Worker Fired For Disabling GPS App That Tracked Her 24 Hours a Day 776
An anonymous reader writes: Myrna Arias claims she was fired for refusing to run an app that would track her location even when she was off the clock. She is now suing Intermex Wire Transfer LLC in a Kern County Superior Court. Her claim reads in part: "After researching the app and speaking with a trainer from Xora, Plaintiff and her co-workers asked whether Intermex would be monitoring their movements while off duty. Stubits admitted that employees would be monitored while off duty and bragged that he knew how fast she was driving at specific moments ever since she installed the app on her phone. Plaintiff expressed that she had no problem with the app's GPS function during work hours, but she objected to the monitoring of her location during non-work hours and complained to Stubits that this was an invasion of her privacy. She likened the app to a prisoner's ankle bracelet and informed Stubits that his actions were illegal. Stubits replied that she should tolerate the illegal intrusion...."
It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution: leave the phone at work when you are off duty.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. There should still have been mention that the required app had that functionality.
Honestly, I'm really hoping she wins this. Businesses have far too much invasion as it is, and it's way past time that ceases.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this needs to be fixes in law, not just in a court case. Some law that makes it explicit that employers have no interest in what you do with yourself when "off duty", and protects your privacy and dignity from your employer when you're not at work (or otherwise on the clock).
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:4, Insightful)
There are certain off-work things that an employer should know about - witness the guy who intentionally flew the airliner into the mountain and killed all on board - when it can affect their on-the-clock performance. But there's no reason to track someone 24-7 unless you're paying them 24-7. And in this case, they didn't need to track her at all - they had her on-the-job performance metrics. They only tracked her because they could - even though she told them it was illegal, and her boss told her basically "so what?"
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Funny)
There are certain off-work things that an employer should know about - witness the guy who intentionally flew the airliner into the mountain and killed all on board
Oh, absolutely. If one of my employees intentionally flies a plane into a mountain, killing himself and everyone on board, I'll be firing him the very next day.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:4, Funny)
There are certain off-work things that an employer should know about - witness the guy who intentionally flew the airliner into the mountain and killed all on board
I'm pretty sure he was on the clock while flying the plane...
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. I mean, maybe if the job in question is life-safety-critical (and probably not even then!), but the vast majority of jobs are not even slightly like that.
It's worth noting that the situation you cite has happened exactly once in all recorded history, so it's not exactly a common case worth optimizing for.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:4, Informative)
GP Said:
There are certain off-work things that an employer should know about - witness the guy who intentionally flew the airliner into the mountain and killed all on board - when it can affect their on-the-clock performance
You said:
It's worth noting that the situation you cite has happened exactly once in all recorded history
Not to be contrary, but pilot suicide is not brand new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Irrelevant... she signed the contact... end (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all irrelevant. She consented to have the app running as a condition of her employment, and she removed it, and got fired. This is a simple cut and dried case.
There is an area of law that states that contracts are only enforceable if they are legal and at least somewhat fair - there are things that simply cannot be signed away, as well as those that are considered unconscionable additions that have higher scrutiny by the law in order for you to do so. For example, while it is totally legal to give up your children to another (adoption, etc.), it would never be considered legally binding if a work contract had a clause in it requiring you to. Likewise a clause requiring you to perform fellatio might be upheld in a contract for a porn star - it's part of the main focus of the job - but would never be considered a valid clause for pretty much any other job out there.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Interesting)
Ray Rice is a public figure and as such a public face of the NFL. He as obligations to the NFL in his public persona which are spelled out in his contract.
So, in certain cases, what you do in your off times IS your employer's business, but only so far as it affects your employer's business. However, in this case, I don't think the employer had a "need to know" or a business reason to track employees in their off duty hours.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:4, Interesting)
And what about when your employer does something to bring you disrepute?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
that should include piss-tests, too.
that is absolutely a violation of your privacy. if you have a problem with an employee's performance then you deal it then. you dont' start off assuming that all potential employees are 'bad guys' until proven otherwise.
pre-employment testing is bullshit. this also need to be prohibited by law. problem is, its the US (!) that is kind of forcing and encouraging companies to do this shit! "to get a government contract, you must ensure all your employees, yadda yadda ya
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a great point but it does seem like a company should have the right to enable GPS tracking for company assets. Perhaps a good compromise would be that you could indicate when you were off-work to avoid tracking, but if required the device could be signaled to turn back on tracking.
I personally would probably get one of those signal shielding bags and drop it in there when I wasn't to be on-call. Then you could carry it with you even. Then it also appears just as if it lost power for a while, so it would be hard to get in trouble over it...
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to have a phone with the problem described in TFA, along with me allegedly being "on-call" at all hours.
Such a shielding bag (really just a Faraday cage) generally worked just fine.
It is important to note, however, that putting the phone in the Faraday bag emulated loss of signal, instead of loss of power, since the program in the phone reported these conditions differently, and so also were the interpretations of these conditions by management.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:4, Interesting)
Meh; the type of signal does not matter. Until all of cell phone/GPS/Wifi-geolocation coverage is actually 100%, including inside of every building, down in every valley, and inside of every tunnel, there can be no expectation of continuous signal.
Meanwhile, being on call 24/7, 365.25 (this includes every fucking weekend, and every fucking holiday, and every fucking vacation -- no matter how remote) is a recipe for employees (me) finding ways to avoid it.
Realistically, I usually left the phone out of the Faraday bag: Mine had two compartments, one shielded and one not, and I used it as a continuous-duty cell-phone case. When I decided it was *my* time, I put the phone into the shielded side, and I'd periodically check for messages.
I really didn't care about what my boss thought of where I went, or how fast I got there on my own time (he got a speed alert on his own phone one day. His jovial SMS response: "134MPH. Niiiiice!").
It was more a matter of: If I want to take time off and go down in the holler in Kentucky, get drunk, eat lots of bacon and shoot guns, then I'm NOT going to be working, nor am I going to continuously cater to a cell phone. (And yes, I always let them know in advance when I'd be leaving for such a jaunt.)
A better solution is to have rotating on-call duty, with allowance for being absolutely-goddamn-away-from-work, and turning off tracking when one is absolutely-goddamn-away-from-work. Despite being a 9-5 shop supporting 24/7 systems, we had plenty of qualified techs to make things work, and it was an unreasonable expectation that all of them be absolutely on call at all times.
Especially for hourly employees with no stake in the company.
Meanwhile, leaving my phone on my desk would be such a slap in the face that I wouldn't have a job when I came back from Kentucky, and there would be no way for me to help during the time that I was gone if my counterparts really needed me.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Insightful)
You touch on part of the big picture here.
quote
If you don't like being tracked on the job, then find a different job.
end quote
We as a society need to ask the question if constant tracking, even during on-call hours, is something an employer should legally be allowed to coerce an employee into doing. At the moment your statement is absolutely true because we have no law that explains how an employer may act in this sort of scenario.
All and all I hope she wins. When you are off the clock, the tracking should stop. If you are on call, but still off work, the tracking should stop.
Some may argue the company has a right to know exactly where their equipment is at all times. This comes down to trust and if a company doesn't trust an employee to take a cellphone home and return it without constant tracking, I would strongly question why I would want to work for such an un-trusting company.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrapping it in foil means it won't function as anything.
But it also means the work application will not record any downtime for the app running.
If you are "on call" then you are technically working, so that phone needs to be 100% functional and they have the right to track it.
True enough (I totally agree the company as the right to track their own equipment) but if a boss said something creepy like "I can see how fast you are driving" in the bag it would go when I was driving anywhere and I'd just blame b
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because they own it, they do not have the right to track it when they lend it to you to use out of hours. So do landlords have the right to fit cameras in their rental properties, specifically in the bedroom and toilets, so they can sell the video obtained for profit. Their properties, their laws or is that a false premise. So corporate rights, is it all just PR=B$ in order to justify ego power trips by executives and a lust driven desire to control their employees lives.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Will you people stop it!!! The company does NOT have a "right" to track their phone. They have a right to get it back when requested. They have a right for you to not abuse the service plan. What did these poor companies do before GPS? TRUST THEIR EMPLOYEES and hold them responsible for loss/damage. Exactly what does tracking the phone have to do with getting business done? Employee drives a truck and you want to monitor their route? That is a legitimate business data collection and analysis need. Tag the vehicle and not their phone.
And if you DO want to insist on this ridiculous opinion that they have a "right" to track their equipment's real-time location, then i submit that "right" ends where the employee's right to privacy starts. I mean afterall, what about their right to monitor the sound surrounding their equipment? That is their right after all to make sure the phone isn't being abused by listening to ALL sounds around it.
"But there is no 'right' to privacy" in the constitution you say. Well there is no "right" to track your equipment in real time either. There is the ability, now, but that is not the same thing as a right.
Re: It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been paranoid about this for years.
If it's important to you, get your own cell phone and forward your work line to your personal phone. I do this and leave my work cell at home.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Insightful)
"On call" means she's always on the clock and therefore has a billing claim against her employers. At least, that's how it theoretically works in England (RCN V London NHS, held that sitting next to a telephone or travelling between clients at their homes (but not going between home and work) was actually billable hours (with the exception of being between on call and travelling to that call which is all on the clock), according to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998).
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, too bad in the US that concept doesn't exist at all.
I've seen small businesses that practically want their employees to sit in the break room all day, and then clock in anytime a customer walks up to the counter, and then clock out as soon as they leave. Essentially businesses want to shift the risk to the employees, and keep the profits to themselves.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Interesting)
that would be the ones on zero hours contracts. I'm in the process of building a case which involves some reliance on the RCN decision to prove that zero hours contracts aren't just controversial, they're actually illegal.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Informative)
The article spells out that she was required to have the phone on her 24/7 as a condition of employment.
Re: (Score:3)
The article spells out that she was required to have the phone on her 24/7 as a condition of employment.
Does it spell out that she was compensated on a 24 hour basis? Didn't think so. F U company, and every other company that requires 24/7 support for 8/5 wages.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it spell out that she was compensated on a 24 hour basis? Didn't think so. F U company, and every other company that requires 24/7 support for 8/5 wages.
$7200/month is pretty good wages, and she knew the 24/7 on call requirement before she took the job. She was, apparently, also working for another company doing the same kind of job. Of all the things to object to, this is about the least objectionable.
The first claims in her case are shaky because she agreed to them all. Use your personal phone for work, check. Have it with you 24/7, check. Install the app so you can be tracked, check. She's pretty much got them by the shorts when it comes to them telling her other employer she was disloyal, though.
Of course, it's hard to understand why any company would let you work for three months for a competitor while they're paying you to work for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Though it sounds like this "employer" seems to think they can do whatever they want, including that.
A school has already gotten in trouble for intruding on students outside of school time through monitoring software on the laptops, so this company is most likely going to get a nasty slap from the judge.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:4, Informative)
From the complaint it sounds like the tracking app was made a requirement a couple months after she was hired. Could you point me to where she agreed to this when she was hired? I can't see it in either the linked article or the complaint.
Re: (Score:3)
They basically lied to her about the function of the app by not telling her that they would be tracking her every move 24/7. When she discovered she was being tracked all the time and her creepy boss was making creepy stalker-like comments about her, she complained, then removed the app. The company would be very smart to settle out of court.
Re: (Score:3)
How can that be legal?
What if she went to a bar? What if it was a lesbian bar?
I know some states make it legal to discriminate agaisn't gays but I have a feeling there has to be some law agaisn't this unless it was a contract. Is this really a contract or just some agreement?
I would be interested to hear from a lawyer?
I have turned liberal/socialist to fairly conservative over my 15 years on Slashdot. However, as often as I favor an empoyer right to hire and fire this seems not right. I wonder if 24/7 compe
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Informative)
The complaint (the pdf in the second link of the story) outlines the laws she alleges were broken. An interesting read.
She also asked for a jury trial, which in civil cases only requires 9 of 12 jurors to agree with her. If the jury decides that the allegations are more likely than not to be true, the company (and the 15 John Does and named defendants) are going to pay. People should always have the option to decide whether they want their private life known, and to who.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Informative)
uh ... where exactly does it say that ?
Line 26 and 27 of page three and line 1 of page 4 of the complaint:
He confirmed that she was required to keep her phones power on "24/7" to answer phone calls from clients.
He in this case is Stubbs.
Re: (Score:3)
Page 3, line 26 and 27 and page 4, line 1 of the legal filing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The solution: leave the phone at work when you are off duty.
That would work...except that the employer insisted that she keep the phone with her and powered on at all times. According to the claim, she was on call for client emergencies, even when off the clock.
Re:It was an app on a WORK-Issued Phone! (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't suppose that this app has a remote photo-capture feature, do you? Maybe a few other RAT functions? That might be a motive for requiring a (female) employee to have it with them, powered on 24/7...
Just a thought...
Re: (Score:3)
The solution: leave the phone at work when you are off duty.
I was thinking just turn off the phone, but leaving it at work is fine too.
Another thought was that you keep it in a metal box when off duty. My dad used to do this on "pager duty" when he didn't want to be bothered and then claim "I never got the page." The phone won't have access to GPS OR cell service to report in so even though the app is running, it won't be able to tell the boss anything. You tried to call me? I never got the call. This carrier has spotty service, especially after I leave the b
You're not an employee anymore! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a slave, and if you're lucky, and behave, your servitude will have some modicum of treatment that is necessary to keep you fit for employment.
Welcome to the new future. Same as the old past.
So, what is good about all these chains anyway?
GPS tracks nowadays (Score:5, Insightful)
GPS trackers are being used ubiquitously nowadays. I do not have any problems with them, although I do not have any. They are being used for controlling people who drive for a living.
But, using them to track people off duty is a completely ludicrous. It should be banned. In Portugal, I know, the Personal Data Protection Law strictly forbids it. IMHO, the US could learn a lot from certain European laws.
Re:GPS tracks nowadays (Score:4, Funny)
In Portugal, I know, the Personal Data Protection Law strictly forbids it. IMHO, the US could learn a lot from certain European laws.
U.S. businesses and their PACs don't ... err ... I mean the U.S. Congress and the President, after careful consideration of the public interest, do not agree with your assessment.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does she not have two cell phones, a work phone and a personal one. The work phone provided by the company could have whatever crap they wanted installed on it. She could leave it at work when she went home for the day or the weekend. She could carry her personal phone when she was not working.
This would be akin to the company providing a computer. The courts have sort of ruled that what you do on company provided computer, network or email account, cannot be expected to remain private. The same might a
Maybe this would have worked... (Score:5, Informative)
Companies need to learn that slavery works totally different in 20th century:
The company should have offered her 5% less salary on the job offer and then ask if she wants to join a "voluntary data collection study" that measures employee driving behavior off-duty compared to work tasks. She could win by being part of the study a maximum of 7% on top of her salary. On top she should be proud of being part of this circle of privileged employees that push the boundaries of making work a better place. And all she had to do is install an app on her phone that collects data. During her anniversary review she would receive a 5% as part of being in the study, by just missing by few points the bracket for 7%.... but she can do better next year...
I hope one would see the sarcasm in the previous statement...
Re: (Score:3)
You may have been going for sarcasm, but it's reality for car insurance companies...
Question (Score:3)
nasty aspects to case (Score:5, Interesting)
It's one thing to fire an employee, you can always find some fig leaf pretext to cover your ass. But using private information that you got from the employee and going out of your way to contact another employer and cause harm to the ex-employee? There's no legitimate cause for that. That's demonstrates that it wasn't just a bad employee.
Sure, defend the asshole (Score:5, Insightful)
She probably lied about it.
That's no justification for the employer's action. If your employee doesn't behave properly, you talk with them, maybe put them on performance plan, or maybe terminate their employment.
To talk with another employer to get her fired there is pretty unethical and evidence of douchebaggery.
Forwarding... (Score:4, Funny)
One thing she could have done - turn call forwarding to a private phone on, so that the 24/7 condition is met, and then... sky's the limit.
Get a friendly taxi driver to take the phone for the night.
Put it on an RC plane and take it for a trip over the city center.
Put it in a box and attach with a magnet to your boss' car.
Borrow it for a friend who does car races (preferably illegal) to take it for a 200MPH ride.
Root the phone, get a GPS spoofing app and "send it to Antarctica".
Or just leave it in a desk drawer at work...
Fake GPS transmitter? (Score:3)
Described as nice working environment on Glassdoor (Score:5, Interesting)
Like it or not, a lot of nasty employment conditions are technically legal or hard to prove. Really the best thing is to publicize what is happening on glassdoor and similar sites. It's not going to immediately stop entry level employees, who have few better choices, from applying. But confirmed bad practices will deny the perpetrator ability to recruit top talent for positions that have the most impact on the company's future.
As of now, Intermex is described as nice working environment [glassdoor.com] on Glassdoor. If I was considering an offer and read about 24/7 GPS tracking in page after page of reviews, I certainly would not join.
Re:Company Property (Score:5, Insightful)
They should be allowed to know where their property is. She has no case.
This may well be sarcastic, but they do know where their property is. It's with the employee. They have no reason to care where the phone is spatially since they aren't going to physically access the phone. The reason for the app wasn't to track the phone, but to track the employee attached to the phone.
Re:Company Property (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if that is the case, that is not what they were using the functionality for.
From the article:
"Management never made mention of mileage. They would tell her co-workers and her of their driving speed, roads taken, and time spent at customer locations. Her manager made it clear that he was using the program to continuously monitor her, during company as well as personal time." (emphasis mine)
They were not using the GPS functionality to track the phone. They were using it to track employees both on and off-work.
This is creepy as heck. IMHO, there should be criminal laws against this sort of behavior. This should be a criminal case her manager, not a civil one against the company.
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Funny)
Think. You keep using that word...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You got +5 for this nonsense? The "Fascist Police State" that you condemn is the mechanism that this lady is using to right the wrong committed against her by her employer. Your entire post is off-topic ranting about issues that have nothing to do with the TFA.
Re: Privacy? (Score:3)
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Funny)
I do not mean to pry, but you don't by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?
Re:Privacy? (Score:4, Informative)
In my lifetime the number of incarcerated Americans has risen about 300%.
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Funny)
In my lifetime the number of incarcerated Americans has risen about 300%.
I KNEW this was someone's fault!
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe the US of A should put more money into public schools, infrastructure and public service instead of F-22's.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe the US of A should put more money into public schools, infrastructure and public service instead of F-22's.
The only difference between putting the money in education or defense is which set of bureaucrats, corrupt administrators, industry partners, and union members get to line their pockets.
I see universities and elementary schools a like --- when they get extra money, more of the additional cash goes to landscaping, campus beautification, and to massively wasteful injudicious technology spendin
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe the US of A should put more money into public schools
The United States spends more per pupil [huffingtonpost.com] than most other countries with less to show for it. There are many problems with the American education system; a lack of money is not one of them, at least in the aggregate (there are obviously individual school districts that are hard up)
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
Where's that money actually GOING though? Odds are it's not getting to the classroom, it's being diverted to administrators' pockets.
Re:Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Lavish facilities"?
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. More money does NOT make for better students. The poorest of students have often times been the best of students. Each individual student needs some THING to ignite a hunger for knowledge within him. If/when that hunger is lit, nothing can hold a student back, short of death.
We Americans, despite the economic "hardships" of the past decade, remain among the wealthiest people in history, world wide. We don't starve. We aren't dropping in the streets from diseases. We don't have open warfare in our streets. Barring some violent weather now and then, we almost all go home to find our homes intact every day.
More money in the education system, or even more money in the classroom, will NOT make for better students. History proves that idea to be FALSE.
Our education system is badly flawed, and that flaw can be traced, at least in part, to the idea that more money can "fix" education. We have pampered little children who are distracted by meaningless nonsense. Kim Kardashian? Reality TV? Rock stars? Sports? Oh yeah - drugs. I can understand drug usage by the dirt poor, who live miserable lives. Those who spend all day out scavenging for a little bit of food, and still go to bed hungry - I can forgive them for trying to escape reality. Our little rich kids, with to much time on their hands? Escape from reality? They are LOSERS. And, we have raised them to be LOSERS.
Money isn't the answer.
Kids need to learn morals. Kids need some hardship. Kids need to WORK for the privilege of higher education - and I do NOT MEAN that they should be impoverished for life in exchange for an education. I mean, they should have to WORK for the privilege, instead of being pampered.
Keep the money. Instead, go into the classrooms, and get tough. We've needed a strong dose of tough love in the classrooms for the past 30 years, or more. Crack the whip, and stop treating kids like babies. Just drop pre-school, headstart, kindergarten, and all the rest of that shit.
I started school at age 5, and went straight into first grade. One month after my 18th birthday, I graduated high school. No amount of pre-schooling implemented since 1960 has improved on the final results among high school grads. NOTHING has improved those final results.
All that money has been WASTED.
If you have an old rotten ship, which threatens to sink every time it sails, how can you justify continuing to send it to sea? How can you justify painting it, again and again, and calling it seaworthy?
That is precisely the state of our education system. It is sinking, and we continue to paint it, to make it look pretty.
Cut the funds, and force school administrators to actually EDUCATE children!
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe black youth in America should focus on ....
The racial disparity in crime and incarceration is no worse than in other countries. It is the rate across the board that has risen.
Incarceration rates for whites in the US used to be similar to other developed countries. Now it is a few times higher.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if you solely cared about white people, the incarceration rate among that population, too, has tripled over the past 50 years.
Re: (Score:3)
If we assume that murder rate should be roughly equal to death by cop as a metric, black males are getting killed by cops at rates 15-20% lower than they should be.
Re:Privacy? (Score:4, Informative)
Law enforcement isn't all that dangerous of a job. In fact, it doesn't make the top 10.
Re: (Score:3)
How many wives of truck drivers and farm workers wonder every day if their husband will come home alive that night?
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
Uhhhh - you're pulling emotional strings here. How about we examine the actual numbers of cops killed, nationwide?
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/of... [nleomf.org]
It doesn't appear that the number of cops killed in a given year in the US has EVER EXCEEDED 300. The highest year on that chart looks like 1974, with 280.
How does that compare with other occupations? Hmmm . . . .
Have you ever expressed similar sentiments for logging personnel? Pilots? Fishermen? Truck drivers? (I'll give even odds that you are one of the millions of Americans who INTENTIONALLY CUT TRUCK DRIVERS OFF on a daily basis) How about auto mechanics? Have you ever given a thought to them? Do you think about miners, in the same way you think about cops?
There are a lot of occupations more dangerous than police work. I get so tired of the cops getting all the glory, all the sympathy - but you have none to spare for the people who keep the cogs of civilization working.
The 10 Deadliest Jobs:
1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... [forbes.com]
You may, of course, find and cite your own sources - but no credible source places police among the most dangerous professions. I, for one, have always resented the damned cops for asserting that they are in a dangerous profession. They lie, and the gullible public believes them. And NONE OF YOU GIVE A DAMN ABOUT US WHO DO DANGEROUS WORK!!
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
And selling yourself into slavery is a PRIVATE agreement between a PRIVATE master and a PRIVATE slave. That doesn't make it okay, though!
Now go fuck yourself.
Re: Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are certain things that government DOES have a right to interfere with. This should be one. Especially when job markets are less than ideal there are certain things and areas that government should interfere in so that things don't have to get as bad as they have been in the past before people rebell enough to fix things by themselves.
I'm sure you're against minimum wage too? After all if someone wants to work $0.01 in a private contract, why not let them? Extreme example sure but if you let it play out I'm sure we'd get close tovtgat number. Walmart will be able to find someone at $8 then at $7.89, $7.79 and so on. If this wasnt the case walmart would already pay more than minimun wage for all employees.
Re: Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're just redefining what constitutes a livable wage. If you really want to live like someone in the 1950's, you can still do it quite easily on the median salary. No meals out, a house that's ~1000 square feet for a family of four (share the bedrooms and there's only one bath!), one television, no cable, one phone, one car, no air conditioning. Mom makes about half the clothes herself. Dad fixes the car whenever something goes wrong.
Back in the late nineties, I knew people who had their lives whittled down to about $8k/year in necessary expenses, and that was with air conditioning and modern cars. That's a little less than $12k today, basically right at the federal poverty line. They lived out in the boonies in trailers, but they had dial-up internet (as nearly all of us did at the time), and they were pretty happy with things the way they were.
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
What? This was a PRIVATE employment agreement between a PRIVATE employer and a PRIVATE employee. If she doesn't like the employers terms she can find a new job. The GOVERNMENT has zero business intruding in a PRIVATE affair!
This was a demand by a Federally licensed LLC on an individual.
If the owner(s) of the LLC wants to be personally legally liable for the actions of the company, I have no problem agreeing with the sentiments in your comment. But as long as those owner(s) want special legal protection by the government, they can respect a few basic social rights.
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
She sold herself only for 8 hours, she gets paid only for 8 hours. They claimed her for 24/7.
Re: (Score:3)
Only because the government insists it has the authority to make that rule. If there was no government, there would be no government-granted business license.
first, don't let them put their shit on YOUR phone (Score:4, Insightful)
once you did that, it's not your phone and your life any more.
they want crap apps on a phone, they have to provide the phone. otherwise, you are chattel, like cattle, only not in demand at the supermarket.
Re: (Score:3)
but it was never hers. It was company provided!
Re:first, don't let them put their shit on YOUR ph (Score:5, Insightful)
but it was never hers. It was company provided!
So why didn't she just use a different phone while off duty?
Re:first, don't let them put their shit on YOUR ph (Score:5, Insightful)
She should have bought her own phone for after hours and left the work phone at home. No employer can force you to carry their phone when you are not working.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe in some socialist hellhole they can't. But in the Land of the Free, you'll do what ever your masters tell you to, or live the rest of your life on the streets.
Maybe "living off the land" should become an official school subject? It's not like the situation is going to improve.
Re:first, don't let them put their shit on YOUR ph (Score:4, Informative)
Don't you mean, "She should have left the work phone at the office"?
Re: (Score:3)
Some employers can require on call engineers. The question comes down to salaried or hourly. If salaried and mandentory on call, then the alternate solution is to leave the phone at work for privacy reasons and auto forward to your Google Voice number. My GV account can ring up to 3 phones at once. This can include a landline, cell, and google talk. A VOIP line with some providers can allow multi presence. This includes a VOIP phone at home, a VOIP app on a tablet, etc. I can be reashed, but I don't
Re:first, don't let them put their shit on YOUR ph (Score:5, Informative)
First, read TFA. It's short. Then you won't look like a moron. You'll see things like the first paragraph:
A Central California woman claims she was fired after uninstalling an app that her employer required her to run constantly on her company issued iPhone - an app that tracked her every move 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
You'll also find bits like this:
The app had a "clock in/out" feature which did not stop GPS monitoring, that function remained on. This is the problem about which Ms. Arias complained.
Re: (Score:3)
TFA says that, but I didn't see anything in the primary source (the formal legal paperwork) to support it.
The relevant phrasing direct from the complaint says things like:
In April 2014, Intermex asked Plaintiff and other employees to download an application ("app") called Xora to their smart phones.
Re:first, don't let them put their shit on YOUR ph (Score:5, Funny)
That's a great plan. Then she could instead be fired for not taking calls from customers 24/7 on the phone in the tin box instead. Brilliant!
Re: (Score:3)
So the lady should have left her company issued work cell phone at her office after her work hours when she clocked out if she wasn't comfortable with the required software on her company issued phone.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd hand it to my boss every day at the end of the day as I walked out the door, and pick it back up when I got in the next morning.
Re:Work stays at work! (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently you have never worked in a job where you are on call 24/7 even when you only work in the office 9-5. I am a Sr. Systems Engineer, but when things go really bad somewhere, I am supposed to be reachable at all times except when I specifically am "on vacation". Fortunately, I get to use my own phone with no obnoxious company software on it.
Re:Easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Her employer required her to use the company issued phone, and to have it on 24/7 (from the lawsuit [arstechnica.net]).
Your "solution" would result in the exact same thing hers did: termination.
If the allegations are true, it sounds like both her manager and CEO were douchebags. And stupid ones at that.
Re: (Score:3)
>It's a company issued phone
No. It was her phone. Read the complaint.
Re:Easy solution (Score:4, Informative)
Read the first sentence of the article
A Central California woman claims she was fired after uninstalling an app that her employer required her to run constantly on her company issued iPhone—an app that tracked her every move 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Yes. I read that afterwords. It seems to contradict the text of the legal complaint. My experience of journalists biases me to the legal complaint as probably being closer to the truth. But it's a clear contradiction between the two texts.
Re: (Score:3)
This should have been her negotiating position: If you have to track the phone, then I am going to stop using it and start using a personal phone that you cannot track.
I insist that you turn the tracking off when I am not working, or put it in writing that I myself may turn the tracking off when I am not working.
Otherwise, I am going to secure the phone when I am not working, and you will not be able to contact me while I am off-duty, except to leave voicemail or e-mail for me to read during my next shif
Re:A company has a right to track its equipmet (Score:4, Insightful)
really? you are able to NEGOTIATE with a company, these days?
in the job market now, that's really stupid. its a corporate heaven right now; those guys who are the 'job creators' (puke) are having a great time. the rest of us, we're getting by, at best.
there has to be a fair balance if there is any leverage. the only leverage she would have is to just leave. but you cannot make a company do things on threat of your leaving. that went out 20 years ago, if it even existed back then.
we're serfs and you know it. admit it. this is the world we now live in. companies fucking own us; some a little, some a lot. but things have gotton worse, not better, in terms of freedom and rights of employees.
THIS is why bosses are assholes like that guy. they are bold because they realize the imbalance of power in the current labor market.
and we've done such a great job over the past 50 years of killing the union movement, its basically only there for those that held on tight and didn't let go (oddly enough, cops have a union that 'protect' them; but regular people are not 'allowed' to have unions, since that's, uhm, somehow bad.)
no power in a weak labor market. this is what you get. blatant employer abuse.
Re:run constantly on her COMPANY ISSUED iPhone (Score:4, Interesting)
Do we believe arsTechnica or the actual court document?