2208
Work from home
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
2208 points (100.0% liked)
Malicious Compliance
19660 readers
1 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You said "No matter what app it is" which is the point of my confusion. So you actually meant "apps that use data", that's fair enough, thank you for the clarification.
Yeah, that's what I thought, that the employer is required to provide a work phone if they require the usage of an app. But you are saying they can refuse as long as they reimburse data, which doesn't even help if the app doesn't use data. How is that "refusal of a legal obligation" working?
This is the part that I'm not getting. So are they legally obligated or are they allowed to refuse like you say. It can't be both ways.
It doesn't matter if it's apps that use data or apps that don't use data. If your employer requires you to install an app on your personal phone, you can refuse. It is your legal right. If you choose to exercise your legal rights, your employer must provide you with an alternative method that doesn't involve your personal phone. Whatever they choose.
If you agree to installing a work related app on your personal phone, you must be compensated. If they refuse to compensate, you're back to square one. They must provide you alternatives.
If your employer refuses to supply you with the tools to complete your job and/or refuse to compensate personal phone use for work related reasons, they are breaking the law. If they fire you for exercising your rights, it's unlawful termination.
Here's an example: My employer started requiring 2FA for the computer logins. They wanted me to install an app by Cisco. I said no. You can provide a locked down phone that can be used for the sole purpose of 2FA. They declined as that isn't in their budget and "unnecessary". They later came back with a little keychain that's bound to my account. I press a button on the keychain and get the 2FA code. I can do my job and they did their job and gave me the tools to do so.
Ok, so it's not that they can refuse to provide a device, it's that if you voluntarily agree to use your personal device, then they have to provide compensation (for the data, etc.). Your original comment said they can refuse to provide a device, hence my confusion.
No, they can still refuse to provide a device as my original comment states. Since my employer refused to do so, they came up with an alternative without any additional input from me. They completely side stepped the app requirement by using a little key chain once they reached out to Cisco. Your employer has options. They have to find out what works best to make sure you can do the job they have hired you to do.
Ok, so they refused, but provided an alternative to the app. Makes sense!
Just look at it as wear and tear. Doesn't matter how miniscule it may be it's still eating up your storage and battery life in addition to battery charge. Sure you could charge at work too for battery charge but as miniscule as it is it's still killing your battery life.
Also, don't give corporations any leeway because they WILL take advantage of the employee given the chance. For every single rule and regulation that helps the employee someone had to spill blood to achieve it.
That's what I think, which is why I'm asking icedterminal where did they get the info that the employer can refuse to provide a phone, it doesn't seem right to me.
Maybe in their country? Weird one.