4 ms·

Laws agains this kind of workplace environments seem best long term. Still, with the source being one “we were told” I guess we’re not sure if this is this off

by thih9 2y ago

Laws agains this kind of workplace environments seem best long term. Still, with the source being one “we were told” I guess we’re not sure if this is this official; this could be a manager’s threat or someone’s inaccurate understanding of what the camera is actually monitoring. Ventriloquism, face masks or humming in the meantime then. Or quitting, like the author of the linked post - perhaps best for now.

refulgentis 2y ago
> Still, with the source being one “we were told” This is not true. It makes me very itchy to see 2 comments in a row using innuendo and deconstructing sourcing in an erroneous way.
- rexer 2y ago
  How do you find those comments erroneous?
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    Here, there is not one source saying “we were told” The other handwaves about "rehashing" to wave away Freight Waves, while linking to comments on Reddit. You imply there's only one comment that says "we were told" The other also implies the claim is they cannot listen to the radio.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      It seems you are referring to my comment in some of those (and apologies if you're not) but my comment was not about waving away any point Freight Waves makes or says entirely but about which link the discussion should start around (which itself was far more about Jalopnik than Freight Waves). Nor was it implying anything about how many comments were on Reddit (or elsewhere) about it, just how it started and a recommendation people should read from there out instead of Jalopnik down. Dang has since changed the link to Freight Waves directly which is enough I probably wouldn't have bothered commenting. As noted elsewhere, I did make a grave error in saying listen instead of sing to when writing the comment and by the time someone mentioned it it was too late to edit the comment. A great example of why you want to base discussion off of sources closer to the original first :).
zamadatix 2y ago
I commented it elsewhere but it can be tough to balance general laws like that. E.g. right now, if an employer is aware people wear face masks so they can chat on the phone while they drive then the current set of laws allows a lot of liability to be placed on the employer when such accidents occur due to not taking safety seriously enough. Putting a general rule that an employer can't do this sort of thing then runs the risk of employers saying all sorts of things were for the workplace environment compliance, not safety negligence on their part. Putting specific rule exceptions instead becomes daunting to define, keep updated, and understand (for employees as much as employers). I'm not saying some of this kind of thing can't be better served by some different laws, just it's probably not as easy to solve with a "quick" law or these other approaches as it might seem.

by thih9 2y ago

refulgentis 2y ago

> Still, with the source being one “we were told” This is not true. It makes me very itchy to see 2 comments in a row using innuendo and deconstructing sourcing in an erroneous way.

rexer 2y ago
How do you find those comments erroneous?
- refulgentis 2y ago
  Here, there is not one source saying “we were told” The other handwaves about "rehashing" to wave away Freight Waves, while linking to comments on Reddit. You imply there's only one comment that says "we were told" The other also implies the claim is they cannot listen to the radio.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    It seems you are referring to my comment in some of those (and apologies if you're not) but my comment was not about waving away any point Freight Waves makes or says entirely but about which link the discussion should start around (which itself was far more about Jalopnik than Freight Waves). Nor was it implying anything about how many comments were on Reddit (or elsewhere) about it, just how it started and a recommendation people should read from there out instead of Jalopnik down. Dang has since changed the link to Freight Waves directly which is enough I probably wouldn't have bothered commenting. As noted elsewhere, I did make a grave error in saying listen instead of sing to when writing the comment and by the time someone mentioned it it was too late to edit the comment. A great example of why you want to base discussion off of sources closer to the original first :).

zamadatix 2y ago

I commented it elsewhere but it can be tough to balance general laws like that. E.g. right now, if an employer is aware people wear face masks so they can chat on the phone while they drive then the current set of laws allows a lot of liability to be placed on the employer when such accidents occur due to not taking safety seriously enough. Putting a general rule that an employer can't do this sort of thing then runs the risk of employers saying all sorts of things were for the workplace environment compliance, not safety negligence on their part. Putting specific rule exceptions instead becomes daunting to define, keep updated, and understand (for employees as much as employers). I'm not saying some of this kind of thing can't be better served by some different laws, just it's probably not as easy to solve with a "quick" law or these other approaches as it might seem.