News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:School custodian refuses to download app that monitors lo... by londons_explore on Tuesday April 13, 2021 @11:26AM (#26793547)
You could consider the company is not hiring Mary-the-cleaner for $16.40 per hour, but is now asking to hire Mary-the-cleaner and her phone for $16.40 per hour.

That would put the responsibility on Mary to maintain the phone in working order, and the employer could refuse to pay unless both things they are paying for are present and correct.

It's a scummy practice, sure, but hiring two things as a package isn't illegal in itself.

Re:School custodian refuses to download app that monitors lo... by teachingassist on Tuesday April 13, 2021 @12:52PM (#26795244)
> It's a scummy practice, sure, but hiring two things as a package isn't illegal in itself.

I believe this would technically depend on whether one is employed or self-employed.

Only self-employed people are generally obligated to provide tools of their trade; whereas, personal tracking strongly implies employment. It shouldn't be both. (This all may depend on jurisdiction and specific circumstances, obviously)

Given that the article clearly says the person was employed before being required to download an app, this also feels like a breach of contract by the employer.

In your terms: They employed the worker, not the worker and their phone.

Re:School custodian refuses to download app that monitors lo... by drewzero1 on Tuesday April 13, 2021 @11:44AM (#26793904)
Alternately, the company hired Mary-the-cleaner at $16.40 an hour, and is now asking for Mary-and-her-phone at the same rate. Which puts the responsibility on the company to provide the device they want her to use while she is working.
Re:School custodian refuses to download app that monitors lo... by unreal37 on Tuesday April 13, 2021 @01:20PM (#26795719)
They didn't require "her phone" until after she was already working for them. They didn't hire two things "as a package".