5 ms·

How did she get away with never turning on her camera?

tjr225 4y ago
Well, apparently "she" didn't. She was fired. The thing is, you could potentially make 40-80k(OR MORE!!!) after taxes faking it for six months. I've been thinking about this scam a lot lately. In fact, there's nothing illegal about being a shitty employee for six months which complicates things. There's definitely an opportunity here to make a bunch of money at least pretending to fix this problem. Or maybe capital just decides to bring everyone back into the office.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  Couldn't there be a case for fraud?
  - tjr225 4y ago
    I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. But also what is stopping just any old person from doing this once or twice a year? Is being fireable fraud? I doubt it but again, I’m not a lawyer.
    - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
      In the UK it's 'obtaining a pecuniary gain by deception' the same as lying on your CV. If you're routinely outsourcing parts of your job (because you can't do it yourself) then you've met the standard for prosecution.
      - filoleg 4y ago
        > If you're routinely outsourcing parts of your job (because you can't do it yourself) then you've met the standard for prosecution. I imagine it would be a problem in the US too, just for other reasons probably. You are essentially giving confidential work info to a third party that has no relationship with your employer. Not a lawyer, but I don't see a deception charge for "under-performing and getting fired for it (while having 2 jobs)" faring well in courts. Think about it: if you were performing your work well, despite having 2 jobs, what would the deception be? You promised to deliver work on your own, you deliver it on your own. The other job has no intersection with your other one, they are entirely independent. The only difference between that situation and the same situation but poor performance is literally just your performance. Poor performance doesn't automatically turn that situation into deception.
        Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
        The deception is implicit, when you take on a full time role it's commonly understood that you're declaring that you're dedicating yourself to that role on a full time basis, i.e. that you don't have another full time job. The law is interpreted by human beings, you know, it's not a 'code is law' situation. Remember that a jury would make the final decision. I can see a good lawyer using an argument along the lines of 'well, you said agreed to work FULL time. If a bucket is already FULL would a reasonable person expect the bucket to be able to carry any more load?' and winning.
- astura 4y ago
  >there's nothing illegal about being a shitty employee for six months If there is fraudulent intent it is illegal. The intent is what matters here.
  - tjr225 4y ago
    Assume it is illegal, will your average employer care enough to pursue damages for six months of lost wages? How do you prove the employee wasn’t simply incompetent?
13of40 4y ago
I can't imagine a circumstance where I would compel someone to share a video of themselves when they're apparently not comfortable with it. If she went six months without creating a pull request that would be a different story.
- Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
  >I can't imagine a circumstance where I would compel someone to share a video of themselves when they're apparently not comfortable with it. Wow. I can't imagine contracting work from people (and giving them access to commercial-in-confidence data) and yet not knowing with 100% certainty 100% of the time that the people I'm talking to are the people I'm contracting with, you know, the ones I background-checked, the ones I can hold accountable in court. You know what happened with remote schooling? Teachers didn't demand that pupils turned on their cameras because of the same 'it'll make them uncomfortable' excuse. Result? Kids turned their computers on, their cameras off and played minecraft all day for 18 months. Don't be odd about this. Nothing at all about face to face contact is uncomfortable for adults. That shouldn't be something that's normalised and it's detrimental to society to allow for it. You are literally reading an article that outlines all the negatives about your 'cameras are uncomfortable' mindset and you still haven't twigged? Keep doing it your way, but don't be surprised when you've had your entire company's data exfiltrated and sold to a competitor by the 'person' you were too uncomfortable to ask to appear on video. And don't for one microsecond retain people who mysteriously only produce quality work when 'unsupervised' or 'overnight' or when they're 'on the phone all the time.' Fire them! You have no idea who they're talking to or who's really doing the work. They're not an asset to your company, they're a bullshit artist!
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    Exactly. Turn your damn camera on. It’s rude to not…
    - Mashimo 4y ago
      Might be true for where you work. But it's not universal true. Even in the same company I had teams where no one would turn on their camera and some where everybody would.
kortilla 4y ago
Different companies have different cultures around cameras. At my current company nobody turns on video during any meetings.

Well, apparently "she" didn't. She was fired. The thing is, you could potentially make 40-80k(OR MORE!!!) after taxes faking it for six months. I've been thinking about this scam a lot lately. In fact, there's nothing illegal about being a shitty employee for six months which complicates things. There's definitely an opportunity here to make a bunch of money at least pretending to fix this problem. Or maybe capital just decides to bring everyone back into the office.

EMIRELADERO 4y ago
Couldn't there be a case for fraud?
- tjr225 4y ago
  I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. But also what is stopping just any old person from doing this once or twice a year? Is being fireable fraud? I doubt it but again, I’m not a lawyer.
  - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
    In the UK it's 'obtaining a pecuniary gain by deception' the same as lying on your CV. If you're routinely outsourcing parts of your job (because you can't do it yourself) then you've met the standard for prosecution.
    - filoleg 4y ago
      > If you're routinely outsourcing parts of your job (because you can't do it yourself) then you've met the standard for prosecution. I imagine it would be a problem in the US too, just for other reasons probably. You are essentially giving confidential work info to a third party that has no relationship with your employer. Not a lawyer, but I don't see a deception charge for "under-performing and getting fired for it (while having 2 jobs)" faring well in courts. Think about it: if you were performing your work well, despite having 2 jobs, what would the deception be? You promised to deliver work on your own, you deliver it on your own. The other job has no intersection with your other one, they are entirely independent. The only difference between that situation and the same situation but poor performance is literally just your performance. Poor performance doesn't automatically turn that situation into deception.
      - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
        The deception is implicit, when you take on a full time role it's commonly understood that you're declaring that you're dedicating yourself to that role on a full time basis, i.e. that you don't have another full time job. The law is interpreted by human beings, you know, it's not a 'code is law' situation. Remember that a jury would make the final decision. I can see a good lawyer using an argument along the lines of 'well, you said agreed to work FULL time. If a bucket is already FULL would a reasonable person expect the bucket to be able to carry any more load?' and winning.
astura 4y ago
>there's nothing illegal about being a shitty employee for six months If there is fraudulent intent it is illegal. The intent is what matters here.
- tjr225 4y ago
  Assume it is illegal, will your average employer care enough to pursue damages for six months of lost wages? How do you prove the employee wasn’t simply incompetent?

13of40 4y ago

I can't imagine a circumstance where I would compel someone to share a video of themselves when they're apparently not comfortable with it. If she went six months without creating a pull request that would be a different story.

Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
>I can't imagine a circumstance where I would compel someone to share a video of themselves when they're apparently not comfortable with it. Wow. I can't imagine contracting work from people (and giving them access to commercial-in-confidence data) and yet not knowing with 100% certainty 100% of the time that the people I'm talking to are the people I'm contracting with, you know, the ones I background-checked, the ones I can hold accountable in court. You know what happened with remote schooling? Teachers didn't demand that pupils turned on their cameras because of the same 'it'll make them uncomfortable' excuse. Result? Kids turned their computers on, their cameras off and played minecraft all day for 18 months. Don't be odd about this. Nothing at all about face to face contact is uncomfortable for adults. That shouldn't be something that's normalised and it's detrimental to society to allow for it. You are literally reading an article that outlines all the negatives about your 'cameras are uncomfortable' mindset and you still haven't twigged? Keep doing it your way, but don't be surprised when you've had your entire company's data exfiltrated and sold to a competitor by the 'person' you were too uncomfortable to ask to appear on video. And don't for one microsecond retain people who mysteriously only produce quality work when 'unsupervised' or 'overnight' or when they're 'on the phone all the time.' Fire them! You have no idea who they're talking to or who's really doing the work. They're not an asset to your company, they're a bullshit artist!
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  Exactly. Turn your damn camera on. It’s rude to not…
  - Mashimo 4y ago
    Might be true for where you work. But it's not universal true. Even in the same company I had teams where no one would turn on their camera and some where everybody would.

kortilla 4y ago

Different companies have different cultures around cameras. At my current company nobody turns on video during any meetings.