deleted by creator
As much as I like privacy, I would say that is ok, unless there was a violation of a previously signed contract between the parts involved.
If person A and person B wants to work together, both have to agree the terms, if they can’t agree on that they can’t work together.
Though it is a real shame that people values less and less their privacy
deleted by creator
Did someone put a gun in her head to go and get that job in paricular, in that particular location, with that particular boss/company?
Is her convinience and self imposed needs who has power over you, not some random dude who just offers a deal under certain conditions, belive me, you don’t want the alternative
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You have to feed at least yourself, that is common across all sistems, basically in nature, ether you work to get what you need or someone else would have to.
Do you really belive there is a sistem where you can produce less than you consume and don’t starve?
There’s a system that ensures everyone gets the fruit of their labor, and that if someone is going hungry they are supported by the community instead of being left to die in the streets.
May I ask how?
If everybody gets 100% of the fruit of their labor, then where do you get the necessary resources to subsidize others without taking it from other people?
There are different employment models, all have pros and cons. There is no one perfect solution, or if there is it’s certainly not communism.
The model of employment law you’re used to, employment as a market, it works most of the time. But it only works insofar as there are strong legal protections for employees.
The employer has a much stronger bargaining position than the employee. You need to read some economics to see why. In a free market, employees get exploited. Is the past this has led to slave wages, malnourishment, etc.
The only defence the employee has is legal protections. He has a minimum wage so he won’t starve. He has maximum hours so he won’t be worked to death. But there are other spaces where he doesn’t have legal protections, so he will get exploited.
The argument here is about that.
Get real! This is about more than one employer and employee making an independent decision. This is the way the system is developing.
Privacy is becoming less and less of a choice and its because of things like this. You can’t really decide to not have a smartphone anymore. Just like how you can’t really decide to not agree to employment conditions. There are more ways to influence people than with a gun to the head. Wake up!
“You can’t really decide to not have a smartphone anymore”
You can, but everything has consequences, maybe youre simply noy willing to pay the price of your genuine choices.
The underliying problem is not the system, is that people within the sistem dont care about privacy anymore and that manifest itself in a lack of privacy respecting job offers in this particular case, but that apply for apps, services, etc…
People gets what they ask for “with their choices”, it doesn’t matter if you call yourself a privacy minded guy if you go and make yourself a FB account and then complain about they poor privacy practices and data mining.
The net effect is that you rather prefer to give up you privacy in orther to be in that social network, same apply in the work field if you take a job oportunity that isn’t privacy respecting; youre saying with your actions “I prefer to give up my privacy rather to keep looking for other job or employer”
