Employees should decide on what information to surrender to employers Essay

Employees should decide on what information to surrender to employers - Essay Example According to Ferdinand Schoeman â€Å"A person has privacy to the extent that others have limited access to information about him, limited access to the intimacies of his life, or limited access to his thoughts or his body† Privacy encompasses the body, mind and possessions (Persson & Hansson, 2003). Employment is an individual’s source of livelihood. An individual, from the time of his or her application for work up to the moment of employment is required by the employer to provide personal information. The employer determines which information the employee should divulge. Not supplying certain data may mean termination from work. An applicant for a position may even be excluded from the list of qualified candidates by not providing the information asked by the employer. But should the employers determine which type of information the employees should reveal to the employer or the former have the right to do so. Requiring a worker to reveal personal information would b e tantamount to a transgression of the privacy of the person if not work related. Employers, on the other hand, can insist that they have the right to require some information since they have to know more about the person they are hiring to work for them. Through such information, they can determine if their interest and investments would be safe from such person. Infringement into the privacy of an employee involves an ethical and legal issue. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution explicitly guarantees the right of people to be â€Å"secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures† (Doyle, 2010, p. 2). Intrusion into the privacy of an employee must be justified from the start and related to the subject of the intrusion that would warrant the justification (Narducci v. Moore, 2009, as cited in Doyle, 2010). Sources of Information There are many types of information that can be taken from an individual. The usual procedure in getting information from an individual is through a form that asked for simple data such as the name of the applicant, address or status. Usually, a job applicant has to fill all the blanks that require specific information, otherwise the application will not be entertained. The employer may use these data for the background investigation of the applicant prior to hiring. Persson and Hansson (2003) mentioned three other sources of information, which are drug testing, genetic testing and surveillance, all of which are related to privacy issue. Genetic testing has two forms, genetic screening (which identifies â€Å"possible genetic predispositions† to diseases caused by chemicals) and genetic monitoring (which identifies diseases that resulted from chemical exposure in the work area) (Persson & Hansson, 2003, p. 59). Genetic testing may result to a social stigma although the employee does not actually develop the disease (Brady, 1995, as cited in Persson & Hansson, 2003). An individual can also be subjected to the â€Å"Hitler mentality† wherein those who do not fit the perfect race concept will become outcast in society (Brady, 1995, p. 52, as cited in Persson & Hansson, 2003, p. 60). Other information may not be as permanent as the genetic code, such as the personal items brought into the office, or the movement of the employee within the company premises. The latter case will fall under the third category mentioned by Persson and Hansson (2003), which is surveillance. The â€Å"smart† ID badges, for instance, can track down the whereabouts of a person anywhere within the building (Persson & Hansson, 2003). Tracking an employee while answering the call of nature would be irrelevant for the employer. And at that moment, the employee

Offer and Acceptance. Intension to Create Legal Relations Essay

Offer and Acceptance. Intension to Create Legal Relations - Essay Example A survey was conducted and thus it objectively appears that the offer was genuine and that Belinda believed that the offer was genuine. The offer and acceptance also appear to meet the requirement that a valid acceptance must mirror the terms of the offer.3 On the facts of the case for discussion, Belinda accepted Tom’s offer as they were presented to her. Therefore it can be argued that a valid offer and acceptance was made. The question is therefore whether or not Belinda was free to withdraw her acceptance. Only if the acceptance was subject to the condition that Belinda receives a satisfactory survey would allow her to withdraw her acceptance. However the condition must be clearly stated as a prerequisite for acceptance.4 Based on the facts of the case for discussion, the offer and acceptance were both unconditional. Given that the offer and acceptance were both made pursuant to the common law rules for valid offer and acceptance, Belinda has entered into legally binding c ontract with Tom. ... There is a presumption however, that agreements between social and family groups are not generally binding contracts.6 In Balfour v Balfour, it was held however, that where there are arrangements and agreements between close members of a social or family group, the presumption that there is no intention to create legal relations is a rebuttable presumption.7 The presumption can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.8 The loan syndicate between Matt, Mark, Luke and Jon is arguably an arrangement between a close social group as they are colleagues and the arrangement has nothing to do with their work. The presumption that as a social group there is no intention to create legal relations can be rebutted if it can be shown that by joining the syndicate and trusting the ticket purchases and collection of winnings to another member of the syndicate, the parties were putting themselves at a disadvantage. The disadvantage arises because, they could have purchased the winning lottery ticket themselves and collected their own winnings. It was held in Parker v Clark that the presumption can be rebutted where a party to the agreement is disadvantaged by the agreement.9 A similar arrangement occurred in Simpkins v Pays. In this case, a woman together with her granddaughter and tenant agreed to enter a competition as one entrant under the woman’s name and that any winnings would be shared between them. However, when the woman collected the winnings she decided against paying the tenant a share of the receipts. It was held that when the parties shared the competition fee there was an intention to create legal relations and thus there was a legally binding contract.10 It