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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.