HN Explorer

7 comments

[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 31.9 ms ] thread
direwolf20
Why do employers deny their employees toilet breaks? Do they actually believe it makes the employees more productive, or are they just cruel people?
mytailorisrich
It's low trust and they want to avoid abuse of toilet breaks so they set rules on number of breaks and duration...
globular-toast
Some people can't give without taking. They see the world purely as zero sum. They can't win without someone else losing. So, yeah, if they feel like they're "giving" to someone by paying them minimum wage they'll try to take as much as they can in return, including that person's dignity.
n4r9
James Dyson advocated for Brexit on the basis of supporting British industry, and shortly afterwards migrated the company HQ to Singapore.
martiuk
Why is Dyson being sued for actions taken by their suppliers? This is setting a bizarre precedent.
xiphias2
I understand that there's a precedent here, but isn't normally the precedent for the opposite in contract law?

And if UK is precedent based, how come the previous precedents don't apply here?

I agree that no toilet breaks is cruel, but the problem here is knowing about the supplier using it?

There was not much about the legal bases in the article.

Cytobit
Can it really be a landmark case if they settled? Settlements don't make case law.