So it's unreasonable for a grocery store employee to get a quite dark working environment because of the nature of grocery stores.
If the physical office couldn't reasonably accommodate a quite dark area, then maybe a partial work from home would work for that employee, as long as the work they were doing didn't require a physical presence. Or sunglasses and earplugs.
Obviously, it's a case-by-case kinda thing.
Edit I would find another job in this situation. Not being in an open office is a serious improvement in work environment.
Headphones do not inherently damage hearing. What's damaging, is listening to them at a high volume. This might occur if you're in a noisy environment, and use headphones with poor isolation, e.g. airpods, which need to overpower the ambient noise.
You can absolutely listen to headphones all day, in a quiet environment or if they provide good isolation.
2. 50% potential is a bold claim, but even if that were true it may still be economically wise to stick with the 50% penalty considering how expensive it would be to have a large number of employees with their own offices.
I'll also point out that the folks advocating for "collaborative" offices generally make "bold claims" with little evidence (or even argument, at times) to substantiate.
The point is that this is not a well substantiated position. Even if it is clearly demonstrated in some anecdotal cases (sales, marketing, tech support), there is a wide variation in what the day-to-day looks like within software development organizations. Keeping in mind, especially, that an open workspace for a small shop of 10 engineers is completely different than an open workspace for a floor of 200 engineers. And even moreso if there is a mixture of engineering and non-engineering (management, client relations, sales, etc.) on the same floor.
There are enough ins and outs in how work actually gets done that I'm skeptical that we can categorically say much about open floor plans. I'm sure they are more efficient in many cases. I'm certainly not granting the implied "always" or "often enough to be granted" in "they have such an economical advantage".
My default take for such things is that companies should be hiring experts and then trusting their expert opinions. Otherwise, I'm not sure what's the purpose of spending millions on presumably wise and intelligent engineers.
Insert "now you're thinking" meme image:
Sound can't hurt your ears
If it doesn't exist
> prevent your perception of sound.
No. It is destructively interfering with the wave. You don't perceive it because there is no more sound, not because of some perceptual trick.
(For any pedants looking on, I'm ignoring the fact that the cancellation may be imperfect. Unless there's actually constructive interference going on -- which is not what delinka is saying -- there is plain and simply less sound.)
It’s probably not as good for your hearing as an equivalent level of passive NR. When I fly long trips, I notice that my hearing is slightly impaired for a day or so. There could be a lot of confounding factors there, of course.
That's not added sound, though, that's a portion of the original sound that just didn't get cancelled.
You can also get ear pieces molded by an audiologist for some high end earbuds that will block out sound almost completely even if you're not playing any sound.
Edit I would do so quietly without making a fuss about it. You would probably not even realise that was the reason for me leaving. Basically if I see the rules of my workplace as unfair and arbitrary I will leave.
It's like the whole "will consider remote for the right candidate" in job description. So everybody in the office is not the right candidate?
You can also just leave without quitting. Tell your manager that you are unable to work in the current workspace, and walk out the door no matter what time it is. If you still get your work done and your co-workers catch on, you can help to improve the culture without needing to stick around in unreasonable conditions.
Management might not be thrilled, but if your plan was to quit anyways and you are professional and honest, where's the harm?
Me because I would be portrayed as opposed to all accommodations for people with disabilities - which I am not. Think Twitter storm.
The disabled person because they would then be forced to explain their disability and no one should have to do that.
But besides, "person who cant work in our office due to sickness or disability gets to have more home-office time and position suitable for that" is not arbitrary rule at all.
Whether it is unfair can be debatable, but I would not see accomodation for someone sick as unfair to healthy me. I would also see it as good sight that if I get sick or need adjustment to some own situation, I get accommodation too.
I would not argue though. The beautiful thing about living in a free country is that I don't need to I just get another job.
The usual reason not every employer is ok with remote work: if everyone does it, it damages the team.
It's not unreasonable to insist employees work from the office, neither is it unreasonable to make exceptions for employees with disabilities.
I am pointing out that treating people differently damages teams.
Not really. Sing happy birthday quickly during a meeting for folks that enjoy it. Skip over for the folks that would really rather one didn't. Adjusting for a sickness or disability isn't any different.
Most of the time, it boils down to things like giving the person with crutches a little extra time to use the toilet because it takes more time. I don't really understand why this would be an issue for you since, if you had crutches, you'd be treated similarly.
The same as if you developed migraines and were able to work from home a few days a month. More often, however, migraines are likely to be covered by FMLA (in the us) and the person gets time off for a certain amount of days.
If you truly think this stuff is unfair, I urge you to talk to your elected officials and complain about non-able bodied folks getting some special treatment and I truly hope you don't become disabled in any way afterwards.
Almost always, you will be expected (rightly or wrongly) to use your PTO/sick days first (if you have any). Then FMLA may kick in (up to 12 weeks within a 12 month period), subject to several potential restrictions (e.g. employer company minimum size, employee tenure minimum, etc.) Also, the law states that your employer no longer has to pay you, they just have to keep your position available for you upon your return.
So, maybe that's no so great or useful and it's better for your employer to just deal with the fact that you get periodic migraines.
(Not disagreeing with your points, but wanted to clarify that FMLA is great for some situations but not all). People just need to be more understanding and compassionate.
I am confused. Where did I say that would be a problem? I am very very OK with reasonable adjustments.
Sick leave is something I expect from a non broken society as well.
I object to unreasonable adjustments.
Edit Oh and if my employer times us on the toilet I am definitely looking for another job!
Sure. If you want to work remotely, you should find a job where you can.
> I am pointing out that treating people differently damages teams.
We're talking about an employer making reasonable accommodations for an employee with a disability. What alternative would you prefer?
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to treat employees differently. Maternity leave is another instance.
Are we? Either attendance at the office is vital to the job or isn't. If you treat different members of your team differently you will annoy them, damage morale and damage your team.
> Maternity leave is another instance.
If your paternity leave isn't comparable to your maternity leave that's not OK.
Not so. There's value to team cohesion in having a team physically together, but it's not outright fatal to permit remote working. That's why it's a reasonable accommodation.
> If you treat different members of your team differently you will annoy them, damage morale and damage your team.
I don't think so. Would you get resentful if a colleague took maternity leave?
I can't imagine a colleague reacting negatively to a clearly reasonable accommodation for a disability.
> If your paternity leave isn't comparable to your maternity leave that's not OK.
I'm not sure that's relevant, but sure, equal paternity leave isn't a bad idea.
Of course not. Parental leave is offered to all employees right?
> I can't imagine a colleague reacting negatively to a clearly reasonable accommodation for a disability.
Nor could I. A clearly unreasonable one is not quite the same as a reasonable one is it?
> Not so. There's value to team cohesion in having a team physically together, but it's not outright fatal to permit remote working. That's why it's a reasonable accommodation.
We disagree. That is fine. But I doubt either of us will pursuade the other here so let's just leave this argument.
It isn't, that just the point -- it's offered to employees who have just had a child.
We can view accommodations of disabilities the same way. They should be offered to all employees to whom they apply.
> A clearly unreasonable one is not quite the same as a reasonable one is it?
I'm just not convinced this is a real problem.
> We disagree. That is fine.
On which point?
It's not a matter of opinion that plenty of companies are effective based entirely on remote work, right?
There's value to team cohesion in having a team physically together. It won't be fatal to make an exception, and indeed it's possible run a company purely on remote working, but the point stands.
In fact, now a disabled person is going to likely be excluded from the team because they're working remotely. How do you include them? By making everyone remote. That way people don't rely on a culture where documentation is interrupting someone at their desk (ps they won't respond on Slack or what have you, because if you really need to ask them something, just come by & interrupt them at their desk)
So now in order to accommodate someone you have to change the work environment for everyone
Not really. It can make good sense for a company to generally insist on working from the office, but to make reasonable exceptions.
> How do you include them? By making everyone remote.
No, you just take reasonable steps.
> So now in order to accommodate someone you have to change the work environment for everyone
No, you don't.
If it’s not fatal to make an exception for one person, is it fatal to make an exception for two? If it is, does that mean a team with one remote working exception can’t take on another? Does that fall afoul of reasonable accommodation rules? If so, what do they do? Is the accommodation that was previously workable (and therefore reasonable) now no longer workable?
I get your point, but I probably don’t think it’s quite as strong as you might think.
Sure it is. There isn't any real question of the sky falling down here.
Plenty of countries have strong laws protecting the rights of disabled employees, and it hasn't ruined their economies.
It's not that hard to insist on reasonable accommodations depending on circumstance. It's not like we force the fire service to hire people who don't have the use of their legs.
Citation? I've worked partially remote, fully remote, entirely in open officers, and entirely in a private office. Remote has been the best by far, both all around and for the healthiest team relationships IME.
If the accommodation were instead something that was desirable to you, but (unlike a remote work option) not something that would be viable to offer to everyone, would you still feel it's unfair?
And what if the company were legally precluded from offering you more money to compensate for not being able to provide the same thing to you?
Would you still feel the accommodation is unfair of the company, and want to leave the company?
Or would you see it as something the organization is collectively happy to do, to be inclusive and supportive of your fellow people? Or as something you understand the organization legally has to do, and you don't resent the organization for it?
(BTW, I think we might agree that some accommodations are actually things that probably can and should be offered to everyone. But I'm asking a hypothetical of a different situation, to understand better.)
Regular home office is not even close to being in the same class as specific software or food or even a disabled car parking spot.
Everything is case by case of course so I can't tell you. Often I wouldn't tell you. If I felt undervalued at work I would just get another job.
But for the hypothetical, in an HN discussion, of when it's truly not possible to offer the thing to everyone... you can't answer because maybe(?) there's some other variables involved, and/or there's an emotional component?
For example, maybe there's some additional pertinent variables besides the hypothetical as I framed it, and you suspect there are some situations in which you could logically acknowledge that the organization has no other legal option, but you would still emotionally resent the organization/situation/environment, and leave because of that?
The most ideal would be that most all the desirable things (work from home, quiet office, standing desk, good chair, flexible hours, etc.) would be offered to everyone, and then there's no special accommodation needed in most cases -- because everyone has those options to use at their discretion. It would also be more considerate of those who need something rather than prefer it -- don't make them ask, don't make them have to talk about something they might not want to talk about, don't single them out.
I'm lucky to not need any special accommodation now, but I'd value an environment that gave me those options, and I'd appreciate how respectful and supportive that is of everyone.
In any case, I'm glad that at least people who know they need special accommodation can often get it, thanks to laws. I just wish they and others usually didn't have to even mention it.
The details will be different for every case, but generous work from home rules can help a lot.
There's clearly a limit to the reasonable accommodations we can expect of an employer.
They said accommodate as far as is necessary. Necessary literally means that it is needed. There is a statement of correctness built into the word.
And you are objecting that necessary is needed? As in, wait wait a moment here. I think we should do less than necessary.
Arguing where to draw that line is one thing. But as worded, you appear to be advocating below minimum requirements.
The question is as follows: how much accommodation should be made for an employee with a disability?
The answer is clearly not As much as is necessary to enable the employment of that person, regardless of the cost or circumstance.
pjc50 appeared to be suggesting exactly this answer, hence my reply.
As far as I can tell, most major employers operate like grudging extraction of value is their definition of success. Then well-meaning managers at smaller companies implement "standard practice" and are baffled when it causes problems.