3 ms·
That might fly in an at-will state, but in the UK it's going to end up at an employment tribunal. "Agree or be fired" falls down if the law strictly regulates h
by jdietrich 3y ago
That might fly in an at-will state, but in the UK it's going to end up at an employment tribunal. "Agree or be fired" falls down if the law strictly regulates how, when and why someone can be fired and those laws are readily enforced. An employee asserting their statutory rights is absolutely not a legitimate grounds for dismissal.
The Data Protection Act does allow for monitoring without consent, but only where that monitoring is specific and limited to an absolutely necessary purpose that overrides the rights of the data subject: for example, the detection and prevention of crime, the protection of life or limb, or the fulfilment of a legal obligation. For any other purpose, consent must be given; for that consent to be valid, it must be fully informed, freely given and freely revocable. Where consent is relied upon as the basis for data processing, the burden of proof is upon the data processor to demonstrate that the consent was legitimately given.
- Jochim 3y agoIt won't in most cases. People either don't know or don't want to risk their job for the possibility of a payout at tribunal. That's assuming the employee is even aware that they're being monitored in the first place.
- verve_rat 3y agoMostly it will be rolled out over time. Not "agree or be fired" but rather "agree or don't get hired". It will become a standard cause in employment contracts that people will be "free" to negotiate, just like everyone "negotiates" their employment contracts now.
- linster 3y agoYes, a voice of commonwealth reason. Not everywhere is an at-will employment type of place, and it’s refreshing to see people be reminded that employee rights exist in parts of the world and that employment isn’t a one-way street.
- Der_Einzige 3y agoAll of the USA except sort of Montana is an “at will” state and even Montana is basically “at will”.