بازار خرید و فروش انواع پارچه | پارچه سرا قیمت، خرید، فروش انواع پارچه
Employers may insist that you use your own mobile phone for work, but they can reimburse you. If not, pay attention to tax deductions. Yes. If employees have to use their personal mobile phones for work-related calls, article 2802 of the Labour Code requires the employer to reimburse them. What Rivers didn`t expect was the loss of personal data on his own device. But it`s becoming more and more common, says Maltby, who calls it a greater danger than being spied on. “You erase your personal device for the purpose of getting rid of company data, but if you erase the phone, you erase everything,” he says. In addition to prohibiting the use of mobile phones, the employee may also restrict or completely prohibit the use of personal emails or the use of the Internet. As long as these media can be seen as distractions and therefore have the potential to lose employee productivity, these devices can also be subject to corporate banishment. So, what to do? Some say the safest approach is to pay the full cost of an employee`s phone. Another approach is to buy corporate mobile phones for employees. We do not necessarily support these approaches. This is another reminder for employers to ensure that their policies are written in a way that complies with applicable NLRB standards.
A poorly worded rule – even with the best of intentions – can lead to legal headaches for a company. In the Cochran case above, the Court of Appeal ruled that employers must reimburse a “reasonable percentage” of their employees` cell phone bills. However, the court gave no indication of what is meant by “reasonable percentage”. Does that mean 20%? 75 percent? More? Unfortunately, in the years following the Cochran decision, employers still don`t have a good answer, as courts and government agencies have not provided specific guidance. Cochrane case law has tightened the rule that an employer must repay a “reasonable” amount without actually explaining how to calculate that amount. In a 2014 case, a California employee filed a lawsuit on behalf of customer service managers against his employer (essentially a class action lawsuit on the subject!) that was not reimbursed for expenses related to the use of their personal work-related cell phones, for alleged violations of labor regulations and unfair business practices, as well as declaratory actions and legal sanctions. The California Court of Appeals agreed that there had been and held violations (meaning it`s now the law): And if it doesn`t work, then you can always explain that you`re going somewhere without reliable cell phone coverage and that you`ll be hard or impossible to reach most of the time. If your employer reimburses you, the refund is generally not taxable. You should not pay taxes, as long as you record and report work-related use and provided that the company does not pay more than you spent. The IRS doesn`t require your employer to calculate exactly how much commercial use cost you, which makes things easier.
Williams also notes that a company may require your phone to connect to the internet through its encrypted virtual private network. This security measure makes sense for businesses, but it means that all your data, including personal data, can be routed through the corporate network. This makes data a fair game for the company, as there is simply no law or precedent to stop it. “It`s not really any different from using your company`s desktop computer to send a personal email from your cubicle,” says Frederick Lane, a lawyer and security expert. “If you send unencrypted personal data over a network owned and controlled by your employer, you must assume that it can be collected and stored.” Some employees at the scene of the shooting spoke out against FedEx, saying that since they were not allowed to have their personal cell phones with them at the time, they were not able to call outside help to inform anyone of the shooting. Some opponents of FedEx`s corporate policy of banning mobile phones during office hours call this policy a violation of their personal freedoms. If an employee has an emergency, e.B. an injury caused by their child at school, or if a parent or loved one becomes ill or dies, that employee has no way to retrieve that information or be immediately informed of what is happening. Some opponents of FedEx`s corporate policy even argue that access to their cell phone during office hours could have saved lives because someone in the facility could have contacted police earlier and/or given information to police to find the shooter faster. Until the courts or a government agency provides more advice, the employer should carefully monitor their practice and ensure that they have a “reasonable” reimbursement policy and fully address all employees who complain of fair reimbursement.
Even if they don`t “complain”, all employees who use their personal phone for work must be reimbursed (this should be the most important and clearest first overview of this article; the second and less clear conclusion is the amount of reimbursement, but I hope we have given you some tools to create a policy). Currently, the law makes it very clear that the use of mobile phones is not a protected personal freedom. Accordingly, an employer has the right to restrict or prohibit the personal use of mobile phones during an employee`s working and office hours. This means that it is not illegal for a company like FedEx to require all employees to leave their mobile phones at home or in their vehicle while working in the company`s facilities. The reason for this is the productivity of the company. Less time the employee spends on the phone talking to someone, answering calls or playing games on their phone, or on the Internet, . B via Facebook, the more focused the employee is on their task, the more productive and safe the work environment. Many employers adopt “Bring Your Own Device” or BYOD policies for employee use of mobile phones. In states that require reimbursement for work-related calls or for professional mobile phone use, these policies are often necessary to explain how reimbursement is calculated. Many policies simply offer a lump sum payment for work-related phone use. Only because an employer has the right to prohibit the use of mobile phones is it important that such a ban applies universally to all employees, not just some.
Therefore, where certain employees or managers in any way constitute an exception to the rule, it is important to determine the reasons why or whether unlawful discrimination occurred instead. Employee representatives like Maltby believe that the complete removal of the phone should be illegal under a law called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The CFAA generally prohibits unauthorized access to a computer device, data theft electronically. B or malware planting. But proponents are struggling to find a legal case that can set a precedent for employees` cell phones. “Courts insist on seeing tangible financial damage, and usually there isn`t,” Maltby says. .
