> A software they use for time tracking didn't support screenshots on Wayland and[...]<p>This is much more of a red flag than forcing someone to use Windows. A time tracking that takes screenshots? Who needs this kind of micro-surveillance?
An employer not providing a work machine is the first red flag.<p>The only time I ever provided my own machine was for a very scrappy "startup" where I was the first dev. Even then, it turned out the company was destined for failure.
Your employer is at fault.<p>Refusing to install software you don't want on a personal machine is entirely reasonable, particularly when you offered to provide them with multiple alternatives on how they could still track your progress without doing that.<p>If this is a job, as opposed to some kind of consulting, then your employer should provide you with the equipment needed to fulfill the role's requirements.
Because this is the persons own device, it's the employer who failed to provide software that works properly with those devices.<p>To be fair, the firing offense technically isn't refusing to use Windows, but failure to do time tracking I suspect. Not really sure what the screenshot feature is suppose to do though.<p>It really depends on why this person isn't using company issued hardware. I've used my own laptop on jobs before, but that was to prove that Windows was slowing us down, once that was established my boss just bought macs.<p>There's also the option that the company could issue cheap laptops for the stuff that require Windows or other specific software and just let people use their own hardware for everything else.
I'll be the pedant that tries to split hairs:<p>Did you agree to a BYOD policy that specifies you must provide a device that runs required corporate software? If so: your fault, you need to provide that device regardless of your moral aversion to Windows.<p>Did you agree to a BYOD policy, but the policy didn't account for required software? If so: their fault, they need to update their policy so that people actually bring the appropriate devices.<p>Do they not have any BYOD policy? If so: their fault, they should probably be providing a device because they didn't specify any requirement at all.<p>Did I miss any scenarios? Ultimately my response is that this person needs to go back to their employee handbook or onboarding documentation and see what was required of them.
I've turned down a couple jobs because they would have required me to use Windows.<p>I don't hate Windows, I just like working in my little unix-like Mac world. Of course I can do the whole "Run a mini Linux inside Windows so you can actually code", but I just don't want to.<p>For some types of dev it's essential, like if I were building stuff in Visual Studio. But I'm doing web dev. Typescript, React, serverless. There's no reason I can't use a Mac for that other than the company being lazy and not wanting to support them for whatever baseless reasons.
I am missing something, is the person suppose to create screen prints or stream their activity while working ? Anyway ignoring that question ---<p>>I refused to switch to Windows (xorg is just no for me) to support them<p>So, this tells me the person could have used xorg instead of Wayland to work, still staying with their preferred OS. Well, to me, it then the persons fault.<p>They had a option of Windows, Linux w/Xorg and probably a MAC. Software support for Wayland still far from 100% and if the Software is not available, then the employee needs to adjust.
> Who is at fault?<p>Nobody? What does "fault" mean here? Are we going to court?<p>The employer and employee both had strict but mutually exclusive requirements. I empathize with the employee, but this still feels like at-will employment operating as intended.
> Funny thing is they said my activity level was too high (90%+) so my system was buggy. I said no its because I use key bindings and my input ratio is greater than their average worker.<p>This is even funnier, this guy knows how to work efficiently, get the job done faster and with less errors. And they fire him because they do not understand that such a person exists. They cannot wrap their head around it...<p>I've read elsewhere, and I'm agreeing more and more: MS windows is keeping it's users INTENTIONALLY stupid. That is, error's are strange and with weird numbers, checkmarks are unknown what they do. Troubleshooting windows is a nightmare all in an effort to make you go "IT is hard, let's leave it up to Microsoft, let's just rent it all from the cloud"<p>The more and longer I use Linux, the more I understand it and the landscape around it. Logs are much more "sane". Also: how to do correct troubleshooting steps. (Instead of the "shooting in the dark" type of troubleshooting that people with Windows tend to do.)<p>I'm at the point of blaming most bad practices in IT departments on the people just being accustom to bad Windows practices and working around them, and seeing that as "the normal". Even though it's actually insane for the amount of time wasted.<p>But I might me completely wrong. This is just my experience so far.
> This is a personal device and they haven't provided one themselves.<p>BYOB is a good signal that who you're working for is either a zero stage startup, an oddball Linux shop, or a bunch of cheap asses. The farthest I'm willing to do is installing Slack and Outlook on my phone- I already have personal Slack channels and Outlook is an email client (they don't require any MDM).
<i>Never</i> BYOD. Doing business work on a personal machine is a liability both for the employee and for the employer.<p>In general, if an employer provides a machine (or multiple machines), I'm happy to run Windows if it were absolutely required because being a religious zealot about it would signal immaturity, unprofessionalism, and possibly unmanageability as employee. As an example, a previous employer issued me 3 devices for testing: MBP m1 Pro, Thinkpad X1 Carbon for Linux, and Thinkpad P51s for Windows.<p>I think balking in this instance is appropriate and they ought to find another job where the business understands the fundamentals of intellectual property.
Apparently in some trades it's common for employees to provide their own tools. It's usually more basic stuff like hammers and screwdrivers. A mechanic is not going to provide their own tire balancing machine.<p>For example, here's a tool list from an electrical workers' union: <a href="https://ibew234.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Tool_List_from_Inside_Agreement_2015.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://ibew234.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Tool_List_fro...</a><p>There are labor laws related to this. According to one lawyer's site[1], in California employers can require employees to provide their own tools if they pay them double the minimum wage. Otherwise the employer has to provide everything.<p>You could debate whether this is the best system, but the point is it's customary.<p>A computer is a tool, but is it comparable to the kind of tool employees are expected to provide in other industries? I think it's borderline. A computer costs more than a hammer or a screwdrivers. However, a computer could easily be the only tool you need, so arguably the comparison could be to a worker's entire set of tools. The cost of a low-end computer might be in the same ballpark as that[2].<p>So I don't think you can conclude that it's definitely the employer's fault on the basis that they can't require you to provide a computer, because although it's borderline, maybe they can.<p>Having said that, the practical solution might be to just decide whether the job is worth it to you, and if this job is your best overall option, buy a second computer. You can get a brand new Windows laptop for $300. It sucks, but letting them screw up your computer and losing the job might not be the only two options.<p>---<p>[1] <a href="https://pridelegal.com/tools-on-the-job-in-california-who-provides-them/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://pridelegal.com/tools-on-the-job-in-california-who-pr...</a><p>[2] As a reference point, the electrical worker document says an employer must reimburse up to $890 if an employee's tools are lost.
I noticed nobody here is asking whether the OP is an employee or contractor, that is a very important distinction. (And OP has enough ambiguity and contradiction in their comments that I'm doubting the veracity of their story but I digress...)<p>An employer is required to provide the tools that an employee needs to do their job. With a contractor, it depends on the situation but the default is that they are required to have their own tools. Although the contractee or agency may have their own requirements, such as screenshot surveillance.
Disturbing how few remarks here and on Reddit there are about the corporate surveillance driving the author’s problem. Really depressing to see it normalized.
This kind of screenshot/recording software always made me curious what the security practices are around the recorded data. If you are doing any sort of DevOps, chances are you will, at some point, have a secret key visible on the screen. Giving non-security minded people access to this recorded data just feels like a data leak waiting to happen.
The title is misleading. It should be "I lost my job because the employer refused to provide me a device to work on and insisted I modify my private one instead."
Seems to me that the guy didn't have a "job" in the first place. Sounds more like applying to a new one and getting rejected for some whatever reason.<p>Come back when you already have a year into the job and then say "lost my job". Now it's just "didn't get a job", an entirely different and very unremarkable thing.