rate for phone service is largely a result of their employee surveillance system (Wolkomir 1994: 483). Employers also argue that the use of surveillance reduces cost. The U.S Chamber of Commerce estimates that around $40 billion dollars are lost every year due to employee crimes (Wolkomir 1994: 459). Employers believe that surveillance is the best way to deter and apprehend these criminals. Although employers believe that the surveillance techniques they use are highly effective, there is no proof. American Express grew 5% in five years after using surveillance, but that is growth that is expected for such a large company(Wolkomir 1994: 488). However, no major research is being done on how effective surveillance is. Claude Fisher states that to companies, its not a matter of if there are results, because a company usually assumes that new technology will be the most effective. Even though statistical research is lacking, employers claim they have enough reasons to use electronic surveillance at the workplace.

Electronic surveillance at the work place has slowly evolved due to a drive toward maximum efficiency. Electronic surveillance is a relatively new concept and practice. However, it seems that this is only due to the fact that electronic equipment for surveillance has only recently been developed. Managers have kept their eyes on workers in America for as long as people have known. However, to increase productivity managers now need to know more about the activities of a worker. Tracing the steps of surveillance, we see that first surveillance was only employed as a responsive action. (Wood 1991:139) For example, if productivity suddenly decreased, then as a response the management would pay closer attention. This was mostly used when sums of money were missing. In order to keep tabulations of were the money was, management turned to electronic surveillance (Wood 1991:142). Then, as companies got larger and more workers switched companies often, company loyalty died. At first, company loyalty was enough to keep most employees from stealing or idleness. As company loyalty died, management used the threat of electronic surveillance to keep their workers in check. Most of the companies 20 years ago, only threatened to utilize surveillance equipment(Wood 1991:147). However, now that even more efficiency is demanded, mangers need to know what employees are doing at all times. Therefore, the trend these days is heading towards constant supervision of the workers. The types of surveillance being used have also evolved. Initially, it was mainly drug tests and soon became account watching. However, through slow progressing, efficiency has demanded that surveillance be stepped up. Therefore, today there are phone taps, email searching, computer file monitoring and video cameras at use. Surveillance technology and implementation is still evolving the same direction of less privacy. The evolution of surveillance technology is a direct result of a push to maximize productivity.

One author who presents the opposing view, saying that electronic surveillance is not directly connected to the “iron cage” is Larry Wolkomir. He wrote an article refuting the parallel between Weber’s theories and workplace surve

Some topics in this essay:
Weber Foucault, Shoshana Zuboff, Larry Wolkomir, America Employers, Countries Japan, Consumers Act, Michael Foucault, House Representatives, Morton Bahr, Office Technology, electronic surveillance, “iron cage”, wolkomir 1994, weber foucault, electronic surveillance workplace, zuboff 1988, company loyalty, iron cage, privacy workers, surveillance equipment, modern workplace, company loyalty died, sociologist weber foucault, cameras grocery store, electronic surveillance rise,