4 ms·

I don't agree. Which laws? Putting it in the contract is giving your permission. You're allowed to give your permission under GDPR. A similar thing happened wi

I don't agree. Which laws? Putting it in the contract is giving your permission. You're allowed to give your permission under GDPR. A similar thing happened with the Working Time Directive - almost all contracts in my country make you agree to opt-out and that's been like that for over 15 years

fsflover 1y ago
> Putting it in the contract is giving your permission. You're allowed to give your permission under GDPR. AFAIK the company must make it opt-in, non-mandatory and provide a way to change your mind at any moment.
- octo888 1y ago
  Yes, as I said, by putting it in the employment contract when applying for a job. Honestly it's hilarious how some people view GDPR. They think CEOs lose sleep at night worrying about it, that they might go to jail for it, or have to pay 100M Euro fine for a breach of it. It's simply not the case. The reality of EU directives and regulations are very different to how they are sold. Many people fall prey to the marketing
  - croes 1y ago
    There are many much older privacy laws then just GDPR.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    > Many people fall prey to the marketing It seems you did fall prey to the anti-GDPR marketing. It's being actually enforced [0] and doesn't allow "all or nothing" pseudo-consent [1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39813801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39813801 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39272861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39272861; (upd:) an even better link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40974361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40974361
    - octo888 1y ago
      I'm not implying or stating no fines are issued, so linking that some fines are issued is not a rebuttal. Also note that site does not track payments made. The big headline fines serve as a nice bit of PR for the EU > It seems you did fall prey to the anti-GDPR marketing. Nice retort but I have not. Being critical of EU regulations and not an EU sycophant is not falling prey to "anti-GDPR" marketing. I'm actually generally pro EU; I'm just tired of people (especially non-Europeans) implying we have absolute privacy, zero privacy issues, total wins against corporations etc.
      - fsflover 1y ago
        > Being critical of EU regulations and not an EU sycophant is not falling prey to "anti-GDPR" marketing. This is not "being critical": >> Yes, as I said, by putting it in the employment contract when applying for a job. It's a plain wrong interpretation of GDPR, as my links explain. > I'm just tired of people (especially non-Europeans) implying we have absolute privacy, zero privacy issues, total wins against corporations etc. Where did I (or somebody else) imply that?
gampleman 1y ago
That's not how European courts have been interpreting it. When they say "free consent" they do mean free as in beer, so a "consent or loose your job" provisions would almost certainly be thrown out.
- octo888 1y ago
  What job is being lost when you are applying for a new job? > That's not how European courts have been interpreting it Any particular relevant cases I can lookup?
  - amiga386 1y ago
    Firstly, the WTD makes mandatory a number of things that cannot be opted out from. The only thing opt-outable is the maximum of 48 hours work per week on average, and it is left to member states to legislate how that opt-out works (should they choose to have the opt-out at all). In the UK, to pick a specific example, it is a combination of some workers not being allowed a choice of opt-out (e.g. healthcare workers, self-employed, "gig workers"), some union workers derogating that right to their unions collective bargaining... but for every other worker, the 48 hours is the law. You cannot mandate it in a contract. You can't advertise a job where you set the hours and those hours are on average over 48 hours per week. It's not a valid job and you are immediately in breach of statutory law. https://www.acas.org.uk/working-time-rules/the-48-hour-weekly-maximum https://www.acas.org.uk/working-time-rules/the-48-hour-weekl... https://www.acas.org.uk/working-time-rules/jobs-with-different-working-time-rules https://www.acas.org.uk/working-time-rules/jobs-with-differe... > Any particular relevant cases I can lookup? You'll have to look at member states cases, it's on them to define how the opt-out works. One example: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61123e81e90e0706d023d80a/Mrs_H_McMahon_v_Heron_Financial_Limited_-_3324837-2019-_Reserved_Judgment.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61123e81e90e0... "In respect of the 48 hour week the claimant had not signed an opt out and as such if the claimant was working in excess of 48 hours average across the week then her right was being infringed. It is not in dispute that this is a statutory right capable of protection." UK's Employment Rights Act 1996 section 101A: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/101A https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/101A

fsflover 1y ago

> Putting it in the contract is giving your permission. You're allowed to give your permission under GDPR. AFAIK the company must make it opt-in, non-mandatory and provide a way to change your mind at any moment.

octo888 1y ago
Yes, as I said, by putting it in the employment contract when applying for a job. Honestly it's hilarious how some people view GDPR. They think CEOs lose sleep at night worrying about it, that they might go to jail for it, or have to pay 100M Euro fine for a breach of it. It's simply not the case. The reality of EU directives and regulations are very different to how they are sold. Many people fall prey to the marketing
- croes 1y ago
  There are many much older privacy laws then just GDPR.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > Many people fall prey to the marketing It seems you did fall prey to the anti-GDPR marketing. It's being actually enforced [0] and doesn't allow "all or nothing" pseudo-consent [1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39813801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39813801 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39272861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39272861; (upd:) an even better link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40974361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40974361
  - octo888 1y ago
    I'm not implying or stating no fines are issued, so linking that some fines are issued is not a rebuttal. Also note that site does not track payments made. The big headline fines serve as a nice bit of PR for the EU > It seems you did fall prey to the anti-GDPR marketing. Nice retort but I have not. Being critical of EU regulations and not an EU sycophant is not falling prey to "anti-GDPR" marketing. I'm actually generally pro EU; I'm just tired of people (especially non-Europeans) implying we have absolute privacy, zero privacy issues, total wins against corporations etc.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      > Being critical of EU regulations and not an EU sycophant is not falling prey to "anti-GDPR" marketing. This is not "being critical": >> Yes, as I said, by putting it in the employment contract when applying for a job. It's a plain wrong interpretation of GDPR, as my links explain. > I'm just tired of people (especially non-Europeans) implying we have absolute privacy, zero privacy issues, total wins against corporations etc. Where did I (or somebody else) imply that?

gampleman 1y ago

That's not how European courts have been interpreting it. When they say "free consent" they do mean free as in beer, so a "consent or loose your job" provisions would almost certainly be thrown out.

octo888 1y ago
What job is being lost when you are applying for a new job? > That's not how European courts have been interpreting it Any particular relevant cases I can lookup?
- amiga386 1y ago
  Firstly, the WTD makes mandatory a number of things that cannot be opted out from. The only thing opt-outable is the maximum of 48 hours work per week on average, and it is left to member states to legislate how that opt-out works (should they choose to have the opt-out at all). In the UK, to pick a specific example, it is a combination of some workers not being allowed a choice of opt-out (e.g. healthcare workers, self-employed, "gig workers"), some union workers derogating that right to their unions collective bargaining... but for every other worker, the 48 hours is the law. You cannot mandate it in a contract. You can't advertise a job where you set the hours and those hours are on average over 48 hours per week. It's not a valid job and you are immediately in breach of statutory law. https://www.acas.org.uk/working-time-rules/the-48-hour-weekly-maximum https://www.acas.org.uk/working-time-rules/the-48-hour-weekl... https://www.acas.org.uk/working-time-rules/jobs-with-different-working-time-rules https://www.acas.org.uk/working-time-rules/jobs-with-differe... > Any particular relevant cases I can lookup? You'll have to look at member states cases, it's on them to define how the opt-out works. One example: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61123e81e90e0706d023d80a/Mrs_H_McMahon_v_Heron_Financial_Limited_-_3324837-2019-_Reserved_Judgment.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61123e81e90e0... "In respect of the 48 hour week the claimant had not signed an opt out and as such if the claimant was working in excess of 48 hours average across the week then her right was being infringed. It is not in dispute that this is a statutory right capable of protection." UK's Employment Rights Act 1996 section 101A: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/101A https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/101A