Companies usually pay you for your time and have an expectation that your butt is in a seat for a certain number of hours. Completing your work early generally does not mean that you can fuck off for the rest of the day or week.

▲

laughing_man a minute ago | parent | next [-]

It really depends on your job. If you're a non-exempt worker and getting paid by the hour this is true.

But exempt workers, i.e. salaried, are getting paid to do a job. They are not getting paid to be at a certain place for a certain number of hours.

▲

SR2Z 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No. Your employment is most likely at-will, and if you are a salaried employee it's because you're evaluated on your output and not the time you spend in your seat.

This is a constructive dismissal. If she was hourly, sure, being on camera makes sense. But if you are salaried and some clown in HR decides that they want to make sure you're working 40 hours but WON'T pay you any overtime or judge you on your output, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.

The outrage is justified. If it mattered for her job then no AI monitoring would be needed.

▲

astura 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> if you are a salaried employee it's because you're evaluated on your output and not the time you spend in your seat

This is just patiently false, it's common for salaried employees to have required hours.

https://www.inc.com/alison-green/my-employee-says-i-cant-sto...

	▲	SR2Z 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, obviously. Your company can't just suddenly drastically change them on you without it being a constructive dismissal. This is not a new concept. Companies have been trying to dodge unemployment claims by making people's jobs so bad that they quit since forever. It's very easy to prove and will be seen as a firing by the courts.

▲

what 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

At will has nothing to do with it.

Obviously there is no minimum number of hours you must work when salaried, but it’s obviously the expectation. You likely know this which is why you are against them tracking how much time you actually spend working. If they knew the work only took you 10 hours, would they still want to pay such an inflated salary?

	▲	cowlevel 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If it took 80 hours would they pay you more? Turnabout is fair play.
	▲	SR2Z 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Maybe they wouldn't! But OTOH the profit margin on an iPhone is still like 50% and people buy them all the time. Salaries keep going up. I negotiated my salary with competing offers. If my company decides, after negotiating from a position of strength with their eyes open, that my salary is too high... that's a "them" problem. Doubly so if I had been employed for eight years and they've never complained. The courts will treat it like a firing done for no reason at all (i.e. at-will employment). I personally shudder to think of staffing a company with the kinds of people who would put up with this nonsense, but the beauty of capitalism is that companies face financial consequences for driving off good employees.

▲

code_duck 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's a problem with how companies see employment, rather than a description of how it should work. This leads to employees basically pretending to work, like in school how a teacher would assign us useless task sheets and call it "busy work".

	▲	astura 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's been my experience that the people who pretend to work do so no matter how much real work they have.

▲

etblg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ok but that's still stupid as shit so what's your point?

▲

PepegaRoach 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]