The company is a legal entity. Even though anyone is allowed to file a lawsuit against the company, human workers are responsible for the fault. Hence, the statement claims that companies should monitor all employee's email activities. Although it might hold water under some consequences, I mostly disagree with the claim based on the following two consequences.
According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a sense of security is one of the important factors for determining the employee's productivity. Human is by nature free going, and any spooky behavior from the company can sabotage their creativity. For example, Theranos, which was one of the biggest Silicon Valley hoaxes, had a very strict monitoring routine for all their employees. Slowly, most of the independent as well as creative workers left the company. Therefore, having a strict policy can harm a worker's productivity as well as a company.
Similarly, strict routine monitoring can bridle the fledging employee's learning curb. He might not be aware of the company's terms and conditions, and he might unintentionally email some classified subjects. Although it was not for the wrong reasons, in such cases, he would be more like to be castigated. Hence, following the claim can have a negative consequence of restraining the learning curve.
However, the innovative company's biggest asset is its intellectual property. Any idea is hard to invent than to copy them. For example, one past Tesla employee shared Tesla's code with a Chinese company. Years of research and development invested in a product are shared with a third party. In such cases, it would be reasonable to monitor the employee's email correspondence. If there were a strict policy before it would have made the code base comparatively stronger. Hence, sometimes monitoring the emails can have some positive consequences.
In conclusion, even though the company's employee's ill-doing can destroy a company, strict routine monitoring can make the employers feel insecure as well as curb their learning curb. Therefore, in my opinion, a company should strictly monitor the particular employee's email only if the management suspect some spooky actions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 114, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'employees'' or 'employee's'?
Suggestion: employees'; employee's
...e important factors for determining the employees productivity. Human is by nature free g...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 501, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'workers'' or 'worker's'?
Suggestion: workers'; worker's
...fore, having a strict policy can harm a workers productivity as well as a company. S...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 81, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to curb'
Suggestion: to curb
... bridle the fledging employees learning curb. He might not be aware of the companys ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 25, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'companys the biggest'.
Suggestion: companys the biggest
...rning curve. However, the innovative companys biggest asset is its intellectual property. Any...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 376, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...tor the employees email correspondence. If there were a strict policy before it wo...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, however, if, similarly, so, therefore, third, well, for example, in conclusion, as well as, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 14.8657303371 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 11.3162921348 18% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 58.6224719101 51% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1848.0 2235.4752809 83% => OK
No of words: 344.0 442.535393258 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37209302326 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30665032142 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94895275249 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 215.323595506 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.540697674419 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 582.3 704.065955056 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 23.0359550562 65% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.652313145 60.3974514979 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 84.0 118.986275619 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.6363636364 23.4991977007 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.09090909091 5.21951772744 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.222942881555 0.243740707755 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0676698889116 0.0831039109588 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0675840344786 0.0758088955206 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133735833369 0.150359130593 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0356663106963 0.0667264976115 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 48.8420337079 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.57 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 100.480337079 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.2143820225 71% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.