Check out below, including the last chapter about the latest amendment to the law that covers conversations that are NOT considered private. Even if an employer has a signed consent in the employee's HR packet, they cannot tape without alerting the employee to the fact.
A company I worked for taped incoming CSR calls without the static announcement alerting parties that they were being recorded, and allowing them the option to decline the call. An employee sued after being receiving what he considered to be wrongful progressive discipline due to a monitored call. The court determined that, though he had signed a disclosure during his orientation, it was not 'reasonable' for him to anticipate when or if he was being recorded, and, therefore, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy during the phone call.
The company I worked for instituted a more comprehensive release form that was specific to events, and renewed with each event cycle afterwards. Additionally, they added a two way announcement that played at the beginning of each phone call alerting each party that they could be recorded. They ceased all video operations due to the difficulty providing those announcements randomly, and in person. It was a very costly lesson....and Illinois is not a place to take chances. It's a pretty liberal place.....
I'm not debating that there could be companies that have covered the bases, I'm just suggesting that you do your homework before taking part in any state. The OP could be personally liable for fines in Illinois, even if they acted in good faith with an MSC.
" Enacted in 1986, the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibits the surreptitious interception of any wire, aural or electronic communications, with significant exceptions. In the 38 states that follow ECPA’s one-party consent exception, if any party to a recording consents to the recording, then the recording is legal. Illinois is considered an all-party consent state pursuant to the Illinois Eavesdropping Act that states that a person is eavesdropping in violation of the law when he “knowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation or intercepts, retains, or transcribes electronic communication unless he does so with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation or electronic communication…”
Two-Prong Analysis
In most of the all-party consent states, an employee has a cause of action to file suit against his employer if his intercepted conversation is considered private and one or more of the parties recorded in the intercepted conversations did not consent to the interception. However, Illinois is unique among the 12 all-party consent states since the 1994 amendment to the Illinois Eavesdropping Act extends the Act’s protections to conversations that the recorded parties did not consider private. The second prong of the analysis is the consent prong. If one or more parties to the intercepted conversations did not consent to its interception, then there is grounds for a suit against the party who recorded the conversation."