Conference Calls

MKT

Our Retail division outsourced sales training and all Sales Associates and Sales Managers completed the courses. The consulting company is now conducting weekly conference calls with the Managers and Sales Associates from each location(one location per call). The goals (of the calls) are to reinforce the training, address challenges, propose resolutions to the challenges, and review location/individual goals, etc.

Question: Sr. Management (of the Retail Division) has been dialing into the conference calls, however, the Managers and Sales Associates were not told that Sr. Management may/may not listen. Does anyone see a legal concern with the employees not knowing that Sr. Management is listening to the calls? I realize there is a conference call etiquette (and, to some extent, trust) issue, but, would an employee have a reasonable expectation of privacy or confidentiality in this situation? Any other concerns or risks?

Thanks for your input.

Theresa Gegen TX

Generally a person who is not a party to the conversation cannot listen into phone calls. It is an invasion of privacy and a violation of most state's laws.

Most employers get around this by getting consent (which means just giving the employees notice that their phone call may be monitored for quality assurance, etc).

Good Luck!

MKT

My first thought is that Sr. Management is party to the call because the consultant invited them to listen and the consultant is aware when Sr. Management is listening. In addition, the call is being sponsored (and paid for) by the company. Do these additional pieces of information help?

Theresa Gegen TX

Having consent of a party does not necessarily make them a party, but it does allievate any issue of violating the federal law on electronic communications privacy. But in some states, consent may be required from all parties (that is not the law in Texas, but remember Monica Lewinsky -- she got in trouble because she taped a telephone conversation (which she was a party to) and she did not let the other party know about the tape.) So depending on the state of each of the participants, your company may be running afoul of the law.

Good Luck!

Don D

I think you have confused Miss Lewinsky and Miss Tripp. It was not taping a call that got Miss Lewinsky in trouble.

Pork

Who is or is not paying for the call and the consultants time is not the problem. As a trained and certified counselor, I would not breach client counselor legal protection and previlege information to be listened in by the upper level management or anyone else. You bet there is an expectation of privacy unless the training team are not certified counselors and protected by the right to privacy surrounding them as a professional. As a minimum no one can control what one might say in revealing one's feelings about upper level retail management. The team ask and challange you to be open and honest. I once was a retail HR and upper level management gave lots of opportunity for fact to be discussed about the conduct of "personal affairs" while exercising and using the perks of the senior positions. The retail company was a discount chain headquartered in the South. The company went broke and bankrupt for the wrong doings of the senior management. Every last one of them with the exception of the CFO ended up on the street and should have spent time in jail. The CFO was smarter than the rest and blamed others for the financial hardship. Good Luck, but I would not advise you say anything but make sure you know for fact that the retail management group is listening in. Keep good records: date, times, and etc. Should anyone get the shaft for some private telephone conversation then make sure the poor victim knows what you know and then you leave out of pride and professionalism. Believe me you do not want to work for a company that slithers so low. Pork

Don D

My take on this is that probably the participants in the training were given certain ground rules for the training and the follow up portion of it was explained as well. More than likely they were encouraged (told) to expect a degree of 'between us and you guys' by the trainers and 'Don't worry about us revealing your comments to your superiors, that's not what we're here for'. All that was said to gain the groups confidence and to get them to aggressively buy in to the training. Good so far. Now, bam, it's all destroyed by one or two upper management guys who are unknowingly (?) sabotaging the whole damned thing. This violates a number of things: Among them, the training process, management principles, trust, common decency and PEOPLE. It's almost as violative as having a one-way mirror covering one wall of the training room, in fact that's precisely what it is. Very poor decision by whoever made it. x:-( th-down

Gillian

Sometimes Don and I have a different take on issues but we agree 150% on this one. Bad decision all around. By the way, if you have retail operations in California it will certainly violate privacy laws out here. We that live here have a constitutional right to privacy which can only be breached by an employer if the employee is told by some writing that they have no expectation of the right to privacy when it comes to company communications systems, searches, etc. Just reserving the right to monitor or to listen to calls doesn't quite do it.