5 ms·

IMO a business/manager cannot get "consent" from an employee because that employee is always under threat of being fired. Any consent given should be considered

by pc86 3y ago

IMO a business/manager cannot get "consent" from an employee because that employee is always under threat of being fired. Any consent given should be considered under duress, e.g. not actually consent.

reaperman 3y ago
Really need to see more of this attitude in the workplace. I'd like to think it's not controversial but I'm surprised at how often it seems to be overlooked for workplace romances as well.
- pc86 3y ago
  I think it will make a resurgence. In boom times when you could work somewhere for 6 months then go anywhere else and make a 10-15% raise, there was at least some validity in the "if you don't like it, don't work here" argument. But if the employment market tightens, or if a) we actually have a recession and b) it meaningfully affects the tech sector (which seems to be unlikely regardless of the broader economy), you'll see people start to behave as if they can't be guaranteed a job somewhere.
  - backendanon 3y ago
    > you'll see people start to behave as if they can't be guaranteed a job somewhere. I'm trying to follow the thread, are you saying that people who don't want to have every mouse click tracked or their private home network, outside the work VPN searched, are behaving in an entitled manor?
    - pc86 3y ago
      No. It's reasonable to expect some sort of fluidity in what employees are willing to accept from employers, and part of what factors into that is how easy it is to get another job. If it's very difficult to go to another employer, employees will naturally accept more "bad" things from their employers than they might if they could make a phone call and get another job.
    - mikrl 3y ago
      >are you saying that people who don't want… are behaving in an entitled manor? It’s not about entitlement, justice or any of that. This is capitalism. It is about raw power and pragmatism and what one can get away with. When the employee has the upper hand as in a hot market, they have some wiggle room. When the employer has the upper hand, the landscape shifts accordingly. Unions are unpopular in our industry, but are typically how employees in most sectors have increased their power. Employer cartels and the state are how employers increase theirs. Adam Smith covered it all about 250 years ago in the Wealth of Nations, a fantastic read if you can stomach the archaic writing style.
robertlagrant 3y ago
Work is a bilateral voluntary arrangement. If you don't like anything; you leave. If they don't like something and it's a firable offence; they fire you. No one is under duress.
- pc86 3y ago
  I think this would hold up better if refusing to give consent didn't end with you being fired on the spot. All of a sudden with no warning you're now not getting your next paycheck. That sounds like duress to me. I would be much more likely to agree with you if the employer came out and said "here's the new policy, it's being implemented in 6 months. On this date 6 months in the future, you need to sign this form or you're out." That gives you time to make other arrangements, get independent review of the policy, whatever you want.
  - muttled 3y ago
    At the very least, it should factor into a salary negotiation like it would if represented by a union.
- Karellen 3y ago
  That totally ignores the power imbalances between employers and employees. Like how an employee accounts for 1/n of an employer's work capacity (where n can often be large), but an employer typically accounts for 100% of an employee's income. Or how an employer can often delay completing whatever task a particular employee was doing with minimal consequences, but if an employee skips paying rent or other bills then they can get stuck with late fees that are a non-trivial fraction of the actual bills, which they already have trouble paying. And you can't skip buying food for a month and make it up next month. Or how the need to pay for food and rent means that even employers that are widely known to be terrible can often find new employees to take up the slack from somewhere no matter what their turnover rate, but employees who have any kind of negative reputation, or are seen to move jobs "too quickly", can find it hard to find employment again. I find "Work is a bilateral voluntary arrangement" where "No one is under duress" to be an overly-reductive-to-the-point-of-naiveté position.
throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
There's a significant difference between there being an unequal power dynamic, and an actual threat. True equality in any relationship between different humans is almost impossible. There are always differences where one person has more privilege or advantages than the other, and that includes hierarchy, but it also may be caste, religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It cannot be avoided that sometimes two people need to engage in a consent agreement and both of them are not considered "equals". Yet it's still important, perhaps more so, to seek that consent, and respect the denial of it. We shouldn't discount that consent agreement just because the two have an uneven power dynamic, because that will always be there. If on the other hand, an employee has a specific case and evidence for why they are being intimidated, a judge and jury could decide if the extenuating circumstances warrant nullifying a consent agreement. That's basically how things like sexual assault cases are handled. The same logic would apply to business consent agreements. The real difficulty is evidence. Always keep evidence of your treatment at work. Tell other people, send emails, confirm details after calls that you can't legally record.
taneq 3y ago
This seems like a fair point. It's often argued when discussing sex that legitimate consent can't be given by someone at a significant power disadvantage. Employee vs. boss, model vs. talent scout, legal-aged student vs. lecturer. Surely the same should apply for any other intrusion?
marcosdumay 3y ago
Not much of "IMO", this is widely acknowledged on a lot of different contexts. Employers can not get consent from employees. It may be different if it's gathered during the hiring process. The earlier, the more likely it is to make a difference. But just to point it out: on many countries employers do not need consent, often they just need acknowledgement. That one they can get, by doing exactly the things that are on the article.
- muttled 3y ago
  Reminds me of an old boss telling us "this isn't a 40 hour a week job" and I said to him "I'll agree if you put that in the job postings, before salary negotiations."
  - alkonaut 3y ago
    I'd probably also say "no problem I don't think I ever worked a 40 hour week in my life"...
avnigo 3y ago
After speaking with an EU Data Protection Commissioner (IANAL), it is my understanding that in the EU this would not be just your opinion, but also the law. Due to the power imbalance between you and your employer, it is not possible to consent to data collection, unless that data collection is governed by some other law. A quick search also yielded this: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rights-citizens/how-my-personal-data-protected/can-my-employer-require-me-give-my-consent-use-my-personal-data_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...

by pc86 3y ago

reaperman 3y ago

Really need to see more of this attitude in the workplace. I'd like to think it's not controversial but I'm surprised at how often it seems to be overlooked for workplace romances as well.

pc86 3y ago
I think it will make a resurgence. In boom times when you could work somewhere for 6 months then go anywhere else and make a 10-15% raise, there was at least some validity in the "if you don't like it, don't work here" argument. But if the employment market tightens, or if a) we actually have a recession and b) it meaningfully affects the tech sector (which seems to be unlikely regardless of the broader economy), you'll see people start to behave as if they can't be guaranteed a job somewhere.
- backendanon 3y ago
  > you'll see people start to behave as if they can't be guaranteed a job somewhere. I'm trying to follow the thread, are you saying that people who don't want to have every mouse click tracked or their private home network, outside the work VPN searched, are behaving in an entitled manor?
  - pc86 3y ago
    No. It's reasonable to expect some sort of fluidity in what employees are willing to accept from employers, and part of what factors into that is how easy it is to get another job. If it's very difficult to go to another employer, employees will naturally accept more "bad" things from their employers than they might if they could make a phone call and get another job.
  - mikrl 3y ago
    >are you saying that people who don't want… are behaving in an entitled manor? It’s not about entitlement, justice or any of that. This is capitalism. It is about raw power and pragmatism and what one can get away with. When the employee has the upper hand as in a hot market, they have some wiggle room. When the employer has the upper hand, the landscape shifts accordingly. Unions are unpopular in our industry, but are typically how employees in most sectors have increased their power. Employer cartels and the state are how employers increase theirs. Adam Smith covered it all about 250 years ago in the Wealth of Nations, a fantastic read if you can stomach the archaic writing style.

robertlagrant 3y ago

Work is a bilateral voluntary arrangement. If you don't like anything; you leave. If they don't like something and it's a firable offence; they fire you. No one is under duress.

pc86 3y ago
I think this would hold up better if refusing to give consent didn't end with you being fired on the spot. All of a sudden with no warning you're now not getting your next paycheck. That sounds like duress to me. I would be much more likely to agree with you if the employer came out and said "here's the new policy, it's being implemented in 6 months. On this date 6 months in the future, you need to sign this form or you're out." That gives you time to make other arrangements, get independent review of the policy, whatever you want.
- muttled 3y ago
  At the very least, it should factor into a salary negotiation like it would if represented by a union.
Karellen 3y ago
That totally ignores the power imbalances between employers and employees. Like how an employee accounts for 1/n of an employer's work capacity (where n can often be large), but an employer typically accounts for 100% of an employee's income. Or how an employer can often delay completing whatever task a particular employee was doing with minimal consequences, but if an employee skips paying rent or other bills then they can get stuck with late fees that are a non-trivial fraction of the actual bills, which they already have trouble paying. And you can't skip buying food for a month and make it up next month. Or how the need to pay for food and rent means that even employers that are widely known to be terrible can often find new employees to take up the slack from somewhere no matter what their turnover rate, but employees who have any kind of negative reputation, or are seen to move jobs "too quickly", can find it hard to find employment again. I find "Work is a bilateral voluntary arrangement" where "No one is under duress" to be an overly-reductive-to-the-point-of-naiveté position.

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago

There's a significant difference between there being an unequal power dynamic, and an actual threat. True equality in any relationship between different humans is almost impossible. There are always differences where one person has more privilege or advantages than the other, and that includes hierarchy, but it also may be caste, religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It cannot be avoided that sometimes two people need to engage in a consent agreement and both of them are not considered "equals". Yet it's still important, perhaps more so, to seek that consent, and respect the denial of it. We shouldn't discount that consent agreement just because the two have an uneven power dynamic, because that will always be there. If on the other hand, an employee has a specific case and evidence for why they are being intimidated, a judge and jury could decide if the extenuating circumstances warrant nullifying a consent agreement. That's basically how things like sexual assault cases are handled. The same logic would apply to business consent agreements. The real difficulty is evidence. Always keep evidence of your treatment at work. Tell other people, send emails, confirm details after calls that you can't legally record.

taneq 3y ago

This seems like a fair point. It's often argued when discussing sex that legitimate consent can't be given by someone at a significant power disadvantage. Employee vs. boss, model vs. talent scout, legal-aged student vs. lecturer. Surely the same should apply for any other intrusion?

marcosdumay 3y ago

Not much of "IMO", this is widely acknowledged on a lot of different contexts. Employers can not get consent from employees. It may be different if it's gathered during the hiring process. The earlier, the more likely it is to make a difference. But just to point it out: on many countries employers do not need consent, often they just need acknowledgement. That one they can get, by doing exactly the things that are on the article.

muttled 3y ago
Reminds me of an old boss telling us "this isn't a 40 hour a week job" and I said to him "I'll agree if you put that in the job postings, before salary negotiations."
- alkonaut 3y ago
  I'd probably also say "no problem I don't think I ever worked a 40 hour week in my life"...

avnigo 3y ago

After speaking with an EU Data Protection Commissioner (IANAL), it is my understanding that in the EU this would not be just your opinion, but also the law. Due to the power imbalance between you and your employer, it is not possible to consent to data collection, unless that data collection is governed by some other law. A quick search also yielded this: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rights-citizens/how-my-personal-data-protected/can-my-employer-require-me-give-my-consent-use-my-personal-data_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...