"insubordination"
wtf, was this a job or a prison camp?
wtf, was this a job or a prison camp?
Their (bad) legal argument was. He refused to follow work instructions, hence he did not perform his work as required, hence we can fire him "op staande voet" which is an on the spot firing that does not require a long process of attempting to improve employee performance. They needed a 'op staande voet' firing because the long process takes months. The justifications for this are limited to things like "theft or fraud", "Threatening or causing Grievous insult", "repeated innebriation" (called out specifically in law), or "refusing a task".
That final cause "Refusing a task" ,or in dutch, quoting from the law: "wanneer de werknemer hardnekkig weigert te voldoen aan redelijke bevelen of opdrachten, hem door of namens de werkgever verstrekt", can be translated to insubordination. A full translation of the dutch phrasing would be: "when the employee persistently refuses to comply with reasonable orders or instructions issued to him by or on behalf of the employer". Hence the company argued that "turn on your webcam all working day" was a "reasonable order or instruction issued by the employer".
Note that the story mentions this was during a "Corrective Action Program". That sounds like they were already in the firing process. Which starts with a process of notifying an employee their performance is not good enough, and requires they are offered a chance to improve. This 'offering a chance to improve' is usually done by putting employees on a 'performance improvement plan'. I believe many US states have similar procedures.
Most US companies follow similar procedures because they are a sensible thing to do. But 49 out of 50 US states have "at will" employment which means that employers can fire any employee at any time for no reason at all.
I will say that it’s typically used in the context of raising children for example, but it’s definitely acceptable to use this word in Dutch in this context.
From what I've read, this employee was indeed insubordinate; but they were entitled to be insubordinate, because the instruction they were given wasn't proper. It would be wrong to court-martial a soldier, for example, if they refused an order to murder PoWs, even though prima facie that would be insubordination.
"Insubordination is the act of willfully disobeying a lawful order of one's superior."
Your boss is your superior, so disobeying what he asks of you is insubordination.
If the court ruled in their favour it would have been insubordination.
If I tell you to go buy 10 apples, refusing would be insubordination because it's legal to buy apples.
If I tell you to go steal 10 apples, refusing would not be insubordination because it's legal to buy apples.
Until the court ruled against them, the view of the firm would have been it was legal to require someone to have their camera on. Hence they viewed it as insubordination to refuse.
They are wrong, it's not insubordination, but it's not unfair of them to think it was.
The employer was also found wrong by a court.
That's why it is not insubordination, the order must be lawful. Your boss is your superior but there are plenty of possible scenarios where disobeying their orders is not insubordination. Besides that, your boss is not in a position to give you orders. It is a work place not a prison or a platoon.
In modern times insubordination is almost always related to military contexts.
Subordination is a role you opt into. Obedience is something you can't get away from.
You take a job as mailman and then you are a subordinate to the postmaster. Refusing to carry out sensible and appropriate orders (without a valid reason) is insubordination and grounds for being fired (more or less) on the spot, even in Scandinavia.
What counts as an appropriate order and a valid ground for refusal is probably very different in different regions/countries/states, but the basic dynamic is not.
1. The act of subordinating, subjecting, or placing in a lower order, rank, or position, or in proper degrees of rank; also, the state of being subordinate or inferior; inferiority of rank or dignity.
2. Degree of lesser rank.
3. The state of being under control of government; subjection to rule; habit of obedience to orders.
4. The act of subordinating, placing in a lower order, or subjecting.
5. The quality or state of being subordinate or inferior to an other; inferiority of rank or dignity; subjection.
6. Place of inferior rank.
7. The process of making something subordinate.
8. The property of being subordinate.
9. The quality of being properly obedient to a superior (as a superior officer).
As you see when you expect your dog to be obedient your are placing yourself on a higher rank, so your dog is your subordinate.
When you expect your employee to be subordinate your are expecting him to obey when something is asked or tasked from ranks higher than their's in your organization. Your are also expecting him to obey to what is written in the subordination contract signed by both.
Wikipedia: obedience, in human behavior, is a form of "social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure".
What I think to be the main issue is the word "order". IMHO an order is not something that might exist in a workplace, with few exceptions. Your boss gives you tasks and expect you to execute them remaining inside a more or less explicit set of rules, your boss cannot give you orders.
We are talking about a Danish person hired by an European company. I fail to see the point of your comment.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superior
Boss is by definition superior to your position, not in a sense better, but higher.
don’t be hoodwinked by bad analogies, or the arbitrary demands of insecure narcissists
The world just isn’t that limited, thankfully.
Tip: think about why you had to put “superior” in quotes.
Not to mention that the company was already monitoring keystrokes and requiring screen sharing. This indeed is some slavery mindset.
Thankfully, in Europe, unions have harshly fought for somewhat fair employment laws and this relationship only applies to actual work and not the whimsies of your boss.
Outside of acknowledged overt heirarchy like the military where the strict heirarchy has a defensible purpose (there is always some sort of heirarchy, but only in something like a military is a pathological form of it justified) you are theoretically always equal to anyone else, and your order-taking is merely a very limited commercial transaction. You are not actually subordinate to your boss or anyone else.
There is just this very narrow scope where you have voluntarily agreed to accept some specific kinds of directions in a specific context in return for pay.
Swap subordinate for subservient and I would not consider "insubservience" or "failure to be a servant" a very damning charge and I would look more at anyone who thought it was.