Ethical Dilemma #4: To What Extent Should Employees Be Monitored While At Work?
The unblinking eye of the boss sees more than you realize
Last Updated: Thursday, March 12, 2009 | 11:07 AM ET
By Ian Harvey, CBC News
Some companies are purchasing software to track the time employees spend on sites such as eBay, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. (iStock)
Warning: reading this story at work could be hazardous to your career.
Your boss could be watching your keystrokes, logging websites you visit and keeping track of how long you spend there, and looking for keywords in your emails. As if that weren't scary enough, some employers are going even further by demanding prospective employees submit to deep background checks as a condition of employment.
Technology is making it much easier for employers to quickly find out things about the people who work for them —or want to work for them.
And it's all perfectly legal.
Your boss could be watching your keystrokes, logging websites you visit and keeping track of how long you spend there, and looking for keywords in your emails. As if that weren't scary enough, some employers are going even further by demanding prospective employees submit to deep background checks as a condition of employment.
Technology is making it much easier for employers to quickly find out things about the people who work for them —or want to work for them.
And it's all perfectly legal.
'I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer.'—Paul Guindon, Canadian Corps of Commissionaires
Some employers, for example, are going far beyond a simple check of employment references and are drilling deep into a prospective employee's background. They're checking for a criminal record against the national police database by requiring a fingerprint.
It's a trend that Paul Guindon, chairman of national business management committee at the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, sees growing exponentially. Besides providing security guards, the Commissionaires' services include doing police clearances and digital fingerprint checks of staff for companies.
"I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer," he says, "especially those in sensitive positions like teachers."
To capitalize on the trend, his organization purchased 40 digital fingerprint machines with training and software at a cost of $1.5 million. At some 20,000 checks a year and growing, Guindon expects the investment will pay for itself in three years.
"We already do about 25,000 traditional ink-and-roll fingerprints, but there's a 200,000 backlog at the RCMP because it's manual," he says. "Digital is instant."
He says many private and public employers demand criminal record checks, including the Department of National Defence and defence contractors, Public Works Canada and many educational and health institutions.
Because of the privacy issues involved, those being checked must consent to the $75 process. The encrypted fingerprint data is sent directly to the RCMP, and the results returned to the employer noting a summary of any conviction including the offence, location and date if there is a match on the database.
"We have no idea of the result, and the data is wiped off our computers when it is sent," says Guindon, noting the Commissionaires also offer a pardon service for those with criminal records who qualify to have them expunged.
Potential employees, of course, can refuse the check and take a pass on the potential job. They usually get into difficulties if they haven't disclosed a criminal record when asked directly about it during their application process.
Companies have some responsibilities to protect privacy, though. They must store the information securely and restrict access to it if they hire the prospect, or destroy it securely if the applicant is not hired.
It's a trend that Paul Guindon, chairman of national business management committee at the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, sees growing exponentially. Besides providing security guards, the Commissionaires' services include doing police clearances and digital fingerprint checks of staff for companies.
"I think one day everyone will be fingerprinted by their employer," he says, "especially those in sensitive positions like teachers."
To capitalize on the trend, his organization purchased 40 digital fingerprint machines with training and software at a cost of $1.5 million. At some 20,000 checks a year and growing, Guindon expects the investment will pay for itself in three years.
"We already do about 25,000 traditional ink-and-roll fingerprints, but there's a 200,000 backlog at the RCMP because it's manual," he says. "Digital is instant."
He says many private and public employers demand criminal record checks, including the Department of National Defence and defence contractors, Public Works Canada and many educational and health institutions.
Because of the privacy issues involved, those being checked must consent to the $75 process. The encrypted fingerprint data is sent directly to the RCMP, and the results returned to the employer noting a summary of any conviction including the offence, location and date if there is a match on the database.
"We have no idea of the result, and the data is wiped off our computers when it is sent," says Guindon, noting the Commissionaires also offer a pardon service for those with criminal records who qualify to have them expunged.
Potential employees, of course, can refuse the check and take a pass on the potential job. They usually get into difficulties if they haven't disclosed a criminal record when asked directly about it during their application process.
Companies have some responsibilities to protect privacy, though. They must store the information securely and restrict access to it if they hire the prospect, or destroy it securely if the applicant is not hired.
Desktop surveillance
Technology is also offering employers ways to quietly keep tabs on what their staffers are doing on company time.
That time is money, says SpectorSoft Corp.'s marketing director Doug Taylor, and the Florida-based company sells software packages to monitor the online activities of a company's employees. Underlining how much time at work some spend on personal pursuits, Taylor points to a report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas that suggests during the National Football League regular season some 37 million people spend an average of 50 minutes a week at work managing their fantasy teams.
Add in eBay, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, stupid email jokes and the lists of top web destinations, and number of lost hours grows exponentially.
That time is money, says SpectorSoft Corp.'s marketing director Doug Taylor, and the Florida-based company sells software packages to monitor the online activities of a company's employees. Underlining how much time at work some spend on personal pursuits, Taylor points to a report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas that suggests during the National Football League regular season some 37 million people spend an average of 50 minutes a week at work managing their fantasy teams.
Add in eBay, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, stupid email jokes and the lists of top web destinations, and number of lost hours grows exponentially.
During the National Football League regular season some 37 million people spend an average of 50 minutes a week at work managing their fantasy teams.
Looking to claw back that company time, IMV Projects, a Calgary project management firm, installed SpectorSoft's 360 software three years ago on the PCs of the 650 people it employed at the time.
IT manager Ross Benov conservatively figures the firm recouped 10 hours per year per employee at $30 to $40 an hour, equaling between $195,000 and $260,000 in salaried work time. Setting a more liberal estimate of time wasting at 40 hours a year per employee, it adds up to more than $1 million, he says.
"We use it in different ways —to run a report on an employee if their supervisor feels they're spending too much time online, to see what websites they're going to," says Benov.
He notes that employees are told about the software and the company's internet guidelines. "We've had no problems since and I haven't heard any complaints. We allow full internet access at lunchtime because we want to keep people happy and maintain a balance."
SpectorSoft started making its surveillance software for the consumer market about a decade ago, allowing parents to control what their kids did online and monitor which sites they went to. It has since expanded to the corporate world and is finding an eager audience. Today it is one of the fastest growing companies in the U.S., with sales to more than 50,000 companies and 400,000 consumers.
"You have to own the computer and the network," says Taylor noting some European jurisdictions do prohibit some types of monitoring. "And you should tell your employees up front that they may be monitored."
He says there are two ways to use the system. The first is to monitor all employees for prohibited online behaviour. The second is to only watch employees who are not meeting performance standards. The software is not intended to crack down on any personal use of the web or email, Taylor says, but to single out the worst abusers.
"The system knows how long you had an eBay window open and how long you were active in that window," he says. "So it's not going to report that you were on eBay for seven hours [if the window was open that long], just that the window was open and that your mouse was active inside that window for 20 minutes."
IT manager Ross Benov conservatively figures the firm recouped 10 hours per year per employee at $30 to $40 an hour, equaling between $195,000 and $260,000 in salaried work time. Setting a more liberal estimate of time wasting at 40 hours a year per employee, it adds up to more than $1 million, he says.
"We use it in different ways —to run a report on an employee if their supervisor feels they're spending too much time online, to see what websites they're going to," says Benov.
He notes that employees are told about the software and the company's internet guidelines. "We've had no problems since and I haven't heard any complaints. We allow full internet access at lunchtime because we want to keep people happy and maintain a balance."
SpectorSoft started making its surveillance software for the consumer market about a decade ago, allowing parents to control what their kids did online and monitor which sites they went to. It has since expanded to the corporate world and is finding an eager audience. Today it is one of the fastest growing companies in the U.S., with sales to more than 50,000 companies and 400,000 consumers.
"You have to own the computer and the network," says Taylor noting some European jurisdictions do prohibit some types of monitoring. "And you should tell your employees up front that they may be monitored."
He says there are two ways to use the system. The first is to monitor all employees for prohibited online behaviour. The second is to only watch employees who are not meeting performance standards. The software is not intended to crack down on any personal use of the web or email, Taylor says, but to single out the worst abusers.
"The system knows how long you had an eBay window open and how long you were active in that window," he says. "So it's not going to report that you were on eBay for seven hours [if the window was open that long], just that the window was open and that your mouse was active inside that window for 20 minutes."
Legal considerations
But do the measures companies are taking to check and monitor employees equal an invasion of privacy?
A recent Ontario Securities Commission case, for example, uncovered a scheme by an IT worker who had default access to all company emails and who used his inside knowledge of merger talks to profit on the stock market before the talks were made public.
Companies are within their rights to ask prospective employees to submit to a background check, including fingerprinting, says the federal privacy commissioner's office, though there are rules around how that information is stored and who has access to it.
When it comes to on-the-job surveillance, there's no easy answer, says lawyer Michael P. Fitzgibbon, a labour and employment law specialist at Borden Ladner Gervais in Toronto.
"The lines are not clearly drawn, so it's a question of degree," says Fitzgibbon.
He notes that there are legal requirements around compliance and dissemination of information for publicly traded companies that may make surveillance necessary. A recent Ontario Securities Commission case, for example, uncovered a scheme by an IT worker who had default access to all company emails and who used his inside knowledge of merger talks to profit on the stock market before the talks were made public.
Fitzgibbon adds that there are areas where the employer has an interest in ensuring confidential data is not distributed by employees, and that sexual harassment and human rights rules aren't violated by material a worker puts on their screen or uses a company email system to distribute to others.
Still, says Fitzgibbon, monitoring all employees by default can also create a climate of distrust. That can have an unintended, negative impact on the productivity or retention of valued staff.
The federal privacy commissioner's office says surveillance of employee activities is a case-by-case matter. It says that as long as there are legitimate reasons for capturing the data and it's stored securely under privacy legislation rules, there's no hard and fast policy on the practice.
Not every company is comfortable with such stringent measures.
"We do get prospective clients who investigate our software and then decide it's just not for them," says SpectorSoft's Taylor.
The key is consent, Fitzgibbon says. Companies should tell employees if they are being monitored and be clear about what the guidelines are for personal internet use.
Still, to be on the safe side, you might want to stop reading this story and get back to work.
When it comes to on-the-job surveillance, there's no easy answer, says lawyer Michael P. Fitzgibbon, a labour and employment law specialist at Borden Ladner Gervais in Toronto.
"The lines are not clearly drawn, so it's a question of degree," says Fitzgibbon.
He notes that there are legal requirements around compliance and dissemination of information for publicly traded companies that may make surveillance necessary. A recent Ontario Securities Commission case, for example, uncovered a scheme by an IT worker who had default access to all company emails and who used his inside knowledge of merger talks to profit on the stock market before the talks were made public.
Fitzgibbon adds that there are areas where the employer has an interest in ensuring confidential data is not distributed by employees, and that sexual harassment and human rights rules aren't violated by material a worker puts on their screen or uses a company email system to distribute to others.
Still, says Fitzgibbon, monitoring all employees by default can also create a climate of distrust. That can have an unintended, negative impact on the productivity or retention of valued staff.
The federal privacy commissioner's office says surveillance of employee activities is a case-by-case matter. It says that as long as there are legitimate reasons for capturing the data and it's stored securely under privacy legislation rules, there's no hard and fast policy on the practice.
Not every company is comfortable with such stringent measures.
"We do get prospective clients who investigate our software and then decide it's just not for them," says SpectorSoft's Taylor.
The key is consent, Fitzgibbon says. Companies should tell employees if they are being monitored and be clear about what the guidelines are for personal internet use.
Still, to be on the safe side, you might want to stop reading this story and get back to work.
Managers now have the technical means to monitor employees. Managers can listen to their staff's telephone calls, read their email, and search their internet activity. Many managers believe they should monitor employees because they need to measure productivity, gather information for performance reviews, and prevent legal problems for the company. They also feel justified in keeping track of their employees' actions because technology is owned by the company. The majority of employers using electronic-monitoring technology notify the employees that they will be monitored.
1. What do you think of this management practice?
2. Is it ethical, moral and legal?
I think employees that are on company time should be allowed to be monitored but very slightly, managers should only be allowed to know what they were on, what phone number they were calling, and how much time they were inactive for. Managers and employers should not know the exact location and time that their prospective employee committed a crime, the Employers should only know the year and country where the crime was committed. The fingerprint should be optional for the prospective employee only if there were no records of him on the normal police check, however the employer should be able to put extensive monitoring on employees who have not shown a high productivity rate.
ReplyDeleteI agree on your point on how employers should monitor employees who don't show a high productivity rate a lot more. That gives those employees a warning sign that if they ever go off-task again and don't make the productivity standard, they will lose their job.
DeleteI agree with your point that people should only be monitored during work hours although, I feel companies deserve to know the exact date and all the other details of any crimes there employees have committed.
DeleteI agree that finger print checks shouldn't be mandatory if a prospective employee passes standard background checks, as long as the job they are applying for doesn't have high security risks. It's true that employees should never be watched in their homes, and employees should be monitored based on their productivity rates. If an unproductive employee is being monitored, they must be informed of the change.
DeleteI agree that employees should be slightly monitored by managers so they can maintain a high productivity in the office instead of being paid for doing less work than they are asked for.
DeletePosted on behalf of Chloe:
DeleteI agree with you Marcus. It is important for the employees to feel trusted in order for them to really make an effort at work. I also think it is ethically and morally wrong to peek into their private lives.
this is a interesting question because it depends on a lot of thing. it depend on what the job they are doing, how experienced they are at the job and who the employer is. someone who is working a job that need a lot of precision and care and is new to it should be well monitored but not in a way it invade privacy but in a work place way if that makes sence. once a employ has gone home and is on there own time they should not be monitored at all wether thats through a company computer or phone. now if a employ does something that would effect the reputation or name of the business and it is bringing in attention the company should have a right to take action even if its completely unrelated to the job. so thats why its a bit of a difficult one although ethically i would say for majority of people and time employs should be left unmonitored there are some exceptions to that where they should be and i dont think if justified it is ethically wrong.
ReplyDeleteI can see how it depends, but the job shouldn't take it too far
DeleteI agree that it really depends on the job and employer.
DeleteFor this I feel there is two sides both equally important, from someone who at one of these companies I feel as long as they get the work done by the deadline and is consistently up to the standards the employer expects then they should be free to spend there time on what they want. Understandably employers must not feel that there staff are working efficiently or living up to what they promised. That Is where the new monitoring systems are a good investment. Also I think that the background checks that they are doing make sense and help the employer get a better feel for the individual, but is a finger print really necessary? There is also a lot of money to be made as company start to follow on with this trend.
ReplyDeleteSorry forgot to add that I feel it is unethical and really goes against peoples personal security in the work place.
Delete- Matt
I agree with you on the point if they get their work done they should not be monitored
Deletealthough the employees should only have the website URL saved so they are not fooling around with the computer
I believe that all jobs should have some level of monitoring as a standard management practice. For example, professional hockey players are watched closely by thousands of people as they do their job. Diamond mine workers get x-rayed and strip searched when leaving work in case they stole diamonds. Employees in nuclear energy plants are being monitored for radiation. Even Employees in simple office jobs need some sort of monitoring because they can suddenly become less productive. But if you monitor an employee who takes little breaks here and there, but they still make the productivity standard, there is no reason to monitor them. Monitoring employees is ethical and legal because it creates a safe and productive work environment, but if companies don’t monitor their employees there could be: fraud, thievery, and corporate spy’s. Though I also believe workers have the right to know that they are being monitored for the company’s best interest but in a way that makes them feel like they are trusted.
ReplyDeleteMarcus Lam: I agree with you on the point on how workers have the right to know that they are being monitored by their company so that they can feel safe and trusted while being monitored. And also on how you shouldn't monitor employees who take small breaks and still make the productivity standard.
DeleteI agree with you William. It's not like they are taking aways all work breaks. I see this as a parent telling their child not to have too much candy.
DeletePosted on behalf of Chloe:
DeleteI agree with you William. There’s nothing wrong with taking a break during work, as long as employees keeps their productivity standard. I think monitoring should not be looked at and assessed at daily, it should be a constraint to the employees, knowing that if they don’t work hard, their boss is going to find out what they’re actually doing during their work time through the monitor.
In my opinion, employees should be monitored but not to the extent of listening to their phone calls. Employees should be monitored if they are off task but listening to their phone calls is a bit too much. If employees are using the office home to call back to their loved ones then the company doesn't need to monitor that. It's an invasion of their own privacy, however they should monitor the progress of the amount of work they have done. So it really does only depend on what job it is otherwise I believe that majority of the workforce should be left unmonitored, however except being monitored of the amount of work and progress they have done weekly and be sent to superiors for evaluation. It's ethically wrong to monitor your employees 24/7 because everyone needs some privacy once in a while except for their working progress which their superiors can monitor.
ReplyDeleteThis is Marcus Lam
DeleteI agree listening to your employees phone calls is going overboard and really invading their privacy and shows that the employer can't trust their employees. I do think it is fair that the boss monitors how much work that employe does or did (depending on who it is).
DeleteI agree with you Marcus. I didn't state my opinion about listening to phone calls because I was focused on monitor monitoring. I don't believe it should be legal to listen to others phone calls. It is immoral and unethical. I should not be afraid to take a call at work. The way we are at work and at home are different. So this means you have to talk to whomever it is as if they are wearing a wire.
DeleteMarcus, I agree that phone calls should never be monitored, as it really isn't the company's business what employees say to their family. It seems appropriate to monitor employees productivity.
DeleteI agree with you because it's scary to think they can hear what I'm calling a friend about. They can see what crimes I commit, but my personal life has nothing to do with my work life.
DeleteIn my opinion, I believe that employees should be watched over but not so heavily. The whole point of freedom is to be able to live your life how you want it, and having someone monitor you at all times and even knowing your location is a bit horrifying to me. If someone knows your location, anyone could find it and people could get killed. I think it is very unethical, because you should trust the people that work for you. It's not moral, because people should have their own freedoms, and it definitely should not be legal because people should not know all of that information about you unless they are working with the government, then that could be an exception.
ReplyDeleteIt's cam
I agree with you Cam, the owner should not be tracking their employees that's just really creepy. The employer should trust their employees. I also agree that the only person that should have a whole ton of info on you is the government and that would be if you are working for them.
DeleteI do understand Cam that it can be unethical for companies to observe very close although, it's a safety hazard for the company therefore, I do understand why they do this.
DeleteI think employees should be monitored but not constantly (checked in on once in awhile). I believe this because I am an employee myself (I work at a grocery store) and what I notice is that one of my bosses will come and ask me if I'm doing okay (that's if I'm working by myself in my department, some times I will have someone helping me). They do this because they want to make sure I am not having any problems with what I am doing, but also to make sure the shelves are stalked and I am doing what I am supposed to do. I think background checks are fine because the owners of the store need to know what type of person they are hiring (they have the right to know if who they are hiring is a good chose for the business) and make sure that won't have a bad impact on the business or wont make the business look bad in anyway. I think this ethical and unethical. Ethical because the owners should know if their employees are doing something to harm the business in anyways or make the business look bad in any shop or form. But it's also unethical because they are also intruding into someones personal things or personal information (something they don't want other people to know about) and basically asking for the employees to not trust them anymore.
ReplyDeleteMegan, I agree with how you find it unethical, however there might be a solution to the employees feeling like they are not trusted. I believe that if you monitor an employee in a way that will make the employee feel safer, then there is a chance that you and that employee could build a trustworthy relationship.
DeleteI agree that they have to be informed about the employer and the way they hire individuals.
DeletePersonally, I feel this management practice may determine on many tings, on being where exactly you work. If it is a very high level job and you may have many responsibilities or details of a company I understand the extent of observing people's emails and web searches, as well as, doing close back round checks before being hired by a large company. For the most part I found this to be very ethical. Although, it does come to a point where it is extreme. For example, if you are only an intern or small levelled asset in a company it can be very extreme to listen into phone calls and observe all google searches. There are two sides to this argument, personally I feel with more responsibilities, more back round and observing someone should have. Overall, I do find this is mostly ethical for companies to reassure that there employees and working and not recent criminals.
ReplyDeletei do agree it is mostly ethical and a good way to do background check on employees
DeleteI believe that this practice is moral and ethical as long as employers are informed. There are always procrastinators, but some people take a longer period to get back on task. If the business restricted access to social sites this would be immoral. Employers usually go to social media in the bathroom anyway. Your phone isn’t being monitored, but the time spent in the bathroom is. I’m not sure how or if you can present a fake criminal record, but the fingerprint system makes it impossible. This is a great example of not judging a book by it’s cover. The manager can only judge by the information he/she has. Before this system, managers walked around and check on their employees. It is easy to exit a tab when footsteps are heard. However, if you know that the manager can see if you are working at all times, this discourages you from procrastinating often. For example: You’re watching a youtube video. When that video is done, another is just a click away. These platforms are designed to be addictive. You would most likely get back on task after remembering that you’re being monitored. If a business is losing money due to procrastination, it is in their power to enact this practice. If you object monitor monitoring, this is probably because you are a hardcore procrastinator. It’s similar to school. Most students work when the teacher leaves and others use Snapchat. What would happen if the teacher returned every 20 minutes? What would happen if you knew that the teacher could see you whenever he/she leaves? I’m a procrastinator so this all applies to me.
ReplyDeleteI feel that this practice could be beneficial under the right conditions. A small amount of monitoring on company computers helps productivity and saves money. That being said, keeping tabs on everything an employee does in a day or checking personal computers is an invasion of privacy. There needs to be a certain level of trust in a company. It is inappropriate to look through someone's emails, end of story. Background checks are important for security, especially for positions working with children and dealing with patients, but taking fingerprints and storing a person's history in a company database takes it too far. Supposedly secure files are hacked all the time. It is wrong to force someone to give up their basic privacy in order to get a job. If a company does any kind of monitoring or recording, the employees need to be fully informed and give their consent. If they don't it is neither ethical, moral, or legal. There's a reason stores have to put up signs informing their customers that they are under surveillance. This practice may be morally, ethically, and legally sound, but only if personal privacy and consent are respected.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that some companies take it too far. Maybe a way to see where employees are on the internet at work without seeing what it is they are doing would be beneficial?
DeleteMaggie, I disagree with your opinion on keeping tabs on employees. I believe that keeping tabs on all an employee’s emails, phone calls, etc. is very useful on the company’s behalf and in some cases the employees. Let’s say an employee was stealing money from your company, if you kept tabs on all your employee’s communication, work, etc. you would know who was stealing money. I am not saying that the company should have to listen in on every phone call or read every email sent because that is an invasion of privacy. I believe that all you have to do is to simply put all recorded phone calls, emails, etc. into a database so if a situation like fraud or thievery were to happen you could look through the suspects emails, phone calls, etc. and figure out if it was them.
DeleteI believe monitoring can be good and bad, but one thing that i think matters the most is that the employees should be aware and consenting to it. I think monitoring can be a great way to find out who needs a promotion and who shouldn't be in power. Along with this though they are invading personal privacy and allowing their lives to show for them rather than their work. I think people should be given another chance. So by this i think monitoring should only be used for company benefit via promotion etc., but not for seeing what people do wrong but what they do right.
ReplyDelete-Devon Hansen
I agree that employers should have employees consent for the monitoring so there are no privacy problems between employees and employers.
Deletei agree employees should know what is happening.
DeleteI feel that monitoring employees during work time is a good thing until certain point because if they do it beyond there working stuff and get into employees personal things it could be considered an invasion to workers privacy what could get into legal problems, in the other hand is a great way to measure the work employees are doing and like that it would be easier for employers to make sure that employees are doing the amount of work their ask to do. This way companies could be certain that the employees are working and they could have a better performance due to a more controlled work place.
ReplyDeleteI agree, peoples privacy needs to be respected.
DeletePosted on behalf of Chloe:
ReplyDeleteMy opinion on this management practice is neutral. If I were a employer, I would too want to make sure that my employees are doing their jobs productivity instead of sitting on their chairs and going through youtube and amazons all day while still getting paid. On the other side, if I were a employee, I would too feel my privacy is being violated if my boss has all access to all my phone calls and email etc, I would also feel I’m untrusted. So there a balance between legally monitoring employees for business purposes and spying on their private lives. Employers have the right to monitor part of their employees’ computers only during their work time, but shouldn’t have access to their employees’s personal accounts like Facebook and emails, it can be a great way to improve the productivity of the employees if this management practice is used properly. Also, all employees should have the right to know that they are being monitored, but only in apps that are work related, that way they would feel trusted and motivated to work.
It is legal, and it can be ethical and moral if used properly. I don’t see why there should be any problem if both employees and employers’ benefits are not being violated.
I agree with this idea that there should be a compromise that works for both sides.
Delete