You must log in or register to comment.
I refuse to install any work related software on my phone. Not only because I don’t want to be contacted after hours, but companies often “require” full read/write access on your device, so they can remotely wipe their data if you quit or get fired.
Fuck that.
I’m with you there. My previous employer wanted a bunch of their shit on my phone. I asked if they were supplying me with a work a phone, and they said no, you already have one. I said I do, and it’s mine, and I’m not putting anything on it for work because work and home are going to be two different things. They gave me a work phone and then wanted to know why I turned it off in the parking lot before I even got into my car. I’m done working for the day sir.
wanted to know why I turned it off in the parking lot before I even got into my car. I’m done working for the day sir.
My co-worker locked his in his desk drawer when he went home for the night.
Yeah and they want to install some profile that gives them access and puts your internet connection through their VPN. My coworkers look at me like I’m crazy because I carry a work device and a personal device. Like, why would I give my employer access to all of my web traffic on my phone? You’re crazy if you don’t carry two devices.
That’s a no for me dawg.
The two consessions I’ve made are Teams, and the MFA software.
I am often running around to various sites and being able to use a quick chat is better than pulling out my laptop, and I turn it off when I’m off the clock.
Can’t you demand a company-provided device then? It’s their fault that you need those apps.
Yeah that’s beyond fucked. That’s a major privacy issue.
This is absolutely correct. Heck, you’re free to deny that based on any reasoning, maybe the shoddy icon of the work app doesn’t match your phone wallpaper.
The phone is your private property, if an employer requires an app to be installed to do your job, they can provide a phone.
I would also never let corporate IT manage a device, e. g. a laptop connected to my private network at home.
I would also never let corporate IT manage a device, e. g. a laptop connected to my private network at home.
That’s pretty standard for working from home. I’m expected to use the company provided, managed laptop with my internet connection.
I figured so long as I made sure of things like there weren’t any open file shares and things like routers and IP cameras were password protected there wasn’t a whole they could see.
If I was really paranoid I could set up a VLAN or something.
I know it is somewhat of an accepted practice, and a lot of people lack the means or the knowledge to handle it any other way, but I’d still like to raise awareness that you’re basically inviting a foreign actor into your network.
The days were people would trust corporations, including their employers, to be generally benevolent and to do the right thing are long over.
I would also never let corporate IT manage a device, e. g. a laptop connected to my private network at home.
If you ever must, buy a new laptop. And use it on a guest wifi network. Use it as you would a work laptop, nothing personal on it
No, have the company buy a laptop, and if necessary, also have them buy the hardware that allows for proper network separation, if not already available.
Just another thing to be aware of.
Not all companies will do that
Surely not. But also many employees won’t even ask for it, and change will only happen if people care about it.
So first, raise awareness, and naturally, implement those things at any companies you manage or own.
I’m not saying quit your job and become homeless if your employer won’t corporate with you on the issue. Everyone should think about how this could potentially affect them and what they can do within the constraints they operate in, though.
As someone else in this thread said, a separate (VLAN, guest) network for work devices, reasonable access rules etc. can go a long way. Eventually, I would like this to become unacceptable though.
No modern MDM solution allows a company to access your personal data on BYOD. That’s why containerization of work profiles exist. Anything else would be a massive privacy scandal.
Company-owned devices, though, do have that level of access when MDM enrolled.
Regardless, times I’ve tried to get access to work stuff on my phone I stopped because I had to agree to let my entire device be remotely wiped if they chose to. I had absolutely zero faith that they wouldn’t accidentally do it as a matter of procedure if/when I left the company so I didn’t do it.
Not to mention the possibility of a disgruntled IT person deleting everything they can on their way out. Sure, it would be a whole can of worms for that person and they might regret it because of the consequences, but that wouldn’t bring my data back. Same if it was done accidentally because of incompetence.
I’d love to honestly believe that. But I still wouldn’t risk ever doing a BYOD with a company that forced me to install anything on my personal devices.
Intune installs as a device adminstration. I’m not sure how much I’d trust that on my personal device period.
They can say what they like.
VERY few companies have been sued for being as big a bunch of lying dinks as Microsoft has.
We need to learn from this shit. Ads on login screens? Privacy issues? Solarwinds sploit letting Russian hackers get to the windows source? How many more red flags are our security groups going to ignore?
You’re talking about MDM in Intune which is only used on corporate owned devices. MAM is used for personal devices and does not have device administration access. It’s in the name - Mobile Application Management.
This implies that the company has a competent IT team that rolls it out correctly, and that there won’t be some way to exploit it and dig in further than expected.
Also:
On personal devices, it’s normal and expected for users to check email, join meetings, update files, and more. Many organizations allow personal devices to access organization resources.
(From the site)
Lmao WHAT? It’s normal for users to do company shit on their personal phone? What kind of delusional Spongebob bullshit is that? Is the company gonna pay for data or subsidize the cost of my phone? Are they going to pay me to be on call if they expect me to of this shit outside of my working hours?
Good luck if you run a de-googled ROM. I can’t install sandboxed Google Play Services inside the profile because its not approved. I could try and sideload it in, but I’d rather just go without.
That’s a fair point. Microsoft says that they don’t… but, not that they can’t. It’s especially tricky on iOS.
Yup same. It’s crazy how many people willing installed Intune and shit on their personal phone. If my company wants me to have that level of portability, then they’ll be buying a work phone for me and paying me overtime any time I’m forced to use it out of regular hours
My SO was told to travel to office every day of the week, only to sit in zoom meetings because all of their team is elsewhere.
Reaaaal good use of everyone’s time and our non-renewable resources.
Don’t forget that it’s also effectively a pay cut due to the added expenses and time lost in commuting. They should ask if the company is going to at least pay for the maintenance of the car if they aren’t going to pay for the time spent commuting.
Also the time spent getting ready for office appearances and prepping lunches (or the cost of buying lunches away from home).
We are required to show up one day a week, but my employer usually buy breakfast and/or lunch. It’s a decent meal, not a shitty half slice of pizza.
None of us dress up. Not the bosses, the lawyer, no one. We sit in the conference room looking like it’s finals weeks. No one cares, and we get more done.
I do something similar, I’m on a dev team of 2 and a while back we started going in once a month for a “planning day” where we spend a couple hours in person planning out our month and spend the rest of the day talking to the teams who actually use our software to get feedback and ideas. At first the owner would take me and the other dev out for lunch but we’ve turned it into a whole office thing. So usually the whole offices shuts down for about 2 hours for a nice free lunch when we come in. One day a bunch of us went out for mini golf after lunch on the bosses dime. Another month a couple of us played old Xbox games and smoked cigs in the basement while we “brainstormed”.
Paying for commute time for regular workers is not going to happen, for many many decades you getting to work is your own issue…thus why we find a place near highway access or near transit. asking a company to pay travel means they will just hire somebody that lives close by
Which will no longer be feasible as more and more people are priced out of city living.
It has already happened in Vancouver area, people commute in from Chilliwack to afford a home
“Here’s the invoice for the rental!”
You know the answer, so why even ask? Just makes you look foolish. Brush off the resume and start looking. They won’t learn.
Wife was hired in 2014 for a position that was designed to be remote. They changed things in 2017 and tried to make her come into an office 2.5 hours away, 5 days a week. She’s legally blind and doesn’t drive, a fact they were fully aware of and had no issues with when they hired her. She tried to argue multiple times, and it just ended up going in circles with several managers getting pretty insulting to her. So, she quit, and eventually decided to contact a disability lawyer to inform the ex-employer she would be suing for discrimination, and ADA violations. Because they said some pretty stupid things in emails and voicemails. They ended up offering a nice sized settlement. She found another WFH job that paid 3x what she was making at the old place, with a higher level position and more closely fits her education. She’s much happier with how things turned out for her. The position has been on various job sites for over 3 years and doesn’t look like it’s been filled since she quit, though I can’t say that for sure.
Good
You should absolutely sue when your rights are violated. It is not ok for an employer to discriminate based on disability.
I’m sure they don’t even understand that it was a discrimination, judging by the fact that they went on and left a lot of evidence of their stupidity
They think we’re cattle, but cattle won’t eat the rich.
I have always told folks that I managed, that I’m nothing without them. Yea, I have a MBA as well, but man, are alot of those business folks short sighted to a fault. Like lack of empathy and foresight.
If your KPI’s are based around having a knowledge worker in a chair in a room, your business should die.
Plain and simple.
My boss is awesome. He realizes that his job is mostly to make sure we’re able to do our jobs effectively. It really feels like I’m working with him, not for him, which is how it should be.
Same. My manager works in another country and he told me that it doesn’t matter where I work from because from his perspective I’m a remote employee wherever I sit.
Same, my manager contacts me a handful of times throughout the year, the rest of the time he trusts I’m doing what I am tasked to do. We had a company wide meeting at head office requiring travel for everyone, the schedule was on my kid’s birthday. I conveyed that I would be missing the bday, and they shifted meeting a few days to accommodate. Not all corporations are heartless slave drivers
All these “nobody wants to work anymore” people are the ones that think they don’t have to take care of their employees because they can always hire someone else.
Cattle will stampede if you piss them off enough.
Cows will also chomp down on meat and little birds if given the opportunity. I grew up on a ranch herbivore doesn’t mean vegan like peeps seem to think it does. If they feel like they’re low on a nutrient and have opportunity they’ll nom on anything. No this isn’t pica either.
My sister in law is blind in one eye, but because she has one working eye she has no disability protection as far as I know. She still can’t drive because she has no depth perception and it’s very dangerous. It’s made navigating going to work difficult over the years, often working the same place my brother did so he could drive her. Luckily her current employer works with her and lets her work from home. But a decade ago no one would have dreamed of letting her work from home.
According to the EEOC, it’s a disability:
A vision impairment does not need to “prevent, or significantly or severely restrict,” an individual’s ability to see in order to be a disability, as long as the individual’s vision is substantially limited when compared to the vision of most people in the general population.
And it sounds like her employer is doing the right thing. But if ever she feels she is not being treated fairly, she should talk to a lawyer to be sure. Don’t just let it slide because she has one good eye. Hell it might be good to talk to a lawyer anyway, so she knows what to look out for in the future if things happen to change.
Thank you, I think she believes she is not protected. I’ll look into this.
How do you know the EEOC applies where she is?
You’re right. I made an assumption about where she lives. I shouldn’t have, but I did. The advice about talking to a lawyer to know her rights, though, is universal regardless of where she lives. So I still stand by my statements.
Because the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) is enforced by the EEOC.
I think what they’re getting at is not every person on the Internet lives in the United States.
That’s generally a fair criticism, but the context from the rest of this particular thread is clearly US based
In Canada that would be labelled a legit disability without blinking an eye.
Offsides, bud!
Iirc for the US government to consider you disabled due to vision, your GOOD eye has to be 20/200 or worse.
So yeah if you only have one eye and you can barely read the giant E at the top of the vision chart, sorry!
Not true. Look up the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by the EEOC. Here, I’ll do it for you. But if I am mistaken, I’d love to know where it defines the vision criteria for exclusion.
Actually, when I was looking it up, it sounds like you’re talking about being considered legally blind and qualifying for Social Security disability benefits, which is not the same as being protected under the ADA.
The latter. The government considering you disabled therefore you qualify for disability benefits.
Yeah, but here in the US, if you can work even the simplest job you shouldn’t qualify for disability! That just encourages people to enjoy communism! These literally half blind mfers need to get off their ass and get to work, the lazy sons of bitches! Don’t they love freedom?
This is wrong, because you’re talking about disability insurance in a comment thread about disability discrimination.
Disability is very broadly defined for the purpose of disability discrimination laws, which is the context of this comment chain.
Disability is defined specific to a person’s work skills for the purpose of long term disability insurance (like the US’s federally administered Social Security disability insurance). Depending on the program/insurance type, it might require that you can’t hold down any meaningful job, caused by a medical condition that lasts longer than a year.
For things like short term disability, the disability is defined specific to that person’s preexisting job. Someone who gets an Achilles surgery that prevents them from operating the pedals of a motor vehicle for a few weeks would be “disabled” for the purpose of short term disability insurance if they’re a truck driver, and might not even be disabled if their day job is something like being a telemarketer who sits at a desk for their job.
Nah man, freedom.
Just wanted to expand on this
Depending on the program/insurance type, it might require that you can’t hold down any meaningful job, caused by a medical condition that lasts longer than a year.
For SSI or SSDI, you basically have to be bed bound (“less than sedentary”), statutorially blind (corrected visual acuity 20/200 in the good eye), have a condition severe enough it meets the strict requirements in SSA’s listings of impairments, or have a mental condition that prevents you from being at all able to fulfill the demands of unskilled work. The rules get more lenient after age 50 the older you get though.
Pun intended, I’m assuming?
Not really, it was a figure of speech, which I realized would be taken as a pun and decided to leave it. It unintentionally fit the theme.
Nice! Makes it even better.
That’s a triple win. Love hearing these types of stories.
Fucking based
BAM! God I need to start doing shit like this.
“You are not allowed to work from home unless we want you working from home” is basically their slogan. It’s so funny how these companies are ok with upper management working from home, or having remote locations in India where they work from home, or when it comes to working overtime/after hours from home. But, can’t do it on a day to day basis. Horrible companies.
Good for you. I refuse to put work related stuff on my phone. Especially since they want permission to remotely wipe my device if it’s lost. I paid for this phone, it is mine, not theirs. Bye.
It’s astonishing.
The capitalists know full well we’re more productive working remotely, but their need for control has proven to be stronger than their insatiable greed anyway.
Just more proof that cruelty is the point. They’ve known since the 70s that they’d be richer than they are if they would pay thriving wages and eliminate poverty. They want the suffering more than the money.
They would be richer, but by “allowing” working class people to have a thriving life means the power gap between us and them wouldn’t be as big. People could organize and overthrow them, so they have to keep us fighting amongst ourselves for scraps.
The cruelty is the point.
Fair point
It’s still greed. They want to justify the mobey they’ve wasted in useless office spaces.
Board rooms have a lot of people who are heavily invested in commercial real estate.
Also a fair point.
Veronica!..is that you?!
As some in IT. If my company ever does this. I’m doing the same thing. Genius play.
As funny as this is, I’m quite certain if somebody actually tried this in the real world they’d get fired. At will employment means they don’t even have to tell you why you got fired. They’ll just wait a couple of weeks or a month and tell you goodbye.
The employee can still sue. There’s a reason why others say to keep documentation of everything in situations like this. While they don’t have to tell you why you’re fired, if you sue, they still have to provide adaquate reasoning. Can’t really say "I just don’t like the guy anymore’ and have that be sufficient.
There’s no way for us to know who’s really in the right here since we don’t know what the specifics of his employment agreement are. We can just agree that the employer is wrong, and stupid. Why piss off employees that actually do the work?
That’s not true at all in many countries. You can’t just fire someone for no reason. It doesn’t have to be a good reason but you need a reason. Also if someone is fired because of something that is protected under law like pregnancy they can come back and sue.
True. Sorry should have specified in the US they can just say we are letting you go and you’re done. Which as far as I’m concerned is basically a catch all statement of “we aren’t going to tell you why, we are just firing you”.
You can’t do that in the US. They can make up a excuse but they can’t fire someone for no reason
I worked for a company that trained me that “right to work” meant I could fire someone and tell them it was because I didn’t like the color of their shoes. I suppose that’s an excuse or reason but at that point is there really any difference?
Right to work means they can’t be required to join a union. They / you are thinking of “at will employment”. You may get this confused because some states pass them together.
Weird that you’d have to be available outside of work hours
Me who likes working in a office:
People who are having a great time at work are the reason I like WFH
I personally don’t have an issue with WFH as long as you are getting work done. If you can manage yourself go for it. It is nice to see people face to face once in a while but that doesn’t mean 3 days a week.
I may be an outlier, but it feels great to be car free in a walkable city.
I don’t mind walking but sometimes the distances are a but far. I do know a lot of people who ride bikes. Bikes has the benefit of being small and having a place to put a bag. It also probably has to do with air quality as in some places the air is bad.
I couldn’t have done it if I stayed in the states. No judgment on anyone who lives in a structurally car dependent area and doesn’t have a good alternative
Then go to the office, don’t be angry if others don’t go
My guess is that some businesses get tax breaks from municipalities in exchange for filling office spaces with warm bodies. The idea is that people in office buildings support local businesses by buying lunch, and sometimes grabbing a pint after work.
I’m not trying to excuse this trend, in fact as an IT person myself I 100% agree with the sentiment, I’m just trying to share what I’ve been told.
This is the excuse my employer gave. So I’m to take a pay cut (gas, wear and tear on my vehicle, loss of time to commute) so I can spend more money to prop up other businesses for a tax break that is likely to go into some rich ass C-levels bonus or shareholders pocket for cut costs?
Fuuuck that. Its just another way of picking the labor class clean to the bone.
Yes. That’s exactly what is happening.
Corporations want their money
but it’s not their money until they coerce people into giving it to them
Commercial realestste makes up a significant amount of rich people’s investment portfolios. And if people stopped needing office space the property would devalue and those rich people would lose easy money.
So they have all collectively agreed to force their workers back to the office I order to keep the real estate values up and keep their investments positive.
Also rich can afford to have a investment in busy city areas while regular folk can get a house in urban areas at best. And work from home is leading people to the urban areas where rents are less.
It’s even simpler than that: they leased the office space and have to continue to pay that lease or else pay an early termination fee. This is basically the sunk cost fallacy. But you are right that sometimes additionally they get tax breaks for certain office space, for instance the San Francisco mid-market tax break (AKA the Twitter tax break)
Malicious Compliance! The only way to go.
