4 ms·

But that does not hold for everyone. If you have an office room in your house you can keep children at bay. Lots of parents are fine with working from home.

• ekianjo 6y ago
  Oh so you lock yourself in your office room?
  • rapsey 6y ago
    If the kid is too young to understand the issue why not? Someone clue me in why that is so bad.
    • ryneandal 6y ago
      It isn't. Work/home separation is important when you have children. My kids know when my door is shut, it means I'm "not home." I've primarily worked at home for six years now, and it's been an incredibly effective method for providing that needed separation. When the door is open, or if I come out of my office, they know it's a free-for-all for my attention, and I'll often walk out to play with them from time to time to clear my head and/or relieve some work-related stress.
• alias_neo 6y ago
  Although I don't agree with the person you're replying to, your suggestion is equally as "partially-valid". My wife and I have a 1 year old, and we're both professionals who need to focus on work, hold meetings, and generally concentrate on our work. Which of us should look after our 1 year old while the other keeps the child at bay by hiding in the office? The fact of the matter is; our homes were generally not created to be work places, and employers need to accept that as another commenter eloquently put it; we're not working from home, we're at home during a crises, trying to work.
  • rapsey 6y ago
    This is why I said does not hold for everyone. It is dependent on location of the person, income, family situation, housing, etc.
    • fastball 6y ago
      Right, but maybe that's why a top-down approach like this is a bad one?
      • rapsey 6y ago
        You mean the EU ruling? What is wrong with it?
        • fastball 6y ago
          Regulation always has unintended side-effects. In this case I don't think the regulation is necessary, which effectively makes it bad by default, because it adds complication and reduces flexibility of both employers and workers. Slight tangent, but I also think governments start calling everything a "right" at their own peril. That's something I found incredibly refreshing about Andrew Yang's presidential run. Unlike every other progressive in America who has followed EU's lead by saying "we need universal healthcare because it's a human right", his take was "we should have healthcare because a safety net like that will encourage entrepreneurialism and therefore innovation."
          • MereInterest 6y ago
            I lean back and forth on the language. One emphasizes the inherent good that a policy will have, in and of itself. The other emphasizes the knock-on effects that will result from a policy. In this case, I believe both are true. First, that it is unconscionable to have lack of healthcare in a developed nation. Second, that providing healthcare will give good economic benefits. Which of these I emphasize at any given point depends on who I am talking to.