4 ms·

Someone needs to take a closer look into this. It feels sketchy. This is an article (from yesterday) based on a pay-walled article (from yesterday, and in a di

Someone needs to take a closer look into this. It feels sketchy. This is an article (from yesterday) based on a pay-walled article (from yesterday, and in a different language), which itself is based on a court decision (from April 2019). This is not related to the current pandemic (which the article vaguely states, but not explicitly). Also, to give you a time-frame: The linked court decision is from April 2019, the legal fight started in 2016 and went over several instances.

xenonite 6y ago
Well, what do you find sketchy about it? a) Of course, a decision from 2019 is not related to the coronavirus lockdown b) the "different language" is German, which is one of the official languages in Switzerland. If you want more sources, albeit also in German: https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/arbeitgeber-muessen-einen-teil-der-wohnungsmiete-uebernehmen-wenn-sie-ihre-mitarbeiter-ins-home-office-schicken-ld.1557921 https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/arbeitgeber-muessen-einen-teil-de... c) the public court decision has also been linked: http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza%3A%2F%2F23-04-2019-4A_533-2018&lang=de&type=show_document http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_do...
- MrGilbert 6y ago
  a) The linked article never states that it is based on an article which is based from a court decision from 2019 - it reads and presents itself as if it applies to the current pandemic "every-body-works-from-home"-situation, where I could imagine a judge would rule different. b) Not my point. Translating from one language to another is prone to loose some information. Whoever did the translation, might have lost some information. However, this cannot be cross checked, as the source article is behind a paywall. c) That's where I got my facts from - not from the article itself.
  - occamrazor 6y ago
    a) It refers to a court decision, and everybody knows that it cannot be related to the current situation because court cases take (much) more than two months. b) Swissinfo is a well-regarded, state-founded website that provides news in several languages. Their translation is probably very good. Tages Anzeiger has a free trial if you want to read the German original.
  - xenonite 6y ago
    On a): I agree that the article should have clearly stated that the verdict is from 2019. As I knew this a priori from reading the news somewhere else first, I didn't notice this vagueness in the article before you wrote about it. Hence, let me thank you for making this clear to all readers here.
malthaus 6y ago
Nothing sketchy, i just linked to the semi-offical english Swiss news-feed. It was distributed in our local languages through all the standard media yesterday and has been the center of discussion in (virtual) office chitchat today. This is real and now Swiss companies have to figure out how to deal with it.
- MrGilbert 6y ago
  "Now"? This decision is from 2019, so they have to deal with it since 2019. Or did I miss something about the swiss legal system? And, if challenged, I'm pretty sure that judges might "judge" different if confronted with the current "state-of-emergency"-kind of situation.
  - malthaus 6y ago
    You are right. Our legal system is a bit different than in the US as we don't have US style case law though (not a lawyer so don't ask me for more details). It was brought up again due to the current situation re home office and adds to the discussion in the country as well as elsewhere i think and is likely to be challenged now by employees with their respective employers.
koheripbal 6y ago
Title should include the year (2019), to make it clear it's not related to current events.

xenonite 6y ago

Well, what do you find sketchy about it? a) Of course, a decision from 2019 is not related to the coronavirus lockdown b) the "different language" is German, which is one of the official languages in Switzerland. If you want more sources, albeit also in German: https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/arbeitgeber-muessen-einen-teil-der-wohnungsmiete-uebernehmen-wenn-sie-ihre-mitarbeiter-ins-home-office-schicken-ld.1557921 https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/arbeitgeber-muessen-einen-teil-de... c) the public court decision has also been linked: http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza%3A%2F%2F23-04-2019-4A_533-2018&lang=de&type=show_document http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_do...

MrGilbert 6y ago
a) The linked article never states that it is based on an article which is based from a court decision from 2019 - it reads and presents itself as if it applies to the current pandemic "every-body-works-from-home"-situation, where I could imagine a judge would rule different. b) Not my point. Translating from one language to another is prone to loose some information. Whoever did the translation, might have lost some information. However, this cannot be cross checked, as the source article is behind a paywall. c) That's where I got my facts from - not from the article itself.
- occamrazor 6y ago
  a) It refers to a court decision, and everybody knows that it cannot be related to the current situation because court cases take (much) more than two months. b) Swissinfo is a well-regarded, state-founded website that provides news in several languages. Their translation is probably very good. Tages Anzeiger has a free trial if you want to read the German original.
- xenonite 6y ago
  On a): I agree that the article should have clearly stated that the verdict is from 2019. As I knew this a priori from reading the news somewhere else first, I didn't notice this vagueness in the article before you wrote about it. Hence, let me thank you for making this clear to all readers here.

malthaus 6y ago

Nothing sketchy, i just linked to the semi-offical english Swiss news-feed. It was distributed in our local languages through all the standard media yesterday and has been the center of discussion in (virtual) office chitchat today. This is real and now Swiss companies have to figure out how to deal with it.

MrGilbert 6y ago
"Now"? This decision is from 2019, so they have to deal with it since 2019. Or did I miss something about the swiss legal system? And, if challenged, I'm pretty sure that judges might "judge" different if confronted with the current "state-of-emergency"-kind of situation.
- malthaus 6y ago
  You are right. Our legal system is a bit different than in the US as we don't have US style case law though (not a lawyer so don't ask me for more details). It was brought up again due to the current situation re home office and adds to the discussion in the country as well as elsewhere i think and is likely to be challenged now by employees with their respective employers.

koheripbal 6y ago

Title should include the year (2019), to make it clear it's not related to current events.