3 ms·

I'll be the pedant that tries to split hairs: Did you agree to a BYOD policy that specifies you must provide a device that runs required corporate software? If

I'll be the pedant that tries to split hairs: Did you agree to a BYOD policy that specifies you must provide a device that runs required corporate software? If so: your fault, you need to provide that device regardless of your moral aversion to Windows. Did you agree to a BYOD policy, but the policy didn't account for required software? If so: their fault, they need to update their policy so that people actually bring the appropriate devices. Do they not have any BYOD policy? If so: their fault, they should probably be providing a device because they didn't specify any requirement at all. Did I miss any scenarios? Ultimately my response is that this person needs to go back to their employee handbook or onboarding documentation and see what was required of them.

Retric 3y ago
Employee handbooks / onboarding documentation beyond an offer letter don’t always exist.
- brendoelfrendo 3y ago
  That would seem really weird to me in a BYOD situation. When you comingle business and personal devices, both parties can open themselves up to liability unless they set expectations in advance. Heck, in California BYOD may require you reimburse your employees for the use of their devices, depending on what your expectations are and how you word it, so a well-written policy is basically essential. I don't necessarily disagree with you that the documentation might not exist, but to me that would indicate that the people running the business don't really know what they're doing. Does it make a difference, legally? I'm not sure! I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say.
VincentEvans 3y ago
You don’t deserve the downvotes and I will upvote you. Setting aside childish “but it’s not fair!” arguments this inevitably attracts - is the poster asking for us to assign “fault” based on a legal definition or some ill-defined moral code one? Employment contract will define the former. Outside the legal fault my interpretation of facts is - they don’t want to employ you anymore because they don’t feel like dealing with your crap and you are not valuable enough where they would rather go through the inconvenience of finding your replacement rather than tolerate the hassle off putting up with you. Personally as an employee - I wouldn’t like it either and would probably find another job. As an employer - I would also get rid of an employee if their contribution does not outweigh the costs of keeping them, both tangible and intangible.
- brendoelfrendo 3y ago
  I didn't realize I had downvotes; thanks, though. I think that there is a disconnect here, and agree that the answer is likely different if you approach from a legal or moral framework. From a moral standpoint, no, I don't think it's unreasonable to tell your employer to pound sand when they ask you to install spyware on your personal machine. But that might get you fired, and whether or not they were allowed to do so is a legal question, not a moral one. "Employment contracts" are a rarity in the United States (except in the case of contract work), but yeah, I'd expect a business to have some expectations and requirements set in advance, especially if they're expecting employees to BYOD. If they don't, then that might be a red flag that the business doesn't know how to run a business.

Retric 3y ago

Employee handbooks / onboarding documentation beyond an offer letter don’t always exist.

brendoelfrendo 3y ago
That would seem really weird to me in a BYOD situation. When you comingle business and personal devices, both parties can open themselves up to liability unless they set expectations in advance. Heck, in California BYOD may require you reimburse your employees for the use of their devices, depending on what your expectations are and how you word it, so a well-written policy is basically essential. I don't necessarily disagree with you that the documentation might not exist, but to me that would indicate that the people running the business don't really know what they're doing. Does it make a difference, legally? I'm not sure! I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say.

VincentEvans 3y ago

You don’t deserve the downvotes and I will upvote you. Setting aside childish “but it’s not fair!” arguments this inevitably attracts - is the poster asking for us to assign “fault” based on a legal definition or some ill-defined moral code one? Employment contract will define the former. Outside the legal fault my interpretation of facts is - they don’t want to employ you anymore because they don’t feel like dealing with your crap and you are not valuable enough where they would rather go through the inconvenience of finding your replacement rather than tolerate the hassle off putting up with you. Personally as an employee - I wouldn’t like it either and would probably find another job. As an employer - I would also get rid of an employee if their contribution does not outweigh the costs of keeping them, both tangible and intangible.

brendoelfrendo 3y ago
I didn't realize I had downvotes; thanks, though. I think that there is a disconnect here, and agree that the answer is likely different if you approach from a legal or moral framework. From a moral standpoint, no, I don't think it's unreasonable to tell your employer to pound sand when they ask you to install spyware on your personal machine. But that might get you fired, and whether or not they were allowed to do so is a legal question, not a moral one. "Employment contracts" are a rarity in the United States (except in the case of contract work), but yeah, I'd expect a business to have some expectations and requirements set in advance, especially if they're expecting employees to BYOD. If they don't, then that might be a red flag that the business doesn't know how to run a business.