Business can't make staff submit to video surveillance, says court A telephone sales rep in the Netherlands has won an unfair dismissal court case against his former employer, US software company Chetu, after he was fired for refusing to spend his work day surveilled by his computer camera. In August of 2022, the employee was required to log on during an entire workday while sharing his …
This post has been deleted by its author
Indeed. I'm surprised at the almost binary differences between workers and C level people over there. Workers can be booted out at a moment's notice, whereas the C levels always seems to come equipped with a golden parachute.
Probably paid for by all the redundancy money these setups save.
In the Netherlands this sort if thing is pretty normal, it happens more often. His name isn't widely out there to find attached to the case like it would be in the US (because we have sensible privacy laws) and even if it was, unless his next employer is planning to break the law in the same way they have nothing to fear. The vast majority of dismissals happen more or less amicably without the courts involved, but if a company pulls a stunt like this a fired worker isn't usually blamed for getting what he is due under the law.
Also, asking about or even using something like this against a person when hiring is also considered unlawful discrimination so... few companies who actually now how to operate in the Netherlands would even consider it.. Easier and cheaper to just stick to the law
You seem to be implying a few things:
1. in the Netherlands you can't ask an interviewee why he/she/whatever left their last job or why he/she/whatever wants to leave their current job
2. if you can and they tell you it can't be used as part of the decision to make a job offer
3. lying at interview / on a job application isn't reason for dismissal
Are those right?
The number of thumbs down on my original post shows how deluded people are.
I didn't at any point say I agree with it, or it's the right thing for an employer to do. It's wrong.
But... unconscious bias. I can't comment on how it is in the Netherlands having never lived there, but if this was in the UK and a potential employer found out you'd taken a previous one to a tribunal, I can guarantee the interview process wouldn't be "the same" for everyone, 100% of the time. Not even close. Don't kid yourself.
Any company worth its salt will have an interview process that explicitly avoids this sort of situation, because there is plenty of employment case law where employers have been sued, and lost, for basing employment decisions on unfair criteria.
IANAL, but my understanding is that, if you advertise a job with specific job requirements, and someone comes along that meets all those requirements, but then you employ someone else, who does not, you are leaving yourself open to litigation, especially if it can be proved that the first person didn't get the job due to some sort of discrimination.
If you're dumb enough to say, "We would have employed you, but you're a woman of child-bearing age, and we want someone who won't go off on maternity leave", or "you're disabled, and we don't want to cater for your disability", or "you're black, and we don't think you'd be a good fit for our all-white staff" then you are clearly breaking employment law. If you give people the brush-off and give any sort of reason that might be seen as discriminatory, then you are on shaky ground. This is probably why so few organisations are willing to give feedback after an interview (as well as the time and effort this would take when the number of applicants is large). Even relatively neutral-sounding statements such as "we didn't think you'd be a good fit for our organisation" could cause you trouble if they sound like they might be based on disability, religious beliefs, gender, ethnic origin, or any other criteria that are generally considered unfairly discriminatory.
Someone's reason for leaving their previous job is a touchy question, because it could be for many reasons which may be discriminatory, and to be honest, hearing the various different ways of not saying "I hate my current job" aren't exactly helpful in deciding whether someone is suitable to do the job you are interviewing for. For example, a lot of people leave jobs due to workplace bullying (it's absolutely rife in some sectors), or the job making them sick (from stress, or sick building syndrome, for example), overwork, and so on. They are going to give you some bullshit answer to that question in any case, because nobody is going to go to an interview and say "my current job is shit," or, "my boss is a sexist arsehole," or, "I can't handle the high-stress environment".
1. No, it's a common question. One that appears in pretty much any job interview.
2. No, you can use what is said in the answer where reasonable.
3. No, being caught lying is an almost instant breach of trust (if the lie is relevant), but you are free to not answer a question.
You seem to be implying a few things as well:
1. Every employer will only hire people when they are certain they won't object to being filmed for 9 hours a day.
2. Every employer thinks employee's should not have any rights, even when the law and a judge say they do.
3. Every employer generally worries about being sued by their employees, like these aren't trivial cases which are dealt with swiftly and reasonable.
(4. The IT job market isn't such that employers will hire whoever they can get even if the above is all true.)
Based of that, I'm assuming you don't live in the Netherlands, probably not in the EU either. If the guy in the story actually has some skills (and there is no suggestion he hasn't) he will have no problem finding another job here in the Netherlands.
"1. No, it's a common question. One that appears in pretty much any job interview."
Maybe in your world. In my world as either interviewer or interviewee I've never said or heard that question. The only time I would go even near it is with a potential employee who job hops every 6 months but who isn't a contractor.
I've gotten the "Why did you leave/are you leaving your previous/current employer?" question in pretty much every interview I've had. The trick is to give an honest and objective answer. So not "The working conditions were awful", but instead "We were required to work 6 days a week, 50 hours total, every single week." Yes, that was my real and honest answer for leaving one employer; interviewers would immediately nod and agree that that was a very good reason to leave.
US labour traditions of absolute power to the employer are not laws of nature. Such conflicts happen in Europe, are resolved, and then everybody get on with their lives. People here, even employers, are not hell-bent on seeking petty revenge for having been wrong in the first place, because it would put them in hot waters, again.
Most people are applying for a job because things didn't go well at the previous job. If someone told me they were fired for refusing constant camera supervision, I'd think that was the employee doing the obviously right thing. Sued the company for violating worker rights too? That's ambition, for sure.
Indeed. It's about time we started realising that an interview is for the prospective employee to evaluate the employer as well.
If they have one of these multi-stage jumping-through-hoops interviews that has you doing a whole load of shit that's not relevant to the job, then it's a massive red flag that the employer will make you do loads of irrelevant shit that isn't in your job description once they have their claws into you.
If they try to baffle you with bullshit in the interview, or they're cagey about what the job role will be, aren't up-front about expected working hours, or holiday allowances, then these are all massive red flags too.
I've seen enough people I know stuck in really bad jobs, and I've had a few myself in the past, so I'd like to think I've come to recognise many of these.
"If they have one of these multi-stage jumping-through-hoops interviews that has you doing a whole load of shit that's not relevant to the job, then it's a massive red flag that the employer will make you do loads of irrelevant shit that isn't in your job description once they have their claws into you."
In an interview I was once given the task of wiring a standard mains plug according to instructions. The instructions were incorrect, and I queried this. They were so desperate for staff that they just told me to do it wrong, as per instruction, and move on to the next bit of the interview. They went out of business a few months later, but not before I was fired for refusing to be told I couldn't cycle onto and off the premises at start and end of shift. Fucknuts.
In an interview I was once given the task of wiring a standard mains plug according to instructions. The instructions were incorrect, and I queried this. They were so desperate for staff that they just told me to do it wrong, as per instruction, and move on to the next bit of the interview.
I would have terminated that interview after that answer, employers that don't respect standards also don't respect proper workmanship. I am not surprised they went out of business.
And yes, I have terminated job interviews by telling the prospective employer that the interview was over and that they didn't need to call me, I wouldn't call them either.
I work from home some of the time. I get asked by my employer to switch my camera on in teams. Slight problem with that. I am using my own computer for work. There is a good technical reason for this. I do a lot of work with VMs and the laptops my company give out for home-working are nowhere near powerful enough.
From time to time, in teams meetings, I get asked to turn my camera on. There is a good reason I don't. I don't have one. The reason I don't have one? I don't have space in my home for a dedicated office, so my PC is in my bedroom. While I don't do anything untoward in my bedroom during the work day, It *is* my private space, and I don't want it invaded.
I think when requiring people to work from home, companies need to factor in that not everyone has a room they can dedicate to it, and they may not feel comfortable allowing work colleagues into their private space, even if it is just looking into it. They certainly should not require you to. What you do in your own home is your business. What you do in the office is theirs.
> I am using my own computer for work...the laptops my company give out for home-working are nowhere near powerful enough.
Check your contract, and any extra agreements you've signed, like IT policies and data protection stuff. Using your own equipment can get you sacked at most companies. If the equipment they give you is rubbish let it slow your performance and make sure your boss knows about it.
You are basically funding their IT department by providing equipment out of your own pay. And you did it the expensive way, paying income tax on the money, then VAT on the purchase. Should be able to skip those for a business expense (not sure how it works if it's half used for personal stuff, probably some benefit-in-kind valuation which will incur income tax.)
On one UK contract I was required to provide a photo of my home working location and sign a declaration that a quite long list of "health and safety" provisions were in place. Gaining the contract was actually dependent on this. So they were very hot on H&S, but the role was information governance, and they were very bad indeed at that.
Similar situation here. My boss has even offered to pay for a camera, but I don't feel comfortable being filmed, even if I get to control exactly when and where. And even if *I* may have agreed to being surveilled, anybody else that happens to share my working space (ie. living room) hasn't.
Thankfully, I have a good boss, and he's fine with this. He knows what I look like in a professional setting and has no need to see me in my bathrobe.
The bathrobe. That's your problem. My home office doesn't require one. I only use clothes as protection against cold temperatures, not against eyes, therefore my computers' cameras are disabled and in fact the computer on my left still has the protective tape over the lens. On the flip side, i've had online meetings with other team members, who also work from home, who wear three piece suits...which I don't pretend to understand.
I had a friend who needed to introduce himself to a possible client, and as it was confidential we did it in my apartment (the joy of screening and extremely high bandwidth - 1Gb was fast at the time).
So there he was at my living room table, wearing shirt and jacket, having this video call.
Below the table, however, a puddle was forming as the living room airco failed an hour before, it was a good 41C outside and the three units in the bedrooms just couldn't quite affect the temp in the living room. Needless to say, we didn't do much more work that afternoon on account of being occupied with replenishing lost fluids and then some :).
A 3-piece suit does not mean work and, in my experience, can indicate a lowering of productivity.
In the NHS, bare below the elbow is for everyone in wards etc. Do you remember that consultant who got all shouty at the drones following David Cameron?
I wear a polo shirt every day and in the hot parts of the summer now a pair of knee length shorts are allowed in most trusts. That is suitable clothing to actually do something.
3-piece suits are an outgrowth of late 18th to early 19th century clothing that was supposed to show one was better than other people. They are neither efficient or practical. If you want to dress up in someone from Napoleonic France, good for you. Just don't pretend it makes you a better worker!
Indeed, indeed. To me, a three-piece suit indicates a salesperson. If it's a blue one, it's a salesperson who works in a phone shop.
Someone who is actually doing productive work is wearing clothing that is applicable to the job. My job is fighting with a computer, I wear whatever is comfortable for sitting in a chair for most of the day. Depending on the temperature and humidity in the room, this is going to vary. It is never a three-piece suit, the one of those I own that fits and (hopefully) hasn't been eaten by moths is for "dressing up". It's a nice tweed number, and certainly not a "business suit", which is, quite frankly, a relic from the 18th century.
Whenever I wear a suit it's three piece - I just prefer it, find it comfortable. I have a nice lightweight pure-wool Italian one which is as cool in summer as the slacks and vest I would otherwise be wearing, snug enough in the winter.
I really don't care how people dress - from kings or queens to butt-naked - so long as they're happy and they get whatever job or task done and there's no Health & Safety issue.
Some may say I'm "too liberal" - I won't have a problem with that. I just think that if I want people to tolerate my choices I have to be willing to tolerate theirs and live by that ideal as best I can.
I generally wear 2-piece suits, when I wear them, or a dress shirt / dress slacks / tie / blazer combination. Hardly ever wear them anymore, though, since I no longer go to academic conferences and haven't been at a customer site in quite a few years.
It's a bit of a pity, as I quite like men's business wear. But it seems silly to spend money on it if I'm just going to wear it at home.
When it's people I know well then sure I switch it on, plonk in a fake background with teams video feature so people can see my face, most of the time I don't. I always put it on with my manager in my one-to-one's, I do that out of respect for him and he does same, one of the few times either of us do use our cameras.
Our compnay does not allow any personal kit unless you get clearance from the head honcho, you pass certain pieces of info over and you agree to have auth apps on your mobile phone which can be tracked and captured. No thanks! So I chose the standard low spec lappy the company gives out to avoid all that. They'll even courier a laptop out to anyone if you have a major fault as that's way cheaper than running the risk of letting un-verified connections into the company and some scumbag lands malware or other shit in our network and causes untold financial damage. £150 for delivering a laptop same day against millions being lost through an open "door"? It's a no brainer!
Wow, what a petulant and expensive strop. If we can't treat out employees like shit, we don't want to do business here. Unfortunately for them, stories like this get read and people often decide not to do business with such arrogant control freaks. They don't tend to produce good work.
I thought that at first, but that seems an awfully quick response to a possible "oh shit, what did we just do" moment. Maybe the local management are the ones who did the firing and then, out of the blue and coincidently, head office shut the whole operation down and fired all of them anyway. That, on the other hand, is on the US parent and seems, as far the details in the article are concerned, means there was no 90 day consultation period so maybe all the other staff will also be taking their ex-employer to court now if they didn't get paid in lieu of that period.
I guess I know now not to seek employment with Chetu.
Also, what the hell is the company supposed to learn from a video of the employee? Unless that person is a performance actor, not sure why they need to see me while I am doing work. My face/office isn't producing product or coding. Everything the company needs to see if I am being productive is the code and documents I am producing. That is what I was hired for, not my beautiful visage. If I want to spin plates and juggle while coding, and I am still producing at a acceptable rate, then there is no problem. But I guess the US, is where a country where a company can dictate what you do with your healthcare why not dictate what expression I am making while coding.
That is what I was hired for, not my beautiful visage.
Agreed! If my co-workers want to gaze upon my beauty, I'm going to need a raise.
(Actually I do a fair bit of videoconferencing. Don't really have strong feelings about it either way, though I too use a background-masking feature so the camera doesn't pick up my wife as she's wandering about the place. It does cause the cats to flicker in and out of visibility, Cheshire-style, when they insist on inserting themselves into the calls. Which is pretty much daily.)
Has the company paid up yet? I'm guessing that the contract of employment stated the legal jurisdiction was a state within the USA, and that to get them to pay he'd have to sue them in their home state, not his home state.
As for a camera being on equivalent to someone being in the same office as you, even without the GDPR, a camera can record, whereas a person would have to take notes, and would, occasionally go to the toilet, or have a (statutory) rest break. Actually I am happy for my camera to be 'on' as it is covered in tape. Even NASA couldn't get a reasonable image of me from that. The microphone and speakers may be a bit more of a problem as I listen to music at home, and I'm not sure that a CD* for home use is legal to play to someone else over the Internet.**
*I'm a bit of a dinosaur, I have vinyl records, cassette tapes and Mini Discs too!
**I'm also retired so this is purely of empathic interest to me.
"Has the company paid up yet? I'm guessing that the contract of employment stated the legal jurisdiction was a state within the USA, and that to get them to pay he'd have to sue them in their home state, not his home state."
It seems that office was their only point of presence in the EU (UK no longer counts of course), so if they choose to ignore the ruling, there's not a lot the EU can do about. I suppose they could put an arrest warrant out on the entire C-level in case they ever visit or transit through the EU. They may have to go the long way across the Pacific when visiting their Indian offices and be careful to not transit an EU hub such as Schipol or Frankfurt when visiting their UK office.
It's a transparent attempt to avoid paying. However, winding up a company also involves liquidating all assets and paying debts, and court orders are quite high up on the list.
If they claim the company has no assets then that means they were deliberately trading while insolvent, which has personal consequences for the directors.
Their banks will also be rather ... disappointed. That tends to end the parent company.
Given they had a NL office, the employment contract was almost certainly with Chetal bv (in other words, a subsidiary company registered in the Netherlands). That makes tax, health insurance, etc very much simpler. As such, the jurisdiction would be the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The delivery trucks are outfitted with surveillance cameras that monitor each and every delivery driver. Plus drivers are compelled to constantly run a “delivery app” that also demands permissions to surveil both microphone & camera, plus gps location and speed, plus the accelerometer. It’s a dystopia!
(Actually it’s pretty much the same as any Google app for surveillance, except this one focuses strictly on drivers rather than on everybody in general.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
