Big Brother

* Was P&G justified in investigating its own employees in order to find the source of a suspected leak? Do you agree with Artz that a company has a right to protect its secrets? Does this right depend on the kind of information that a company seeks to protect.
Yes, P&G did have the right to investigate their employees to find the source of the suspected leak. Companies have the right to choose representation of their choice. By doing so, P&G would be able to take the appropriate disciplinary action with staff. I do agree with Artz to a point. There are some secrets companies have the right to protect, however if the secrets are illegal, they should not be kept a secret. If, for example * If P&G had a right to investigate, is there a limit to the steps it can take? Suppose P&G had searched only the company’s own telephone records or confined its search to the home telephone records of P&G employees. Would the company have kept within permissible limits?
Since P&G had the right to investigate their employees to find the suspected leak, they were limited in steps they could take. They could only search phone records of employees who have company cell phones. The employee’s personal home and cell phone records would be off limits since doing so could be a violation of privacy laws. If they confined their search to the home telephone records of P&G employees, they would have been, in my opinion, outside of permissible limits for the same reason as mentioned above. There is a fine line when it comes to invading the privacy of employees and care should be taken to avoid this line when possible. * Were the rights of Cincinnati-area residents violated by the check of their telephone records? How would you feel if your own telephone records were checked in this way?
I personally feel the rights of Cincinnati-area residents were violated by the check of their personal telephone records. Calls made on a residents own