Is that how you want your employer to behave? You want them to surveil you all day every day in case you are doing something that is counter to their business?
They're employees just like you and me, complaining that they work for you then refusing to allow the same rule to be applied to yourself by your employer is....
No. The difference is you thinking that you, as the employer, have the right to surveil people, but then claim that you, as an employee, have the right to be free from such horrific conditions.
...normal and internally consistent because we do different jobs in different contexts and the impacts of oversight have a different cost/benefit analysis, do you think doctors should have the same oversight as your food delivery guy?
No. Hypocrisy is when you refuse to have the same rules applied to yourself.
The claim was that they worked for you therefore they should be subject to constant surveillance. Submit to the same from your employer to prove that that is a reasonable expectation.
No - it's hypocrisy for anyone to demand one set of rules for others whilst demanding that those same rules do not apply to themselves.
People in politics, as I said from the beginning, are still people. We can demand transparency in the decisions made (there are limits, because some of that information is sensitive - eg. National security, or commercial secrecy) but we cannot demand that people are surveiled every minute of their lives whilst at the same time complaining that it's a bad thing to happen to us.
> we cannot demand that people are surveilled every minute of their lives whilst at the same time complaining that it's a bad thing to happen to us.
Well, those in power should be held to a higher standard in various ways, and it is tricky. Someone who works on a pharma regulatory board who then the next year gets a gloriously-salaried job at Pfizer should probably not have been able to do that, even though for most people a job at Pfizer would be fine.
