4 ms·
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 fee
by 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 agoEven 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 agoReceiving 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 agoSure, 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.)