It's really funny to me that with both the AI act and GDPR, you will see swathes of threads of people on HN bashing the law only to then later discover the purpose of this legislation from first principles.
The same could come to Europe (lowballing broke people), because you can just make employees give their consent by baking it into all employment contracts. Just like the working time directive opt-out (HR say "take it or leave it" to 99.9% of people).
It probably already happens where it's already acceptable to request financial checks such as the finance industry.
You could try, but that would most likely be illegal and also fought tooth and nail by unions, which aren't as neutered as American unions. In Europe, sympathy strikes aren't Verboten like in the US.
The problem is the party selling that data actually. The nurses would need to consent that whomever the data broker got that data from to share their data with the broker and for the broker to share that data with the nursing service.
I don't agree. Which laws? Putting it in the contract is giving your permission. You're allowed to give your permission under GDPR.
A similar thing happened with the Working Time Directive - almost all contracts in my country make you agree to opt-out and that's been like that for over 15 years
That's not how European courts have been interpreting it. When they say "free consent" they do mean free as in beer, so a "consent or loose your job" provisions would almost certainly be thrown out.
Firstly, the WTD makes mandatory a number of things that cannot be opted out from. The only thing opt-outable is the maximum of 48 hours work per week on average, and it is left to member states to legislate how that opt-out works (should they choose to have the opt-out at all).
In the UK, to pick a specific example, it is a combination of some workers not being allowed a choice of opt-out (e.g. healthcare workers, self-employed, "gig workers"), some union workers derogating that right to their unions collective bargaining... but for every other worker, the 48 hours is the law. You cannot mandate it in a contract. You can't advertise a job where you set the hours and those hours are on average over 48 hours per week. It's not a valid job and you are immediately in breach of statutory law.
You'll have to look at member states cases, it's on them to define how the opt-out works.
One example: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61123e81e90e0... "In respect of the 48 hour week the claimant had not signed an opt out and as such if the claimant was working in excess of 48 hours average across
the week then her right was being infringed. It is not in dispute that this is a statutory right capable of protection."
Yes, as I said, by putting it in the employment contract when applying for a job.
Honestly it's hilarious how some people view GDPR. They think CEOs lose sleep at night worrying about it, that they might go to jail for it, or have to pay 100M Euro fine for a breach of it. It's simply not the case.
The reality of EU directives and regulations are very different to how they are sold. Many people fall prey to the marketing
15 years back, I was subscribed to EU official blog which presents their side of tabloid headlines like "Overpaid French suits want to ban blue stickers on only freckled apples". Did they publish ones for AI Act and GDPR, especially as more countries elect manly commonsense billionaire sympathizers?
It probably already happens where it's already acceptable to request financial checks such as the finance industry.