Let's begin with a hypothetical situation: You are hired to do a job which requires you to drink alcoholic beverages. At the start, everything is fine, and you are in complete control. Over time, your employer begins to ask more from you, encouraging you to work overtime, and practically shoves the booze down your throat. Eventually, you become an alcoholic. How much responsibility does your employer bear for your alcoholism?
In that one case, the simple answer is "quite a lot." Of course, no job I know of requires such a dedication to "the sauce," but many employers do encourage a strong commitment to a different form of behavior; one which—it has been argued—is potentially addictive. According to a study soon to be released by researchers at Rutgers University—Camden, employers who encourage workers to remain connected all the time may soon find themselves on the hook for more than just Internet access fees.
Gale Porter, along with study co-authors David Vance and Nada Kakabadse, concludes that employers may be legally liable for creating an environment in which workers may become addicted to technology. "Employers rightfully provide programs to help workers with chemical or substance addictions. Addiction to technology can be equally damaging to the mental health of the worker," states Porter, an associate professor of management at the school.
Certain employers (though not all) may find it convenient and even desirable to hire workers who have a desire to remain connected. A connected worker can often be considered to be an informal "on call" resource—able to be contacted at odd hours and in a wide variety of geographic locations. Yet, according to Porter, that same trait can lead to "detrimental outcomes."
The press release sent out in advance of the study doesn't describe exactly what those detrimental outcomes might be, but we can guess that they might include breakdowns in social interaction, feelings of disassociation when separated from technology, depression, or even dogs and cats living together. Perhaps nothing more than a high score on the Internet Addiction Test will be enough to set the legal wheels in motion.
Porter admits that she knows of no current cases tying connectivity addiction to employer liability, but predicts that they may be on the way. She draws a comparison between our understanding of electronic addiction and the evolution of legal decisions targeting tobacco companies, beginning with basic theories advanced in the 1950s, and culminating with large court awards to smokers in the 1990s. "When professional advancement (or even survival) seems to depend on 24/7 connectivity," says Porter, "it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between choice and manipulation."
That may be true, and there is little doubt that sooner or later someone—perhaps a reader of Porter's study—will end up suing their employer for exactly the reasons she predicts. Of course, when that happens, a wealth of factors (such as an individual's pre-employment emotional state, or any steps the employer might have taken to discourage addiction) will have to be weighed before any legal precedents are etched in stone. In any event, it's unlikely that we will see any large scale shakeups on the level of the tobacco industry rulings.
