Hacker News Reader

Comment by Phylter | Hacker News Reader

It's coming to the rest of the country soon. My employer has already sent many of their employees to work from home though they've never had a work from home policy and very few exceptions to the rule. As the continuing jokes goes, I guess we'll find out how well we can work from home after all.

View on HN

My company has pretty much split 50/50 among those that can work remotely in a rotation. I'm in the office this week, will be out next. 1 week in the office, 1 week from home, repeat for as long as necessary. They've also closed the cafeteria. They're still serving food, but you have to take it back to your desk and eat alone. Also no "shared use" utensils. So, the soup and salad bars are still open, but instead of serving yourself, you have to indicate to the kitchen staff what you'd like on your salad. Annoying, but I get it. trying to minimize possible exposure. This is in Illinois. We've also closed restaurants for dine-in and bars are heavily restricted as well.

Today, during my commute on the tollways, the signs indicated do not stop at the toll plazas. All of the manned stations are closed. They indicated to either use your I-Pass or pay your missed toll online. I don't think they even want people using the unmanned cash/self-served stations.

Your employer sending employees home does not have the force of law behind it. You're probably not at risk of getting shot and/or imprisoned for violating their request.

It has the force of discretion and common sense behind it. The aspiration of a society isn't for it to be run by the force of law at every turn. It's to educate and motivate people to make good decisions on their own where the force of law leaves off.

Oh, I agree. My point was that a request by a company to its employees is eons away in terms of severity and consequence than the government dictating the consequences under which you may leave your home.

A city just more or less put its entire population in parole.

People on parole have very little in the way of 4th Amendment rights, to cite one distinction.

My point is that the distinction is meaningless because we should all be committed enough to the same goal and put the severity of the situation above a rebellion instinct. There are other outlets for that.

From official post:

It is OK to go outside for walks if you are not in a group.

I don't think they'll be shooting or arresting anyone.

And the other linked article said they'll be lax enforcement the first few days to give people time to adjust.

How is this not an infringement on the right to assemble?

Good luck getting a court of law to rule against this order.

The Supreme Court has suspended sessions that have oral arguments, starting today:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/...

“The Court’s postponement of argument sessions in light of public health concerns is not unprecedented. The Court postponed scheduled arguments for October 1918 in response to the Spanish flu epidemic. The Court also shortened its argument calendars in August 1793 and August 1798 in response to yellow fever outbreaks.”

Don't know about the Bay Area but where I live they've declared a judicial emergency and shut down most of the courts. It might violate the right to assembly but you're unlikely to get a judge to hear your argument until after the order has been lifted.

It absolutely is, but this is an emergency and there is a direct causal link.

For California: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...

For the Federal Goverment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Service_Act

The list (for the federal government) of diseases is managed via Executive Order [PDF] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2003-04-09/pdf/03-883...

The CDC also has a link to this: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...

These measures have precedent, so good luck in getting these overturned.

I can't directly reply to npo9, but I imagine the argument in front of the court would amount to something along the lines of where shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not protected by the 1st Amendment, either. It's about balancing the freedom versus the overall public good.

Where that balance is, I don't know. That's why we have the courts, to begin with.

Violating this order is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in county jail and/or $1,000 fine. So while you're indeed at risk of imprisonment you're still quite a ways away from "getting shot" unless you're doing something else IN ADDITION TO violating the order.

Misdemeanors still involve getting arrested. If you resist arrest because, for example, the law you're being arrested for violating is ridiculous and/or unconstitutional, there's a pretty decent chance you're gonna get shot.

Unless I'm mistaken, the thing you'd be getting shot for is resisting arrest? Which went above and beyond violating the health order that is put in place to try and contain a potentially lethal disease from further spreading?

No but it could have the force of law behind it soon. There's no mandate but they're preparing for a case where it might be. Besides, the real issue is if everybody gets sick they can't help their customers and they can't sell their product and that'll cost more money in the long run. Really, they're probably just trying to make sure their business keeps running.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com