Jump to content

Work from home: Company won't pay salary for group who caught Covid after dining at a mall


Recommended Posts

Posted
26 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

The solution is don't get tested, continue to go to work and spread the disease even further......or make up a story about another illness........whatever you do, getting tested is 'dangerous'...

welcome back, I missed the sarcasm and reading between the lines.

  • Like 1
Posted

Why is it so difficult to stay home to prevent a deadly disease? Nobody likes it but so far limiting social interaction remains the most effective Covid prevention measure. And that until the first 10 billion vaccine have been given.

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, Boomer6969 said:

Why is it so difficult to stay home to prevent a deadly disease? Nobody likes it but so far limiting social interaction remains the most effective Covid prevention measure. And that until the first 10 billion vaccine have been given.

I think a huge number of young(er) people are naturally gung-ho and further buoyed by the fact so few die or are even aware they have or have had covid19..........so let's party on....(I have been in self-isolation since April 7th) 

  • Like 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

They could have been infected days before they went out to a meal... possibly infect at work before toldo work from home.

Or even while paragliding at Nai Harn beach...

Posted
50 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Going to shopping malls is stupid at the best of times.

Not all Thai people can afford air-con just like you.

 

So from March to June everybody flocks to the Malls, for chilled comfort. Maybe that's why the 3rd wave is crashing down so hard on Thailand at the moment.

 

The government should ban air-con ????

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

The Labour department supports workers really well in Thailand but I don't think this case is clear-cut. Sure they want verbal, then written warning for less serious cases but the company I used to work for also fired one employee for driving over 160 kph with another employee in the car and he didn't slow down when told to. The scared employee reported it to internal controls and the guy was fired without warning. We dubbed him Mini Michael Schumacher. Strange but funny things happening in Thailand. He accepted his fate and left.

 

I have no idea what really would have happened if he'd gone to the labour department, we less involved who didn't know what the lawyers said speculated that risking a co-workers life should be serious enough. No way the company would have done it otherwise.

 

 

Edited by MikeyIdea
Posted
2 hours ago, Fromas said:


In a normal year you would be correct. In this situation, the company has a right to stop employees infecting one another, or engaging in high-risk behavior leading to that.

 

 

 Yes the company does have the right to stop employees infecting each other whist they are contractually obliged to the working hours of their employer. After those contractual obligations are fulfilled the company has no right whatsoever to dictate what can or cannot be done outside of working hours.  The government has deemed it safe for restaurants in shopping centers to serve 'sit down' customers. The company cannot override the governments advice for their own convenience. 

 

Working from home is not the same as being told to stay at home. 

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jonclark said:

The company cannot override the governments advice for their own convenience.

 

Yes it can. It can restrict employees' freedoms according to contract.

Since there's been cross-infection among employees, for those employees to seek redress from the Labor Department is a fool's errand.

 

 

Edited by Fromas
  • Confused 1
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, ukrules said:

I feel the need to find out the name of the company involved here and log it in my archives.

 

Why, so you don't work for them accidently,  or buy products from them.  If you think like that then why are you not boycotting China.  Alas sarcasm fills my post.

Edited by ThailandRyan
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

So let's say only 1 of them would have gone, purely for the sake of wanting to eat something (in many areas there is little choice online), and he later on gotten into a normal meeting, they would still all end up infected? What would the boss have done in that case? Communist practices. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Fromas said:


In a normal year you would be correct. In this situation, the company has a right to stop employees infecting one another, or engaging in high-risk behavior leading to that.

 

 

 

No they don't.

 

There is no basis on which a company can mandate where you locate your person in your spare time.

 

There is also no way the company can legally witthold their salary for refusing that mandate. These are:

1 - The mandate is not legal

2 - It is illegal to withhold payments or part payment for employees

 

2nd one is Thai Labor Law 101 - up there with the stuff every employer knows. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Surelynot said:

I think a huge number of young(er) people are naturally gung-ho and further buoyed by the fact so few die or are even aware they have or have had covid19..........so let's party on....(I have been in self-isolation since April 7th) 

gung ho? Less intelligent imo and that is world over..

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Boomer6969 said:

Why is it so difficult to stay home to prevent a deadly disease? Nobody likes it but so far limiting social interaction remains the most effective Covid prevention measure. And that until the first 10 billion vaccine have been given.

 

The government mandates which establishments can and cannot open.

 

People going to a place of business that is open at the governments blessing is fine. If the government says they should be closed - then you don't go.

 

If you want to keep yourself indoors when the government allows places to open - that's your business. 

  • Like 1
Posted

 

3 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

There is also no way the company can legally witthold their salary for refusing that mandate.

 

Again, in a normal year I tend to agree.

Now, in the state we're in, we'll see about that!

Posted
32 minutes ago, Fromas said:

 

Yes it can. It can restrict employees' freedoms according to contract.

Since there's been cross-infection among employees, for those employees to seek redress from the Labor Department is a fool's errand.

 

 

 

Nope - labor contracts have to comply with laws. Anything in a labor contract that is not legitimate is not enforcable.

 

Let's say a labor contract wrote that you would give up your first child to the company. It could be there, you could sign it, it would not be binding.

  • Like 1
Posted

I doubt most bosses care about labour laws, they will just make your life miserable otherwise. Many of those working don't even get social fees paid.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 21

      Thailand Live Sunday 24 November 2024

    2. 0

      Tour Boat Capsizes in Cheow Lan Dam in Storm: Search for Missing French Tourist

    3. 32

      K bank E-mail with Tax Forms attached ?

    4. 21

      Thailand Live Sunday 24 November 2024

    5. 54

      Is this the "Little Surprise" of 47 and the Speaker?

    6. 0

      Surin Man Drives Car with Pedestrian’s Body on Roof for Over 30 Km Before Being Stopped

    7. 0

      Myanmar Worker Rescued After Hand Trapped in Meat Grinder for Two Hours

  • Popular in The Pub


×
×
  • Create New...