|
|
|
|
|
|
by scarmig
3079 days ago
|
|
|
So your claim is that if one person is employed by another, they're obligated to always act with their best interests at heart, even if the employer doesn't do the same for the employee? Levandowski didn't purchase her ears, memory, and voice. Just her labor for some relatively low wage however many hours per week. I'm sure in the end he'll purchase them, but at a much steeper cost than if he had just paid for them up front. |
|
|
Imagine this is a typical company/employee relationship. Your boss isn't paying you correctly, instead of bringing it up with him (or HR, or state labor group) and resolving it you begin to collect information that is unrelated to your issue at hand (pay). You notice that your boss is selling trade secrets and paying off competitors. Instead of telling someone (at Waymo, Uber, Telsa, the police etc), you continue to collect information about your boss, including his sex toys in his closet and use that information against him to resolve your unrelated HR complaint. This would not go over well in a traditional employee relationship, let alone a nanny type situation.
Maybe nothing is illegal there, but it's definitely unethical. I could be swayed on her tactics if the info she collected was things like "he also doesn't pay his gardener and housekeeper" but the fact that she hung around so that she could get the license plates of people showing up to his door is incredible unethical. It doesn't make what he did right, but she acted in a totally inappropriate manner.