2 ms·

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

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.