5 ms·

It's coming to the rest of the country soon. My employer has already sent many of their employees to work from home though they've never had a work from home po

It's coming to the rest of the country soon. My employer has already sent many of their employees to work from home though they've never had a work from home policy and very few exceptions to the rule. As the continuing jokes goes, I guess we'll find out how well we can work from home after all.

Cyberdog 7y ago
Your employer sending employees home does not have the force of law behind it. You're probably not at risk of getting shot and/or imprisoned for violating their request.
- gdulli 7y ago
  It has the force of discretion and common sense behind it. The aspiration of a society isn't for it to be run by the force of law at every turn. It's to educate and motivate people to make good decisions on their own where the force of law leaves off.
  - Cyberdog 7y ago
    Oh, I agree. My point was that a request by a company to its employees is eons away in terms of severity and consequence than the government dictating the consequences under which you may leave your home. A city just more or less put its entire population in parole.
    - rhizome 7y ago
      People on parole have very little in the way of 4th Amendment rights, to cite one distinction.
    - gdulli 7y ago
      My point is that the distinction is meaningless because we should all be committed enough to the same goal and put the severity of the situation above a rebellion instinct. There are other outlets for that.
- ourmandave 7y ago
  From official post: It is OK to go outside for walks if you are not in a group. I don't think they'll be shooting or arresting anyone. And the other linked article said they'll be lax enforcement the first few days to give people time to adjust.
  - npo9 7y ago
    How is this not an infringement on the right to assemble?
    - thereare5lights 7y ago
      Good luck getting a court of law to rule against this order.
      - mturmon 7y ago
        The Supreme Court has suspended sessions that have oral arguments, starting today: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_03-16-20 https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/... “The Court’s postponement of argument sessions in light of public health concerns is not unprecedented. The Court postponed scheduled arguments for October 1918 in response to the Spanish flu epidemic. The Court also shortened its argument calendars in August 1793 and August 1798 in response to yellow fever outbreaks.”
    - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
      Don't know about the Bay Area but where I live they've declared a judicial emergency and shut down most of the courts. It might violate the right to assembly but you're unlikely to get a judge to hear your argument until after the order has been lifted.
    - damnyou 7y ago
      It absolutely is, but this is an emergency and there is a direct causal link.
    - lovehashbrowns 7y ago
- seangrogg 7y ago
  Violating this order is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in county jail and/or $1,000 fine. So while you're indeed at risk of imprisonment you're still quite a ways away from "getting shot" unless you're doing something else IN ADDITION TO violating the order.
  - Cyberdog 7y ago
    Misdemeanors still involve getting arrested. If you resist arrest because, for example, the law you're being arrested for violating is ridiculous and/or unconstitutional, there's a pretty decent chance you're gonna get shot.
    - seangrogg 7y ago
      Unless I'm mistaken, the thing you'd be getting shot for is resisting arrest? Which went above and beyond violating the health order that is put in place to try and contain a potentially lethal disease from further spreading?
- jladsjfklawe 7y ago
  national guard is already being called up in maryland - "oh they won't shoot you" oh really? ken state up in this bitch
- Phylter 7y ago
  No but it could have the force of law behind it soon. There's no mandate but they're preparing for a case where it might be. Besides, the real issue is if everybody gets sick they can't help their customers and they can't sell their product and that'll cost more money in the long run. Really, they're probably just trying to make sure their business keeps running.
hermitdev 7y ago
My company has pretty much split 50/50 among those that can work remotely in a rotation. I'm in the office this week, will be out next. 1 week in the office, 1 week from home, repeat for as long as necessary. They've also closed the cafeteria. They're still serving food, but you have to take it back to your desk and eat alone. Also no "shared use" utensils. So, the soup and salad bars are still open, but instead of serving yourself, you have to indicate to the kitchen staff what you'd like on your salad. Annoying, but I get it. trying to minimize possible exposure. This is in Illinois. We've also closed restaurants for dine-in and bars are heavily restricted as well. Today, during my commute on the tollways, the signs indicated do not stop at the toll plazas. All of the manned stations are closed. They indicated to either use your I-Pass or pay your missed toll online. I don't think they even want people using the unmanned cash/self-served stations.

Cyberdog 7y ago

Your employer sending employees home does not have the force of law behind it. You're probably not at risk of getting shot and/or imprisoned for violating their request.

gdulli 7y ago
It has the force of discretion and common sense behind it. The aspiration of a society isn't for it to be run by the force of law at every turn. It's to educate and motivate people to make good decisions on their own where the force of law leaves off.
- Cyberdog 7y ago
  Oh, I agree. My point was that a request by a company to its employees is eons away in terms of severity and consequence than the government dictating the consequences under which you may leave your home. A city just more or less put its entire population in parole.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    People on parole have very little in the way of 4th Amendment rights, to cite one distinction.
  - gdulli 7y ago
    My point is that the distinction is meaningless because we should all be committed enough to the same goal and put the severity of the situation above a rebellion instinct. There are other outlets for that.
ourmandave 7y ago
From official post: It is OK to go outside for walks if you are not in a group. I don't think they'll be shooting or arresting anyone. And the other linked article said they'll be lax enforcement the first few days to give people time to adjust.
- npo9 7y ago
  How is this not an infringement on the right to assemble?
  - thereare5lights 7y ago
    Good luck getting a court of law to rule against this order.
    - mturmon 7y ago
      The Supreme Court has suspended sessions that have oral arguments, starting today: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_03-16-20 https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/... “The Court’s postponement of argument sessions in light of public health concerns is not unprecedented. The Court postponed scheduled arguments for October 1918 in response to the Spanish flu epidemic. The Court also shortened its argument calendars in August 1793 and August 1798 in response to yellow fever outbreaks.”
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    Don't know about the Bay Area but where I live they've declared a judicial emergency and shut down most of the courts. It might violate the right to assembly but you're unlikely to get a judge to hear your argument until after the order has been lifted.
  - damnyou 7y ago
    It absolutely is, but this is an emergency and there is a direct causal link.
  - lovehashbrowns 7y ago
seangrogg 7y ago
Violating this order is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in county jail and/or $1,000 fine. So while you're indeed at risk of imprisonment you're still quite a ways away from "getting shot" unless you're doing something else IN ADDITION TO violating the order.
- Cyberdog 7y ago
  Misdemeanors still involve getting arrested. If you resist arrest because, for example, the law you're being arrested for violating is ridiculous and/or unconstitutional, there's a pretty decent chance you're gonna get shot.
  - seangrogg 7y ago
    Unless I'm mistaken, the thing you'd be getting shot for is resisting arrest? Which went above and beyond violating the health order that is put in place to try and contain a potentially lethal disease from further spreading?
jladsjfklawe 7y ago
national guard is already being called up in maryland - "oh they won't shoot you" oh really? ken state up in this bitch
Phylter 7y ago
No but it could have the force of law behind it soon. There's no mandate but they're preparing for a case where it might be. Besides, the real issue is if everybody gets sick they can't help their customers and they can't sell their product and that'll cost more money in the long run. Really, they're probably just trying to make sure their business keeps running.

hermitdev 7y ago

My company has pretty much split 50/50 among those that can work remotely in a rotation. I'm in the office this week, will be out next. 1 week in the office, 1 week from home, repeat for as long as necessary. They've also closed the cafeteria. They're still serving food, but you have to take it back to your desk and eat alone. Also no "shared use" utensils. So, the soup and salad bars are still open, but instead of serving yourself, you have to indicate to the kitchen staff what you'd like on your salad. Annoying, but I get it. trying to minimize possible exposure. This is in Illinois. We've also closed restaurants for dine-in and bars are heavily restricted as well. Today, during my commute on the tollways, the signs indicated do not stop at the toll plazas. All of the manned stations are closed. They indicated to either use your I-Pass or pay your missed toll online. I don't think they even want people using the unmanned cash/self-served stations.