A loophole in parliamentary procedure allowed MEPs to extend mass scanning of private communications until 2026 — without a direct vote on the substance of the law.
When I have vacation, I don’t want to be bothered with work related stuff either. I understand their want for a vacation, and they should not be blamed. The system that allows this chicanery is at fault here.
I’m sorry but you’re enabling this behavior. When I take an official holiday, I’m unavailable for work, simple as that. Work is a part of my life, not the definition of my life.
I agree. I guess what I didn’t say is that I do a bunch of work on the clock in order to ensure 99% of my responsibilities are covered. And then even the other 0.9% my coworkers can just deflect or work around.
But if a situation arises that actually hurts people imo that is no longer a work issue but a humanity issue, and if my fellows can’t handle it then I do want to be made aware.
If this a regular occurrence then there needs to be some way to block or mitigate the damage, so that people can go on vacation and not worry they’re coming back to a mess.
I mean how are there not people in your office, people you work next to, people who know about which issues you ought to be made aware of, that can reach out to you?
The total vote count required shouldn’t change if someone’s on vacation.
If they can’t vote remotely or by proxy, then the vote should either be delayed or extended, or anyone absent should be listed as not present or abstained. Either way the percentage of “yes” votes shouldn’t be any different from if every seat was in attendance.
If there’s a threshold needed for a “yes” vote then it’s functionally the same, even without counting as one. I’m just saying that threshold shouldn’t go down just because someone is on vacation.
FFS this isn’t some factory job where you punch in and out. If you can’t have your precious vacation interrupted for the sake of the nation you should find another job
When I have vacation, I don’t want to be bothered with work related stuff either. I understand their want for a vacation, and they should not be blamed. The system that allows this chicanery is at fault here.
I don’t want to be bothered while on vacation either, but if something happens at work that needs my specific attention someone will find me.
For fuck’s sakes we can’t be taking server rooms more seriously than democracy.
I’m sorry but you’re enabling this behavior. When I take an official holiday, I’m unavailable for work, simple as that. Work is a part of my life, not the definition of my life.
I agree. I guess what I didn’t say is that I do a bunch of work on the clock in order to ensure 99% of my responsibilities are covered. And then even the other 0.9% my coworkers can just deflect or work around.
But if a situation arises that actually hurts people imo that is no longer a work issue but a humanity issue, and if my fellows can’t handle it then I do want to be made aware.
If this a regular occurrence then there needs to be some way to block or mitigate the damage, so that people can go on vacation and not worry they’re coming back to a mess.
In this case, this is a thing that can be postponed
I can agree if they called them because “OH NO ALL OUR PEOPLE ARE DYING WHAT DO WE DOO” but it’s not
I guess I’m not European so I don’t know that much about this process. It sounded serious, but if it can be postponed then yeah postpone.
When a server is down, they want to find you. When they want to pass a law which you will vote against, how hard do you think they’re trying?
I mean how are there not people in your office, people you work next to, people who know about which issues you ought to be made aware of, that can reach out to you?
It’s not a regular job though. They know what they’re getting into.
The total vote count required shouldn’t change if someone’s on vacation.
If they can’t vote remotely or by proxy, then the vote should either be delayed or extended, or anyone absent should be listed as not present or abstained. Either way the percentage of “yes” votes shouldn’t be any different from if every seat was in attendance.
Never heard of a parliament where abstain = no. Is that common?
If there’s a threshold needed for a “yes” vote then it’s functionally the same, even without counting as one. I’m just saying that threshold shouldn’t go down just because someone is on vacation.
FFS this isn’t some factory job where you punch in and out. If you can’t have your precious vacation interrupted for the sake of the nation you should find another job
The difference beeing is that.they do not have attendence requirements, which i am sure you do at your work, can’t just not show up.
The neat part is the system doesn’t allow it but the person that had to reject it was for this so she didnt