Sorry for my earlier knee-jerk reaction but I have a very strong aversion to people with legitimate concerns being told to 'get over it' especially by someone with no authority on the matter. It especially hit home because we have similar discussions going on in my workplace.
Covid showed that working from home works out just fine and health concerns aren't the only reasons to want it. Many younger people have concerns with kids in school and for the environment it's great too.
I read the article with the view that since some workplaces will never change, offering medically fragile workers some accommodation is useful. Her advice to the writer to look to a better place also rang true with me - places that refuse to give up on crunching employee skulls under their boots deserve to lose good employees. I didn't see your previous reply but I want to say we're on the same page I think - WFH is a huge improvement to our quality of life and to the environment and any employer that wants good people and a high real rating on the E aspect of ESG had better keep this in mind.
Immunodeficient or immunocompromised, PTSD, physically disabled, and so on… it’s a slightly unusual choice of phrase but I read it as simply descriptive. Where older generations might have called some “frail”, that sort of thing… just with verifiable medical evidence for HR reasons…
7 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 31.0 ms ] threadCovid showed that working from home works out just fine and health concerns aren't the only reasons to want it. Many younger people have concerns with kids in school and for the environment it's great too.
And no I didn't just start work :)
What does that even mean?