6 ms·

Fall on walk from bed to desk is workplace accident, German court rules

43 points by willemmerson 5y ago

gumby 5y ago
I'm going to tell this to my gf who works from bed.
- kwere 5y ago
  woosh
  - gumby 5y ago
    …just validating her desire not to step outside the bed.
- crate_barre 5y ago
  Wait, I thought everyone has been working from bed? You guys don’t work from bed? I’m pretty sure I’ve been working from bed.
  - gumby 5y ago
    My interpretation of this article is that staying in bed is the only safe option.
elmerfud 5y ago
German courts seem to be a lot like Florida people. Does this mean that the employer now has effectively full control of the person's home? The employer could require substantial changes to comply with workplace safety. Does the employer get to now have access to the home at will to ensure no clutter is about causing a safety violation? Maybe this mindset is a typical European court mindset. Anything possible that might be slightly related to work or where someone mentioned work, work is liable. Even if die in the arms of a prostitute while, clearly not working or engaged in work sanctioned activities, but still on business travel. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d3669d9d-8498-4a00-9879-47b3e0c6cf84 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d3669d9d-8498...
- detaro 5y ago
  Work isn't liable, no. Workplace insurance is mandatory public insurance in Germany (which also insures e.g. children in school and on the way there), and the case clearly is if the insurance has to cover it, not the employer. Not sure why you think public insurance and the ideas behind it are particular Florida-like though. Or if that was to suggest that the court is being overly weird, could you explain where you think it misinterpreted the law?
  - elmerfud 5y ago
    This is where I think you're misunderstanding the ruling. Work is liable, but work has insurance to cover the liability. So the employer is covering it by means of their insurance that's what insurance does it covers liability. The ruling is Florida like in that it's absolutely insane. There's no indication that the place of employment purchased or rents out space in this person's house. So the ruling is saying that when you work from home all workplace safety standards need to be met because work is liable for any injury caused. This means that the employer now has cause to inspect and ensure that your home environment meets all workplace safety standards as they are liable for any violations or injury from that. Apparently that means that at any time the employer can enter the premises and determine the path from the bed to the office is clear and free of obstacles and obstructions. Additionally that would mean that if they find that the person places obstacles and obstructions in the path they could be disciplined by the employer for creating an unsafe work environment. Or this is just another Court ruling on a money grab scheme that makes no sense. Because if this does not imply that the employer can enter the premises to determine safety and quality of the work environment then the court has placed a burden on the employer that it has no ability to mitigate. Therefore it's set up for a prime money grab. If you cannot see the abject insanity of this ruling then I'm not sure how it can be pointed out to you.
    - fy20 5y ago
      The same insurance would also cover the employee if they were commuting from their home to an office, and slipped on ice and broke their back. Should the company also make sure that whatever routes their employees take to work are deemed safe? Maybe they should mandate employees take certain routes?
bradhe 5y ago
Man, as an American living and working in German this headline made me say “dude that’s so German.”

43 points by willemmerson 5y ago

gumby 5y ago

I'm going to tell this to my gf who works from bed.

kwere 5y ago
woosh
- gumby 5y ago
  …just validating her desire not to step outside the bed.
crate_barre 5y ago
Wait, I thought everyone has been working from bed? You guys don’t work from bed? I’m pretty sure I’ve been working from bed.
- gumby 5y ago
  My interpretation of this article is that staying in bed is the only safe option.

elmerfud 5y ago

German courts seem to be a lot like Florida people. Does this mean that the employer now has effectively full control of the person's home? The employer could require substantial changes to comply with workplace safety. Does the employer get to now have access to the home at will to ensure no clutter is about causing a safety violation? Maybe this mindset is a typical European court mindset. Anything possible that might be slightly related to work or where someone mentioned work, work is liable. Even if die in the arms of a prostitute while, clearly not working or engaged in work sanctioned activities, but still on business travel. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d3669d9d-8498-4a00-9879-47b3e0c6cf84 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d3669d9d-8498...

detaro 5y ago
Work isn't liable, no. Workplace insurance is mandatory public insurance in Germany (which also insures e.g. children in school and on the way there), and the case clearly is if the insurance has to cover it, not the employer. Not sure why you think public insurance and the ideas behind it are particular Florida-like though. Or if that was to suggest that the court is being overly weird, could you explain where you think it misinterpreted the law?
- elmerfud 5y ago
  This is where I think you're misunderstanding the ruling. Work is liable, but work has insurance to cover the liability. So the employer is covering it by means of their insurance that's what insurance does it covers liability. The ruling is Florida like in that it's absolutely insane. There's no indication that the place of employment purchased or rents out space in this person's house. So the ruling is saying that when you work from home all workplace safety standards need to be met because work is liable for any injury caused. This means that the employer now has cause to inspect and ensure that your home environment meets all workplace safety standards as they are liable for any violations or injury from that. Apparently that means that at any time the employer can enter the premises and determine the path from the bed to the office is clear and free of obstacles and obstructions. Additionally that would mean that if they find that the person places obstacles and obstructions in the path they could be disciplined by the employer for creating an unsafe work environment. Or this is just another Court ruling on a money grab scheme that makes no sense. Because if this does not imply that the employer can enter the premises to determine safety and quality of the work environment then the court has placed a burden on the employer that it has no ability to mitigate. Therefore it's set up for a prime money grab. If you cannot see the abject insanity of this ruling then I'm not sure how it can be pointed out to you.
  - fy20 5y ago
    The same insurance would also cover the employee if they were commuting from their home to an office, and slipped on ice and broke their back. Should the company also make sure that whatever routes their employees take to work are deemed safe? Maybe they should mandate employees take certain routes?

bradhe 5y ago

Man, as an American living and working in German this headline made me say “dude that’s so German.”