Analysis of the Zero Tolerance Policy Personal Statement

Analysis of the Zero Tolerance Policy - Personal Statement Example Zero tolerance policy is multidimensional with respect to requirement for companies. Research scholars defined zero tolerance policy as the framework designed by management of the company in order to prohibit employee behaviors considered as violent and also against the interest of the organization. Any kind of behavior (even jokes pulled by employee) or comments or activity threatening security of other employees will be judged under zero tolerance policy. Many companies terminate people on the ground of zero tolerance policy (Baron, Hoffman and Merri 71). Many academic scholars and also employees raising their voice about internet privacy policy set by employers in order monitor online activity of employees (Bidgoli 341). Companies are monitoring online activities of employees in order to prevent any future violation of rules. For examples the study will use guideline made by a reputed company for monitoring online activity (Jackson, Schuler, and Werner 101). ... Simon was helping the company to conduct research on semiconductor technology. Reasons for Termination Case analysis made by Eugene Volokh has pointed out three reasons behind termination of Simon. Simon during his work tenure spent more than or equal to eight hours online in a week doing browsing and emailing not related to company’s work. Simon used to stay late in the office and did online activities after the office time. Simon regularly contacted his friend Martin Ledecky (residing in Jordan) for discussing molecular properties of Silicon. Simon had a tendency to goof up during the working hour although he made up time wasted on goofing up by doing overtime. These are controversial reasons due to their lack of evidence to prove that online activity of Simon is hurting the interest of organization. Author’s View Author of this report do not agree with the zero tolerance policy Applied Devices due to following reasons. Simon used to do online conversation with his fr iend Martin Ledecky for discussing academic and research related issues. There is no evidence that their discussion was hurting interest of the company. Simon used do online browsing and emails after the working hour hence his activities cannot be judged as wasting of time during work hour. Janet Parker has also pointed out that that Applied Devices needs to conduct proper research on online activity of Simon before terminating him. Janet Parker in the case commentary has mentioned that Applied Devices should have given warning regarding online activity prior to termination of Simon. Jean Halloran in the case analysis has pointed out that the company is showing distrust to employees and suspecting their activity in the workplace rather assuming employees are well