| ▲ | SR2Z 4 hours ago | |||||||||||||
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... | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | 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? | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||