7 ms·

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 proba

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.
        hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        > I don't think so. Would you get resentful if a colleague took maternity leave? Of course not. Parental leave is offered to all employees right? > I can't imagine a colleague reacting negatively to a clearly reasonable accommodation for a disability. Nor could I. A clearly unreasonable one is not quite the same as a reasonable one is it? > 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. We disagree. That is fine. But I doubt either of us will pursuade the other here so let's just leave this argument.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      There’s another point of view that says “if it’s workable for person D who happens to have a disability, it is likely also workable for persons A-C and E-Z.”
      - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
        With respect, you're ignoring my point. There's value to team cohesion in having a team physically together. It won't be fatal to make an exception, and indeed it's possible run a company purely on remote working, but the point stands.
        sokoloff 7y ago
        It’s the Sorites Paradox. If it’s not fatal to make an exception for one person, is it fatal to make an exception for two? If it is, does that mean a team with one remote working exception can’t take on another? Does that fall afoul of reasonable accommodation rules? If so, what do they do? Is the accommodation that was previously workable (and therefore reasonable) now no longer workable? I get your point, but I probably don’t think it’s quite as strong as you might think.
        MaxBarraclough 7y ago
        > I get your point, but I probably don’t think it’s quite as strong as you might think. Sure it is. There isn't any real question of the sky falling down here. Plenty of countries have strong laws protecting the rights of disabled employees, and it hasn't ruined their economies. It's not that hard to insist on reasonable accommodations depending on circumstance. It's not like we force the fire service to hire people who don't have the use of their legs.
        __s 7y ago
        The thing about being able to have remote workers is that it works best when the company culture works in a way where everyone could be remote In fact, now a disabled person is going to likely be excluded from the team because they're working remotely. How do you include them? By making everyone remote. That way people don't rely on a culture where documentation is interrupting someone at their desk (ps they won't respond on Slack or what have you, because if you really need to ask them something, just come by & interrupt them at their desk) So now in order to accommodate someone you have to change the work environment for everyone
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.

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.
        hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        > I don't think so. Would you get resentful if a colleague took maternity leave? Of course not. Parental leave is offered to all employees right? > I can't imagine a colleague reacting negatively to a clearly reasonable accommodation for a disability. Nor could I. A clearly unreasonable one is not quite the same as a reasonable one is it? > 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. We disagree. That is fine. But I doubt either of us will pursuade the other here so let's just leave this argument.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    There’s another point of view that says “if it’s workable for person D who happens to have a disability, it is likely also workable for persons A-C and E-Z.”
    - MaxBarraclough 7y ago
      With respect, you're ignoring my point. There's value to team cohesion in having a team physically together. It won't be fatal to make an exception, and indeed it's possible run a company purely on remote working, but the point stands.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        It’s the Sorites Paradox. If it’s not fatal to make an exception for one person, is it fatal to make an exception for two? If it is, does that mean a team with one remote working exception can’t take on another? Does that fall afoul of reasonable accommodation rules? If so, what do they do? Is the accommodation that was previously workable (and therefore reasonable) now no longer workable? I get your point, but I probably don’t think it’s quite as strong as you might think.
        MaxBarraclough 7y ago
        > I get your point, but I probably don’t think it’s quite as strong as you might think. Sure it is. There isn't any real question of the sky falling down here. Plenty of countries have strong laws protecting the rights of disabled employees, and it hasn't ruined their economies. It's not that hard to insist on reasonable accommodations depending on circumstance. It's not like we force the fire service to hire people who don't have the use of their legs.
      - __s 7y ago
        The thing about being able to have remote workers is that it works best when the company culture works in a way where everyone could be remote In fact, now a disabled person is going to likely be excluded from the team because they're working remotely. How do you include them? By making everyone remote. That way people don't rely on a culture where documentation is interrupting someone at their desk (ps they won't respond on Slack or what have you, because if you really need to ask them something, just come by & interrupt them at their desk) So now in order to accommodate someone you have to change the work environment for everyone

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.