It would be nice if all of his employees decided to take time off too. They could hang out with their newly fired friends in solidarity.
1 Like
Often a prelude to firing (âresigningâ).
6 Likes
Thatâs interesting, and from the businessâs perspective is a strong motivation not to allow remote work. The company controls the office environment and can choose how to manage the risks there; not so in the at-home office.
1 Like
I know that I never go to meetings outside the office, construction sites, community org meetings or travel for work. And nobody works it transportation.
2 Likes
Itâs not a unique risk, but extending it to cover more, perhaps most employees is a change.
1 Like
5 Likes
If youâre already covered going to work your risk is lower if you donât drive etc to work.
2 Likes
I think that was the point here, unless I misread: the commute to work is typically not covered. The court ruled that this employee was covered because they were already at their workplace (equivalent to arriving at the office but before starting their shift).
Donât get me wrong - I think there is a likelihood that most of the financial benefits of increases wfh are likely to go to corporations, and thatâs a shame. Iâm just thinking of what will happen when companies are offered higher insurance rates because they have a wfh policy. I donât think those policies will last long.
A more ideal resolution would be that health and short term disability insurance would not be tied to employment, making the location of injury irrelevant (except for determining fault in cases of negligence)
2 Likes
Employees of firefighters, police and food delivery folks donât have any say over the conditions of workplaces that they enter. They donât even know the conditions most times.
3 Likes
I agree, but I donât see the relevance, as those employeesâ insurance situations are not affected by this ruling.
ETA: Iâm not going to keep going back and forth. I know that where I work, if our insurance company said that premiums would go up in the wake of this ruling, that would be weighed heavily in favor of bringing employees back to the office. I donât think I work in an unusual office environment. What should be or could be is a different topic.
The relevance is the statement that the employer doesnât control the physical environment.
Additionally, as the story notes, itâs really unlikely this type of ruling would apply in other countries. The US doesnât typically follow German work laws or standards. Unfortunately.
2 Likes
The commute to work typically is covered1), which in this case was part of the courtâs reasoning.
Not your fault, the GIzmodo article has some âlost in translationâ issues2).
A bit better on the relevant details in this particular case:
1) Usual devil-in-the-details caveat. In general, the daily commute is a work trip. Starting when you leave your house, stopping when you enter your place of work. Taking a âdirectâ route - which isnât necessarily the shortest or the fastest. âNecessaryâ detours (say dropping off your kid at kindergarten) are covered, âprivateâ detours (say swinging by your favorite bakery) are not. Then there are cases where somebody first drives someplace else to meet the members of their carpool. Or people slipping with one foot still in their house and one foot already on the pavement. And so on and so on.
Incidentally, when working from home getting your kids to and from kindergarten would also be covered.
Another thing to consider here is that potentially at least three types of insurance (and insurers) would be involved:
- your own statutory health insurance (Krankenkasse) - which could be public, private or a combination of both
- your employerâs statutory occupational accident insurance (gesetzliche Unfallversicherung) - this is the one that typically covers work trip accidents
- your employerâs statutory social insurance against occupational accidents (Berufsgenossenschaft) - which covers workplace accidents
- possibly your pension scheme - which also could be public (gesetzliche Rentenversicherung), private or a combination of both
- possibly occupational disability insurance - which again could be public (gesetzliche Berufsunfähigkeitsversicherung), private or a combination of both
- any additional policies with insurance companies which you and/or your employer may have taken out
And thatâs just assuming there is no third party involved
2) As, no doubt, my post will have. I donât really have the technical terms for insurance matters in my vocabulary.
10 Likes
For Americans working in Antarctica the entire station is considered your workplace and even your time off is considered to be ruled by the decrees of the NSF. People have gotten fired for things like wearing a pink fur bikini while at a party at one of the bars at McMurdo. If someone has an issue with you, they complain to your boss. And your expectations of digital privacy can go right out the window.
4 Likes
I imagine the Antarctic bases are under similar regs as working ships.
2 Likes
Dollar General. (Is this somewhere upthread? Searches donât necessarily turn up external links.)
In the days after she and her co-workers signed union cards, the company hired five anti-union consultants, each of whom was paid $2,700 a day, according to documents filed with the Labor Department. It dispatched three out-of-state executives to the store who shadowed the employees for the month, working alongside them. Sometimes the executives talked baseball, hunting or music with the store employees.
8 Likes
We are all required to fill in a risk assessment on our home office if we want to WFH.
Itâs one of those things like you are entitled by law in Europe to sick pay for days you are on holiday, as in time off to make up for it, but I really donât know anyone who has claimed.
3 Likes
A nice synopsis of the Kelloggâs strike and such:
8 Likes
3 Likes
