From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 19:35:07 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: Civil liberties of employees (Re: FYB_oss)
Message-ID: <01I4N2O1M45S8Y59U9@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"tcmay@got.net" 13-MAY-1996 00:55:07.93

>Actually, one _does_ check one's Constitutional rights "at the door" (of an
>employer), and the confusion over this issue is pervasively destroying real
>Constitutional rights.

>For instance, if I hire someone, I can require him or her to wear a
>uniform, to not wear blue jeans to work, to not smoke (or even to smoke, if
>this is what the job involves), to take off his or her clothes, to tap
>dance, to not say anything to my customers, and on and on. If the
>government required these behaviors, this would be a legitimate issue, but
>not if employers set these conditions as terms of continued employment.

	In general, I agree... but one important point to make is the contract.
If the contract says that you can require the employee to tap dance, then you
can require the employee to tap dance. If the contract _doesn't_ require the
employee to get shot, then the employee can refuse to get shot (including
shooting back if you try it anyway, bringing in law enforcement, etcetera.)
	The problem is that current contracts don't (usually) cover employee
privacy in its electronic aspects. They don't say whether or not the employer
can read your email. Thus, it's up in the air. If it says the employer can,
then the employer should be able to. If it says the employer can't, then the
employer shouldn't be able to - including via the employee using PGP to encrypt
the mail.
	-Allen