Woman Fired after uninstalling 24/7 tracking app
-
@dafyre said:
I think that by and large tracking of corporate employees like that should be illegal. They don't need to know that I spent 5 hours at the gym last night. They don't need to know that I'm driving 20 miles over the speedlimit while I am typing this reply...
I believe that they are. In fact, using your job as a threat to get access to your personal phone and then spying on you.... that's called social engineering and is very, very illegal. You could sue under hacking laws, rather than employment laws at that point making it a jailable offense.
-
In this case the employer was clearly nuts and completely wrong, but it does raise some interesting points mainly related to the requirement for staff to be on-call 24/7, thus blurring the boundaries between work and personal time.
On a simple level, it seems reasonable to track company devices and it also seems reasonable to require staff to be on-call 24/7. But this falls down because it requires you track the employee 24/7, which is clearly not acceptable.
It must be very common that company owned cars are tracked, even when the employee is using them for personal mileage? How do companies deal with this?
I think tracking only works well when there is a reasonable level of trust between the employer and employee and an understanding that neither party will abuse their power (ie the employer won't abuse his ability to track and the employee won't abuse his ability to turn off tracking). If you have a good relationship, you can require the employee to turn on tracking during work hours, and turn it off during off-work hours.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
In this case the employer was clearly nuts and completely wrong, but it does raise some interesting points mainly related to the requirement for staff to be on-call 24/7, thus blurring the boundaries between work and personal time.
It actually might solve some issues - since you can't actually (in even the US) force people to work 24 x 7 without any breaks, ever. And if you did this to an hourly worker, the disaster would be immense. Since the worker would have tangible, solid proof that they were forced to "be at work" not only 168 hours a week for which they would legally need to not just be paid but be paid overtime, but unless they were designated a manager ahead of time would also be in violation of their time off requirements, even on a day by day and week by week basis!
Imagine hiring someone for 40 hours a week, forcing them to install this app, and finding out you owe then the equivalent of 232 hours a week since the day that they started AND are in employment violation for the lack of downtime!!
-
Being on-call is not the same thing as working though, is it?
I think most people aren't explicitly required to be on-call, but implicitly are by the fact of their employer only giving bonuses and promotions to those people who are on-call whilst shunning those that aren't. I see that a lot with bankers where the banks publicly say they don't want to overwork their staff, but their staff feel obliged to overwork if they want their careers to progress. Then it becomes a legal grey area.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Being on-call is not the same thing as working though, is it?
How is it different? I'm not "not working", so it's working. There are only two possible states, working or not working. When I am not working I can travel, sleep, shut down, etc. If I have to watch a phone, check emails, not take a cruise, etc..... I am working and need to be paid.
Redefining the work that someone does as "on call" doesn't change the fact that the employer is making demands of a person and must pay them to do so.
In fact, in the US, if you are "not working" it is illegal for work to be discussed with you. If you are on a lunch break, for example, and someone (from work, not random people) discuss work with you, your break never happened and they are required to give you the full break, again, from the beginning. Because ANY demands from work means that there was no time off as mandated.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I think most people aren't explicitly required to be on-call, but implicitly are by the fact of their employer only giving bonuses and promotions to those people who are on-call whilst shunning those that aren't.
That's different. Voluntarily opting to do more in order to get better leverage for future wage negotiations is very different from being required to work when not being paid a current wage rate.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I see that a lot with bankers where the banks publicly say they don't want to overwork their staff, but their staff feel obliged to overwork if they want their careers to progress. Then it becomes a legal grey area.
I've worked in banking and actually know of few fields that are so good about how they handle this stuff. That said, I was 24 x 7 on call, 365 for eight full years. But they compensated me well for it, we all knew the score when we agreed to the rate and they put in a lot of effort to make sure that I did not burn out.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I've worked in banking and actually know of few fields that are so good about how they handle this stuff. That said, I was 24 x 7 on call, 365 for eight full years. But they compensated me well for it, we all knew the score when we agreed to the rate and they put in a lot of effort to make sure that I did not burn out.
It is different when you are on call 24 x 7 x 365, and your employer is working with you to help keep you from burning out...than when your employer is doing it so they can keep track of you all the time. I don't think I could work for an employer that wanted me to be always available all the time and they tried to go as far as track me via GPS.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Being on-call is not the same thing as working though, is it?
How is it different? I'm not "not working", so it's working. There are only two possible states, working or not working. When I am not working I can travel, sleep, shut down, etc. If I have to watch a phone, check emails, not take a cruise, etc..... I am working and need to be paid.
Redefining the work that someone does as "on call" doesn't change the fact that the employer is making demands of a person and must pay them to do so.
In fact, in the US, if you are "not working" it is illegal for work to be discussed with you. If you are on a lunch break, for example, and someone (from work, not random people) discuss work with you, your break never happened and they are required to give you the full break, again, from the beginning. Because ANY demands from work means that there was no time off as mandated.
Many jobs require you to be on call 24x7. I was at the county (and was not an exempt employee). According to many employee rights lawyers this is legal. You can even be expected to check email and do other "non significant" ammount of tasks while off the clock/not paid. Us fair labor law specificly has exemptions to allow this kinda of stuff.
-
God Bless America.
Happy to be a citizen of Europe when I read about this kind of insanity. -
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Being on-call is not the same thing as working though, is it?
How is it different? I'm not "not working", so it's working. There are only two possible states, working or not working. When I am not working I can travel, sleep, shut down, etc. If I have to watch a phone, check emails, not take a cruise, etc..... I am working and need to be paid.
Redefining the work that someone does as "on call" doesn't change the fact that the employer is making demands of a person and must pay them to do so.
In fact, in the US, if you are "not working" it is illegal for work to be discussed with you. If you are on a lunch break, for example, and someone (from work, not random people) discuss work with you, your break never happened and they are required to give you the full break, again, from the beginning. Because ANY demands from work means that there was no time off as mandated.
Many jobs require you to be on call 24x7. I was at the county (and was not an exempt employee). According to many employee rights lawyers this is legal. You can even be expected to check email and do other "non significant" ammount of tasks while off the clock/not paid. Us fair labor law specificly has exemptions to allow this kinda of stuff.
I'm pretty sure if it means you can't sleep, travel, go to dinner and otherwise live a normal life I don't think that it qualifies as non-significant. Never seen someone on call that it didn't completely impact their life making them act like they were at the office because once you HAVE to stay tethered to the Internet AND disrupt what you are doing AND can't even go to the movies or many restaurants.... that can't possibly be trivial.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Being on-call is not the same thing as working though, is it?
How is it different? I'm not "not working", so it's working. There are only two possible states, working or not working. When I am not working I can travel, sleep, shut down, etc. If I have to watch a phone, check emails, not take a cruise, etc..... I am working and need to be paid.
Redefining the work that someone does as "on call" doesn't change the fact that the employer is making demands of a person and must pay them to do so.
In fact, in the US, if you are "not working" it is illegal for work to be discussed with you. If you are on a lunch break, for example, and someone (from work, not random people) discuss work with you, your break never happened and they are required to give you the full break, again, from the beginning. Because ANY demands from work means that there was no time off as mandated.
Many jobs require you to be on call 24x7. I was at the county (and was not an exempt employee). According to many employee rights lawyers this is legal. You can even be expected to check email and do other "non significant" ammount of tasks while off the clock/not paid. Us fair labor law specificly has exemptions to allow this kinda of stuff.
I'm pretty sure if it means you can't sleep, travel, go to dinner and otherwise live a normal life I don't think that it qualifies as non-significant. Never seen someone on call that it didn't completely impact their life making them act like they were at the office because once you HAVE to stay tethered to the Internet AND disrupt what you are doing AND can't even go to the movies or many restaurants.... that can't possibly be trivial.
According to the government it is.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
According to the government it is.
Do you have a link to the wording of the exemption?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
I see that a lot with bankers where the banks publicly say they don't want to overwork their staff, but their staff feel obliged to overwork if they want their careers to progress. Then it becomes a legal grey area.
I've worked in banking and actually know of few fields that are so good about how they handle this stuff. That said, I was 24 x 7 on call, 365 for eight full years. But they compensated me well for it, we all knew the score when we agreed to the rate and they put in a lot of effort to make sure that I did not burn out.
Not really related to the Banking Industry,.. but as I am in the I.T. field, I feel as that Systems Engineer, Systems Administrator, Help Desk, PC Support, I'm on call 24/7. Today I have a laptop to work on. Installing the OS takes time,.. so set it up and go do something else,..
Come twelve hours from now, I will still be working on it,.. But here and there... Being "On Call" doesn't always mean "Working".
-
For most people being "on call" means leaving your mobile phone switched on and close at hand. I don't call that "working", but I know nothing about US labour laws (and very little about UK ones for that matter). In this case, the woman was expected to be able to receive phone calls from her customers during non-office hours, which isn't unusual.
-
@g.jacobse said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
I see that a lot with bankers where the banks publicly say they don't want to overwork their staff, but their staff feel obliged to overwork if they want their careers to progress. Then it becomes a legal grey area.
I've worked in banking and actually know of few fields that are so good about how they handle this stuff. That said, I was 24 x 7 on call, 365 for eight full years. But they compensated me well for it, we all knew the score when we agreed to the rate and they put in a lot of effort to make sure that I did not burn out.
Not really related to the Banking Industry,.. but as I am in the I.T. field, I feel as that Systems Engineer, Systems Administrator, Help Desk, PC Support, I'm on call 24/7. Today I have a laptop to work on. Installing the OS takes time,.. so set it up and go do something else,..
Come twelve hours from now, I will still be working on it,.. But here and there... Being "On Call" doesn't always mean "Working".
Being On Call means you are working because you can't be "not working." You can be at home, hopefully, but since you aren't free to simply "not work", it is a form of working. If your time is still controlled and directed, that's working.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
For most people being "on call" means leaving your mobile phone switched on and close at hand.
So let's say you want to get drunk. Or you want to travel. Or you want a full night of sleep. Of you want to go to a movie or any restaurant where mobiles are not allowed to be on. Or you want to drive somewhere (where using your mobile isn't allowed.)
If it means I can't live my life, that's working. That the work is not tangible or productive has nothing to do with it. I'm still answering to the job and my time is not my own.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
In this case, the woman was expected to be able to receive phone calls from her customers during non-office hours, which isn't unusual.
Not unusual, but it is certainly working. Her time was not her own. She was not "not working". In no way was she free from the job.
-
Here is an easy test....
Does the requirements of one job stop you from being able to take work during the hours when you are not "at that job?" For example, if you are on call and take a job working at an hour call center where your mobile is not allowed, are you able to do both jobs? If there is a conflict, you are working during that time. If you are free, there would be no conflict. (Of duties, a conflict of interest is different.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
According to the government it is.
Do you have a link to the wording of the exemption?
I don't off hand. I believe they just call it insignificant amounts of work. But the wording isn't as important as how lawyers and judges view it. They don't consider being on call working. Only the answering of calls/e-mails, but they consider the amount you usually have to take to answer each item insignificant even if it would add up to hrs a day. because at each time it's insignificant. And to clarify it more even if you actually went into work for say 10-30 minutes and did work and then left because you were sick or something the company doesn't have to pay you for the insignificant work. I believe when it's over 1hr at a single instance is when most of them interpret it as significant.
