3 ms·

I'm confused. Granted, the whole article surprised me. It seems to imply that - up to now - employees were sometimes required to use their own devices for _wor

I'm confused. Granted, the whole article surprised me. It seems to imply that - up to now - employees were sometimes required to use their own devices for _work_ and for their employer and .. had to pay that out of their own pocket. Ignoring the bigger fear that you seem to have about California's future, how is this particular case not a direct improvement - and braindead if you think about it. I just assumed this would be the way it works ~everywhere~. Company requires you to use your car/phone/internet connection and .. needs to pay for the use of your car/phone/internet connection. Wrapping up: Are you seriously unhappy about this particular ruling/article or is your fear a general thing and only tangentially related/merely targeted at the praising comment above you?

robomartin 12y ago
Sorry, you misunderstood, my fault. I was only reacting to the comment about California being a place where employees are not abused. One could very well argue that CA abuses everyone, not just employees. How much do you pay in taxes, all taxes, not just income tax? It's huge. Take a a look at our freeways, they are utterly destroyed and being maintained badly. There's a portion of the 5 I travel every day where you have about two miles of seriously messed up road. The two right lanes are kidney killing. This is a tax. How? Your car gets beat up and your cost of maintenance goes up. Where is all that money we pay in taxes to maintain our highways? Stolen to pay ridiculous pensions to government workers. With regards to the phone ruling. Well, I've been paying a portion of my employee's phone bills for, well, I don't know, two decades. Didn't know we had to legislate common sense and decency.