3 ms·

From the article: > Under the new law, employers must consider all such requests and give adequate reasons for refusing them. That isn't how I'd describe a "r

From the article: > Under the new law, employers must consider all such requests and give adequate reasons for refusing them. That isn't how I'd describe a "right."

6510 4y ago
We have a lot of those, they cant just make something up. If the reason for refusing is dubious it stacks with similar requirements. Dutch law also instructs to be a well behaved employee and a well behaved employer without any written specification.
ratg13 4y ago
Not everyone can work from home. Doctors, service workers, construction workers, pilots.. an endless list of jobs literally can not be done from home. The right is more about that it is an option where available, because obviously it wouldn't make sense any other way.
- SapporoChris 4y ago
  Addressed in the article: The law forces employers to consider employee requests to work from home as long as their professions allow it, according to media reports.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
DigiDigiorno 4y ago
In the US, there are limits to all of our constitutional rights. Laws that limit these rights must pass constitutional muster. Different rights have different tests the laws must pass. Generally speaking, in a challenge of constitutionality, the state has to show its interest meets a certain threshold, an "adequate reason" you could say. (FYI This is a limited and simplified element of constitutionality.) I don't know much about the legal system of the Netherlands, so take this with a grain of salt, but I don't think it is fair to come to the conclusion that this doesn't create a right because of the limit on it. However, if the law allows employers to define "adequate reasons" themselves, then I agree the whole thing is illusory, but I do not know that to be the case here. Fun fact: Roe v. Wade, when it was the precedent, explicitly mentioned the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life as a reason for limitation (the "adequate reason"). The law in the case was a carte blanc ban on abortion, which almost by definition, didn't balance any legitimate interests and was thus found unconstitutional.

From the article: > Under the new law, employers must consider all such requests and give adequate reasons for refusing them. That isn't how I'd describe a "right."

6510 4y ago

We have a lot of those, they cant just make something up. If the reason for refusing is dubious it stacks with similar requirements. Dutch law also instructs to be a well behaved employee and a well behaved employer without any written specification.

ratg13 4y ago

Not everyone can work from home. Doctors, service workers, construction workers, pilots.. an endless list of jobs literally can not be done from home. The right is more about that it is an option where available, because obviously it wouldn't make sense any other way.

SapporoChris 4y ago
Addressed in the article: The law forces employers to consider employee requests to work from home as long as their professions allow it, according to media reports.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

DigiDigiorno 4y ago

In the US, there are limits to all of our constitutional rights. Laws that limit these rights must pass constitutional muster. Different rights have different tests the laws must pass. Generally speaking, in a challenge of constitutionality, the state has to show its interest meets a certain threshold, an "adequate reason" you could say. (FYI This is a limited and simplified element of constitutionality.) I don't know much about the legal system of the Netherlands, so take this with a grain of salt, but I don't think it is fair to come to the conclusion that this doesn't create a right because of the limit on it. However, if the law allows employers to define "adequate reasons" themselves, then I agree the whole thing is illusory, but I do not know that to be the case here. Fun fact: Roe v. Wade, when it was the precedent, explicitly mentioned the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life as a reason for limitation (the "adequate reason"). The law in the case was a carte blanc ban on abortion, which almost by definition, didn't balance any legitimate interests and was thus found unconstitutional.