GPS Tracking of State Worker Raises Privacy Issues 173
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from a Times Union article: "How far can state government go in keeping tabs on its employees? That's the question a mid-level appeals court will consider in the wake of a lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union against the state Labor Department, in the case of a fired state worker who was tracked with a GPS device that investigators secretly attached to his personal car. ... State officials tracked Cunningham's whereabouts by secretly attaching a GPS device to his BMW. The electronic tailing went beyond what would normally be termed Cunningham's work hours, since the device was on for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They even tracked him on a multi-day family vacation."
Glad I work in the private sector. (Score:5, Funny)
No reputable company would ever try something this egregious .
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think tracking you with a GPS during work hours is wrong. From my understanding the problem was they were tracking him 24/7, and that's illigal.
Just making sure you're where you're supposed to be during your work hours should be expected.
Re:Glad I work in the private sector. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They already use cameras and supervisors that aren't exactly there to keep track, but end up doing it.
There are companies that use rfids to keep track of their employees. I honestly see no problem in that, if it doesn't go outside the scope of my workplace.
Re: (Score:2)
There are companies that use rfids to keep track of their employees. I honestly see no problem in that, if it doesn't go outside the scope of my workplace.
You never drive your private car outside the scope of your workplace?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point. There is nothing wrong with using whatever means someone wants to check if you're inside (they could have a chip in your employee card, for example, that'd tell them where you are at all times inside the building).
They should not have been tracking him outside of the workplace / work hours.
If you take your private car out during the time you're supposed to be working, the company should be allowed to check that, right?
Re: (Score:2)
If you take your private car out during the time you're supposed to be working, the company should be allowed to check that, right?
In that case, if you make a private call on your cell phone during work hours the company should be able to check your call logs... by putting spyware on your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...snip...
If you take your private car out during the time you're supposed to be working, the company should be allowed to check that, right?
This is inside out...
If you take your private car someplace during normal work hours -- NO.
Should they notice you are not at work-- Yes, but they do not need to
know where you go just that you are absent.
More apropos will be privacy issue should you visit a doctor, planned
parenthood, a psychiatrist, AA meeting or religious obligation. Yes even visit the
offices of the FBI or a legal counsel because the company is engaged
in something illegal or fraudulent as they are obviously doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Just think on what you said. The GPS could be proof that you were doing something like that and not ditching work. Even though it would be invading some of your privacy, it could also be used to justify your absence during a certain period.
It's a double edged sword, I'm quite sure you can find good argument for both sides, but I'm just saying that if I owned a company I'd want to check on my employees during work hours. If I'm paying them to work, I actually want to make reasonably sure they do.
Re: (Score:2)
My wife has the RFID thing, as part of her ID card. She never has to clock in, or clock out. As she enters and leaves the building, it makes a log entry to that effect. The apparently reads a short distance from the building that she works in, but that is no more than 1/2 mile, probably less than 1/4 mile. I'm not even sure what the maximum range is on those things. Once the computer picks her up though, it pinpoints her location pretty damned close, and she is never clocked in more than a minute befor
Re:Glad I work in the private sector. (Score:5, Insightful)
That, and attaching a device to his personal car should be considered some kind of tresspassing/vandalism.
Re: (Score:3)
> That, and attaching a device to his personal car should be considered some kind of tresspassing/vandalism.
It violates the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, as well as the 14th Amendment, Section 1:
--------------------
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the pla
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Such rights don't necessarily apply when the government is your employer.
Actually, not only do they still apply according to the constitution (whether you can get your case to the supremes is another issue) but it doesn't matter if the government or a private party is tracking you, because the constitution doesn't say that the government shall not infringe, but that the rights of the people shall not be infringed.
The problem, of course, is getting the court to actually hear your case, because sometimes they make up a bullshit reason why they won't hear it (or give no reason at a
Re: (Score:2)
You give up certain rights when choosing to work for the government. In the scope of employment, the government is afforded most all of the same leeway that private enterprise is with respect to that employment.
You are right in that the government can't just declare someone an employee and do virtually what they want. The employee and employer relationship will be established pretty soundly long before whatever comes into question. There are a few exceptions to this though, like when President Reagan drafte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
About 10 years ago, I had reason to look up the law. I found to my surprise that in my state, and employer can use hidden cameras and monitor your email, etc. without even telling you about it.
Of course that was 10 years ago, and things might have changed since. But I see no ethical reason why an employer should be able to monitor an employee without their knowledge. I would have a lot less problem with
Re: (Score:2)
These days most employers have some boilerplate they hand out when you take a job that says they will do this if they feel it necessary. Really you should assume they monitoring you while you are on the job, if for no reason than protect themselves from things like that $2 billion loss UBS is stuck with.
I think this GPS tracking goes well beyond employer rights - monitoring outside the workplace is really a bit much, and I bet the courts will find this to be the case too.
Re:Glad I work in the private sector. (Score:4, Insightful)
>>
These days most employers have some boilerplate they hand out when you take a job that says they will do this if they feel it necessary. Really you should assume they monitoring you while you are on the job, if for no reason than protect themselves from things like that $2 billion loss UBS is stuck with.
>>
The point is that these were government workers. Your constitutional rights trump most of what they would ask you to waive. And courts have said that, say, your fourth amendment right require informed consent to waive, which a blanket waiver cannot satisfy.
Re: (Score:2)
"These days most employers have some boilerplate they hand out when you take a job that says they will do this if they feel it necessary."
But that's really begging the question. My assertion was that I don't think they should be able to monitor you electronically without informing you of that fact. Handing me a piece of boilerplate saying that I might be monitored is a different thing altogether. It does not inform you that you are being monitored.
But however much I disagree with the law, last I looked (which was 10 years ago) it was nevertheless the law. I agree with you that GPS goes beyond -- I would say far beyond -- any right of an em
Re: (Score:2)
It is acceptable if they track a government owned car. Putting a GPS into the car is fine with me. Private car? They have no right, period. They want to track me, personally? During business hours, that's somewhat acceptable, but they aren't going to implant a GPS behind my ear, or hide it in my shoe. Good grief - if they can't keep track of employees without resorting to 24/7 GPS, then they are doing something terribly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surveillance, in any sane definition of it, would be included under "search". They are searching for evidence to be used against you.
Re: (Score:2)
China.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At my company they just set you up to have an affair
Oh, you poor thing. You couldn't just say "no" for fear of hurting his feelings?
Re:Glad I work in the private sector. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, actually, I can think of plenty of ways you could be "set up" to "have an affair" as long as "have an affair" remains in quotes. Quite simply, a supervisor at work could require you to work late on various nights but arrange it in such a way that you have no proof that you really worked late. Then they could bring out someone they've hired to claim to have had an affair with you and tell your spouse that you were lying about working late. Maybe they could give you a company credit card as well, then throw some hotel charges onto it.
People with lots of power over you, like employers, have plenty of power to frame you all sorts of things. For example, if they wanted to fire you for whistleblowing, they could set up an environment where employees are made comfortable by supervisors leaving 5 minutes early every day, but marking their full hours on their timesheet. Then they could gather "evidence" against you, such as by tracking your car with a gps tracking device, and then fire you, or maybe even prosecute you, for fraudulently filling out your timecard. Who would believe you? It's a time-honoured tradition for getting rid of unwanted employees: give them implicit, or even explicit (but undocumented) permission to do something that's technically against policy, then bust them for violating the policy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a time-honoured tradition for getting rid of unwanted employees: give them implicit, or even explicit (but undocumented) permission to do something that's technically against policy, then bust them for violating the policy.
and that's why I read and understand the policies and procedures manual, and then demand in writing instruction to break P&P. I got fired from a local casino for conflicting with a group doing the bidding of someone who just got nailed (years later) for embezzlement etc. but they had to make shit up to do it because I refused several requests to engage in outright illegal behavior, demanding written proof. In the end they offered me my (expensive work-owned) laptop if I would go away quietly, and I did
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't they get in trouble for only employing married people
Re: (Score:2)
It could be a false choice, depending on the circumstance. Sure, they had a choice, they could what we want or get thrown into a pit of snakes and scorpions.
What was the state thinking?!? (Score:3)
What reasons could the state possibly have had to put a GPS tracker on an employee's personal vehicle? And track the vehicle outside of business hours? This stinks of big brother and privacy intrusions. What an employee does on their own personal time and in their own personal car should be their own personal business. I could be buying hookers and blow every weekend but if I show up on time during the week and do my job, the state should have no say in the matter.
Re: (Score:3)
This appears to be a case where the employee was using his vehicle for work-related transportation, and his supervisors began to suspect that the hours he was reporting were not the hours he was actually working. So instead of hiring someone to follow the employee (read: expensive), they attached a cheap GPS tracker and then retrieved it days or weeks later.
Maybe a better solution would have been to provide him a state vehicle with a hidden GPS tracker. :P
Re:What was the state thinking?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe a better solution would have been to provide him a state vehicle with a hidden GPS tracker. :P
Or an Obvious one, functional or not. That might have got him back into line if there was wrong doing, or show he wasn't worth keeping, either way it would have been far cheaper than a lawsuit even if they win it.
Re: (Score:2)
If it actually was that important to them to find out whether he was working or not, they could have simply installed a visible camera at the entrance of his workplace.
Besides being way over the top surveillance, the GPS device would only tell them where his car was. So what happens if someone drops him off at work, or if he cycles to work on occasion, or if he is using his wife's car sometimes?
Re: (Score:2)
No.
The appropriate response is to counsel the employee about perceived work concerns and ask him/her to make changes to prevent termination. Then keep doing the passive monitoring (or using more precise monitoring that you got VOLUNTARY agreement from the subject to use) and see if things change. If performance remains low or the subject is still showing signs of malingering, terminate employment.
Respect and communication is far more ideal that going behind and literally creeping on people. If they underp
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that approach is that, contrary to the popular saying, perception is, in fact not reality.
The worker who is already there when the boss comes in because he/she works 07:00-15:30 will get looked on more favourably than the one who comes in around 11:00 and works until 23:00 or midnight or later, even. Despite the fact that the latter is doing more work, or at least spending more time at work, he/she will be perceived as a slacker, simply because he comes in so late, even if the arrangement
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As alluded to in the article, they were looking into his timesheets and his assertion that he worked odd hours.
It looks like the state thought he was lying about his hours, and so used the GPS tracker to catch him in a lie concerning hours worked. It seems a touch excessive, but government jobs likely require a high standard of proof in order to fire an employee.
Re: (Score:3)
> government jobs likely require a high standard of proof
Or at least a reason that sounds better than "we fired him for being a whistleblower."
Although somehow, "we gps-tracked a whistleblower's car 24/7" doesn't sound much better.
Re: (Score:2)
Whistleblower? Link please. I'm interested to read.
Re: (Score:2)
well, there is a link in the fucking summary.
RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
4th paragraph of TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
The TFA does indicate the employee "filed improper time sheets" and eluded to the fact that a "...pattern of misconduct and the difficulty of constant in-person surveillance ju
Re:What was the state thinking?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
TFA states that they had not exhausted all non-GPS solutions to tracking him.
Even that formulation misses a critical point: The objective which would have been meaningful to their goal (proving timecard fraud) was not "track him"; the appropriate objective is "verify workplace attendance". The phrase in TFA (yeah, I know, no one reads that... just go with it for a second) "worked odd hours at his job" (emphasis mine) indicates that finding out where he was at any time should not have been the objective... only finding out when he was in the office. (He wasn't working from someplace else, since the presumption is "at his job"... at his place of employment.)
So GPS tracking is solving the wrong problem. A webcam monitoring ingress and egress to his office, or computer system logs... a physical access control like a card entry system would have gone a long ways towards determining the real information they needed.
GPS was the wrong solution because it was answering the wrong question. It's not justified.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously they're not very well coordinated either. With all the plate-scanning technology and cameras floating around, I'm sure they could have tracked him without the GPS.
Part of me is tempted to try to create an open-source database where anybody who wants to can just set up a camera and upload faces, license plates, locations, and timestamps to some central repository. I suspect that the people that you'd prefer not to have access to this sort of thing already have it. What would society look like if
Re: (Score:3)
The state investigated his work habits by tracking his vehicle. He was eventually fired based on the evidence, which he does not dispute, as he is not seeking reinstatement or back pay. These employees can not be fired without extraordinary evidence; the sort produced by, say, tracking a vehicle.
Or, don't forget, waterboarding. That's pretty good at getting results, too. I bet we can get the guy to admit to being Al Qaeda's inside man in NYC if we're willing to foot the water bill.
GPS tracking is a potent
Re: (Score:2)
While there a circuit split exists on the question of warrantless GPS tracking, it has long been settled that what you do on the public road isn't private and there are no protections against monitoring your whereabouts in public.
Re: (Score:2)
How about when he parks in a private garage?
Re: (Score:3)
Solution: Employee, the following concerns exist about the quality of your work: <list>. Consequently, you are no longer authorized to work weird hours.
Then you simply fire his ass when he can't be bothered to show up at normal o'clock like everybody else.
You're wrong RTFA (Score:3)
"He was defrauding the government by lying about his hours to collect undue compensation."
alledgedly, and he does duispute it.
" He was eventually fired based on the evidence, which he does not dispute, as he is not seeking reinstatement or back pay. "
Not exactly:
"Stoughton, in a hearing Thursday before the Appellate Division Third Judicial Department, said she wasn't arguing that Cunningham get his $115,000 job back, but that he should receive another hearing without the GPS-based evidence."
The hearing will
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The state investigated his work habits by tracking his vehicle.
I don't care what reasons they had if they didn't tell him they were going to track him.
Re: (Score:2)
1. They put a tracking device on his private vehicle. That is a crime.
2. He does want his job back. He says that he was fired because the enquiry used evidence from the GPS device, which was installed illegally. His view is that that evidence is inadmissible so it should not be taken into account.
3. You should read the article more carefully.
Short answer... (Score:2)
Acting like this is a new thing... (Score:3)
New York (Score:5, Informative)
New York's court of appeals [acslaw.org] has already determined that GPS tracking by law enforcement is illegal without a warrant. Since the powers of cops are a superset of the powers of an individual, this case should be a slam dunk for the plaintiff.
Re: (Score:2)
... Since the powers of cops are a superset of the powers of an individual ...
That's not precisely true. Actually it's just not true at all. Not even close.
The powers of police and of some private individual are overlapping sets, but that's not even close to relevant, because what's going on here is an "administrative search". There are rules governing such searches, but they're looser than rules in criminal matters. That's why the TSA (ho aren't cops) can frisk you at the security checkpoint of an airport without a warrant or probable cause.
Other cases of administrative search inc
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, yes. Administrative law. Nothing but an end run around the constitution. You can't just make up a new body of law and pretend the constitution doesn't apply to it. Either consent of the individual is required to affix something to his property or it is not. If it is, then you must get a warrant to do so. If it is not, then anyone may do so. Anything else is unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
The government pretends the Constitution doesn't apply on a routing basis nowadays.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I know. It's surprising how many people deny that fact. It's important to point that out on a regular basis to make it harder to deny. Counter the Big Lie with the Big Truth.
Re: (Score:2)
New York's court of appeals [acslaw.org] has already determined that GPS tracking by law enforcement is illegal without a warrant. Since the powers of cops are a superset of the powers of an individual, this case should be a slam dunk for the plaintiff.
Unfortunately, federal courts have disagreed. In particular, the 7th Circuit Court of appeals ruled in United States vs. Garcia [uscourts.gov] (Case no. 06-2741), that police don't need a warrant to attach a GPS device to a suspects car.
Sounds like what Cisco did to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Ex-Cisco employee here. Anon for a reason. They planted a gps tracker in my laptop and pushed down gps tracking software to my cell phone (personal phone, but attached to their email servers). All reporting back to some database servers in Cisco's corporate datacenters.
Found this, confronted them, and negotiated a significant settlement for not going public with the info. Don't care if they track me down now based on this posting, though, as they just laid off a ton of my great friends who remained. So, hopefully this will gain traction and other Cisco employees will look into this unethical (and illegal?) tracking of employees.
And you don't even want to know what kind of monitoring stuff they snuck into their IP Phones... If the public ever figures that out, Cisco has a great cover story ready: there's so much legacy code from Selsius (the original manufacturer of the phone technology) that it was cleverly hidden and unnoticed through years of QA testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Found this, confronted them, and negotiated a significant settlement for not going public with the info. Don't care if they track me down now based on this posting, though, as they just laid off a ton of my great friends who remained..
You don't care if they track you down and declare you're in breach of a legally binding contract and take you to court to get the settlement money back...?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably not, that would require making the incident a matter of public record and still wouldn't prove that the AC here is the same person and not just a good guesser.
Re: (Score:3)
Declaring him in breach of a contract means publicly announcing that they GPS-tracked their employees and confirm it on file.
With this info public and confirmed, thousands of current and ex-employees will sue them for truckloads of money.
Thousands of employees filing claims is several orders of magnitude more expensive than reclaiming the settlement money of one single contract. Adding to that, the reputation damage of Cisco is incredible - in the eyes of the general public, their customers and, most import
Re: (Score:2)
The first Selsius phone was released in November 1997 and the company was acquired by Cisco in November 1998. That's a bit short to create much legacy code. Plus I think lots of the current IP phones they sell actually came from Linksys...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it was worth putting yourself at risk to let us know that Cisco is a bunch of scummy shitsacks, I mean, we already knew that...
Re: (Score:3)
He probably attached his personal Blackberry to their BBES server (big mistake, this gives the BBES admin total power over your phonre) and then they pushed a GPS tracker app to his Blackberry.
Re: (Score:3)
you'd notice the gps being on though? wastes battery life and all that.
cellid/nearby-wifi-or-bt tracking can be done quite silently.
the fuckers who did the pushing of the app should be quartered though. no chance in hell they didn't know that they had no business doing that. just following orders my ass. the worst kind of IT support staff is the dolts who think that it's their job to spy on the employees - and don't even bother with whats legal or not. tough luck if that makes sniffing your corporations net
Fan-tastic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, we knew that we had no business doing it; but he was a Bad Guy and doing our jobs is Hard. Cry, cry, pity me... Is there any sort of procedural abuse that one couldn't justify with exactly that line? Virtually everything we call "due process" is inconvenient for the prosecution, and I've never heard of somebody going after someone that they wouldn't at least say was guilty of misconduct...
Re: (Score:2)
What's truly fucked up here is that they felt that they couldn't fire him simply because of his "pattern of misconduct". They appear to have felt that they needed more proof or something.
I'm not familiar with the New York State government but if it is anything like the federal government, it's nearly impossible to get fired, even with criminal misconduct. Our government will never be more efficient unless they fix this.
I do not defend the GPS tracking but nor do I automatically assume that this guy should
Re:Fan-tastic... (Score:4, Insightful)
What's truly fucked up here is that they felt that they couldn't fire him simply because of his "pattern of misconduct". They appear to have felt that they needed more proof or something.
I interpret that to mean "there wasn't actually a pattern of misconduct, we went on a fishing expedition hoping to find one".
Re: (Score:2)
pattern of misconduct does not mean misconduct. It means there was something(s) observed that might have been misconduct.
They went overboard, and they didn't need to do so.
Our government is far more efficient then the media would have you believe.
In fact, it does a great many things far better then any one else in the world.
Look at budget reports, TCO, and audit reports.
Yes, something get out of hand. SOmetime for good reasonl sometime not, but theya re in the minority.
Just so you know, in a formet life I w
Re: (Score:2)
Posted from my iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
In one case, I found a 15 Million dollar year expenditure that had been going on for 10 years,and no one knew where the money went. At it s very well known company. Something everyone who wheres shoes has heard of.
Hey, sometimes you have to pay assassins as part of a marketing campaign, and then you have to pay mercenary organizations to help cover it up...it all adds up, and they don't take unicorn farts.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially given that any kind of pressure to take part in any religious activity in work time (possibly even just sanctioning such a thing in the workplace) sounds like serious misconduct on their part.
Simple... (Score:2)
Overtime! (Score:5, Funny)
If his employer was tracking him, it must have been for work purposes, right? So since he was on the clock, he should at least be paid his contracted rate for all the time he was tracked.
Re: (Score:2)
You may be saying this to be amusing but I'd be willing to bet he could find a lawyer to sue the state for backpay.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but "a willing lawyer" isn't a tough standard to meet. :-)
Still - in all seriousness - it's hard to imagine a jury who wouldn't be on his side.
Over the line (Score:2)
Even if a company or government agency is putting trackers on company vehicles, I think the employees using them should be made aware they're being tracked.
But to put a tracker on someone's private vehicle without notifying them? Even the FBI isn't allowed to do that!
This is Stalking (Score:2)
There should be criminal charges here. Tracking a vehicle 24/7 is stalking. If I did this to someone's vehicle you can bet they'd throw me in jail. Just because he was an employee doesn't make it legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Fear based management is fundamentally flawed (Score:2)
Fear based management of people leading to more and more invasive surveillance is a classic fundamental flaw I think.
cool story, bro (Score:2)
My (non-government) employer used to track my cell phone, using VZW's Field Force Manager system. It wasn't a completely unreasonable request since I was doing field work for them, and I was just as able to use it to show that I was working when/where I said I was as they were to do the opposite.
It worked, but it was a pain in the ass. The battery in the phone would go from a full charge to nothing in less than an hour in areas of poor or zero signal, and it was impossible to actually turn the software of
How is this a privacy "issue"? (Score:2)
There's no issue whatsoever. They clearly violated his rights.
The key is the word employee (Score:2)
Doesn't matter who you work for, if you are on the clock, you are on their time.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you missed the ending of the blurb which says 24/7, he wasn't on clock 24/7..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if your take on the separation of Church and State is correct (and I don't agree that it was only intended to stop government messing with religion and not vice versa), requiring employees to go to a politicians prayer breakfast fails to "protect peoples' religion from the corrupting influence of politics". They might not share a religion, or at least have religious differences, with those running the prayer meeting. For example, they may be atheists or agnostics. Or Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Wi
Re: (Score:2)
Poppycock. In addition to the First Amendment which prohibits establishment of a state religion, there is Article VI:
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Clearly the Founders intended a very bright line to separate church and state.
Jefferson wrote in his law guaranteeing religious freedom in Virginia:
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry w
Re: (Score:2)
So it is a NATURAL RIGHT...
I'm not disagreeing with your point. I actually agree 100%. That said:
WTF is a "Natural Right"? In nature, as far as I can tell, you have the right to attempt to survive, and that's about it. Beyond that, I can't see it. There are not natural rights, only social constructions that we mostly agree with as a culture. I have never heard a convincing argument for the a priori existence of rights of any type, and I went to school for that kind of stuff. Please explain what a "natural right" is, how it is
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they do. Everyone is free to pressure people via ranting and raving. Unless the one doing the pressuring is "the government" (or an agent thereof) in which case pressuring someone to perform (or not perform) religious acts is not just illegal but unconstitutional.
I'm pretty sure the Coward you are replying to isn't acting as an agent of the government and hence is well within his rights to pressure people (via legal mechanisms like talking to them, using a soapbox and ranting, etc) to give up on religi
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
company trucks are quite different beast from company owned vehicles in private use.
in most countries they're different beasts when it comes to taxing too.
very different... basically even if he was doing misconduct, it might have just been direct result of the company being what it was(jerks willing to spy on his holidays) - so in this case the company lost it's stance anyways...