5 ms·

Google should absolutely have special restrictions now that there is a confirmed case in the office though. There should be a quarantine in place for everyone t

Google should absolutely have special restrictions now that there is a confirmed case in the office though. There should be a quarantine in place for everyone they came into contact with for at least 14 days.

koheripbal 7y ago
They aren't even telling other employees who it was, so employees literally have ZERO idea how at-risk they (and their families) are.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  In this scenario, the safest bet is just a 14 day quarantine for the entire office. There are probably legal reasons why they Google can't disclose. If health authorities do contact traces, it will get out anyway. But there's nothing stopping Google from doing this besides carelessness
- dickjocke 7y ago
  I'm almost positive your job cannot tell people about your health.
  - tharne 7y ago
    No, but they can: 1. Close the office and allow people to work from home. 2. Alert employees who are the most likely to have been in contact with that individual, without naming the individual. I'm pretty sure closing your office and allowing your employees to work from home when there's a pandemic falls under the category of "Don't be Evil"
    - d1zzy 7y ago
      > 2. Alert employees who are the most likely to have been in contact with that individual, without naming the individual. How do we know that's not being done? The article mentions "taking all necessary measures", that can easily be interpreted as additional measures not specified in the public release.
      - koheripbal 7y ago
        As someone with friends in that specific Google office - I can tell you that employees have been told NOTHING. Google didn't even send the email until AFTER business hours on Friday. Despicable.
        d1zzy 7y ago
        > As someone with friends in that specific Google office - I can tell you that employees have been told NOTHING. I'm talking about contacting the people that may have come into contact with the sick employee not contacting the entire office. How do we know that's not being done? We don't have any details here to draw conclusions that this isn't being handled correctly. We don't know if the employee wasn't already working from home, came back from a vacation, was into office very little time or made very little contact with coworkers. You're assuming the worst, that the employee in question was mingling with everyone for days while being sick and then that the announcement going out on Friday was somehow too late (that the management was made aware of it for many days before the announcement went out). > Google didn't even send the email until AFTER business hours on Friday. Is that too late? How long did Google know about the sick employee as being confirmed with this virus before they decided to make a public announcement about it?
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > They aren't even telling other employees who it was That would be an insane violation of privacy.
  - jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
    For the company, yes. But the government can overrule that in these scenarios.
  - aquadrop 7y ago
    Not in the case of possible epidemic. It would be insane not to test every person that was in close contact.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Infectious diseases do not care about your HR policy.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      I think disclosing medical information is an issue of law, not corporate HR policy.
      - anigbrowl 7y ago
        Infectious diseases don't care about that either. I'm not suggesting broadcasting the person's name, but I am sure you can think of mitigation measures that might be applicable and wise even if they increased the possibility of identification by inference.
        remarkEon 7y ago
        If I caught the coronavirus I would absolutely want and expect my employer to broadcast my name everywhere so that anyone who even thinks they came in contact with me could take appropriate measures.
        7y ago
- ajsnigrutin 7y ago
  They could say, someone on the marketing team got sick, and quarantine (=work from home) the whole team or the whole floor. Or just say "someone on the third floor". Or just make the whole building work from home.

koheripbal 7y ago

They aren't even telling other employees who it was, so employees literally have ZERO idea how at-risk they (and their families) are.

claudeganon 7y ago
In this scenario, the safest bet is just a 14 day quarantine for the entire office. There are probably legal reasons why they Google can't disclose. If health authorities do contact traces, it will get out anyway. But there's nothing stopping Google from doing this besides carelessness
dickjocke 7y ago
I'm almost positive your job cannot tell people about your health.
- tharne 7y ago
  No, but they can: 1. Close the office and allow people to work from home. 2. Alert employees who are the most likely to have been in contact with that individual, without naming the individual. I'm pretty sure closing your office and allowing your employees to work from home when there's a pandemic falls under the category of "Don't be Evil"
  - d1zzy 7y ago
    > 2. Alert employees who are the most likely to have been in contact with that individual, without naming the individual. How do we know that's not being done? The article mentions "taking all necessary measures", that can easily be interpreted as additional measures not specified in the public release.
    - koheripbal 7y ago
      As someone with friends in that specific Google office - I can tell you that employees have been told NOTHING. Google didn't even send the email until AFTER business hours on Friday. Despicable.
      - d1zzy 7y ago
        > As someone with friends in that specific Google office - I can tell you that employees have been told NOTHING. I'm talking about contacting the people that may have come into contact with the sick employee not contacting the entire office. How do we know that's not being done? We don't have any details here to draw conclusions that this isn't being handled correctly. We don't know if the employee wasn't already working from home, came back from a vacation, was into office very little time or made very little contact with coworkers. You're assuming the worst, that the employee in question was mingling with everyone for days while being sick and then that the announcement going out on Friday was somehow too late (that the management was made aware of it for many days before the announcement went out). > Google didn't even send the email until AFTER business hours on Friday. Is that too late? How long did Google know about the sick employee as being confirmed with this virus before they decided to make a public announcement about it?
chrisseaton 7y ago
> They aren't even telling other employees who it was That would be an insane violation of privacy.
- jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
  For the company, yes. But the government can overrule that in these scenarios.
- aquadrop 7y ago
  Not in the case of possible epidemic. It would be insane not to test every person that was in close contact.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Infectious diseases do not care about your HR policy.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    I think disclosing medical information is an issue of law, not corporate HR policy.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      Infectious diseases don't care about that either. I'm not suggesting broadcasting the person's name, but I am sure you can think of mitigation measures that might be applicable and wise even if they increased the possibility of identification by inference.
      - remarkEon 7y ago
        If I caught the coronavirus I would absolutely want and expect my employer to broadcast my name everywhere so that anyone who even thinks they came in contact with me could take appropriate measures.
        7y ago
ajsnigrutin 7y ago
They could say, someone on the marketing team got sick, and quarantine (=work from home) the whole team or the whole floor. Or just say "someone on the third floor". Or just make the whole building work from home.