It depends on the country in question. In Ireland, for example, any workplace surveillance must be necessary, legitimate, and proportional. The employee also must be informed in advance of who, what, how, and when they may be surveilled.

It is very hard to see the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC - the body which handles workplace disputes) accepting that identifying a user on Glassdoor would meet the test of being necessary, legitimate, or proportional. This is particularly true as the WRC has previously found that monitoring internet usage for example for pornography is not proportionate where the employer has the option instead to block such sites and make a policy against their access.

Of course, an unscrupulous employer could also use surreptitious surveillance and find another reason to let the employee go, although firing an employee in Ireland is notoriously difficult short of gross negligence.

OK thanks interesting, although I would like to add that I did not address trying to identify and punish reviewers on Glassdoor, which may or may not be illegal all over Europe depending on the nature of the review. That point I tried to make was that the GP was exaggerating when painting the US as an outlier regarding the rights of employees of not to be monitored.

The US is more "employer-friendly" if you like, and much less complicated to fire employees (boo!) compared to Europe - yes. But generally not categorically different when it comes to the right of employers to snoop on their employees, which people here might want to be aware of.

> The US is more "employer-friendly" if you like

Understatement of the year.