I also see the opposite impact both for me and my staff. It's very difficult to say no to the constant demands of children at home and the lack of physical distance makes it hard for me to concentrate on my work during regular work hours.
For me, my apartment wasn't chosen with the expectation of being a space to work from home. My computer desk is in the corner of the living room, because I like being able to talk with my wife while playing video games. When covid hit, that also became my work desk, as there isn't a good place elsewhere to move it. The space simply wasn't intended to be a dedicated work area, and I know that I get distracted whenever my cats wail at me for attention. (I imagine that kids are even more needing of attention, though I don't have personal experimental evidence to back that up.)
And that's okay. That's human. It's okay to re-evaluate expectations in light of a crisis, and know that there will be distractions throughout the day as a result.
My wife and I have a 1 year old, and we're both professionals who need to focus on work, hold meetings, and generally concentrate on our work. Which of us should look after our 1 year old while the other keeps the child at bay by hiding in the office?
The fact of the matter is; our homes were generally not created to be work places, and employers need to accept that as another commenter eloquently put it; we're not working from home, we're at home during a crises, trying to work.
In this case I don't think the regulation is necessary, which effectively makes it bad by default, because it adds complication and reduces flexibility of both employers and workers.
Slight tangent, but I also think governments start calling everything a "right" at their own peril. That's something I found incredibly refreshing about Andrew Yang's presidential run. Unlike every other progressive in America who has followed EU's lead by saying "we need universal healthcare because it's a human right", his take was "we should have healthcare because a safety net like that will encourage entrepreneurialism and therefore innovation."
I prefer to call the former "human rights" and the latter "societal rights". My problem with the EU and others is that they call everything "human rights" with no regard for the distinction, in what I believe to be an attempt to stall out discussion about the latter: "How can you be against this thing? It's a human right, you monster." Except they are different. The latter kind of "rights" are given to you by your society and require the labor of others on your behalf in order to work. This makes them not so simple.
To my mind, every society everywhere should enshrine the former, and the latter kind need to be decided on a society-by-society basis, and also might change with time.
Overall, I don't think it is a useful distinction to make. For either type of human right, there are cooperative agreements needed in order to maintain those rights.
Those are very different from healthcare, which is not something you have unless it is infringed. Healthcare needs to be actively provided for you. When you can very clearly put all "rights" into one of the two buckets, it's pretty clear there is a real distinction.
The reason you make a distinction is because the two kinds need to be handled in different ways, and that is harder to do if you are constantly conflating them.
Someone clue me in why that is so bad.
I've primarily worked at home for six years now, and it's been an incredibly effective method for providing that needed separation.
When the door is open, or if I come out of my office, they know it's a free-for-all for my attention, and I'll often walk out to play with them from time to time to clear my head and/or relieve some work-related stress.
My current thinking on the matter is, would be neat, it might be possible, but IDK whether it would be useful. If types are inferred completely, i.e. there's no actual type definitions, perhaps things not even having types themselves, but rather just rules extracted and tested such that the compiler evaluates and says "yup you can pass X into F" (which may be all you can say in cases like the omega combinator--there's no "type" you can associate with it afaict), then there's nothing to apply type classes to. "Can't have type classes, without having types". Also it takes away one of the big advantages of defined types (records / classes), in that you can do `.` and get precise autocomplete. If everything is just inferred, then the editor can't help you out as much.
Anyway, was just curious if you got anywhere.
The point is, just because you are working from home (and have access to 100% of what you 'need' for work since you are always working from home) doesn't mean you should be expected to be on call at any time just because "you can".
His point was that my sister and I were not difficult to manage, while he was working at home. He was just telling us to leave him alone and play outside. Or play legos in our rooms. The happy 80s.
I hear from my friends that working from home with kids is not manageable in a flat. Possible in a house.
Personally I love homeschooling (ie teaching my kids out of a school environment), but kids wither without educational input and intellectual nurturing. You can expect a kid to develop well without educational input shut in a room by themselves for weeks on end, even if their parents can afford lego.
I was not referring to home schooling but "managing kids" nowadays compared to the 80s. To my father, which was well involved in our education and housekeeping btw, it seems there wasn’t much anxiety about it. I feel that my friends are pretty anxious nowadays.
My dad was a general science teacher in a technical high school (woodworkers, mechanics, electrician ...), from an farmer family. We had this chance to learn a lot out of school, building stuff and caring for animals and crops. To the point actually where I haven’t learned a lot science wise until university.