7 ms·

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,

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.

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.