24 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

 

 

Aw do you remember when you were young. 

 

Going out getting blitzed on Friday night was not good for you but what the hell

Having a few drinks and then driving home because we really did not drink that much

Picking up a girl in a bar for a one nighter and not worrying about silly things like STD

 

It is now a lot worse because we live in a society (not just here) where kids are not taught responsibility and no one does anything wrong it is always someone elses fault.

 

The yes I screwed up but still I should get everything.

 

If in fact they were told not socialize in person and they were out to lunch during working hours then even though both of these were stipulated as part of the deal for working at home they should be fired for breach of contract and immediately put on unpaid sick leave.

 

Agree....my comment related to a post dealing with the wider aspects of all Thais responding to requests to conform to a lockdown........but thanks for your comments anyway.

2 hours ago, ChaiyaTH said:

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. 

No normal meetings they were to work from home independently.  Is that hard to understand. If 1 got infected and had been solo, well that's a different story.  Stop trying to make up another alternate timeline for infections. That's is not the story or OP.

Correct.

 

Someone must have reported my second post and got it removed. The current second post presumes the employees were fired.

7 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.

If you lived on your own in a krappy little "my loom" with no air conditioning or kitchen like many Thais do, would you find it easy to lock yourself in there 24/7 all because of a disease with a 99.7% survival rate in Thailand?

8 hours ago, webfact said:

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

 

Assuming the accuracy of the FB post, this wouldn't be a "holed up in my dorm" case, would it?

Some off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

9 hours ago, jonclark said:

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. 

 

 

If 4 of them met for a meal at a mall it is more than likely they were doing so 

on company time and against guidelines. It would be easy enough with the 

track and trace app to determine whether they were out during working hours. 

Regardless , with a highly contagious virus on the loose at the moment, it was 

foolish of these employees to have a get together, rather than stay home.

 

I wouldn't know what the tribunal would decide in this situation, if there were  

clear breaches of WFH requirements, specifically regarding shopping and socialising 

then they may well judge in favour of the company.

 

4 hours ago, pedro01 said:

(4) payment as a deposit under Section 10, or as compensation to the Employer for damage caused by the Employee either willfully or with gross negligence, with the prior consent of the Employee; or

 

The company's gonna get 'em under this clause.  The employees will either give consent to the compensation, or go down the road scratching their unemployed butts.  For cause- gross negligence in the face of a pandemic.

 

It's one thing to go out to eat.  It's another thing completely to meet for lunch with co-workers after you've been expressly told not to, because the company doesn't want the disease spreading in their employee base.

 

Who's gonna win?   No telling in this special circumstance.

 

9 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.

 

yup... during work hours.

 

27 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

The company's gonna get 'em under this clause.  The employees will either give consent to the compensation, or go down the road scratching their unemployed butts.  For cause- gross negligence in the face of a pandemic.

 

It's one thing to go out to eat.  It's another thing completely to meet for lunch with co-workers after you've been expressly told not to, because the company doesn't want the disease spreading in their employee base.

 

Who's gonna win?   No telling in this special circumstance.

 

 

It's not gross negligence - that would be negligence in a work related task.

 

Like I said - companies cannot tell you what to do in your spare time. That is slavery, not employment. 

Yet I've been told, "talk to a real lawyer"  ???? 

4 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

It's not gross negligence - that would be negligence in a work related task.

 

Like I said - companies cannot tell you what to do in your spare time. That is slavery, not employment. 

 

That's one opinion.  I've proposed another. 

 

It remains to be seen which one will prevail.

 

One other opinion I'll propose is that, for every clause in the published laws, there are pages and pages of case law defining what they really mean, and how they'll be applied.  That's why there's lawyers.

 

14 hours ago, Fromas said:

 

 

Again, in a normal year I tend to agree.

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

 

Has the current state we are in some how changed the Labour laws ?

The letter of the law, no.

How the law is interpreted and applied, high probability.

13 hours ago, impulse said:

 

That's one opinion.  I've proposed another. 

 

It remains to be seen which one will prevail.

 

One other opinion I'll propose is that, for every clause in the published laws, there are pages and pages of case law defining what they really mean, and how they'll be applied.  That's why there's lawyers.

 

 

That's how US law works, not Thai law.