Employer Policies and Teleworking

[C-dub]

Uh oh, I hope my company cannot activate the camera on my laptop. They would be in for a

[GrillKing]

Uh oh, I hope my company cannot activate the camera on my laptop. They would be in for a

I taped over mine!

[Dave2]

Uh oh, I hope my company cannot activate the camera on my laptop. They would be in for a

If you're not joking then tape over it as GrillKing did and figure out if there's a way to tell if it's being used. For instance, IIRC Apple's laptops have a green LED that lights up when the camera is on.

[SewTexas]

Uh oh, I hope my company cannot activate the camera on my laptop. They would be in for a

I taped over mine!

that's what my husband did, and it's his company's computer

I'd like to see them come inspect our home....they're in WA or MA, both

[RottenApple]

Uh oh, I hope my company cannot activate the camera on my laptop. They would be in for a

I taped over mine!

I did the same with my work iMac. Whenever we had a video conference, my camera was on the fritz. Worked great till they sent me a couple of brand new 27"ers. Then I just turned my desk so all they could see was a wall. Course, I never had anything to hide anyway, and they never just turned it on remotely. Just for conferences/meetings.

[apostate]

Here's an interesting hypothetical - What if they included valid 30.06 wording in employment documents that you sign for your work at home job?

If rent your house or apartment from your employer, it might be valid. Otherwise, probably not. (IMHO & IANAL)

Here's why I say that. One can only violate 30.06 "on property of another" so if you own your home, no problem. Even if you rent, valid 30.06 notice can only be given by "the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner" so unless your employer is also your landlord, you're probably safe there too. Finally, there's that whole "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" thing.

Of course, it's Texas so they can fire at will without cause, but I suspect we already beat that particular horse to death.

[jimlongley]

When I was in a job where I teleworked, I had a tendency to do middle of the night tech support clad in just what I went to bed in, except I added a terry cloth wrap for modesty around my (adult) step daughter.

Our teleworking requirements were rudimentary at best, we were actually pioneering and field trialing the concept, so there was not even a requirement for us to provide a particular space, you could set up your laptop in the bathroom for all they cared, much less for them to inspect it, or the rest of the house. It would have been interesting to go on those inspection field trips though, one of our techs lived in rural Oklahoma, another near Longview, and one in Corsicana.

The day I was laid off, along with 2/3 of the rest of the company, my laptop was at home, and it took me about two weeks to return it, along with a whole cart of other stuff, including ISDN router and such things. BTW, I got told by a former co-worker some time later, that the company had never canceled my ISDN line, so they paid for an unterminated line (23B+D) in a yellow alarm condition for months.

We didn't have video in our laptops (who would have thoouught that was possible?) so seeing how we were dressed, if we were dressed, was not an issue, but background noise, the kids playing or the wife wanting you to get off the phone and mow the lawn, was.

[C-dub]

Here's an interesting hypothetical - What if they included valid 30.06 wording in employment documents that you sign for your work at home job?

Which law overrides which?

My company has no control over my home, so I can't imagine that being enforceable or grounds for legitimate termination. And before anyone brings up the fire you for any reason thing, we all know that's not completely true. And my company meticulously documents why someone is terminated to avoid wrongful termination lawsuits or charges of discrimination. they could do it without giving a reason, but I would be shocked if they ever did that because they haven't so far.

[seamusTX]

And before anyone brings up the fire you for any reason thing, we all know that's not completely true.

People who repeat that phrase without thinking about it, perhaps don't know that the company may have to pay unemployment when they fire someone for no reason.

That is why nearly all firings are for some documented violation of policy. It's easy enough to cook up a policy violation. Just assign the person several impossible things to do in a short period of time.

I have trouble imagining an employer being stupid enough to search an employee's home for things that were not directly work-related, but there are a lot of stupid people in management. At a company where I worked years ago (which no longer exists), an employee was accused of theft. They got a search warrant for his house. According to rumor they didn't find anything.

- Jim

[jimlongley]

I have trouble imagining an employer being stupid enough to search an employee's home for things that were not directly work-related, but there are a lot of stupid people in management. At a company where I worked years ago (which no longer exists), an employee was accused of theft. They got a search warrant for his house. According to rumor they didn't find anything.

- Jim

I can easily not only imagine, but remember. NY Telephone's policy in those days was that if you were employed by the company, in return for lifetime job security, you allowed the access to your home, personal vehicle, etc. One time an employee was suspected of theft of company property, and in the company of police officers, security entered the employee's home. They did not find the items that he had stolen, and he had stolen them, but they found other items that they were not looking for, and although the police refused to arrest him, his employment was terminated.

Wouldn't happen in today's environment, not much anyway, but much less likely anyway.

[seamusTX]

With the move toward making more people contractors instead of direct employees, employers can set almost any kind of work conditions that are not explicitly illegal, and terminate the contract without paying unemployment or severance.

However, that does not seem to be the OP's situation.

There is a lot of tension with company-owned computers, cell phones, and internet connections. Company policies typically prohibit using company assets for non-business purposes except for "occasional" personal use. I've heard of many people being fired for looking at porn at work or excessive social media use (Facebook, etc.). Also people have been fired for sexual harassment in the form of sending dirty jokes, photo, videos, or voice mail messages.

- Jim

[TexasCajun]

With the move toward making more people contractors instead of direct employees, employers can set almost any kind of work conditions that are not explicitly illegal, and terminate the contract without paying unemployment or severance.

However, that does not seem to be the OP's situation.

There is a lot of tension with company-owned computers, cell phones, and internet connections. Company policies typically prohibit using company assets for non-business purposes except for "occasional" personal use. I've heard of many people being fired for looking at porn at work or excessive social media use (Facebook, etc.). Also people have been fired for sexual harassment in the form of sending dirty jokes, photo, videos, or voice mail messages.

- Jim

There's a big difference between using company assets for personal use & a company trying to regulate what a person can keep in their home. As I said earlier, I don't think a company can legally prohibit possession of lawful items in a personal residence. I also don't believe they can search your residence without cause. They can create whatever policy that they want to, but creating policy is different than enforcing it.

[seamusTX]

There's a big difference between using company assets for personal use & a company trying to regulate what a person can keep in their home.

That is correct. I mentioned misuse of company assets as a common reason for dismissal.

However, a company can decline to hire people who use tobacco products - which is completely legal. I worked for a company like that and had to wee-wee in a jar when I was hired. There is a whole range of legally permissible activities for which a company can refuse to hire people or fire them if found out later.

The so-called protected classes are rather narrow - race, sex, age, religion, national origin, and disability. For the most part they can't consider marital status, pregnancy, or children.

All of these are negotiable. Many job classifications have age limits, if they are justifiable. A man can't be a "Hooter's girl."

A few states prohibit consideration of sexual orientation or obesity, but only a few.

Other than that, employers could refuse to hire people who smoke, drink alcohol, eat meat, ride motorcycles, have visible tattoos, wear plaid, or a range of other legal activities. Owning firearms or having a CHL is not a protected area.

They can't forcibly search your residence, but they can fire you for refusing the search, if that was a condition of employment in the first place.

- Jim

[tbrown]

Here's an interesting hypothetical - What if they included valid 30.06 wording in employment documents that you sign for your work at home job?

Which law overrides which?

My company has no control over my home, so I can't imagine that being enforceable or grounds for legitimate termination. And before anyone brings up the fire you for any reason thing, we all know that's not completely true. And my company meticulously documents why someone is terminated to avoid wrongful termination lawsuits or charges of discrimination. they could do it without giving a reason, but I would be shocked if they ever did that because they haven't so far.

The only time I recall giving a reason is an employee convicted of drunk driving. Otherwise, it's phrased as their services are no longer needed, even with cause. Here and at my previous company, the philosophy seems to be that any increase in SUTA is cheaper than defending against a lawsuit. On the flip side, the only reference we provide is job title and term of service, unless they sue and choose to make their discipline record a public record.