4 ms·

Did anybody ever (have to) discuss "responsibility/accountability" about getting back to work in an office? Meaning: if my boss would tell me "come back to wor

Did anybody ever (have to) discuss "responsibility/accountability" about getting back to work in an office? Meaning: if my boss would tell me "come back to work at the office" and I would reply "nah, I'm scared that I might get infected" but then my boss would basically in/directly force me to, wouldn't my boss/company become responsible/accountable for me getting ill (if I and maybe some of my colleagues would then get ill)? I admit that it might then become a quite complex situation (e.g. demonstrate through tracing that the spread occurred inthe office, what were the consequences, etc...), but probably a boss/company should think twice about pushing its employees to go back to the office, or not?

nip180 6y ago
I don’t think the employer is accountable for infectious diseases that are transmitted in the workplace, given that a minimum safety standard is meet. I have, for example, not heard of any liability concerns with teachers returning to the classroom.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  I'm not sure if there's any relation between this and liability, but worker's comp is accepting claims claims from people who can plausibly explain that they got COVID at work
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's not super related. Worker's comp generally pays out for all injuries, even if the company did everything right to prevent them; it's more accident insurance than liability insurance.
- krisoft 6y ago
  I'm no lawyer, but if there are no liability concerns then why are they proposing to legislate liability waiving laws? https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-liability-protection-provision-businesses-workers-coronavirus-aid-bill-terrible-2020-8?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-liability-protection-pro...
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The same reason that many states have anti-SLAPP laws. The pure mechanics of defending a lawsuit can be terribly expensive, even if you know you'll win in the end.
  - briandear 6y ago
    To insure indemnification. Because otherwise someone getting coronavirus is going to result in a flood of plaintiff’s attorneys looking for paydays. The other issue is that if someone comes to work sick with any infectious disease, liability would get shifted to the employer, which means that would give the employer a right to impose policies that could be draconian. For example, why wouldn’t an employer have a right to inspect your home. They suspected you weren’t engaging in good cleaning practices? After all, since liability would be on the employer if you showed up to work and got people sick (even if asymptomatic,) then they’d have a duty to supervise you 24/7. Or how about an employer firing you for attending a protest, or not wearing a mask outside of work? If there is potentially tens of millions in liability at stake, an employer would have to monitor employees 24/7, perhaps even employing private contractors tracers to keep tabs on people in order to ensure infections didn’t originate in the workplace. A plaintiff’s attorney can be a powerful force. “Don’t use hairdryers in the shower” is a good example of the impact of plaintiff’s attorneys against common sense.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    In reading the actual bill (linked elsewhere), it seems the legislation precludes liability for all suits (brought in state or federal court) for coronavirus unless all of the following hold: a) the employer was not following any guidelines for coronavirus b) exposure was caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct c) the plaintiff suffered actual harm from the exposure to coronavirus. I added emphasis on any--in the event of conflicting guidelines, the employer needs only follow one of them. So if any jurisdiction in the chain says "it's a-ok to pack your employees without masks!", there's no liability for the employee if they follow that, even if the locality says "wear masks! social distance!" While I don't know the details of occupational health and safety laws, I have to imagine there's a general-purpose "unsafe working conditions" action that can be brought even in the absence of specific regulations (I don't readily see one in the US code, but I'd expect at least some states would go that far). This would preclude such suits under pretty much any situation; in particular, you have to actually be exposed to coronavirus and can't merely show that the environment is unsafe.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
WWLink 6y ago
The company can never force you into it. I'm guessing in most cases where the employer forces the issue they'll send an email telling you that "the offices are now open and you are expected to return to working at the office starting on date X" without telling you anything else. No "or else" and when people push the issue they'll be reminded that they work 'at will' and are welcome to leave at any time. lol.
- zepearl 6y ago
  > when people push the issue they'll be reminded that they work 'at will' and are welcome to leave at any time. This is one of those grey zones I was thinking of => if the boss/employer wouldn't have a valid reason not to allow its employees to work remotely (e.g. because s/he doesn't trust them and therefore wants to supervise them personally), such a "push" could be considered irresponsible?
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    An interesting conversation I saw elsewhere was about whether you could request accommodation under the ADA if you are at-risk or someone you are in close contact with is at-risk. It seems the answer is yes, but in your communication with your employer you will need to specifically mention accommodations and the ADA to be safe.
    - kayodelycaon 6y ago
      ADA does not require accommodations or ADA be mentioned, only that a request must be made. Once made, ADA applies. As far as remote work, if the company has any remote employees in any position similar to yours, they will have an extremely difficult time justifying in person being a job requirement. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reasonable-accommodation-and-undue-hardship-under-ada#requesting https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reas...
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
Animats 6y ago
Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing a bill to allow employers to kill off employees that way without consequences.[1] See "SEC. 122. LIABILITY; SAFE HARBOR".[2] So get back to work and die for the Man! [1] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-07-29/covid-employer-liability https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-07-29/covid-empl... [2] https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s4317/BILLS-116s4317is.pdf https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s4317/BILLS-116s4317is.pd...
freeone3000 6y ago
Yes. We're allowed to work from home until the office is free of all temporary safeguards. So until they're fine having people elbow-to-elbow with no masks and no shields and no protection, I'm allowed to keep working-from-home, and I probably will. Restrictions won't be lifted until November anywhere in the world, probably won't be until January in Montreal.
- usrusr 6y ago
  Over here in Germany I've been ordered back to the office (open plan, what else) for at least two months now. It feels like decisionmakers are scrambling to get the biggest slice of "back to normal" they can legally get before the therefore inevitable second wave takes it away again. WFH played out pretty well (the teams I know are badly implemented partial remote under regular circumstance, so going uniformly remote was an instant improvement), so it's just "because reasons". I suspect that it's nothing more than C level being afraid of appearing weak in front of owners. Morale is low because it feels outright unethical when highly WFH-able offices are reopening while other businesses are still hemorrhaging money due to being forcibly closed. A community has a fixed transmission risk budget if it wants to keep the virus subdued and that allowable risk should be allocated on need, not based on first come first served.

nip180 6y ago

I don’t think the employer is accountable for infectious diseases that are transmitted in the workplace, given that a minimum safety standard is meet. I have, for example, not heard of any liability concerns with teachers returning to the classroom.

Rebelgecko 6y ago
I'm not sure if there's any relation between this and liability, but worker's comp is accepting claims claims from people who can plausibly explain that they got COVID at work
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's not super related. Worker's comp generally pays out for all injuries, even if the company did everything right to prevent them; it's more accident insurance than liability insurance.
krisoft 6y ago
I'm no lawyer, but if there are no liability concerns then why are they proposing to legislate liability waiving laws? https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-liability-protection-provision-businesses-workers-coronavirus-aid-bill-terrible-2020-8?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-liability-protection-pro...
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The same reason that many states have anti-SLAPP laws. The pure mechanics of defending a lawsuit can be terribly expensive, even if you know you'll win in the end.
- briandear 6y ago
  To insure indemnification. Because otherwise someone getting coronavirus is going to result in a flood of plaintiff’s attorneys looking for paydays. The other issue is that if someone comes to work sick with any infectious disease, liability would get shifted to the employer, which means that would give the employer a right to impose policies that could be draconian. For example, why wouldn’t an employer have a right to inspect your home. They suspected you weren’t engaging in good cleaning practices? After all, since liability would be on the employer if you showed up to work and got people sick (even if asymptomatic,) then they’d have a duty to supervise you 24/7. Or how about an employer firing you for attending a protest, or not wearing a mask outside of work? If there is potentially tens of millions in liability at stake, an employer would have to monitor employees 24/7, perhaps even employing private contractors tracers to keep tabs on people in order to ensure infections didn’t originate in the workplace. A plaintiff’s attorney can be a powerful force. “Don’t use hairdryers in the shower” is a good example of the impact of plaintiff’s attorneys against common sense.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  In reading the actual bill (linked elsewhere), it seems the legislation precludes liability for all suits (brought in state or federal court) for coronavirus unless all of the following hold: a) the employer was not following any guidelines for coronavirus b) exposure was caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct c) the plaintiff suffered actual harm from the exposure to coronavirus. I added emphasis on any--in the event of conflicting guidelines, the employer needs only follow one of them. So if any jurisdiction in the chain says "it's a-ok to pack your employees without masks!", there's no liability for the employee if they follow that, even if the locality says "wear masks! social distance!" While I don't know the details of occupational health and safety laws, I have to imagine there's a general-purpose "unsafe working conditions" action that can be brought even in the absence of specific regulations (I don't readily see one in the US code, but I'd expect at least some states would go that far). This would preclude such suits under pretty much any situation; in particular, you have to actually be exposed to coronavirus and can't merely show that the environment is unsafe.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

WWLink 6y ago

The company can never force you into it. I'm guessing in most cases where the employer forces the issue they'll send an email telling you that "the offices are now open and you are expected to return to working at the office starting on date X" without telling you anything else. No "or else" and when people push the issue they'll be reminded that they work 'at will' and are welcome to leave at any time. lol.

zepearl 6y ago
> when people push the issue they'll be reminded that they work 'at will' and are welcome to leave at any time. This is one of those grey zones I was thinking of => if the boss/employer wouldn't have a valid reason not to allow its employees to work remotely (e.g. because s/he doesn't trust them and therefore wants to supervise them personally), such a "push" could be considered irresponsible?
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  An interesting conversation I saw elsewhere was about whether you could request accommodation under the ADA if you are at-risk or someone you are in close contact with is at-risk. It seems the answer is yes, but in your communication with your employer you will need to specifically mention accommodations and the ADA to be safe.
  - kayodelycaon 6y ago
    ADA does not require accommodations or ADA be mentioned, only that a request must be made. Once made, ADA applies. As far as remote work, if the company has any remote employees in any position similar to yours, they will have an extremely difficult time justifying in person being a job requirement. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reasonable-accommodation-and-undue-hardship-under-ada#requesting https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reas...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

Animats 6y ago

Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing a bill to allow employers to kill off employees that way without consequences.[1] See "SEC. 122. LIABILITY; SAFE HARBOR".[2] So get back to work and die for the Man! [1] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-07-29/covid-employer-liability https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-07-29/covid-empl... [2] https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s4317/BILLS-116s4317is.pdf https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s4317/BILLS-116s4317is.pd...

freeone3000 6y ago

Yes. We're allowed to work from home until the office is free of all temporary safeguards. So until they're fine having people elbow-to-elbow with no masks and no shields and no protection, I'm allowed to keep working-from-home, and I probably will. Restrictions won't be lifted until November anywhere in the world, probably won't be until January in Montreal.

usrusr 6y ago
Over here in Germany I've been ordered back to the office (open plan, what else) for at least two months now. It feels like decisionmakers are scrambling to get the biggest slice of "back to normal" they can legally get before the therefore inevitable second wave takes it away again. WFH played out pretty well (the teams I know are badly implemented partial remote under regular circumstance, so going uniformly remote was an instant improvement), so it's just "because reasons". I suspect that it's nothing more than C level being afraid of appearing weak in front of owners. Morale is low because it feels outright unethical when highly WFH-able offices are reopening while other businesses are still hemorrhaging money due to being forcibly closed. A community has a fixed transmission risk budget if it wants to keep the virus subdued and that allowable risk should be allocated on need, not based on first come first served.