Picture: Sanook

 

Sanook published a story from a Facebook user that they said served as a warning for people given permission to work from home. 

 

The shortened version of the permission - WFH - is now widespread in Thailand. 

 

A post by a man called Thawichaya Tungsaharangsee said that four younger people in his company had been told they could work from home for two weeks.

 

But the company made it clear they were to only go out if absolutely necessary. There should be no gathering outside or shopping.

 

Instead four of them met up for a meal at an unnamed mall just 3 days into their WFH experience. 

 

Six or seven days later they all tested positive for Covid and some had infected their wives and children and employees at their homes. 

 

They were unsure who infected whom. 

 

One is only 30 something but is in the worst condition with lung problems. 

 

He advised people not to leave home - even wearing a mask didn't save them as they removed them to eat. 

 

The company is apparently refusing to pay their salaries because of this breach in their previously announced rules. 

 

-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2021-04-28

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

I foresee much backtracking very soon from the company. No company can instruct or order individuals to not leave their home. There is no basis in law for this at all. Working from home is not the same as not being able to leave your home. 

 

The company can fire them I guess if they were eating when they should have been working, but workers rights are fairly well protected in Thailand and the Ministry of Labour would probably want to see evidence that these workers were given warning before being fired. 

 

 

Sad that the reality of doing what they wanted to do has cost them greatly and maybe with their lives.  Some people will never learn, and this is why this virus keeps making its rounds, selfishness and personal views and attitudes such as " I can do what I want on my own time" unfortunately cause a tremendous loss of FACE.  I had a form for my employee's to sign that precluded them from working out during their lunch breaks, and if injured during such action they would not be covered under the company medical I provided.  Working out was not job related, just like these folks were out dining after being told not to with this statement:

11 minutes ago, webfact said:

But the company made it clear they were to only go out if absolutely necessary. There should be no gathering outside or shopping.

Sucks to be in this position, but the unfortunate issue is they caused this to fall upon themselves.

29 minutes ago, jonclark said:

There is no basis in law for this at all. Working from home is not the same as not being able to leave your home. 

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.

 

 

this is the biggest problem in Thailand, too many people just seem to think they can ignore evrything and do as they please spreading covid to everyone around them without a worry in the world. Working from home so they avoid close contact with others and they all go out to dinner ignoring the good will of the company trying to help them avoid catching covid, again we see the stupidity/ignorance of people, if the people actually thought before acting they would realize they need to stay away from others

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.

5 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

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

....and it is good to be back....555

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.

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) 

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

1 hour ago, webfact said:

But the company made it clear they were to only go out if absolutely necessary. There should be no gathering outside or shopping.

Personally I would call 'shopping' for food a necessity. I've seen my wife's efforts pre-pandemic to get food online.

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

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...

...and this is why all infected people are admitted into hospital.

 

Most people cannot be trusted to 14-days of home isolation, especially if they are asymptomatic and not feeling sick.

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 ????

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.

 

 

35 minutes ago, rasmus5150 said:

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.

I can afford air-con, I just don't feel it's worth the expense most of the time.

I generally use mine in the bedroom to lower the temp to 28c at night when going to sleep.

But the rest of the day i'm happy enough at the ambient temperature.

 

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. 

3 hours ago, Fromas said:

They got their just desserts. ????

Som nam na... do I feel sorry for them... NO.

seems fair enough.

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.

 

 

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

 

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.

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. 

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. 

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..

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. 

 

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!

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.

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.