0004330819@mcimail.com (Mike Miller) (01/12/91)
I want to monitor the activity of my switchboard operators. I plan to notify them that I plan to randomly monitor the operator consoles to assures quality assurance along with prompt and courteous service. What I need to know is ... is this legal? or is it considered eavesdropping? There is a jack at each operator console for monitoring purposes, but I plan to monitor them from the switch room. Any suggestions? I want to add that I will NOT be doing this if it is considered illegal. But I would like a true answer, not an opinion. [Moderator's Note: Apparently it is legal. All telcos monitor their oeprators on duty. I do not believe it is illegal to monitor the performance of employees whose duties include the use of the telephone to serve customers by listening unannounced on the phone as they speak. It may be essential however that you place a conspicuous notice in the telephone room stating that "conversations between switchboard operators and our customers may be subject to unannounced monitoring for the purpose of training our operators and improving our service." I think it would also be important that your wiring be installed so that you were *only* able to monitor the operator's talk path -- that is, the common circuit between the operator's headset and the line terminations on each switchboard position. *Do not* monitor the building house pairs or God forbid, telco's pairs coming into the premises, etc. Once the operator opened a key on her position, you could hear her and the caller she was working with. When she closed the key and dropped out of the circuit, the connection would be private between the calling and called parties once again, meaning you should pick it up from the auxiliary jack on each position. Quite obviously if the operator makes a personal phone call from her position you will overhear it, but I assume that is what you want to do while protecting the privacy of your users. But I'd not do it without advising the operators that you had the ability to do so and were so inclined. Of course, that might end your problems right there. PAT]
peterm@rwing.uucp (Peter Marshall) (01/13/91)
Responding to MiKe Miller's 1/11 post and the Moderator's reply in vol.11, #29; this issue may be an old one, but it's by no means stale, and the overall climate surrounding it is both somewhat changed and certainly not stale itself. Somewhat contrary to the appearnce suggested by the Moderator's initial reply, this is a not un-complex question, and "answers" are not simply straight-forward. Mr. Miller obviously has what is fundamentally a legal question here; thus, would probably be best advised to do the legal research called for or to consult competent legal counsel to get a "true answer, not an opinion." Despite the qualifiers in the initial response Mr. Miller's gotten here, he has indeed gotten himself "an opinion," of course. E.g., it is "apparently" legal, and "I do not believe...." Further, what "all telcos" do maybe rather irrelevant to Mr. Miller's situation, and it is also important to point out that "performance" monitoring (better called electronic workplace surveillance) does not equate with *all*monitoring. One must also note the absence of any sort of legal provisions in the original reply. Relevant variables not noted so far might include whether the workplace in question is unionized or not and the not-unimportant question of whether the *callers* involved will have prior notice as to monitoring of what by definition is also *their* communication. Mr. Miller may also want to note, e.g., the CA PUC rules on such monitoring, as an interesting example of legality and absence thereof, and a recently released CWA-sponsored study that purportedly found higher incidence of stress and stress-related illness in monitored employees. Peter Marshall
linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) (01/17/91)
Mike Miller asks about the legality of monitoring conversations
between operators and customers at his companies. First, I definitely
second the suggestion that you consult a lawyer familiar with such
issues in your state before starting such a system.
In addition to the questions of giving notice/getting permission from
the employees involved, there is also the question of whether you need
to provide some notice to your customers. The telco listings have a
little symbol in the phone book that translates to "calls to this
number may be monitored (but not recorded) by supervisory personnel."
When I worked at Xerox ("Good morning, Xerox service, may I have your
machine serial number please?") the supervisor could monitor, but only
by plug-in at my station.
Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu
[Moderator's Note: Question -- when the supervisor *did* plug in at
your station, did s/he have to ask your permission before doing so?
Did s/he have to then notify the person you were speaking with that
s/he was on the line listening? I thought not ... so why do some
people seem to think if the supervisor chooses to listen from a
distant location -- monitoring just the employees whose duty it is to
answer the phones and serve the calling public -- that some invasion
of privacy has occurred? The supervisor need not ever ask your
permission -- or for that matter bother to notify you -- prior to
reviewing your work, which may at times include listening to you speak
with customers. Therefore, to listen *only* on the operator's talking
path is not illegal, since it is not illegal to supervise the actions
of your employees. Merely because their duties are concentrated on the
phone does not make them something special. And the caller has no
right to a *private* conversation with an employee whose duty is
merely to switch phone calls. The caller is talking to the switch at
that point -- not engaging in an actual, possibly confidential
communication. But common courtesy -- and maybe the law -- dictate
that you at least notify your employees you might be listening in. PAT]
Jim.Redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu (Jim Redelfs) (01/18/91)
> and a recently released CWA-sponsored study that purportedly found > higher incidence of stress and stress-related illness in monitored > employees. As a 17+ year member of CWA (and monitored in my job as Toll Operator and Service Representative), I NEVER experience added stress knowing I was occasionally monitored. I simply treated the customers politely and with respect and made sure I gave them accurate information! JR Copernicus V1.02 Origin: Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14) [Moderator's Note: I've always felt the same way. I've never had any reason I did not want my supervisors to see or hear me at work. And yes, I do make personal phone calls from work. If they hear me, they hear me. If I want to be certain they don't hear me I use the payphones in the lunchroom. PAT]
IZZYAS1@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Andy Jacobson) (01/22/91)
It seems that GTE California Inc., in their infinite wisdom, have
decided to give notice of sorts about monitoring of conversations
between the public and their customer reps. On page 1A (that is the
first page folks) of their phone books can be found a peculiar small
print type notice at the bottom of the page that reads as follows:
NOTICE CONCERNING MONITORING
For training and quality control purposes, a small number of telephone
calls between company employees and customers are monitored without
notice to the customer or the employee, by supervisory personnel. No
recording of the call is made. CALLS BETWEEN CUSTOMERS ARE NOT
MONITORED FOR THIS PURPOSE, or for any purpose without the use of an
automatic tone warning, except when required by law enforcement and
national defense agencies, pursuant to law and under legal safeguards.
If you have any questions concerning monitoring, please contact your
business office.
----------
I don't know if this constitutes legal notice about monitoring of some
sort, but I assume that if GTE can do so in California, than anyone
else can too.
The weird thing is that the grammar used implies that their could be
some "training or quality control (purpose)" to monitoring customers
private conversations. What, I might carry on lousy phone
conversations? Is that what they're implying? Huh?!
Aside from the legal issues, I feel that this notice may have some
chilling effect on telephone use, as it indicates that not only can
the police monitor (I assume for criminal investigations), but also
national defense agencies. I had no idea that national defense could
be used as a justification to bug someone's phone outside of the scope
of simple law enforcement. As we all well know, "National Defense" is
a common justification for all sorts of investigations into
constitutionally protected legal activities, political and otherwise.
I get the impression that GTE California Inc. considers that by this
notice they have given fair warning that your conversation may not be
your own if some national security type agency has an interest in you.
And if you are reading this who might you be? A computer or
telecommunications user, expert or manager? Perhaps.
Andy Jacobson <izzyas1@oac.ucla.edu> or <izzyas1@UCLAMVS.bitnet>