The vice president of human resources at Climpson Industries sent the following recommendation to the company’s president.” In an effort to improve our employees’ productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees’ Internet use from their workstations. Employees who use the Internet from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce the number of work hours spent on personal or recreational activities, such as shopping or playing games. By installing software to detect employees’ Internet use on company computers, we can prevent employees from wasting time, foster a better work ethic at Climpson, and improve our overall profits.”

The vice president of human resources at Climpson Industries sent the following recommendation to the company’s president.

“In an effort to improve our employees’ productivity, we should implement electronic monitoring of employees’ Internet use from their workstations. Employees who use the Internet from their workstations need to be identified and punished if we are to reduce the number of work hours spent on personal or recreational activities, such as shopping or playing games. By installing software to detect employees’ Internet use on company computers, we can prevent employees from wasting time, foster a better work ethic at Climpson, and improve our overall profits.”

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

The vice president of human resources (HR) at Climpson Industries believes that employee productivity could be improved by monitoring their Internet use on company computers. This argument assumes that the monitoring software will identify those employees who are wasting the most time online. However, there are several flaws in this assumption, which significantly weaken the VP’s argument.

First, such software, which the VP refers to as a ‘spy’, is notoriously inaccurate. While HR may assume employees will divulge their Internet browsing history, most individuals employ popular techniques to conceal their Internet usage from prying eyes. Some employees use browser add-ons such as AdBlock to frustrate the process, while others use private browsing modes to hide their Internet activity. The use of proxies and VPNs is also common as a means to conceal one’s Internet activity. Furthermore, employees often use third-party software to browse the Internet, such as torrent clients, which hide their activity from network administrators. If HR monitors employees’ Internet activity, they can only detect those who are extremely careless, and even then the software’s accuracy is questionable.

Second, HR’s assumption that employees who use the Internet excessively from their workstations are wasting company time is arguably false. One study found that workers who used the Internet for work-related activities were more productive than those who used it for personal reasons. Spending extra time on Internet activities, such as researching information or communicating with colleagues, can increase productivity. Moreover, employees who are more productive are likely to be more loyal to the company. If HR’s monitoring policy succeeds in discouraging employees from engaging in leisure activity, they may view the VP as less concerned about worker productivity and more likely to lay off employees who are easily replaceable.

HR’s argument assumes that there is a correlation between Internet use and employee productivity. However, this is not necessarily the case. Employees can find information on the Internet to help them complete their work more quickly. For example, an employee who spends hours on websites such as eBay or Amazon may find better prices or superior-quality products. Similarly, employees can use social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter to communicate with colleagues, even if those conversations occur outside of working hours. Furthermore, employees can review work performance and employee reviews on the Internet. If HR initiates a monitoring policy, employees may become more reluctant to seek information outside the company’s intranet, which could result in lower productivity.

The VP’s argument raises several questions. If HR monitors employees’ Internet usage and identifies those who are wasting company resources, what measures will it take to punish them? Will HR fire the wasteful employees or will it offer incentives, such as bonuses, to encourage more productive behavior? If the company does not fire the employees, will lower productivity cause them to lose their jobs? If the company does fire the employees, what will it replace them with? If the company replaces them with more productive employees, will the new employees resent the wasteful employees who were dismissed?The VP’s argument is not without flaws. If HR attempts to implement such a policy, the company may find itself in a Catch-22 situation. If HR attempts to monitor employees’ Internet usage, it may find itself in a no-win situation. If the company rewards productivity, it may alienate employees who spend much of their time on the Internet. If the company rewards idleness, it may alienate employees who spend most of their time working. While HR may consider implementing such a policy, it would be wise to first examine the costs and benefits of doing so.