Trust-Machines's avatar

Trust-Machines

Imagine a TF booth with a twist
Founded
10
Years Ago
60 Members303 Watchers

Trust Machines - Godmother by JMD1961, literature

Trust Machines - Scenes from a Pandemic by dkfenger, literature

/r/vennmachines FAQ (v18) by dkfenger, literature

Patty on the Grill by grapehyacinth, literature

Trust Machines - UnConventional Encounters, pt 1 by TalGreywolf, literature

When Teaching Meets Monster Wars by SketchySeraph, literature

Trust Machines: Taking the Plunge by grapehyacinth, literature

Trust Machines - Summer Birthday by dkfenger, literature

Trust Machines - Homecoming by dkfenger, literature

Comments 152

Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
...I wonder, these machines started nohth of the 45th, didn't they?  I wonder then how they got down heah...
The first one was in a small town in British Columbia, yes.  The rest were fairly randomly scattered across the planet.
Is anyone in this group a lawyer? I'm trying to figure out a point of employment law for the sequel to "Pioneers" (though I'm not sure how relevant it will be).  Can an employer legally require their employees to venn for work?

I figure there would be clear-cut edge cases; if a manager of a group of accountants required all his subordinates to venn into attractive young women while on duty, he'd get the book thrown at him, and if someone is hired to work at a catgirl cafe and refuses to venn into a catgirl, they probably don't have a legal leg to stand on.  More ambiguous cases could be:

1. Workers in a dangerous job being required to venn into forms adapted for the danger, or simply venned slightly so if they get killed it's not permanent. E.g. high-rise construction workers required to have tails for better balance, aquatic construction workers required to be amphibious, etc.

2. A regular cafe whose new management wants to make it a catgirl cafe.

3. Hooters starts hiring a wider range of people but requiring them to venn into young, attractive women while on duty.

I think one law likely to be enacted either by legislatures or by judges is that employers who require that have to pay their employees for the time they spend waiting in line at the Venn machine and inside in.  There would probably be other provisions of the law saying under what circumstances an employer can and can't require employees to venn, but I'm not sure what they would be -- probably they woud vary from state to state within the U.S., and such laws wouldn't be enacted until the media blackout is over.
Imagine a place of employment or a school forbids Benning -- any Benning (so that fingerprinting or retina scanning works.)

Now, imagine that a student or employee gets into a fatal accident on the way home.

Imagine the lawsuit. Imagine the publicity.
I am not a lawyer (engineer), but I'm always game to speculate a little.

I suspect that pre-existing employees would have to be grandfathered, but writing clauses like the three above into contracts doesn't seem beyond the pale at least for "employment at will" jurisdictions.  Number 1 especially - "our insurance won't cover you if you're not venned", even restrictive jurisdictions would have to let that go - though they might require the employee be retained, just at a non-hazardous position (and respective pay).  I don't see workers in any high-risk area being opposed to the extra safety that a minimal venn provides.  Tails or extra arms, though...  I can see that being more "performance pay" related - if you can do 20% more work in a day in a venned form, and get paid 20% more as a result, it seems like most people would go for it.

Similarly, it feels like Hooters and the catgirl cafe are *less* discriminatory that Hooters is today - in the Trust Machines world it's a lot easier to meet their appearance standards.

I can see people pushing for making venning time "on the clock", but that leads to other complications.  Employees that don't need to venn would feel slighted, and (the biggest loss of such a ruling, I feel...) those who would consider a full-month venn to their working form have less reason to do so.

I suspect that especially in the U.S., the standards would vary a lot from state to state.  In "Career Day" I suggest that at least one jurisdiction goes maybe a little far for some - if you're venned into a non-animate shape, employment standards no longer apply.  (So you can enter into a contract that would pay much less than minimum wage, but since your costs are zero, some people may still consider it...)

I can see at least one broad division suggested by your questions here - "may require" and "may not require" venning.  May Require states will likely vary extensively as to compensation for such requirements, and also as to the range of allowable requirements.  (Given the perks of semi-inanimate forms, I can see some employers at least strongly encouraging their use...).  I can see other states divided on whether or not an employer can discriminate against venned employees in various ways.
I'm not a lawyer, but I know that in the US, an employer is generally free to fire an employee for any reason except being in a protected class This means that just about everything you mention would be legal except for the manager who wants the accountants to be attractive women. Given precedents, the courts and government agencies are likely to call that sex discrimination even though you could argue that it isn't.

Disability is also a protected class. I would guess that a court would interpret "unable to be Venned" as a disability (though you never know with courts), so employers might not be allowed to fire employees for being unable to be Venned if they can make accommodations for the employees. However, there aren't really many people who can't be Venned (I can only think of underage people, certain pregnancy scenarios, and the Self-Respect scenario), and "I just don't like Venning" probably wouldn't count.

Paying employeees for the time spent Venning would not always matter, but it might if minimum wage or overtime laws come into effect. The existing rules say that time spent changing clothes does not have to be compensated, but time putting on protective gear does. The Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that protective clothing counts as clothes, not as protective gear, (but unions can bargain to have it count anyway). I would assume that time spent Venning would be like the time spent putting on protective gear and has to be compensated. Again, courts often rule in weird ways so you can never know for sure ahead of time.
There would be very few people capable of doing useful work that are too disabled to use the Venn Machines, so I doubt that category would see any traction except as virtue signalling.

I can see where using venned forms for hazardous workplaces would count as protective gear, and only compensated if required for that reason. 

Distance to a Venn Machine might affect how willing employees are to be venned for work.  If it adds an hour to your commute, it's a huge headache...  This is only a factor in the first few years, by year four or so most people would be able to hit one on the way to work without undue effort.  (Then again, I'd expect a lot more people going for long-term changes for safety reasons by then, too.)

Another point to consider: courts and legislatures move pretty slowly.  Neither's going to be getting much done in the first two years, especially while most governments are in "ignore it and hope it goes away" mode.  Bureaucrats, however...  They'll fit it into existing rules in whatever way suits them.