Privacy Loses in California

El sends "CA Gov. Grey Davis thinks it's ok for employers to monitor email without informing the employees first... thanks a lot, Grey!" Davis vetoed a bill which would have required employers to notify employees that their email, electronic files, or visits to internet websites were being monitored. California workers therefore have more protections using a telephone, where your employer must inform you if you are being monitored, than a computer.

Employer's rights?

[jflynn]

Gray refuses to sign a bill that merely requires prior notification of e-mail monitoring and his reason is it would interfere with "employer's rights". I thought these were basically property rights and contractual rights. How do these differ from civil rights?

While trespassing is illegal, you have a much better chance of succeeding in prosecution in court if you have posted "no trespassing" signs beforehand. Hell, even coffee cups warn about the dangers of hot coffee these days. Why wouldn't a business want to post their monitoring policy? You'd think this would deter inappropriate usage and that would be preferable to catching misuse after the fact. Possible reasons:

1) You might have more trouble hiring for occupations in high demand.

2) Some may morally prefer to catch "wrong-doers" not just prevent them.

3) Perhaps interesting commercial espionage data is available in e-mail to and from friends at competing companies.

4) They get a sexual kick (voyeurism) out of reading peoples private correspondence. Letting people know they are monitored would ruin all the fun.

5) They are afraid that fired workers might sue on the basis that they weren't informed? Can you say employment contract?

6) Companies might not move to California, or might move away, because of "draconian" legislation like this?

I'm at a loss, frankly, none of these seem like good reasons to me. Any ideas what might be wrong with this bill?