Krispy said:
I’m saving these. Should come in handy later…
K.O. said, “What can be gleaned here is that at-home employees are as protected under Workmans Compensation claims as are traditional employees and insofar as employers are expected to take reasonable measures to ensure a safe work environment…”
Wrong. Workers compensation laws are determined individually by the states and are NOT affected by OSHA laws. Employers are impacted by unsafe working conditions in the form of increased workers’ compensation costs. OSHA fines are (sometimes) an additional punishment on top of these costs. If you are getting the concepts of Work Comp and OSHA confused, we can’t have an intelligent debate on this subject.
IF the employer is responsible for the safety of a persons home, they will face additional costs. Poor electrical work in the home which causes a fire will be charged to the employer, as will asbestos conditions or stairs that do not meet stringent OSHA standards.
This will increase employers exposure above and beyond workers’ compensation. And, most importantly, it is not an exposure that the employer can control without at home investigations which would lead to a host of new exposures.
look, K.O., I do this for a living. If we had at home workers right now, we would be making some major policy changes. These changes would not be in favor of more at home workers.
Ang the general liability premesis exposure would be real because the law of the land has deemed employers responsible for the at-home workplace. These are exposure for which we would not currently be insured under the ISO GL form.
“Do that which consists in taking no action and order will prevail” --Lao Tzu
Stark,
You write:
Where exactly are the examples of ad hominem attacks?..in your imagination apparently…
Mr Zambezi writes:
You do what for a living?..work?..
You twice now have refered to a vague reference that is suppossed to give you some kind of leg up in this debate?..nah, not buying…
You have misinterpreted the story and the ramifications…your reaction is a knee-jerk…
There are tens of thousands of people working from home today for some of America’s largest corporations. They are not likely to suddenly cancel their entire telecomuting programs based upon a hyped story in the Washington Post.
Sure, the headline was catchy, and the reporter did his best to incite panic, but the fact is that the head of OSHA was interviewed on ABC News last night and poo-pooed the whole thing.
I stand by my assertion that statments like “the death of telecomuting” are gross exagerations…
DavidB writes:
Shucks David. Did you consider that you might have converted me? Maybe after seeing your relentless efforts to convert the folks at the LBMB I decided that I’m not match for you and have decided to join your ranks!..
Krispy, I am a risk manager. My company does $330MM in sales and has 16,000 employees. It is my job to assess potential risks that may impact us financially and to manage those risks. This includes OSHA violations, workers’ compensation, general liability, D&O, fiduciary liability, etc. If you want more specifics I will be glad to ponder the inticracies of risk management with you.
So I am exactly the person who would make the decision regarding the impact of this law. You can talk all day about what YOU think people in my profession will and wont do, but I think I talk to a few more risk managers on a daily basis than you do. This Subject has indeed caused a stir in our community.
It will certainly not be the “death of telecommuting.” But it will force us to re-asses the subject.
About a month ago an ex employee (who lives in a house built in 1905 by the way) did approach us to ask if she could do some work from home while she was pregnant. At the time we said “no” because she is a bad employee. But knowing about this existing OSHA law and their position on it would have been a MAJOR factor in our decision.
And I can also say that the workers who are adversely affected by this will be lower level workers. Workers with a wage that would fall under the state work comp minimum file claims more frequently. Managers and execs will probably not be affected as they have less motivation to file claims due to higher salaries and more career options.
Funny you should mention that, since I thought about it while I was getting coffee this morning. My specific thought was about the ADA. Many employers who allow telecommuting generally of course would consider working from home to be a “reasonable accommodation” under ADA for the covered job descriptions. In your opinion, might this change because the employer is unable to supervise the working conditions of (already disabled) employees?
I’d be curious to see what the various disabled-rights groups have to say about this. The only reaction I’ve seen came (predictably) from the Republican Party.
Jesus saves… Gretzky grabs the rebound… He Scores!
Manhattan, you should join my profession. You seem to have intuited what has been one of the major hot issues with all of this.
we might have to make major changes to someone’s home to accomodate the disabled worker. [as an aside I have to point out that most of the disabled workers we see are disabled because of a work comp injury. They get injured on the job and are eventually released to work with restrictions. They then demand accomodations, which often can’t be met. THen they file an ADA suit. Such a worker can demand a work from home job, and demand that their house be modified.]
Please tell me you’re joking, Krispy. I have no doubt you’re intelligent enough to know what I’m talking about. To wit:
As if those weren’t enough, you even launched another personal attack when you questioned where I could possibly find an example of you doing so:
Now I’ll admit right now that my very first post directed to you contained a snide remark as to your identity. It was uncalled for and I apologize. But remember that no matter what you call yourself now, many of us here have a deep and utter loathing for the persona that went with The Username That Is No More. Fair or not, everything you say will be filtered through that abhorrence. This is true for me, at least, and I imagine is true for the other regulars here. I’ll do my best, however, to remember that you are now Krispy Original and that the old persona you projected here is thankfully dead and gone.
So once again, let’s keep the attacks and defenses centered on the idea and its ramifications - not on those discussing the idea.
In your post to me, you focused solely on my first paragraph. Please address the issues I raised afterwards. Specifically, what would you, as the employer, do in my hypothetical - but entirely plausible - situation?
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
Oh God, I have been away too long to know who K.O. was. Doesn’t matter I guess. I would rather take people on their words, but still my curiosity burns…
Mr Zambezi,
Just curious…
…is this the type of scenario that is “causing quite a stir” among professional risk managers?
And about that stir…sheesh…you professional risk managers must be really well connected to have already guaged the concern level amongst others in your profession in less than 24 hours!
Seriously though, if your company decides to not allow telecommuting because of a Washington Post article, then go for it.
Other, more realistic corporations will choose to stay the course with telecommuting.
Give me a ring when any of your wild scenarios actually ever makes it’s way into a courtroom…
Stark wrote:
Nothing. Well, not exactly nothing…if the home working environment is unsafe and I as the employer know this I simply withdraw the option for telecommuting for that particular employee. They (the employee) have an option. They can bring their work environment up to snuff, work at the traditional office, or seek other employment.
The biggest change that will occur out of this overblown OSHA policy note is that companies will have a safe working environment standard that the employee must themselves live up to before allowing telecommuting.
K.O. said: “Seriously though, if your company decides to not allow telecommuting because of a Washington Post article, then go for it.”
Nice use of false logic. The assumption is that we would change our policy over an article. Clearly we would change teh policy based on the LAW that was adressed IN THE ARTICLE. . Were you aware of this deceptive reasoning when you wrote it, or are you just baiting?
“Other, more realistic corporations will choose to stay the course with telecommuting.” --K.O.
And they very well may, but many will scale it back or make the parameters narrower. Again your are applying the false logic of arguing ad absurdium. It is not all or nothing. But this law nudges it more towards nothing.
"Give me a ring when any of your wild scenarios actually ever makes it’s way into a courtroom… "
IT was wild that a woman sued McDonalds because she spilled cofee on herself. It is wild that a man who shot one of our employees sued us because he had to go to jail as a result. It was wild that a person sued her employer under ADA because she couldn’t add numbers and the employer failed to hire a second employee to do all of her adding. (all true stories. All made it into a court room.)
Again, I am a risk manager, before that I was a claims cosultant and vbefore that a claims adjuster. I beilieve that I am a little better qualified to tell you what is wild and what is par for the course. We are dealing with an arm of a state government who is devoted to worker safety right now. I wont divulge the state because it is getting nasty. But The inspector told us tat she has “crushed bigger companies than us.” Don’t tell me what it is like dealing with these folks.
But I suppose in your world employees don’t retaliate, people don’t file claims and governmental agencies only make public statements about laws that they do not plan to enforce.
K.O. said “if the home working environment is unsafe and I as the employer know this I simply withdraw the option for telecommuting for that particular employee. They (the employee) have an option. They can bring their work environment up to snuff.”
Oh for the love of…OSHA is saying that the EMPLOYER IS RESPONSIBLE. The employer can’t shift the burden back to the worker. That is against OSHA regulations.
And how are you going to explain that lower wage earning employees who want telecommuting options the most can’t telecommute, but the wealty workers with nice houses and money for upgrades can? That is a lopsided and discriminatory policy.
“Sorry, you don’t have a nice enough house to telecommute. We only let the wealthy employees with new houses do that.”
Krispy, you suggest that as a result of the new OSHA directive that
Sure, it sounds easy and painless when you put it like that. But ensuring such a safe home working environment doesn’t come cheap. At the very least in involves someone from your company personally inspecting the premises. I doubt, though, that the average manager in our hypothetical telemarketing firm is up to speed on exactly what the OSHA requirements are this week.
More likely, such an inspection would require the hiring of an expert in workplace safety to inspect the site. That may include getting an electrician to test the wiring, an environmental specialist to test the air quality, etc.
Once again, I submit that the additional cost of letting employees telecommute will simply not be worth it for most employers (though I will modify my argument in light of some of Mr.Zambezi’s comments to focus mainly on lower-income telecommuters).
Also, Mr. Z has already beaten me to it, but I just wanted to make sure that you realized that you were suggesting that all this hullabalu was about an article, rather than then the policy the article brought to the public attention.
Mr. Z, I will let Krispy’s alter ego remain blessedly dead and buried. Suffice it say that it was nobody you’d want to talk to twice. (Hint: which King of Trolls is markedly absent these days?)
Also, Mr. Z, you said that such a policy as Krispy suggests would be blatantly discriminatory toward those that cannot afford to fix their own home. No arguments here, but such discrimination would be perfectly legal, wouldn’t it? Not that it would help with employee moral much…
And finally, I’ve pleaded with Krispy to remain civil and not engage in personal attacks. I’ll open up my plea to all engaged in this discussion.
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
Mr Zambezi,
A worker’s wealth has nothing to do with this debate.
The ONLY issue is the safety of the home workplace and that can not be assigned on the basis of personal wealth.
And yes, most employees are at will employees and can be let go for many reasons at the discretion of the employer. As an employer I can require that any of my employees that wish to work at home maintain a safe working environment as per OSHAA regulations. As the employer, my only responsibility is to right the situation. Righting the situation includes termination of the employee or the employee’s work at home situation…period.
One quick thought, which I think Jodi and Melin will back up from experience: “There is no legal theory silly enough that an unscrupulous lawyer will not take it up to attempt to ‘make’ an otherwise unwinnable case.” 
Stark said, “Also, Mr. Z, you said that such a policy as Krispy suggests would be blatantly discriminatory toward those that cannot afford to fix their own home. No arguments here, but such discrimination would be perfectly legal, wouldn’t it? Not that it would help with employee moral much…”
Well, it would be legal if income were spread equally among all demographics. How much do you want to bet that a majority of the lower income people are women, or minorities? And if someone has to quit because of the decision, and is in a protected class, it would be called constructive termination and you better be able to prove how even handed you are to the EEOC.
To answer your question, as long as you do it only to white, christian males, no it is not illegal.
A Stark Also said, “And finally, I’ve pleaded with Krispy to remain civil and not engage in personal attacks. I’ll open up my plea to all engaged in this discussion.”
I do not tend to engage in personal attacks unless someone is getting way way out of line. But I am not going to coddle some troll just so that I can placate him and avoid him being a troll. That is like telling the battered wife to be nicer to her husband so that he wont beat her anymore.
Krispy, you seem to have just defended my original claim. You said:
That is just what I have been arguing all along. Rather than take the expense of fixing an unsafe home-work environment, an employer is much more likely to simply abolish a work-at-home option or, failing that route, terminate an employee that is unable to physically come to the office.
Are we now in agreement?
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
Mr. Z, as I understand it, your answer is more tongue-in-cheek than factual right? I mean a member of a protected class may not legally be discriminated against because of the factor that put them in that protected class, but may still legally be discriminated against for other factors, right?
Since there is no protected financial class, one may legally discriminate against someone who can’t afford to buy a car to come to work, or in our case, afford to fix a home to OSHA standards. Such financial discrimination would be perfectly ok; the problem lies in the fact that many members of the unprotected low-income class also happen to be members of the protected race class. The trick would be in conclusively proving in court that finances were what you were discriminating upon - not race.
At least that’s how I read your answer. Please correct my if I’ve misconstrued it.
And as to coddling a troll. In just about any other case, I’d agree with you - but Krispy’s kind of different. He’s a reformed - er, no … a reforming troll. Think of him on about step four on the twelve-step program to becoming a productive poster. For what it’s worth…
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~