12 ms·

Very thoughtful author. I would like to get her thoughts on where a employeer should draw the line on staying that a disability cannot be accommodated. For exam

Very thoughtful author. I would like to get her thoughts on where a employeer should draw the line on staying that a disability cannot be accommodated. For example, someone who had a light sensitivity as well as PTSD may need to work in a dark quiet environment. How far does the company go to support that need?

watwut 7y ago
In one case, I have seen similar issue dealt by home office most of days. It worked remarkably well.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
  If I worked there and did not receive similar home office treatment I would leave... Edit I would do so quietly without making a fuss about it. You would probably not even realise that was the reason for me leaving. Basically if I see the rules of my workplace as unfair and arbitrary I will leave.
  - watwut 7y ago
    What exactly make you think it was arbitrary? But besides, "person who cant work in our office due to sickness or disability gets to have more home-office time and position suitable for that" is not arbitrary rule at all. Whether it is unfair can be debatable, but I would not see accomodation for someone sick as unfair to healthy me. I would also see it as good sight that if I get sick or need adjustment to some own situation, I get accommodation too.
    - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
      Because if I can do my job from home office just as well why should I not also get that? I would not argue though. The beautiful thing about living in a free country is that I don't need to I just get another job.
      - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
        > Because if I can do my job from home office just as well why should I not also get that? The usual reason not every employer is ok with remote work: if everyone does it, it damages the team. It's not unreasonable to insist employees work from the office, neither is it unreasonable to make exceptions for employees with disabilities.
        hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        It's not unreasonable for someone to find another employer... I am pointing out that treating people differently damages teams.
        MaxBarraclough 7y ago
        > It's not unreasonable for someone to find another employer... Sure. If you want to work remotely, you should find a job where you can. > I am pointing out that treating people differently damages teams. We're talking about an employer making reasonable accommodations for an employee with a disability. What alternative would you prefer? There are plenty of legitimate reasons to treat employees differently. Maternity leave is another instance.
        hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        > We're talking about an employer making reasonable accommodations for an employee with a disability. Are we? Either attendance at the office is vital to the job or isn't. If you treat different members of your team differently you will annoy them, damage morale and damage your team. > Maternity leave is another instance. If your paternity leave isn't comparable to your maternity leave that's not OK.
        MaxBarraclough 7y ago
        > Either attendance at the office is vital to the job or isn't. Not so. There's value to team cohesion in having a team physically together, but it's not outright fatal to permit remote working. That's why it's a reasonable accommodation. > If you treat different members of your team differently you will annoy them, damage morale and damage your team. I don't think so. Would you get resentful if a colleague took maternity leave? I can't imagine a colleague reacting negatively to a clearly reasonable accommodation for a disability. > If your paternity leave isn't comparable to your maternity leave that's not OK. I'm not sure that's relevant, but sure, equal paternity leave isn't a bad idea.
  - ecopoesis 7y ago
    Providing reasonable accommodation, which is required by US law, is not unfair or arbitrary.
    - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
      The beauty of living in a free country is that I can make up my own mind.
      - maxerickson 7y ago
        Sort of. You can make up your own mind to leave. Good luck violating EEO Laws.
        hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        Show me the law that says reasonable accommodations include things that apparently make the job impossible for other employees?
  - neilv 7y ago
    This example seems a little tricky, because it involves remote work, which many people prefer, and which some organizations successfully offer to everyone. If the accommodation were instead something that was desirable to you, but (unlike a remote work option) not something that would be viable to offer to everyone, would you still feel it's unfair?
    - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
      If it were something possible and desirable for all then yes!
      - neilv 7y ago
        But, hypothetically, what if it's not possible? And what if the company were legally precluded from offering you more money to compensate for not being able to provide the same thing to you? Would you still feel the accommodation is unfair of the company, and want to leave the company? Or would you see it as something the organization is collectively happy to do, to be inclusive and supportive of your fellow people? Or as something you understand the organization legally has to do, and you don't resent the organization for it? (BTW, I think we might agree that some accommodations are actually things that probably can and should be offered to everyone. But I'm asking a hypothetical of a different situation, to understand better.)
        hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        In the past I have swallowed such arguements about desks and chairs - now I have a bad back. I won't put myself at a disadvantage again. Regular home office is not even close to being in the same class as specific software or food or even a disabled car parking spot. Everything is case by case of course so I can't tell you. Often I wouldn't tell you. If I felt undervalued at work I would just get another job.
        neilv 7y ago
        (I appreciate your comment about accommodations that should be offered to everyone, and for which it turned out one time you too needed but did not get in time. That's upsetting and should not have happened. And I understand your skepticism of when a company says something isn't possible.) But for the hypothetical, in an HN discussion, of when it's truly not possible to offer the thing to everyone... you can't answer because maybe(?) there's some other variables involved, and/or there's an emotional component? For example, maybe there's some additional pertinent variables besides the hypothetical as I framed it, and you suspect there are some situations in which you could logically acknowledge that the organization has no other legal option, but you would still emotionally resent the organization/situation/environment, and leave because of that?
  - Igelau 7y ago
    What's unfair and arbitrary is that some people are dealt disabilities. Net reduction of suffering is a good thing. You don't need to inflict yourself with jealousy over it.
    - dudul 7y ago
      How is it jealousy? I believe it's a fair point. If WFH is possible to help somebody deal with their illness, why isn't it an option for everybody? Clearly the team/company can make it work, so why not open the option for everyone? It's like the whole "will consider remote for the right candidate" in job description. So everybody in the office is not the right candidate?
  - leggomylibro 7y ago
    Is that the best approach, though? You might not be the only one who feels like the practices are harmful, and by speaking up could help the people around you. You can also just leave without quitting. Tell your manager that you are unable to work in the current workspace, and walk out the door no matter what time it is. If you still get your work done and your co-workers catch on, you can help to improve the culture without needing to stick around in unreasonable conditions. Management might not be thrilled, but if your plan was to quit anyways and you are professional and honest, where's the harm?
    - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
      Because management would then put me and the disabled person in shitty situations. Me because I would be portrayed as opposed to all accommodations for people with disabilities - which I am not. Think Twitter storm. The disabled person because they would then be forced to explain their disability and no one should have to do that.
      - leggomylibro 7y ago
        Maybe I didn't convey my point well enough - I meant that if you find your workplace to be too distracting/unaccommodating/etc, then you can tell your manager that it doesn't work for you and leave to do your work somewhere else or some other time. There's no third party besides the people who might also be annoyed by your workplace's dysfunction but don't want to say anything about it.
pjc50 7y ago
If the company wants employment to be a success, rather than a temporary period of grudging extraction of value through pain, then they have to go as far as is necessary to accommodate the employee. The details will be different for every case, but generous work from home rules can help a lot.
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  Why? It's not self-evident that as far as is necessary is the correct answer here. If the costs are far outstripping the value delivered by the employee, then at the very least it's become a question of disabled rights, and not a business decision. There's clearly a limit to the reasonable accommodations we can expect of an employer.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    I don't know if you realize what you've done here. They said accommodate as far as is necessary. Necessary literally means that it is needed. There is a statement of correctness built into the word. And you are objecting that necessary is needed? As in, wait wait a moment here. I think we should do less than necessary. Arguing where to draw that line is one thing. But as worded, you appear to be advocating below minimum requirements.
    - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
      You've misread me. The question is as follows: how much accommodation should be made for an employee with a disability? The answer is clearly not As much as is necessary to enable the employment of that person, regardless of the cost or circumstance. pjc50 appeared to be suggesting exactly this answer, hence my reply.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- 0xcde4c3db 7y ago
  > If the company wants employment to be a success, rather than a temporary period of grudging extraction of value through pain As far as I can tell, most major employers operate like grudging extraction of value is their definition of success. Then well-meaning managers at smaller companies implement "standard practice" and are baffled when it causes problems.
rustguy 7y ago
We had someone with migraines needing similar accommodations. She was given her own office.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
  Why can't everyone get their own office? Edit I would find another job in this situation. Not being in an open office is a serious improvement in work environment.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Not everyone has realized they have migraines yet...
  - jchw 7y ago
    It’s expensive and we don’t really need it. Would be nice, though.
    - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
      Well. Using headphones all day damages our hearing... We work better without constant distractions. We are pretty expensive to employ and then use at 50% potential.
      - danharaj 7y ago
        Get a pair of musician's earplugs. They're wonderful. You can layer them with closed back headphones to get very robust silent isolation at a reasonable price. You can also get ear pieces molded by an audiologist for some high end earbuds that will block out sound almost completely even if you're not playing any sound.
        hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        I've got noise cancelling headphones. My hearing decline has now slowed. I would recommend this to anyone. But a private office would be better.
delinka 7y ago
In the USA, a company had best make as much accommodation as necessary for the specific illness/disability/challenge - no one wants the legal headaches associated with failing to give accommodation under ADA. That means providing a diagnosis to HR (or your equivalent) and discussing what's appropriate. If there's pushback from HR, and the employee feels they require certain accommodation, a note from the doctor works wonders.
walshemj 7y ago
I know some one with this and using sunglasses solved most of their problem
astura 7y ago
In the US, the ADA says accommodations must be "reasonable." - what's "reasonable" is sometimes up for debate So it's unreasonable for a grocery store employee to get a quite dark working environment because of the nature of grocery stores. If the physical office couldn't reasonably accommodate a quite dark area, then maybe a partial work from home would work for that employee, as long as the work they were doing didn't require a physical presence. Or sunglasses and earplugs. Obviously, it's a case-by-case kinda thing.

watwut 7y ago

In one case, I have seen similar issue dealt by home office most of days. It worked remarkably well.

hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
If I worked there and did not receive similar home office treatment I would leave... Edit I would do so quietly without making a fuss about it. You would probably not even realise that was the reason for me leaving. Basically if I see the rules of my workplace as unfair and arbitrary I will leave.
- watwut 7y ago
  What exactly make you think it was arbitrary? But besides, "person who cant work in our office due to sickness or disability gets to have more home-office time and position suitable for that" is not arbitrary rule at all. Whether it is unfair can be debatable, but I would not see accomodation for someone sick as unfair to healthy me. I would also see it as good sight that if I get sick or need adjustment to some own situation, I get accommodation too.
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    Because if I can do my job from home office just as well why should I not also get that? I would not argue though. The beautiful thing about living in a free country is that I don't need to I just get another job.
    - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
      > Because if I can do my job from home office just as well why should I not also get that? The usual reason not every employer is ok with remote work: if everyone does it, it damages the team. It's not unreasonable to insist employees work from the office, neither is it unreasonable to make exceptions for employees with disabilities.
      - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        It's not unreasonable for someone to find another employer... I am pointing out that treating people differently damages teams.
        MaxBarraclough 7y ago
        > It's not unreasonable for someone to find another employer... Sure. If you want to work remotely, you should find a job where you can. > I am pointing out that treating people differently damages teams. We're talking about an employer making reasonable accommodations for an employee with a disability. What alternative would you prefer? There are plenty of legitimate reasons to treat employees differently. Maternity leave is another instance.
        hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        > We're talking about an employer making reasonable accommodations for an employee with a disability. Are we? Either attendance at the office is vital to the job or isn't. If you treat different members of your team differently you will annoy them, damage morale and damage your team. > Maternity leave is another instance. If your paternity leave isn't comparable to your maternity leave that's not OK.
        MaxBarraclough 7y ago
        > Either attendance at the office is vital to the job or isn't. Not so. There's value to team cohesion in having a team physically together, but it's not outright fatal to permit remote working. That's why it's a reasonable accommodation. > If you treat different members of your team differently you will annoy them, damage morale and damage your team. I don't think so. Would you get resentful if a colleague took maternity leave? I can't imagine a colleague reacting negatively to a clearly reasonable accommodation for a disability. > If your paternity leave isn't comparable to your maternity leave that's not OK. I'm not sure that's relevant, but sure, equal paternity leave isn't a bad idea.
- ecopoesis 7y ago
  Providing reasonable accommodation, which is required by US law, is not unfair or arbitrary.
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    The beauty of living in a free country is that I can make up my own mind.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      Sort of. You can make up your own mind to leave. Good luck violating EEO Laws.
      - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        Show me the law that says reasonable accommodations include things that apparently make the job impossible for other employees?
- neilv 7y ago
  This example seems a little tricky, because it involves remote work, which many people prefer, and which some organizations successfully offer to everyone. If the accommodation were instead something that was desirable to you, but (unlike a remote work option) not something that would be viable to offer to everyone, would you still feel it's unfair?
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    If it were something possible and desirable for all then yes!
    - neilv 7y ago
      But, hypothetically, what if it's not possible? And what if the company were legally precluded from offering you more money to compensate for not being able to provide the same thing to you? Would you still feel the accommodation is unfair of the company, and want to leave the company? Or would you see it as something the organization is collectively happy to do, to be inclusive and supportive of your fellow people? Or as something you understand the organization legally has to do, and you don't resent the organization for it? (BTW, I think we might agree that some accommodations are actually things that probably can and should be offered to everyone. But I'm asking a hypothetical of a different situation, to understand better.)
      - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        In the past I have swallowed such arguements about desks and chairs - now I have a bad back. I won't put myself at a disadvantage again. Regular home office is not even close to being in the same class as specific software or food or even a disabled car parking spot. Everything is case by case of course so I can't tell you. Often I wouldn't tell you. If I felt undervalued at work I would just get another job.
        neilv 7y ago
        (I appreciate your comment about accommodations that should be offered to everyone, and for which it turned out one time you too needed but did not get in time. That's upsetting and should not have happened. And I understand your skepticism of when a company says something isn't possible.) But for the hypothetical, in an HN discussion, of when it's truly not possible to offer the thing to everyone... you can't answer because maybe(?) there's some other variables involved, and/or there's an emotional component? For example, maybe there's some additional pertinent variables besides the hypothetical as I framed it, and you suspect there are some situations in which you could logically acknowledge that the organization has no other legal option, but you would still emotionally resent the organization/situation/environment, and leave because of that?
- Igelau 7y ago
  What's unfair and arbitrary is that some people are dealt disabilities. Net reduction of suffering is a good thing. You don't need to inflict yourself with jealousy over it.
  - dudul 7y ago
    How is it jealousy? I believe it's a fair point. If WFH is possible to help somebody deal with their illness, why isn't it an option for everybody? Clearly the team/company can make it work, so why not open the option for everyone? It's like the whole "will consider remote for the right candidate" in job description. So everybody in the office is not the right candidate?
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  Is that the best approach, though? You might not be the only one who feels like the practices are harmful, and by speaking up could help the people around you. You can also just leave without quitting. Tell your manager that you are unable to work in the current workspace, and walk out the door no matter what time it is. If you still get your work done and your co-workers catch on, you can help to improve the culture without needing to stick around in unreasonable conditions. Management might not be thrilled, but if your plan was to quit anyways and you are professional and honest, where's the harm?
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    Because management would then put me and the disabled person in shitty situations. Me because I would be portrayed as opposed to all accommodations for people with disabilities - which I am not. Think Twitter storm. The disabled person because they would then be forced to explain their disability and no one should have to do that.
    - leggomylibro 7y ago
      Maybe I didn't convey my point well enough - I meant that if you find your workplace to be too distracting/unaccommodating/etc, then you can tell your manager that it doesn't work for you and leave to do your work somewhere else or some other time. There's no third party besides the people who might also be annoyed by your workplace's dysfunction but don't want to say anything about it.

pjc50 7y ago

If the company wants employment to be a success, rather than a temporary period of grudging extraction of value through pain, then they have to go as far as is necessary to accommodate the employee. The details will be different for every case, but generous work from home rules can help a lot.

MaxBarraclough 7y ago
Why? It's not self-evident that as far as is necessary is the correct answer here. If the costs are far outstripping the value delivered by the employee, then at the very least it's become a question of disabled rights, and not a business decision. There's clearly a limit to the reasonable accommodations we can expect of an employer.
- asveikau 7y ago
  I don't know if you realize what you've done here. They said accommodate as far as is necessary. Necessary literally means that it is needed. There is a statement of correctness built into the word. And you are objecting that necessary is needed? As in, wait wait a moment here. I think we should do less than necessary. Arguing where to draw that line is one thing. But as worded, you appear to be advocating below minimum requirements.
  - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
    You've misread me. The question is as follows: how much accommodation should be made for an employee with a disability? The answer is clearly not As much as is necessary to enable the employment of that person, regardless of the cost or circumstance. pjc50 appeared to be suggesting exactly this answer, hence my reply.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
0xcde4c3db 7y ago
> If the company wants employment to be a success, rather than a temporary period of grudging extraction of value through pain As far as I can tell, most major employers operate like grudging extraction of value is their definition of success. Then well-meaning managers at smaller companies implement "standard practice" and are baffled when it causes problems.

rustguy 7y ago

We had someone with migraines needing similar accommodations. She was given her own office.

hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
Why can't everyone get their own office? Edit I would find another job in this situation. Not being in an open office is a serious improvement in work environment.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Not everyone has realized they have migraines yet...
- jchw 7y ago
  It’s expensive and we don’t really need it. Would be nice, though.
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    Well. Using headphones all day damages our hearing... We work better without constant distractions. We are pretty expensive to employ and then use at 50% potential.
    - danharaj 7y ago
      Get a pair of musician's earplugs. They're wonderful. You can layer them with closed back headphones to get very robust silent isolation at a reasonable price. You can also get ear pieces molded by an audiologist for some high end earbuds that will block out sound almost completely even if you're not playing any sound.
      - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        I've got noise cancelling headphones. My hearing decline has now slowed. I would recommend this to anyone. But a private office would be better.

delinka 7y ago

In the USA, a company had best make as much accommodation as necessary for the specific illness/disability/challenge - no one wants the legal headaches associated with failing to give accommodation under ADA. That means providing a diagnosis to HR (or your equivalent) and discussing what's appropriate. If there's pushback from HR, and the employee feels they require certain accommodation, a note from the doctor works wonders.

walshemj 7y ago

I know some one with this and using sunglasses solved most of their problem

astura 7y ago

In the US, the ADA says accommodations must be "reasonable." - what's "reasonable" is sometimes up for debate So it's unreasonable for a grocery store employee to get a quite dark working environment because of the nature of grocery stores. If the physical office couldn't reasonably accommodate a quite dark area, then maybe a partial work from home would work for that employee, as long as the work they were doing didn't require a physical presence. Or sunglasses and earplugs. Obviously, it's a case-by-case kinda thing.