4 ms·
I think one reason companies are reluctant to start WFH is that it's unclear when you'd stop. You'd have to have a reason to stop, and it could easily be like s
by cjbprime 7y ago
I think one reason companies are reluctant to start WFH is that it's unclear when you'd stop. You'd have to have a reason to stop, and it could easily be like six months from now before there's a defensible one.
- moultano 7y agoI would think the main trigger to stop would be once the uncertainty is resolved. If we know it's less deadly than feared, or if we know how big the outbreak is, or if we know how effectively we can control it. If we don't see exponentially rising hospitalizations and deaths in the next few weeks, then relaxing it should be fine.
- ISL 7y agoSounds okay to me. My employer and my wife's employer's stance is presently indefensible. Our local health authorities (Seattle) appear to have a clear-eyed picture that things are going to get worse, and that social-distancing measures will be required, yet they prefer to wait and play the game on hard-mode. It is hard to see why waiting to implement school closures and work holidays is going to be a net benefit.
- cjbprime 7y agoIf the schools close and you have kids, you're not going to be working either way. And wait, isn't Seattle hosting a 100k attendee international ComicCon in ten days? How can you argue that's more responsible than your employer is being? Oh! Maybe your "they" refers to Seattle, not your employer in contrast to Seattle. Confused.