Timeline for Is there any US labor law which needs to be heeded by call centers staffed exclusively abroad? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
33 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 10, 2019 at 5:45 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Sep 10, 2019 at 13:13 | |||||
| Sep 10, 2019 at 5:42 | history | edited | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Sep 10, 2019 at 5:32 | history | edited | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Sep 9, 2019 at 19:45 | history | edited | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Sep 9, 2019 at 19:42 | comment | added | grovkin | @Nij either that or I was responding to a comment which has since been erased. | |
| Aug 24, 2019 at 6:45 | comment | added | user4657 | The only person to have written "it seems" in this entire page is you. Now forgive me for being blunt, but it appears you haven't properly read any of the responses to either your question or its comments, and therefore must have misunderstood them because again, you're not being offered opinions, you're being told facts - the call centre employee is not working in the USA. Whatever hypothetical laws might exist or whether they would be created is not relevant here. Only what the law is and is not, now, matters now. | |
| Aug 23, 2019 at 16:03 | history | closed |
Trish user4657 user662852 user6726 A. K. |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Aug 23, 2019 at 3:46 | comment | added | grovkin | @user662862 I am sorry if it's too blunt, but anything that starts with "it seems" is an opinion. And the question is about the law. Law can proclaim that the son is considered be out even when it's not out for the purposes of interpreting a certain legal point. The prerogative to say what is the limitations on behavior which are "the law" belongs to the legislature -- not to opinions on the Internet. | |
| Aug 21, 2019 at 21:43 | comment | added | grovkin | @user662852 an interaction between a customer and a merchant/vendor/etc is accomplished. Both the customer and the vendor are US-based. That's a unit of work done in the US. | |
| Aug 21, 2019 at 19:29 | comment | added | user4657 | I'm not the one expressing an opinion that is evidently not accurate. You're the one that asked the question - why do you presume to know better than those answering it then? | |
| Aug 21, 2019 at 18:42 | comment | added | user662852 | What "unit of work" occurs in the United States in the scenario? | |
| Aug 21, 2019 at 16:59 | history | edited | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Aug 21, 2019 at 16:51 | history | edited | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1170 characters in body
|
| Aug 21, 2019 at 16:25 | comment | added | grovkin | @Nij, please, be more careful in distinguishing between what is a fact and what is an opinion, which you find to be self-evident. A worker who is abroad not being a worker in the US is a fact. You seem to be of the opinion that working while abroad is never a unit of work in the US. That's an opinion. There are a number of actions which can be performed abroad and still be considered to be actions in the US by the US law. For example, foreigners can commit crimes in the US without ever setting foot in the US; US citizens owe taxes on income earned abroad. This is so as a matter of law. | |
| Aug 21, 2019 at 5:59 | comment | added | user4657 | There is no need to justify a fact. The call centre workers are working in the country of their actual location, for a company regulated under that jurisdiction, almost certainly being paid in the local currency, living in the local area. They are not in the USA, they are not working in the USA, and your refusal to accept the fact (even after multiple answers explain it) makes this entire question pointless. | |
| Aug 21, 2019 at 0:14 | answer | added | Greendrake | timeline score: 0 | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 21:36 | answer | added | Dale M♦ | timeline score: 5 | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 21:10 | answer | added | MSalters | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 21:08 | comment | added | grovkin | @MSalters you seem to be sidestepping the fact that I said that there are separate considerations here. The main question is about the work authorization. For the sake of narrowing the question, I stipulated that we can assume that all occupational licenses are in order. Everything you are mentioning does not address the main consideration of my question -- work authorization. | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 21:03 | comment | added | MSalters | @grovkin: you might need an introduction to law course, or something similar. Financial services are covered by financial services law because they obviously are financial services. Other services arent financial services. | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 20:52 | comment | added | grovkin | @MSalters is there no "regardless of service" from the perspective of the labor law? Why would the type of service they provide be relevant with respect to whether they are authorized to provide it without being authorized to work in the US? | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 20:49 | comment | added | MSalters | @grovkin: that is plain incorrect. There is no "regardless of service" here. Nor do they avoid local jurisdiction merely by not being physically present. The question might be valid on its ownm but the assumptions that led you to it are not. | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 20:44 | comment | added | grovkin | @MSalters my question is regarding the legal effect of putting someone, who is on the phone, in another country. Regardless of the service they perform (whether it is administering sales or providing financial services or even technical support), they are avoiding a local jurisdiction by being in another country while performing same functions as they would if they were taking calls from across the street. What, in law, allows for this? | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 20:41 | comment | added | MSalters | @grovkin: no, that is a sale of goods. You dont pay for the sales pitch, you pay for the car. You seem to mix different areas of law. Oversight of accountants for instance is not labor law but financial services law. | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 20:38 | comment | added | grovkin | @MSalters this is re labor law and, to some extent, going around legislative intent of existing consumer protections by operating outside of the jurisdiction. Imagine setting up a used-car show room in the US and doing all the negotiating and contracting sales over the phone with someone in Russia. | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 20:30 | comment | added | MSalters | Valid question. Goods need to be imported, but services can be provided cross-border with little oversight. Finanial services are somewhat exempt as there's oversight even domestically. | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 19:53 | comment | added | grovkin | @Nij you may try making your comment into an answer. But you would need more than just your opinion to justify why the deems this to be the case. | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 19:49 | comment | added | user4657 | The call centre workers are not working in the USA, "effectively" or otherwise, so this entire question rests on a false premise. | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 19:47 | history | edited | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 802 characters in body
|
| Aug 20, 2019 at 19:32 | history | edited | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Aug 20, 2019 at 13:20 | answer | added | hszmv | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 13:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 23, 2019 at 16:03 | |||||
| Aug 20, 2019 at 12:50 | history | asked | grovkin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |