3 ms·

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?
    - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
      If you give a list of examples I can tell you how I would feel about them...
      - neilv 7y ago
        That seems a valid way to help figure out the full nature of how people in an organization feel about things (identify hidden contributing factors), but I'm going to need to apply for research funding at this point. :)
        hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        That's why it is difficult to answer. But giving one person something that you tell the rest of the team would make them less valuable is clearly not OK.
        neilv 7y ago
        I think the idealistic idea is that it's a bit of "to each, according to their needs" -- people happy to support each other's needs. Though there are also less-idealistic reasons organizations do it, and why the laws had to be made. The most ideal would be that most all the desirable things (work from home, quiet office, standing desk, good chair, flexible hours, etc.) would be offered to everyone, and then there's no special accommodation needed in most cases -- because everyone has those options to use at their discretion. It would also be more considerate of those who need something rather than prefer it -- don't make them ask, don't make them have to talk about something they might not want to talk about, don't single them out. I'm lucky to not need any special accommodation now, but I'd value an environment that gave me those options, and I'd appreciate how respectful and supportive that is of everyone. In any case, I'm glad that at least people who know they need special accommodation can often get it, thanks to laws. I just wish they and others usually didn't have to even mention it.

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?
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    If you give a list of examples I can tell you how I would feel about them...
    - neilv 7y ago
      That seems a valid way to help figure out the full nature of how people in an organization feel about things (identify hidden contributing factors), but I'm going to need to apply for research funding at this point. :)
      - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        That's why it is difficult to answer. But giving one person something that you tell the rest of the team would make them less valuable is clearly not OK.
        neilv 7y ago
        I think the idealistic idea is that it's a bit of "to each, according to their needs" -- people happy to support each other's needs. Though there are also less-idealistic reasons organizations do it, and why the laws had to be made. The most ideal would be that most all the desirable things (work from home, quiet office, standing desk, good chair, flexible hours, etc.) would be offered to everyone, and then there's no special accommodation needed in most cases -- because everyone has those options to use at their discretion. It would also be more considerate of those who need something rather than prefer it -- don't make them ask, don't make them have to talk about something they might not want to talk about, don't single them out. I'm lucky to not need any special accommodation now, but I'd value an environment that gave me those options, and I'd appreciate how respectful and supportive that is of everyone. In any case, I'm glad that at least people who know they need special accommodation can often get it, thanks to laws. I just wish they and others usually didn't have to even mention it.