On the matter of employee monitoring--monitoring of employees by a supervisor in a company is necessary and warranted usually required (obviously); thus the terms “supervisor” and “subordinate.” However, excessive monitoring of a subordinate by a supervisor is, especially when it demonstrates or sanctions malice, to say the least, unscrupulous and unethical.
Permitted (by management) excessive monitoring of employees on a peer-to-peer basis is not only unscrupulous and unethical it is illegal in California and many cities in the United States. Although there is no jurisdiction in place in North Dakota prohibiting such or deeming it illegal most would agree that it would not be conducive to a prosperous work environment.
Although North Dakota has not enacted similar laws with such protections concerning excessive monitoring, when excessive monitoring in itself is persuasive of creating a hostile work environment causing discriminatory workplace harassment which is severe, recurring and pervasive it is illegal under the eyes of the Federal courts and is prohibited under Federal Discrimination laws.
I must point out that the extensive monitoring in this case is not being done on a supervisor to subordinate level but rather on a peer-to-peer basis--the perpetrator holds the same job title as the target person and has no obligation nor requirement what-so-ever to report peers or any other employee’s actions to anyone. Their job descriptions are identical. This monitoring includes but is not limited to persistent behavior using unwarranted, invalid criticism, nit-picking, and faultfinding. The perpetrator is adept at encouraging conflict mainly by the dissemination of disparaging stories concerning the target person, (whether they be embellishment of minor incidents or pure fabrications) to fellow employees, and/or immediate supervisors, and/or upper management within the organization. These stories are selective and premeditated and are told with the intention of inflicting psychological violence.
While most acts of commission here are verbal, others are nonverbal. Nonverbal communications or behaviors such as snubbing while passing or rolling of the eyes to show contempt, or just putting forth a blatant “bad attitude” are exhibited here. Although these nonverbal communications/behaviors themselves, (though being inappropriate), can easily be ignored, or can just be perceived as being childish or rude, or can possibly be attributed to just bad manners; repeatedly and over long periods of time are none-the-less illegitimate behavior.
The target person or victim (if you will) in this matter has a well-defined set of values and is unwilling to compromise them; has a strong sense of integrity; is honest, trustworthy, and reliable; and is good at the position held in employment. However, because of the ability or power of the perpetrator to convince, persuade others and the fact that the perpetrator fraternizes with upper management within the company the victim is of firm belief that tolerating this environment is a condition of continued employment.
|
