This is your opinion. This is the reason we have lawyers and judges. They'll make the decision. One is a vehicle code and the other is penal code. Again agree to disagree.
Again... that's about video recording. I know that a company can video record for safety and legitimate business reasons like theft.Apparently, my opinion is the same as the opinion of the California Court of Appeals. While it is only an opinion, it is the Courts opinion. And they tackle the Penal Code vs. Vehicle Code relating to windshield cameras.
I apologize I see now at the bottom that the law(though a different penal code) was introduced but was shot down because of no actual evidence of audio recordingsAgain... that's about video recording. I know that a company can video record for safety and legitimate business reasons like theft.
"On June 30, 2017, Young filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC), the operative pleading in this action, asserting four causes of action: defamation, invasion of privacy (intrusion), invasion of privacy (misappropriation of likeness), and invasion of privacy (false light). She alleged that a SmartDrive camera was on and recording her the entire time she drove since she began work and that her truck had a sleeper berth, "so that the camera [was], in effect, constantly filming plaintiff's bedroom as she [was] driving." "
I see nothing in there about audio recording.
I also saw this..
"Acceptance of the surveillance system was made a condition of their employment; no explicit permission from the drivers was sought."
like I said before. If they put it in the contract then I'll have to vote NO and vote out OZ asap. I honestly don't know why we are still debating this. Until it happens everything we say is just matter of opinion.
I apologize I see now at the bottom that the law(though a different penal code) was introduced but was shot down because of no actual evidence of audio recordings
Young has also failed to set forth factual allegations that fulfill the required elements of the claim. She argues only that "audio data" is collected but does not claim she could allege the disclosure of any "telegraphic or telephonic" communications required under the statute.
A labor contract or an arbitration decision doesn't overrule law