3 ms·

I don't think it does, actually. Let's say, hypothetically, that someone gets this benefit who has no health condition that anyone will admit exists without be

I don't think it does, actually. Let's say, hypothetically, that someone gets this benefit who has no health condition that anyone will admit exists without being paid a bribe. Are you arguing that you're taking something from the company by them allowing this? You rapidly run into a similar problem to one many means-testing programs for benefits in the US do - it becomes far more expensive to do the testing than it would to just give people the benefit if they ask for it, even if many more people asked for it. And if some core job requirement makes WFH an actual nonstarter (e.g. if you're being paid to move packages in a warehouse, you generally can't do that from your bed), then it doesn't matter if your doctor says you can't do it, they can still fire you for not meeting a core requirement of your job that they can't just work around.

benced 2y ago
If you think work from office is more productive, then yes, they are taking something from the company and their coworkers who can't learn from them. If you feel that WFH has no productivity impact, then fair enough that you see any coercion as an unwarranted risk.
- rincebrain 2y ago
  Even if we say yes, WFO is more productive, for the purposes of this argument, unless this also shields you from being fired for not doing enough if you are less productive at home, that seems like it falls into the normal range of variation of productivity? Or, put differently, what's stopping someone from delivering WFH levels of productivity in the office, in this framing? If it's that they'd be punished for being unproductive, what's stopping that in the WFH parallel?
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    Receiving an accommodation definitely shields you from being fired for underperformance if the accommodation itself is what's preventing you from performing. If a datacenter employee receives desk work as an accommodation for mobility issues, the company can't turn around and fire them for not performing enough maintenance tasks from their desk.
    - rincebrain 2y ago
      Sure, if the accommodation is what's precluding you from performing, you're not going to be fired for not doing it, but in that case, you'll probably be fired for other reasons, or driven out in other ways. There's a lot of reasons to fire people if someone wants to, lots of things down to effectively what lens you view them through. (This is not claiming that this is good or bad, just an observation of how I've observed employment in the US to go.)

benced 2y ago

If you think work from office is more productive, then yes, they are taking something from the company and their coworkers who can't learn from them. If you feel that WFH has no productivity impact, then fair enough that you see any coercion as an unwarranted risk.

rincebrain 2y ago
Even if we say yes, WFO is more productive, for the purposes of this argument, unless this also shields you from being fired for not doing enough if you are less productive at home, that seems like it falls into the normal range of variation of productivity? Or, put differently, what's stopping someone from delivering WFH levels of productivity in the office, in this framing? If it's that they'd be punished for being unproductive, what's stopping that in the WFH parallel?
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  Receiving an accommodation definitely shields you from being fired for underperformance if the accommodation itself is what's preventing you from performing. If a datacenter employee receives desk work as an accommodation for mobility issues, the company can't turn around and fire them for not performing enough maintenance tasks from their desk.
  - rincebrain 2y ago
    Sure, if the accommodation is what's precluding you from performing, you're not going to be fired for not doing it, but in that case, you'll probably be fired for other reasons, or driven out in other ways. There's a lot of reasons to fire people if someone wants to, lots of things down to effectively what lens you view them through. (This is not claiming that this is good or bad, just an observation of how I've observed employment in the US to go.)