"Spying Employers Raise Legal Hackles":
The National Law Journal has this interesting report.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
"Spying Employers Raise Legal Hackles":
The National Law Journal has this interesting report.
|
ContactSubscribe
FeaturesStuff from usAcademic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates Sources on the Second Amendment BlogrollArchivesThe Volokh Conspiracy uses and recommends: |
However, it can easily be abused. Managers often encourage employees to take accrued sick days that would be lost under use-it-or-lose-it policies. .
One remembers the reports of mortgage companies whose their employees instructed applicants what to put on the applications, and who would then claim that compliance with those instructions constituted fraud on the mortgage compny if there was subsequently a problem.
One could imagine employers falling into such a practice. The law should not permit them to benefit if they do so.
Sincerely,
Corkie the Dog
And even setting aside compensation to the employee, there are other costs to the employer. Like holding open a position for someone who's out for up to three months.
I think the surveillance thing goes a bit far. After twelve weeks employees are out of paid leave, and out of protection, and in my experience decide they'd rather not come back at all than face nine full months of having no time off. But then, I hope that all of these companies do a very public, highly visible job of surveillance on their possibly-malingering employees -- this sort of lawsuit, along with emailed layoff notices and such -- is an excellent way of figuring out the creepiness factor of a potential employer.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.