Slashdot Mirror
OSHA Trying to "Protect" Telecommuters
DiabloQueen writes "MSNBC reports that OSHA says that employers are now responsible for home workstations.
Wonder how many people will try to get their employers to help pay for the ergonomically correct leather executive chair they must have?
" Interesting quandry - I don't think that employers should be responsible for accidents that happen in a telecommuter's home, but I do think they should help pay for ergonomic furniture and an appropriate working environment. What do you think? Is there a happy median?
Oh hurrah! The government is saving me from the evil exploiting tactics of my pointy headed boss. How can I ever thank them. I'll make sure to shake their hands at the next komittee meeting.
sheesh... You must lead a miserable life going through every day working for the devil himself.
*what* you want or need.
"I do not need the government, or anyone from my company, in my basement telling me what is safe and what is not!"
You and I are just the latest pawns to be sacrificed at the altar of a Federal government gone berserk. Once again, the unions and the trial lawyers get their way, while we as individual workers are effectively locked out of our own homes.
Who was it that said, "it's too late to vote them out of office, but it's too soon to shoot the bastards?"
All I can say in response to that quote is, damn, look at the time!
OH great, and the next step by the government will be to declare that any "improvements" to the home office are taxable benefits.
So, you get screwed either way..OSHA's inspection resources have been filleted over the years to the point that the scenario posited above of snap OSHA inspections of one-worker workplaces are ludicrous. There are plenty of hazardous workplaces in which scores or hundreds of workers work that see an OSHA inspector before an accident or complaint once a decade. OSHA's more worried IMHO about off-site piecework in assembly and the needle trades.
... considering the content of the messages you've been writing above it.
Here's $5. Buy a dictionary. Look up "fascism."
Again, this has nothing to do with it. A job is a private transaction, and either party is free to walk away from it. If you are being required to work in an ergonomically unsafe environment, you have a numbher of options. You can ask the employer for the chair. If he refuses, you can quit. You can pay for the chair yourself.
Ah, I remember when I was this young and naive. I came out of high school thinking that I was master of my own destiny (and therefore, everyone else should be too). But then I went to college. And then I got out into the real world.
I'll bet you're too young to have seen even a slight economic downturn. Your entire life (at least since you became interested in such things) you've seen nothing but an economic boom. You don't remember the last significant national recession (89-92). You've probably never seen an unemployment rate over 6%. The Great Depression is something you may have read about in history books, or heard about secondhand from your great-grandparents. Sweatshops? Triangle Shirtwaist Company? Ancient history.
Well, the good times don't last forever. When there are 4 people waiting for every job that becomes available, then you'll see who has the power to negotiate the terms of this "private transaction".
In 10-15 years, after you've seen your friends (or even yourself) "downsized" or "outsourced" or laid off so the company can hire someone younger and cheaper, then perhaps you'll understand.
Don't say you weren't warned.
"Telecommuting is a rather agressive extension of employer authority into our homes"
At my, the employee's request!
I don't recall the government asking ME, the employee, if I wanted them to intervene in my right to make an agreement with my employer with regard to telecommuting terms and expenses.
I don't care how you spin-doctor this latest Federal government encroachment. *I*, as an employee, have just had a valuable right -- the right to negotiate with my employer -- taken away from me by OSHA today.
This is just a classic example of the "Hi, I'm from the Government and I'm here to help" nightmare.
They get to hold on to the fantasy that one day they will be Bill Gates and have more personal wealth than the poorest half of the world's population combined.
This is a powerful and very popular meme -- it's responsible for the Republican Party (in its current form).
There are actually many many worker in THIS country who work at home on such projects as electronics assembly ( lead in the solder ), and sewing. They are usually paid on a piecemeal basis. I think a certain amount of protection for these people is GREAT. On the other hand, I do agree that people who voluntarily telecommute should NOT encur OSHA headaches for their employers.
"And we'll all be fucked if the job market ever gets worse"
You're right, we will. What you've failed to explain is just how burdening the employer with superfluous and intrusive regulations will help.
If I want my employer to pay for my chair, I can negotiate that myself - thankyou. I'm sick and tired of federal orginisations trying to "protect" me from the outcome of my own choices. Screw-em, they cant even get a grip on their own internal affairs, so why mess with mine. I consider federal regulators a much bigger threat to my personal life than my employer. sheesh....
... there is no such thing as a "mandatory" job. You can always go do something else. If you don't, it's your own fault.
Hum, lets see. Who is the government? Lawyers. What does this new legislation bring? Lots of lawsuits.
What a great system. Don't vote for lawyers.
When he was talking about workstations i dont think he was talking about the computer. i think it was talking about a desk
Here's is the official OSHA advisory that started all this fuss. Why read articles about documents you can read for yourself?
9 1115.html
- -------------------------------- - --------------------------------
- --------------------------------
- --------------------------------
http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshDoc/Interp_data/I199
OSHA Standards Interpretation and Compliance Letters
11/15/1999 - OSHA policies concerning employees working at home.
-----------------------------------------------
OSHA Standard Interpretation and Compliance Letters - Table of Contents
-----------------------------------------------
Record Type: Interpretation
Standard Number: 1904.14;1910.1200(g);1910.147;1910.146;1910.132
Subject: OSHA policies concerning employees working at home.
Information Date:11/15/1999
-----------------------------------------------
November 15, 1999
Mr. T. Trahan
CSC Credit Services
652 North Belt East
Houston, Texas 77060
Dear Mr. Trahan:
Thank you for your August 21, 1997 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) Directorate of Compliance Programs (DCP), requesting information on OSHA's policies concerning employees working at home. We apologize for the delay in responding.
Specifically, you state that your company will be placing some of its sales executives in home office environments. You state that the home office is generally a single room within the home of the sales executive that would have a desk, chair, file cabinet, business telephone, desktop or laptop computer, printer and a fax machine. You ask several specific questions that would apply specifically to your sales executives, as well as general questions that could apply to many other types of home work situations.
Question #1:
What is the employer's obligation within the home work environment?
Response #1:
The OSH Act applies to work performed by an employee in any workplace within the United States, including a workplace located in the employee's home. All employers, including those which have entered into "work at home" agreements with employees, are responsible for complying with the OSH Act and with safety and health standards.
Even when the workplace is in a designated area in an employee's home, the employer retains some degree of control over the conditions of the "work at home" agreement. An important factor in the development of these arrangements is to ensure that employees are not exposed to reasonably foreseeable hazards created by their at-home employment. Ensuring safe and healthful working conditions for the employee should be a precondition for any home-based work assignments. Employers should exercise reasonable diligence to identify in advance the possible hazards associated with particular home work assignments, and should provide the necessary protection through training, personal protective equipment, or other controls appropriate to reduce or eliminate the hazard. In some circumstances the exercise of reasonable diligence may necessitate an on-site examination of the working environment by the employer. Employers must take steps to reduce or eliminate any work-related safety or health problems they become aware of through on-site visits or other means.
Certainly, where the employer provides work materials for use in the employee's home, the employer should ensure that employer-provided tools or supplies pose no hazard under reasonably foreseeable conditions of storage or use by employees. An employer must also take appropriate steps when the employer knows or has reason to know that employee-provided tools or supplies could create a safety or health risk.
Question #2:
Is the employer responsible for compliance with the home itself?
Response #2:
An employer is responsible for ensuring that its employees have a safe and healthful workplace, not a safe and healthful home. The employer is responsible only for preventing or correcting hazards to which employees may be exposed in the course of their work. For example: if work is performed in the basement space of a residence and the stairs leading to the space are unsafe, the employer could be liable if the employer knows or reasonably should have known of the dangerous condition.
Question #3:
Is the employer required to do periodic compliance inspections in the home, which may include safety, health, fire, and environmental issues?
Response #3:
There is no general requirement in OSHA's standards or regulations that employers routinely conduct safety inspections of all work locations. However, certain specific standards require periodic inspection of specific kinds of equipment and work operations, such as:
ladders (1910.25(d)(1)(x)) and 1910.26(c)(2)(vi));
compressed gas cylinders (1910.101(a));
electrical protective equipment (1910.137(b)(2)(ii));
mechanical power-transmission equipment (1910.219(p));
resistance welding (1910.255(e)); and
portable electric equipment (1910.334(a)(2)).
Although some of these operations may not be found in home-based workplaces, nevertheless, if an employer of home-based employees is aware of safety or health hazards, or has reason to be aware of such hazards, the OSH Act requires the employer to pursue all feasible steps to protect its employees; one obvious and effective means of ensuring employee safety would be periodic safety checks of employee working spaces.
This letter addresses only the employer's responsibilities under the OSH Act. Depending on what kind of business the "at home" employer is engaged in, he or she may have additional responsibilities under other federal labor or environmental laws, as well as under state laws of general applicability, such as public health, licensing, zoning, fire and building codes, and other matters.
Question #4:
What would be OSHA's inspection procedures in a private home?
Response #4:
OSHA's health and safety inspection program is directed primarily toward industrial and commercial establishments and construction sites. We do not ordinarily conduct inspections of home-based workplaces, although from time to time we have visited private homes or apartments to investigate reports of sweatshop-type working conditions in the garment industry and other businesses. We would also investigate work-related fatalities occurring in home-based workplaces. Any OSHA enforcement visit must, of course, be conducted in compliance with the Fourth Amendment which would require that OSHA obtain either consent to inspect or a judicially-issued warrant.
Question #5:
Does the employer have to include these home locations in its file regarding record keeping on the OSHA 200 logs?
Response #5:
Employers are not required to maintain an OSHA 200 Log for each home. As stated in 29 CFR 1904.14, which concerns employees not in fixed establishments, employers of employees engaged in physically dispersed operations may satisfy the provisions of 1904.2, 1904.4, and 1904.6 with respect to such employees by maintaining the required records for each operation or group of operations subject to common supervision (field superintendent, field supervisor, etc.) in an established central place.
Injuries and illnesses that occur to employees working at a home location are recordable on the employer's OSHA 200 Log, if they are work-related and meet the criteria for an OSHA recordable injury or illness under 29 CFR Part 1904.2 and the Recordkeeping Guidelines for Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. Injuries and illnesses that result from an event or exposure off the employer's premises are work-related if the worker was engaged in work-related activities or was present as a condition of his or her employment (see Recordkeeping Guidelines, page 35, Section 2). These criteria must be applied to employees who work at their homes. The Recordkeeping Guidelines are available from the Government Printing Office, OSHA's CD-ROM, and the OSHA website -- www.osha.gov.
If an employee was injured or became ill while performing duties in the interest of the employer, the case would be considered work-related. If an employee was injured or became ill while performing normal living conditions (e.g., eating), the case would not be considered work-related. For example, when an employee who works at home doing typing develops carpal tunnel syndrome, it must be determined whether the employee's work duties in any way caused, contributed to, or aggravated the condition. If so, the condition is considered work-related for OSHA recordkeeping purposes.
Below are responses to other general questions.
Workplace Analysis and Hazard Prevention: The employer is responsible for correcting hazards of which it is aware, or should be aware. If, for example, the work requires the use of office equipment (computer, printer, scanner, fax machine, copying machine, etc.) in an employee's home, it must be done manner. For example, from a fire safety aspect the installation must not overload the home electrical circuits.
Training -- Can the training be in written form? In addition to any training requirements imposed by specific standards, employee training is one way for an employer to meet its general responsibility under the OSH Act for preventing violations. In the absence of specific requirements, the type of training that should be provided will be measured by what a reasonably prudent employer would do under the circumstances, taking into consideration such factors as the nature of the potential hazards and the abilities of the employees. It will not always be necessary for training to be in written form. On the other hand, written training alone may not be sufficient.
Ergonomics: From the information you have provided, your employees could be exposed to ergonomic hazards. We have, therefore, enclosed a booklet entitled, Working Safely with Video Display Terminals, 1997 OSHA Publication 3092, which may be helpful in addressing these hazards. This publication is available on OSHA's CD-ROM and at the OSHA Internet site.
Fire Protection, Lighting, Cooling, Heating, and Ventilation: See response to Question #2, above.
Asbestos, Chemicals or Toxic Materials within the Home Itself -- Would Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) be Required? The employer is responsible for making the workplace of its employees safe, not the entire home. If the employee will be performing work for the employer that involves exposure to any chemical substance for which an MSDS is required, then the MSDS must be present at the home worksite. However, an employer need not supply an MSDS if the hazardous chemical is a consumer product that is being used by an employee in the home office for the purpose intended by the manufacturer, and the use results in a duration and frequency of exposure which is not greater than that experienced by consumers.
Lockout/Tagout and Confined Spaces: If an employee is performing servicing and maintenance on machines or equipment which are used to perform his or her job, then the 1910.147 lockout/tagout standard applies. With regard to other equipment that may be in the home, the employer would have no responsibility. As long as the designated workplace is within the existing habitat space of the home, then the 1910.146 confined space standard would not apply. However, since you have not provided examples of such situations, we can give only general answers.
Bloodborne Pathogen Exposures: A home office for a sales executive is not covered by OSHA's bloodborne pathogen standard since the standard is intended to protect employees who are exposed or potentially exposed to blood or Other Potentially Infectious Materials (OPIM). This issue cannot be addressed further without knowing a specific factual situation in which employees in their own homes would be exposed to bloodborne pathogens while performing a work-related task.
Means of Ingress and Egress: Many building/fire codes require offices to have two entrances/exits. This, however, does not mean that OSHA would require installation of a second entrance/exit in an employee's workroom in the employee's home unless the nature of the work and the surroundings create a heightened risk of fire. However, see response to Question #3, above.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): The employer is required to assess the workplace to determine if hazards which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) are present, or are likely to be present. If these hazards are or are likely to be present then the employer must provide both the PPE and the necessary training. Employees must be trained in the proper use and maintenance of personal protective equipment, and the employer must verify, through a written certification, that each affected employee has received and understands the required training.
OSHA requires employers to make sure employees have and use safe tools and equipment and that such equipment is properly maintained. Employers are also required to establish or update operating procedures and communicate them to employees so that they will follow safety and health requirements.
Emergency Plans, Medical Assistance Services, and First Aid Kits and Training: Until OSHA develops policies for these issues as they apply to employees working in their homes, enforcement will necessarily be on a case-by-case basis. The seriousness of the potential hazards will be an important consideration.
Lead Levels in Old Paint: See response to Question #2, above.
OSHA Consulting Services: Consultation is a voluntary activity; i.e., the service is not automatic, but must be requested by the employer -- it cannot be requested by the employee. The service is provided chiefly at the worksite, but limited services may be provided away from the worksite via offsite training to employers and their employees. When an employer requests onsite Consultation services, the request is prioritized according to the nature of the workplace and any existing backlog of requests. In the case of home-based worksites, a Consultation visit would be classified as "high hazard" only if particularly dangerous work processes or work areas are within the "work zone" of the home.
Due to the limited resources available to the State Consultation Projects, requests form employers that cover only one employee at a home-based worksite would usually be given a very low scheduling priority, particularly when the requested service relates to low hazard activities. In all likelihood, therefore, a Consultation visit would occur only in unusual situations, and then only with the consent of the home-based employee. The inability of OSHA to provide such free onsite assistance in such cases does not, however, relieve the employer of the responsibility to continue to provide safe and healthful work and workplace conditions for all employees, including those based at home.
Other Consultation services are available to employers and their employees, such as dissemination of informational materials and providing telephone assistance on technical and compliance-related issues. Further, offsite technical assistance could be provided to employers and their employees at locations other than the employee's home-based worksite, such as in the State Consultation Project office. Offsite assistance is typically provided in situations where offsite training would be the best use of Consultation resources to address a training need common to a number of employers.
The involvement of employees is key:
to ensuring the fullest protection of employees in the workplace;
to properly identifying and assessing the nature and extent of hazards; and
in determining the effectiveness of the employer's efforts to establish and maintain a workplace safety and management program.
However, in the case of home-based worksites, employees would be involved only where they had freely consented to the provision of assistance requested by the employer, and then only within the parameters defined above.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and Workers' Compensation: An employer's responsibility under the ADA falls outside OSHA's statutory authority. Similarity, OSHA cannot address the responsibility for workers' compensation in this type of situation, since OSHA does not have statutory authority in this area. For information concerning an employer's responsibility for workers' compensation the employer should contact the workers' compensation agency in the State in which the workplace is located.
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. Please be aware that OSHA's enforcement guidance is subject to periodic review and clarification, amplification, or correction. Such guidance could also be affected by subsequent rulemaking. In the future, should you wish to verify that the guidance provided herein remains current, you may consult OSHA's website at www.osha.gov. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Helen Rogers in the Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance at (202) 693-1867.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Fairfax, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs
-----------------------------------------------
OSHA is pure evil. If you have a stupid employee who does stupid things, OSHA will fine you! If you breath, OSHA will fine you! OSHA tries to be good, but they are like some kind of whacked totalitarian dictator.
How does one go about reporting a violation to OSHA? I know of some companies who are indeed in violation of OSHA regulations (oil in walkways, electrical code violations, hydraulic oil smog from faulty equipment, etc). I don't like this companies or thier attitudes, so therefore I'd like to see them get in a little trouble. Also, there is another company who routinely violates EPA regulations on lead disposal. How does one report this to the EPA? This company throws millions of dollars of perfectly good/usable computer equipment (and CRTs - which contain lead) in the trash per year. This sort of wasteful behavior is not only in violation of the law, but it is also immoral. What can be done? I'd appreciate any insight anyone can give into this matter.
1. Not everybody makes $50000 per year and can move jobas at the drop of a hat.
2. Regulations are made to protect employees. What about the chemical worker who would have to purchase his own protection gear if there were no regulations.
3. Regulations need to have number to be enforcable. The example of planks may not extend more than 3 feet beyond the edge of a scaffold is there to prevent people from stepping on the end and having the plank flip up. It is also there to prevent an employer from saying "It's to expensive to put up another scaffold. Just stick a plank out there and nail the end down."
4. If OSHA regulations did not apply to home work then employers could skirt safety regulations. An employer could come up with a new process that requires the use of a dangerous chemical. The safety requirements are high: it is volatile so must be stored safely, toxic so it must be used with protective gear, etc. The employer could then mandate that the job is done at home so the OSHA regulation no longer apply.
After living outside the USA for 10 years, I almost forget about all the government meddling done to protect a "free" society. That is not freedom, just some bureaucrat with good intentions eroding what he is there to protect. Now OSHA will probably want into your house to check and your company will want in in order to make sure you are not violating OSHA's rules. It won't be your home much longer if that keeps up. When will the government realize that I can take a step without them painting it yellow and putting noise maker devices on it so I won't fall off. The freedom to be an unprotected, normal human should be protected. Stew the lawyers in their own fatty juices and stop this idiocy.
Not nessisarily when they may have to pay a 4 hour overtime callout wage to get you to come in and re-boot a server.
You are confusing the word "safe" with the word "perfect". The regulation says "safe environment" not "perfect environment". A T1 line has nothing to do with safety.
I cant telecommute. So I have no choice. I have to drive to work. This is an action required for the successful completion of my job function. So shouldn't my employer be obligated to buy me a safer car? This is no more ridiculous than OSHAs ruling. This is going to kill telecommuting. Not because of the expense of ergonomic chairs and keyboards, but because it opens a huge liability risk. More stupidity from another Clinton appointee.
No home inspections yet! That will change in the not to distant future.
(Semi-rant mode on)
Honestly, I don't see why OSHA should really be involved in issues like this one. The job market for programmers, IT people, etc. right now is so tight that anybody who can write software worth a damn has a job, so it's not like employers are going to be mistreating employees too much-- we're too much in demand.
(Semi-rant mode off)
That doesn't mean that I don't think OSHA has its place. I think that the US could probably function without it (allow unions and individuals to dictate policies to employers, and let people take "hazardous" jobs if they want-- it's the individual's choice), but I think it has certainly made things a lot simpler-- they set a standard. While not strictly neccessary, it's certainly convenient.
As for telecommuting-- I hardly think that OSHA needs to get involved in this one. I honestly think this is a situation that can be resolved without intervention by a government agency. If you're in a job where you can telecommute, then you're probably going to be able to get your boss to buy you a decent chair-- or at least lend you one from the office. If not, then you can go out and use all that gas money you saved to buy a good chair and an ergonomic keyboard. Or you can quit.
It makes good sense to give your telecommuting employees some good furniture and such-- it helps morale, and it keeps the geeks comfortable, which can help them to write better code. We don't really need OSHA to tell us that.
RE: "I'll be interested in revisiting this opinion with you the next time the US economy turns south, after the leftists have succeeded in raising the minimum wage to $12/hour."
It isn't just "leftists" who think Americans should be paid well for their work.
Let's look at what happened the LAST TIME the minimum wage was raised. Unemployment DROPPED. The economy SOARED! Maybe in a consumer economy, more people with more money to spend is a GOOD thing!
I'm wondering how YOU benefit from your right-wing libertarian nonsense? I know that the corporatists benefit but what do YOU gain from repeating that stuff???
Typically, workers have less power then managment as we are distributed and they are centeralized. The government, when it works right, works to protect our rights and prevent us from being taken advantage of by our employers.
A home office that your employer agrees to let you work at is no different then a satelite office. You are working on tasks they assign you and require you to perform in a particular way. It should be their responsibilty to make sure you have the tools you need to do your job.
Oh and in addition many areas have government incentive program that gives them rebates for reducing the number of commuter miles their employees travel. (Polution reduction) So the government is providing encentives for employers to keep you off the road and ensureing that you keep a safe environment even if you're working at home.
While I agree that an employer must provide his employees a safe place to work at the employer's location, It is insipid drooling nonsense to even fantasize that this responsibility EVER extends to the employees' homes!!! An employee has no final authority over his work environment when at the office; he has absolute authority over conditions at his own home, and HE is responsible for taking care of his own safety at home!!!
People need to take responsibilty for themselves, their own actions, and their own property. This is nothing but one more evasion for a bunch of losers who refuse to own up to being adults and being responsible. Self-government is the foundation of liberty. If people refuse to govern themselves -- which extends to caring for their own property -- then the bloated pigs in Washington will do it for them. SOMEONE will govern your personal affairs: it's inescapable. Either you'll do it yourself -- and defend your right to do so -- or the jack-booted thugs from DC will do it for you. Wake UP!
This is preposterous. It is the latest invasion of the nanny state into the contractual relationship between employer and employee.
Wake up people. Your days of working at home are at an end. IBM and Intel are NOT going to pay to have the stairs to your basement renovated just because you are too irresponsible to care for them yourselves.
OSHA is no friend of either the working man OR the businessman. They are clueless idiots. They are stuffed shirts without the sense God gave to bacteria. They are an abomination.
Yes, I'm a little upset. :-)
RE: "The answer here is that people need to take responsibility for their own health."
Coal miners? Nuclear plant workers? People whose job is to type into a computer all day at home for $6 an hour?
What I often wonder about with these anti-government/anti-worker types is what do they think THEY get out of it? Government is just THE PEOPLE making decisions. You replace government with what? Corporations making the decisions? Great.
I know what the heads of the corporations would get, but these types who repeat the ideology, what do THEY get out of it?
Government is just THE PEOPLE making decisions. You replace government with what? Corporations making the decisions? Great.
I think we should all be paid a salary with everything measured in a dollar amount. If we want benefits, safety devices, etc. we should be able to select them and have them come out of that salary. That would give control to the worker, while still allowing them to benefit from the bulk buying and negotiating power of the employer when dealing with retailers and insurance companies.
This seems like a perfect time to point out what should be perfectly obvious. Before one gets too smart, one should think of the cross-cultural aspects of what's been communicated.
Although I suppose that's expecting too much of an AOLer.
Doesn't anyone onthis forum understand that MOST people who "telecommute" are not given the choices that programmers, etc... get?
MOST people who telecommute are typing data into a computer all day for $6/hour.
You'd think the people who visit this forum might be smart enough to see beyond their own priveledged selfishness and realize what most of the working world is like.
I know of at least one example of an industry where many companies require telecommuting - the phone sex industry. Of course, telecommuting phone sex employees are all contract employees, so this discussion may not apply to them at all.
Plain and simple.
Let's see the rest of that quote, buddy.
Even though they just are clarifying existing rules, I'm afraid any focus on the fact that the employer has significant responsibility over safety in their employees homes, related to their work, is only going to make employers much less willing to allow telecommuting. Erik Hill
>MOST people who telecommute are typing data into a computer all day for $6/hour. I'm a college student, and I need to pay for car insurance, college expenses, and various extras. To do this, I currently bag groceries at a grocery store. In 90 degree Florida heat. (Yes, at this time of year.) I would be absolutely *elated* to have a job at data entry that I could do in the comfort of my own home for $6 an hour. And I don't care whether the keyboard and desk setup are ergonomic or not. They're good enough for me now (and I still spend hours a day on it) and it's good enough if I had a job doing something on it too. What seems like a bad job to you may seem fantastic to someone else.
he wants andover.net to pay for him redecorating his room to a more 'ergonomic' feature set.
Well, I'm a telecommuter, or as IBM terms me a 'mobile employee' I don't want a cubicle in my home, I like the desk I bought (with my own money) that holds two printers, a 20" montiro, a laptop, and all the crap I see fit to pile onto it. IBM pays for phone line, access to corporate network, etc, but I pay for the room. I don't want OSHA to inspect my room because they'd have to walk into my office, step lightly through the lego monorail right infront of the door (should see me sprint for the door when a delivery guy comes, LegOLympics), then weed their way through 70+ Doctor Who Movies I'm trying to sell, and then find my desk covered with plastic cups, and at the moment easy cheese and crackers. Printouts, receipts, books, pager, phone, diskettes, etc. I like my mobile office. Tom trekkie@nomorestars.com
This is a slippery slope.
I could live with it being restricted to where if an employer provides you with equipment, it must be safe and installed correctly. If you're providing your own equipment and workspace, it is your responsibility to ensure it is safe.
The only way a company could ensure a safe workplace in an employee's home would be to do periodic inspections. If I remember correctly, OSHA also must certify workplaces are within guidelines. I'm sure OSHA would love to hire a new legion of inspectors to storm the homes of telecommuters issuing changes and fines. Even though today they are claiming no such intentions, once the first telecommuting-employee lawsuits are filed, employers will need certification that prevents absolute liability.
Telecommuting is a set of trade-offs. For me, the benefits currently outweigh the losses. If OSHA gets involved, then I will not even get the choice.
Why not? Of course, you might just be qualified!
OSHA Contact Directory http://www.osha.gov/oshdir/consult.html
Find and contact your Representative http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
White House Contact Info http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/ EOP/html/principals.html
Contact other elected officials or candidates: http://www.vote-smart.org/
(And did we mention that a policy like this is unconstitutional?) Whatever you choose to do, just do SOMETHING.
If the employee thinks the employer should pay for in-home ergonomic supplies and the employer does not, then the employee can find a new employer. If the employer thinks they can cost-effectly(retain employee/lower insurance premiums)purchase in-home ergonomic supplies for a telecommuting employee, then the have they choice to either buy the equipment or risk loosing the employee and/or paying higher insurance premiums for ergonomic related injuries.
If you run Netscape, you're an AOLer.
Deal with it.
Look into the relationship between correlation and causality, then get back to us, OK?
Quote: The answer here is that people need to take responsibility for their own health. The idea that the government should make home ergonomics a legal issue is absurd. It's very simple: if you don't have ergonomically correct equipment at home, then buy it yourself. It's not that expensive, and telecommuters aren't generally very poor. Hang on. People protect themselves from other people via government sometimes. Also I find it interesting that this becomes an issue now that it involves people who can protect themselves a little better. It's much more quiet that we've got rid of sewing sweatshops by farming out to 'contractors' -- utterly underpaid women usually working with a sewing machine on the floor. Please don't presume that because a computer is involved that the person is rich enough to be treated civily. Farmed-out low-paying data processing will grow enormously. Let's start the laws now so we can develop useful ones. Contracting will soon be not just the employment of those with initiative.
Further, it is worth adding that if "Rhombus" can't discern between the toilet, and everything else in the room the toilet is located in, s/he is definitely not welcomed to 'use the facilities' at my house. Yeesh, what a mess that would be.
"Linux....is....really....stupid.... It....is....just....a....rehash....of....what....U nix....was....in....1989." quoted from Linus Torvalds (not all words necessarily on the same date)
It's not too late to vote them out of office. It's about nine months too early, is all....
And we will throw out the busybodies at the DOJ Anti-Trust division at the same time.
about "relevant laws." You seem to disagree that the employer-employee contract should allow any room for negotiation at the parties' free will whatsoever. Am I reading you right?
If so, that's just plain weird. Go raise the Red Banner somewhere else.
"The minimum wage rubbish is not backed up by recent history, or any other history for that matter."
Yeah? I'll be interested in revisiting this opinion with you the next time the US economy turns south, after the leftists have succeeded in raising the minimum wage to $12/hour.
"Its more likely that the effect of OSHA's actions -- and the dialog here -- will be to improve working conditions for telecommuters by expanding the dialog between employers and employees."
Ah, nothing like a man who knows his Orwell.
Is the employer then responsible for the employee to have _two_ ergonomic offices (one at work, one at house? That doesn't sound fair to the employer... If the employee is really tat concerned about it, they could transport their chair/keyboard/etc. back and forth. Obviously not the desk, but...
First they get the regulations approved by saying we won't conduct "inspections".
Second, more people telecommute, and it becomes a necessary way of life, a-la drivers licenses.
Third, a series of home accidents causes them to revise their prohibition against home inspections.
Fourth, People are now expected to work from home, if they don't they can lose their jobs. By blocking a OSHA inspector you are basically forcing you employer to fire you.
Thus, you become forced to let the government into your home. For your own safety of course.
Chris
Where am I gonna find an MSDS sheet for the molding pizza in the back corner of my office?
-- www.primeharbor.com
Maybe I'm just too kooky, but why have somebody else buy all these items? Sure we could talk our employers into buying furniture, monster computers, etc. But I get much more enjoyment earning things myself, and I don't have to answer to anyone as to why I need X brand CDRW instead of the $90 one at some electronics chain store. Management likes to go by dollar values not actual quality all the time, unless it's too cheap, like a free OS. :)
Likewise, with regard to taking a tax deduction on one room of the house, a computer purchase, etc, isn't that just asking for the IRS to get their nose in your life? Do you really use said item strictly for work, and not for playing the latest, greatest Loki game? That TV in this room, how is it needed for your work? You can't use the room for personal storage. One thing I have heard from many, and Rush Limbaugh was just talking about on his radio show a little bit ago, is that some deductions like one room of a house are a big red flag to the IRS to audit you. It could certainly could be used by some to "cheat" on their taxes. My attitude is basically, why involve them if you don't have to? The chair at my desk is mine, I don't have to answer to anyone as to whether I use it only for work or also for porn viewing.
Heh, I guess many issues of an independant contractor and the big, bad government could be an Ask Slashdot forum in itself. Anyone suffered an audit because they were an independant contractor? Of course, we could just vote for folks like Forbes and have a flat tax with no loopholes, simple, no questions asked. But I guess the vast majority of folks just don't care enough, and they'll get scared their Welfare/Social Security will run out if we have no IRS.
Another rather grim ramification may be the chilling effect this has on telecommuting altogether.
;)
Here's the conspiracy theorists' kicker. Some say the unions may be behind this. It's tough enough for them nowadays to gather a herd of sheep together and tell them what's best for them. First they get exclusive contracts with companies, if you want to work at X company, you MUST be in a union and pay dues. So if you spread those sheep out in their homes across the globe, it's pretty much impossible for them to get their hand in the kettle.
This is just the first of a series of dominos to start falling. If OSHA declares my home a workplace, then shouldn't I have wheelchair access in case someone with one wants to visit me during a business meeting? Or during their visit, what i f they see too many CDR discs lying around? Will they wind up reporting it, as it's an obvious sign of piracy? The video game (or DVD, music, etc) industries can't go losing sextillions because of such devices. So, in the name of them staying in business, you need to pop each disc in a computer in a courtroom, declare what each file is, where it came from, etc with sales receipts, notarized documents of source code you've written, etc. Of course, if you don't have all that, you can just pay the $10,000 fine and be done with it (until next time). With these sort of agencies, it's never the end. They are always looking for better ways to generate revenue under the guise of "We know what's best for you."
With all these hassles, who in their right mind would work at home? And with everyone back in workplaces like they belong, the man can continue to blast subliminal messages through that awful musak in the speakers. Mind control is a wonderful thing.
Rest assured, if it makes you less dependant, it cannot be good.
The stairs probably wouldn't be covered. A "work zone," be it a spare bedroom, corner of a basement, etc., would be defined in your house, and that area must be OSHA-compatible. And in case of fire, a path to the nearest exit must be declared part of this zone and certified.
Likewise, to reduce liability, your employer would tell you "You can only use this zone while doing work." So now, that 10% is not considered your house, but your employer's work area. So much for that great feeling owning your own home. And when you quit, retire, or whatnot, since the company paid for everything in the work zone, it's all coming out.
Say you have a leaky roof. When it rains, water drips in a spare bedroom. You decide to make this bedroom your work room. Now your company must spend thousands on repairing the roof. The "lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation systems" makes it an even scarier deal for the employer. Say they go for it because you're such a valuable employee. Now you have a perfect house, worth a hell of a lot more because it doesn't have a leaky roof, poor furnace, electrical wiring, etc.
Who should get the profits from selling this house now? If you leave Company X, should you pay them back for all the home repairs they did?
The only conclusion I can see in all these hassles is the gubmint wants to cut back the number of people working at home. So axe yourself, why would they want that?
They can easily skirt around the 4th ammendment because it's not they government that would likely come and inspect your house. It would be either a company representative or someone from the company's insurance. The Constitution only prevents governement from doing these things.
In order for you to work at home, your company will have to get liability insurance on it. So the insurance company comes out, suggests what needs changing, then it's certified "OK to work in." Now if you refuse that, then the insurance isn't given to your company. Without insurance they won't let you work at home. So either you accept, or quit.
OSHA is only hinting that companies should start inspections. If you get hurt at home, then OSHA may come out and make an inspection. That, or a coworker gets pissed at you and rats you out anonymously to OSHA, in which case you've got to prove your innocence/safety. Much like people abuse DCFS, accusing each other of child molesting. Then, in the interest of keeping the child safe, you must prove you didn't molest your daughter. It's sad, but some people will do such things. And it's bound to spread to these home offices and OSHA.
Keep the 2nd ammendment equipment handy, nonetheless.
Many managers figure if they can't walk around the corner anytime they want and look in on you, you ain't working. They pick at the idea anyway. These are the same people who gripe about traffic jams. We don't need expensive commuter trains few will ride. Most office workers do not need to be at the workplace between 8 and 5 every day. The reasons why telecommuting isn't more widely deployed are mostly political now anyway. OSHA's announcement gives them another reason to stonewall.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
- Get a limilited liability company
- Get a loan
- Sue your company (and pocket the cash)
- Bankrupt your company
pop quiz -- what's wrong with this thinking?John
John_Chalisque
People who actually have truly hazardous jobs definitely do support OSHA. Many companies used to get away with all kinds of things that they would not be able to get away with today. The working conditions in some jobs caused the premature deaths of the workers. Things such as inhaling lead particles or asbestos do bad things to people. Making employers responsible for a safe working environment was a good thing.
There is still the question of how far the power of OSHA should extend though. I think that there have been some good posts addressing just that.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Agree. Ideally, I'd like to see companies renting the home office space from the employee, at whatever the going rate is (i.e. if my employer has a city center office, they can save money by paying a reduced rent on my suburbian office space).
Simply put, if OSHA goes through with any part of this, telecommuting will never gain widespread acceptance.
Companies operate on one thing (dotcoms seemingly excepted)-- bottom line. If telecommuting does not provide quantifiable cost savings, it won't ever happen in 99% of companies. All of the other issues (worker productivity, turnover, employee happiness, etc) matter precisely one whit in the face of potential expenditures.
Most companies (specifically the old guard in management) are already reticent about telecommuting because of unfamiliarity. What is really needed to get them going is something like a Forrester report showing specific cost savings across the board for companies that allow/promote telecommuting.
Regulation like this has the potential to destroy all the potential positive benefits (less cars on the road, etc.) by preventing companies from ever implementing it. Companies aren't going to do something that costs them money and opens them up to more potential litigation.
"I do think [employers] should help pay for ergonomic furniture and an appropriate working environment."--Slashdot
"An employer is responsible for ensuring that its employees have a safe and healthful workplace, not a safe and healthful home,"--OSHA
Looks like OSHA's done something Slashdot agrees with. Oh the humanity!
An LA Times article giving views both pro- and con- can be read here.
There are different circumstances and whether there should be any regulations depends on the circumstances.
If I'm working at home by choice then what I use is up to me and if it causes me harm then its my own fault. However it might be in my employers best interest to spring for the Henry Miller Aeron chair, an ergonmicly sane desk and send me to a physiotherapist to learn a few exercises to keep my body working. If I'm not able to work then that effects the company.
If I'm required to work at home, whether due to mismanagement I'm required to work extra hours or its in the job description then the company should be responsible.
It's either unenforcible or extremely abusable though. Either the legislation will have no teeth and can be safely ignored or people who change jobs frequently (say a contractor) will be able to furnish their homes in nice new ergonmic furniture.
This is a perfect example of government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Our (U.S.) gov't has soooooooooo many regulatory agencies doing things that mean well, but are pretty ridiculous when you sit down and think about them. And OSHA is one of the worst.
OSHA's job is basically to take the common sense of the workplace and make it law. Seems like a good idea on the surface, yes? Flip through the hundreds of binders that house the collected works of OSHA and you'll change your mind. They have rules about EVERYTHING. Railings must be EXACTLY 42 inches off the ground (IIRC), planks may not extend more than 3 feet beyond the edge of a scaffold, et cetera, ad naseum.
If I want to build my railings forty-FOUR inches off the ground, or maybe THIRTY-SIX! I can, but not if I want to pass a building inspection. Why don't I have the right to build my railings whatever height I want? And, more to the point, why shouldn't telecommuters have the right to as un-ergonomic of a workstation as they like, without their employer fearing an OSHA audit?
As geeks, we have a different perspective on workplace ergonomics than most. Many of us live at our keyboards and mice/trackballs/whatever. We're just BEGGING to acquire Repetitive Stress Injury (correct term?). But, as geeks, we should also realize that the only way to do it right is to do it yourself. Some gov't agency requiring your employer to meet some arbitrarily set standard is NOT the right way to do it. YOU should go to YOUR employer and say, "I require better ergonomics. I need a new keyboard, a desk that's X units high and a chair that's blah blah blah. And if you can't cut it, I'm out." You get the idea. I'm sure a lot of you are making $50,000/yr or more, your employer can afford to buy you a new chair at your request. And if they "can't", is that the kind of place you want to work? I know *I'd* prefer to work somewhere where the management cares enough about its employees to either on its own or at their behest provide an ergonomically sound working environment, rather than waiting until some tax-wasting gov't agency forces them to.
Our government simply has its grubby paws in too many aspects of our lives, and with OUR money to boot. Enough is enough.
www.lp.org
www.self-gov.org
MoNsTeR
A pedantic point here: the fact that govt "graciously" allows a tax exemption does not in any way constitute their "paying" for anything. It's MY money, not theirs. If I see you at the vending machine and I inform you that, for this one time, I won't snag the money right out of your hand as you're trying to put it in the slot, would you allow that I had just "paid" for your Mt.Dew?
This leaves aside the whole point of the probably mythical character of the office-in-home deduction. The rules about it are so tight and intractable that practically nobody can take it.
I like how dozens of people are jumping in to complain about how evil osha is, how regulations are absurd, etc.
I was looking at some osha standards just a week or two ago, regarding chemical exposure. The osha standard is actually above the level at which you can see medical problems due to exposure. I.e. the standard is rougly "not enough to keep you healthy, but enough to keep you from being too sick to do your job."
This is over regulation? This is pathetic. You shouldn't have to trade your health for a job. Osha doesn't have half the bite people are claiming it does. America is quite lax about protecting the health of workers.
There are certainly quite long and specific regulations, but what everyone overlooks is They were put there for a reason: an employer somewhere found a way make money by sacrificing the health of their employees (probably without their knowledge or consent), and Osha had to add more regulation to close the loop-hole.
In other words, if industry were mature enough to behave responsibly, these regulations wouldn't exist. They aren't, so regulations are put in place, and industry has to live with the paper work.
No.
The point is that more and more employers are requiring employees to work from home.
If the conditions of my employment require me to perform certain activities, then OSHA wants to make sure that the employer is responsible for providing a safe environment for me to work in. If that means an ergonomic chair, then the requirements at the office should be no different from the requirements at home. A decent chair is no less a "tool" of my trade than the keyboard and monitor are...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
As an employer I should not be told by the government that I have to supply furnishings to employees that will only be used in their homes. Telecommuting is not a right, it is a privilage. It's a two way road: the employee can be at home, with the fam, not stuck in traffic, and in an environment that they are comfortable in and I (the employer) do not have to spend as much on workstations and other materials that would be required for an employee to be in the shop every day. It cuts costs on both sides. Now, for the govt to stick their noses into this crosses the line. Screw you Uncle Scam! I know how to run my business better than you do - just take a look at your own past business practices and you'll see that I'm right. Assholes...
You have got to be kidding me!! The reason to tele-commute is to save the employee the trouble and expense to commute into the office. The employer gets no real benefit, they can't be sure the employee is working a full day for a full days pay, etc. I for one don't want anyone coming into my home to "check up" on anything! So an employer is in no way responsible for the ergonomics of an employee's home / home office. At most the employer may be responsible for the connection to the office, but that is it. Does the tele-commuter want the boss to have video cameras installed so he can monitor the employee to be sure he/she is working? OSHA has over-stepped its authority with this one. IMHO.
I would prefer that OSHA stay out of my house thank you very much. Let OSHA into my house and the next thing you know, the whole gov't is in there. It's the old adage, "Never let a camel stick his nose in your tent." Plus I would prefer that OSHA stay out of this altogether. It's hard enough to convince your employer that you can work from home and be efficient and productive.
--- "Zathras talks to dirt, sometimes talks to ceiling and walls, but dirt is closer."
I love telecommuting and a flex schedule. It improves the quality of my work life immensely. But the fact is that is it in both the employer's and employee's best interests that both parties agree on what constitutes an acceptible home office, and who is responsible for any and all of the costs associated with establishing, maintaining, and running a home office. As long as a telecommuter is considered an employee and not an independent contractor, it makes sense that any OSHA regulations pertaining to the workplace would apply to home offices.
Now, wether or not OSHA regulations are reasonable at all is an entirely different question. I'm sure my home office would not measure up in a few ways (like the overloaded circuits in my basement), but I wouldn't really mind discussing and negotiating these problems with my boss - even if I had to eat the expenses. In the meantime I'll probably continue to procrastinate and just live with conditions as they are.
The point is that more and more employers are requiring employees to work from home.
Again, this has nothing to do with it. A job is a private transaction, and either party is free to walk away from it. If you are being required to work in an ergonomically unsafe environment, you have a numbher of options. You can ask the employer for the chair. If he refuses, you can quit. You can pay for the chair yourself.
I object to the idea that I'm too helpless to look out for my own health. If I accept a job that requires me to work in poor conditions, that is every bit as much my fault as if I accept a job that is boring, underpaid, requires me to work excessive hours, or has any number of other downsides. This is particularly silly because we're talking about programmers, as they are some of the best-paid and most sought-after employees in the market. Most telecommuters could quit their jobs and find a new one in a week. I suspect that most of them could go to their bosses and demand a new chair and they'd get it on the spot. And if they didn't, my guess is that most of them could afford to buy their own. We don't need OSHA beaurocrats to take care of us.
Coal miners? Nuclear plant workers? People whose job is to type into a computer all day at home for $6 an hour?
What about them? They need to take responsibility for their own health too.
What I often wonder about with these anti-government/anti-worker types is what do they think THEY get out of it?
Freedom. As a worker, I want the right to decide which benefits are worth demanding from my employer, and which I would prefer to do without. If the government sets a standard for telecommuters that doesn't include the chair I have (even if I'm perfectly happy with my existing chair) it is quite possible that my employer will simply prohibit me from working at home to prevent a lawsuit. This sort of thing occurs all the time. For example, I have been explicitly told not to work overtime because my employer is no willing to pay time-and-a-half. I would be perfectly happy to work at the normal rate, but because of that law, I am prevented from doing so.
Laws designed to "protect" workers simply force employers to give employees things that the employees my or may not want, and those things often come out of the worker's other benefits or paycheck. Workers (even coal miners) are not helpless victims of "the system." In a free society they have the option to quit at any time. That they don't is their choice, and they should take responsibility for that choice.
The answer here is that people need to take responsibility for their own health. The idea that the government should make home ergonomics a legal issue is absurd. It's very simple: if you don't have ergonomically correct equipment at home, then buy it yourself. It's not that expensive, and telecommuters aren't generally very poor.
I don't understand why this has to be a seperate "benefit." After all, if the employer has to pay for lots of on-the-job benefits, he can just reduce the amount of your next raise to cover it. Money does not grow on trees.
That's not to say that employer-funded ergonomics is a bad thing, but I don't understand why it needs to become politicized by OSHA. A job is a private transaction between an employer and an employee, so the government should butt out.
Speaking as a recently emigrated brit (to the USA now) I think what he (and the previous guy that said 'soap in the toilet') mean by 'in the loo' is what americans would say as 'in the restroom/bathroom'. Loo and toilet in british english/slang are euphamisms for the whole room, not just the round porcelain thing. ;)
--
Delphis
Your employer has already furnished you space at the place of employment.
Not necessarily. I've just been hired to work 75% out of my home, with the other 25% being travel, so there is no place of employment for me to go to. With the money employers save by not having to supply office space, I think it is not unreasonable to expect the employer to contribute to the health of my home work environment.
The government, when it does it's (limited) job, has nothing to do with how people live. If I live in a crime ridden zone, why is my employer responsible? If I don't keep up my own house, or buy my own first aid kit, why is my employer responsible? If I'm a pig at my house, why is my employer responsible? Better yet, who the hell is the government to tell me how to live in my own house?
Face it, most employers don't force their employees to work at home, it's a benefit. All this does is prevent employers from providing the benefit to employees who want it, because of the few whiners who don't want to take any responsibility for their own lives.
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,
...that your company is obliged to make periodic checks on your house to make sure your cables are all tidied away, and that you've got soap in the toilet?
The OSHA decision may seem nutty, but there are some real issues that need to be addressed.
Telecommuting is expected to increase drastically in popularity over the next few years. It could lead to considerable savings in workplace maintenance costs if it really takes off. That gives employers an incentive to encourage telecommuting.
Now suppose that employers were not held responsible for injuries incurred in a home office. That would be a winning lottery ticket for any big corporation. They would cream their jeans over that. They couldn't encourage telecommuting fast enough if they had that out. Working 16 hours a day gave you a bad case of carpal tunnel? Sorry, not our fault, you did it at home! Got migraines from straining to read that 13" monitor? Sucks to be you, since you did it at home and not here.
From a safety standpoint, the home office must be considered part of the workplace in order to avoid giving the corporate sector an incredible opportunity to save big bucks at the expense of their employees' health. This is exactly the sort of thing that OSHA is supposed to be doing.
This is particularly touchy with me, since I spent this morning working from home getting some coding done. My chair and desk are probably not up to OSHA standards, but no one's forcing me to work from home, either.
OSHA is a splendid example of the mess the US government is in. Much like EPA (Oh, don't get me started on the EPA...), they essentially have no accountability to anyone, and can, for all intents and purposes, make up whatever screwy rules they want. (I'm especially bitter about the EPA doing the same thing; Milwaukee, WI is in the same EPA "zone" as Gary, Indiana. So, we get stuck with the regulations for a high-pollution zone, most notably the incredibly shitty reformulated gas that lowers some emissions, raises some others, drops your power by as much as 10%, and drops your fuel economy by 5-9 mpg. (at least, it does in the last 5 car's I've owned, ranging from a '76 TransAm to a '91 turbo Eagle Talon) Why? Because OSHA says so, and there's not a damn thing anyone can really do about it. But I digress.
Interesting tidbit heard on the radio about this whole fiasco: The number of people claiming deductions on their taxes for home office / telecommuting has exploded in the last few years, and the IRS is concerned about revenue, so they nudge OSHA to issue some statement like this in hopes of scaring employers into eliminating telecommuting. I'm torn on this one: I despise OSHA, and the IRS (who, admittedly, have gotten a _little_ better in the last 2-3 years), but I'm also reminded of the saying "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetance".
Yes, organizations like OSHA have a small, limited use in preventing sweat-shop conditions in factories and the like, but for chrissakes, my previous employed was fined by OSHA for not having Material Safety Data Sheets for freekin' White-Out in the secretaries' desks. Yes, if you're moving crates of lye or drain cleaner, you need to know what's in there, and what to do if you pour a gallon of it in your eye, but WHITEOUT and Lysol? Come on.
The point I'm getting at, really, is that this declaration by OSHA is just a symptom of a much, much more serious problem with OSHA, the EPA, FEMA(*), etc. Government organizations with no accountability to anyone and no representation by anyone affected.
(Slightly off-topic:
(*) FEMA is scary. I'd dig up links, but if you care, they're easy to find.)
The problem with requiring full compliance in home offices is that, if it's too expensive to allow employees to work from home, employers simply won't allow it. I'd rather work from home if possible.
However, if your company requires you to work from home and doesn't have a permanent place for you in the office, you should be able to get a least a desk, chair & phone. The company will still be saving on facilities costs.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
Many people who work at home are doing data entry or light industrial work such as electronics assembly. This isn't voluntary, and it may be the only job they can get.
Electronics assembly often involves toxic chemicals and materials. They do work in conditions that would give an industrial safety engineer a heart attack. The company is not only outsourcing the work, it is using the off-site nature of the work as an excuse to dodge the costs of providing a safe workplace and a way to ignore labor laws.
If an employer has to provide me with furniture, will they also have the right/duty to prevent smokeing at home? Drinking at home? Sex at home? These are three things I would get fired for if I did them at the office.
I am also not suppose to read slashdot from the office (yeah right!... but they never said anything about posting. *smile*). Does this mean they have to right to tell me I can't balance my check book or browse the web using equipment they provide? Even during non-work hours?
If I choose to work at home, then all the employer should be concerned about is the quality of my work and prompt payment for services rendered.
quack
Personally, I feel that employers should be responsible for providing at least ergonomic input devices. It should be no different than if you were to go to an office, where the employee can sue if they get carpel tunnell syndrome, or other RSI. If the employer is required to provide these ergonomic input devices, then the amount of lawsuits can be reduced, and potential suffering on the part of the employee is reduced.
The thought of paying for a $400 US Maltron keyboard makes me feel ill. I'm typing on a Logitech NewTouch keyboard, but I still experience wrist pain. The employer should be responsible for this expense.
python -c "import string,re;print string.join(map(lambda x:chr(string.atoi(x,36)),re.findall('..','2z2t2x36
Of course, this has the potential for working in the other direction as well. One of the things that doesn't seem to be terribly well-addressed is how much the employer can mandate what the conditions at home are.
For instance, can they (my employer) say that they don't want me to use my Aeron chair (for whatever reason). Or that I have to have the same glaring overhead flourescent lighting that I have at work? Do I have install anti-static carpet over my hardwood floor?
The whole thing just strikes me as being more than just a bit silly. How many telecommuter injuries have been reported, anyway?
Where the value of X-Mailer: is the true measure of a man...
Ok, so I forced my employer to buy me my plush, ergonomically correct chair, new monitor, keyboard, desk, etc.... I just redefined my home as a workplace. This brings up a lot of nagging questions. Such as, if I'm working from home on my home computer, does my company have the right to read my email or go through my drive since I'm using it for a work related purpose. I could be doing something dirty like harassing co-workers or downloading child pornography... things that could harm my employer... and they now have a vested interest since I have their code on my computer. Besides, I already told them that I consider my home a similar situation as my cubicle. If they're going to associate telecommuting in a way that defines the home office as a workplace, then that opens us up to a hell of a lot of privacy problems. Of course this is typical for IT workers since you really NEVER go home....
Dr. Fardook drfardook@evilconspiracy.com
You've go soap in the head.
You've got soap in the head.
To take the thought one step further.
Considering that most colleges view the student as being responsible for about 3 hours of work, for each hour of class (or so mine did), and they provide you with furniture in your room specifically to be used for studying/writing papers/etc. does it not follow that the school itself (as opposed to any third party employer) is actually responsible to provide you wil ergonomic furniture, or else it might be responsible for damages?
Granted this might not be covered under OSHA but it does make you think.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
We live in a lawsuit happy society, and I think that 80% of lawsuits are futile and a waste of the courts time. As an american, I treasure the right to sue, but I think that lawsuits that could be filed, for ergonomic injuries suffered at home would be ridiculous. Is your work resposible if you fall down the stairs while working at home during business hours? I don't think so, so why should they be responsible for this?? Jordan
Anyone here know what the OSHA regs are on people who travel for their job? Is your company responsible for you to get a nice safe hotel? Does it have to be in a good part of town? Does OSHA say they have to buy/rent/lease you a car with all the airbags it can carry?
What about smokers? Are you required to leave the room and go smoke in another room of the house during business hours?
What if you did get hurt but can't get up/down the stairs? Is the employer responsible for converting your home to be handicapped accessable?
The government is trying to save us from ourselves, who can save us from the government?
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
How long until the IRS lists this and the equipment involved as a "benefit" provided by the employer which is then taxable compensation?
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
I am a systems analyst who spends a 40-hour week mostly in the office, but I dial in occasionally from my home PC to respond to system problems that I am paged about. When I am on call, it is 24/7.
My company hired me for this position on the condition that I could/would do this. They've provided me with no equipment to help with this, nor did they ever promise to. I don't really mind this, but I wonder if this reiteration of these regulations will scare them into requiring me to come to work to fix problems, versus purchasing telecommuting equipment for my home.
If I'm dialed into the Internet for pleasure or dialed into our corporate network for work, I can't see how my company is any more liable for what happens at home during either circumstance.
These regulations, as described, seem needlessly vague. Many modern professions require some form of work away from the office.
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
Oh, wait, I work for myself. My home office *is* my work office. And worse, I have to pay for everything out of pocket! Sigh. OSHA, unless you're writing me a check, you're useless.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
It seems this goes back to the saying 'Having your cake and eating it too'. I see it as a large benefit to be able to work from home. I plan to do so on heavy snow days. I don't think this benefit should turn into other benefits. If you want the nice company chair and the company computer goto the office. If you want to work from home, use your own stuff. Even though I work from home (sometimes) I don't expect my employer to pay for my computer, ADSL, chair. I use this equipment for personal use. I guess if the company required you to work from home, they should provide the equipment necessary, but this equipment should have the same terms of use as your office equipment (determined by the company).
Anyway keep OSHA outta my house, if I want that pizza box on the floor next to my ADSL modem so be it.
Remove the spam reference to email
Your employer has already furnished you space at the place of employment.
Not necessarilly. I live in Oregon. I was once offered a job to telecommute to Silicon Valley (which I declinced). They weren't going to give me any space at the home office. At most, I would have been expected to fly down once a month for a couple days and that time would be spent in conference rooms and other people's offices. My every-day work environment would have been entirely my responsibility.
Code is garbage in garbage out.
Languge is garbage in, non-sequitor out.
Code is garbage in garbage out.
Languge is garbage in, non-sequitor out.
Folks:
Please try and keep a perspective on this. Holy bidness is gonna bitch because they're gonna have to shell out a couple more bucks to keep workers safe. We all know they HATE to do that anyway. Having folks work at home probably STILL saves them oodles of their precious, precious capital. I know you conservative types are quaking in your boots shivering over the big bad gummit knocking down your doors and rooting around in your stuff. Sorry - that's just not gonna happen. Do you really think they have the staff to do something like that? If you do think that where the heck are you getting your stats? From Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy? Ha! My BS detector tells me that the louder the conservatives and bidness bitches, the better it is in the long run for us teeny folks. Relax and you just might get a new chair or a nice squishy wrist guard out of the deal.
Well,
That's fine if you get PAID when you get called out. Most of us are on salary. No extra pay to get called out
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Just remember, a lot of companies will say "Fine, if I have to pay for the stuff, you might as well come into the office"
This is going to kill the work at home movement
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
God forbid we should all, as a country, take some personal responsibility for our health and safety and quit blaming our employers for our own furniture. Yes, this is why the OSHA has done this, because of this wacko "what have you done for me lately" liberal culture that has grown around us of late.
If you want to work at home, you damn tootin' better make sure you don't get hurt. If there's an indication that you can't keep your fingers out of the blender, then guess what? You don't get to work at home anymore. Now you can sue your employer for not getting enough time with your family, right? Cuz everything's the fault of "the man".
Sheesh.
You think your employer should help pay for ergonomic furniture? My goodness! Do you or do you not want to stay healthy? If you do, you'll get what you need for yourself. Working from home is NOT a right. It's a priviledge. Your employer should, and does, provide a safe workplace for you. If you don't want to use it, quit yer bitchin'.
RP
A couple years ago my employer paid for my ergonomic chair and some other less significant ergo equipment for my home office.
;-) They aren't all bad.
I guess they figured it made good business sense, and in the scheme of things it was inexpensive.
Heck, after all, if I got injured on the job (at work, in an airport, or at the home office), you bet I think that I deserve to be compensated. Of course, burning my hand on my toaster oven doesn't count, but carpal-tunnel (sic) certainly does.
Just because an employer wants their employees to work at home shouldn't open up loopholes where an employer can escape their responsibilities. Next thing you'd know, they'd be calling our cubicles "personal domiciles".
Email me if you're interested in working for my employer
Sorry, but with hundreds of years of misuse of the Commerce Clause and more recent examples with the ADA, I can't have much faith that any definition they choose will be narrow enough not to affect most every employee, and thus we have the regulation and possible inspection of every private residence.
Better prepare the sign: 55 days without a workplace accident in this home.
This is bigger than the article lets on. I know there was a union guy supporting this but don't believe it. The Feds are under fire from government labor unions to allow government workers with mostly computer-based work to work from at home. The argument the Feds have made against telecommuting goverment workers has always been cost (of outfitting the employee with a computer at home, telecommunication dialup, etc.). Now that machines and bandwidth prices have dropped precipitiously, the $ argument is going out the window.
So how better to raise the cost bar again than to bring OSHA in and say that OSHA safety regulations apply. Imagine a company (or federal agency) having to bring all of its telecommuters' home work areas up to OSHA standards. The costs would be astronomical.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
My house needs a new furnace. It costs about $5,000.00 to have the furnace put in, so I'm hoping to make it past this winter before it dies. It's 25 years old, and has a pretty good chance of putting out CO2, but that's why I have the co2 detector. So if it does I just buy a new furnace. So if say my furnace starts putting out CO2 and I get sick, then I can sue my company because they didn't provide me with a safe furnace? The one here is 25 years old.
Also while I was working, my cat scratched me, left a pretty good scratch, almost looks like it needs stitches, my company is responsible right?
You know, we got a lot of snow last night, while I was walking to get my the fedex package that my company sent me, I fell on the ice because the driveway wasn't shovled. So my company is responsible right? How much can I sue them for?
This is why this is bullshit
According to the artical my company is liable for my furnace:
Although the advisory does not provide specifics, in effect it means that employers are responsible for making sure an employee has ergonomically correct furniture, such as chairs and computer tables, as well as proper lighting, heating, cooling and ventilation systems in the home office.This is why, it can hurt telecommuting, the fact that my employeer is responsible for things like that. I mean it's not my fault that I'm working at home and I really don't have the money to fork out for a new furnace this winter.
Which is why I said this is bullshit. :)
On a serious note, it's pretty obvious that I'm responsible for things like this(At lest to me), since of course it is my house. However, you could argue that it is the companies responsibility to provide me with a brand new furnace to keep me warm while I'm working, and because of the fact I have a greater chance of getting co2 poisoning or dieing (which I doubt unless I ignore the co2 detectors). So actually one could argue that I'm working in unsafe environment. When you read that artical it pretty much seems like they actually ARE responsible for things such as this. Which I think is utter bullshit. Of course it would be nice to have a new furnace with central air and such. :) So maybe not:)
Sure, companies that pay to have their employees work at home (e.g. pay ISP fees, offer ADSL etc) or explicitly encourage them to work at home (as many SF Bay Area companies do -- to cut down traffic) ought to be responsible.
Employees aren't there to subsidize the companies to make better profits by helping them to reduce costs of managing an office building.
I'll mostly agree, except ...
Pardon my french, but bullshit. There do exist jobs that require fancy workstations for 3D modeling, but those are by far the minority even in industries centered on such work.
For essentially all office jobs today, cheap off-the-shelf hardware does just fine. Same form factor as found in the office; and for most cost-sane companies, it may even be the same hardware. Particularly if augmented by fancy backends at the office to do stuff like crunch numbers, run simulations, and so on.
I'll note that if you listen to Intel, PCs at home need to be far more powerful than office ones, in order to play Quake III with an adequate response time. Of course, that applies equally well to low-ping net access ...
If an prospective employee states that he must be allowed to work from home, and the prospective employer agrees to this condition and hires the prospective employee, then yes, the employer should be responsible for the working conditions of the employee's "office".
But I'm not so sure this should be the case for an employee who spends one day or even a few hours at home working. Say someone works at home for a couple hours once in a several year stint with a company and his chair collapses - the same chair he's had for years and uses every night to check his personal e-mail or stock quotes on his own time - and he becomes somehow disabled (use your imagination). Can the company be fined for providing unsafe working conditions? This decision seemingly says "yes". I just can't find the rationale behind this one. Had the chair collapsed during a non-working period, could the employer be found liable then? And what would stop an unscrupulous disgruntled employee from stating that he was "dialing in to check the servers" at 10 PM when the chair collapsed, even if he was job hunting at the time? This doesn't seem very well thought out to me.
"So many ways to skin a cat, and still everyone uses a great big knife."
Here at UC Santa Cruz, you can run a business from your dorm room, but you cannot use other campus facilities (ie., super-fast internet) for profit, with an exception for selling miscellanious used tangible personal property.
Decisions like this should be solved by employers and their employees. Despite what some officials may think, human beings are actually capable of making value-judgements on their own.
because by putting responsibility on the employer for the employee's home working environment, many employers will simply put their collective foot down and forbid employees from working from home.
I like working from home sometimes, when I have an appointment or need to be home for other reasons. I also like the freedom of working when something strikes me at 9PM or 3AM. This freedom might go away if the employer is burdened with this responsibility.
-M
The practical effect of this rule will be that more employers will simply forbid employees to work at home. They will probably claim (correctly or not) that their workers' compensation insurer is driving the policy.
OSHA want to control all work done in the US (for now) This is one way to vastly expand that. One common new tactic now is to force other to do your enforcing for you under vague theats. This is why you will not see OSHA giving clear rules on what is required. This fearof lawsuits will stifle the telecomute movement which is just fine by OSHA. Because they want to be able to raid work places.
My employer's 'telecommuting' policy is fragile enough that if this ruling were applied in Canada (where I live and work), I'd bet that my employer would simply discontinue their policy of permitting telecommuting. And, I wouldn't blame them.
In the long run, I believe that this policy would cause more problems than it would solve. Your privacy would be violated (can you say periodic inspections and compliance orders) and your employer would be unhappy, but you would be safe from that kitchen chair that you sit on to enter data into your corporate laptop.
It sounds like someone is trying to solve the wrong problem.
"values of beta will give rise to dom!"
Given the added employee loyalty companies receive from telecommuting--or any "perk"--you would think companies would slap their foreheads and say, "That's not a bad idea!" At least, as long as you weren't getting the top-of-the-line leather office chair with back massager and automatic bourbon dispenser...
It's not unreasonable to make sure telecommuters are safe, but requiring it might be tricky...see other posts for the reason to fear extinction of telecommuting if OSHA sticks its nose in (I won't be redundant here.) The trick, as always, is to make the exec realize that it's in their best interests to give you the setup you need, even if it becomes "yours" to do with as you please...
Stevis
We've got two lives, one we're given, and the other one we make. --Mary Chapin Carpenter
Do you think I could get my employer to reimburse me for the Aeron chair I just got? How about a nice new desk? Bigger monitor?
Oooh, it's like Christmas all over again!
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
I agree that the burden of responsibility for telecomuting facilities should fall on the party for whom telecommuting has greater relative convenience-- employer or employee. I.e., if the employer is effectively forcing the employee to telecommute by not providing them with an office space, by not adequately accomodating a working disability, etc, then the employer should be responsible for ensuring that the employee's home office situation is acceptable in terms of safety, comfort, and convenience.
On the other hand, if the employee petitions to telecommute even though the employer has already provided adequate office space, and the employee has no more compelling reason than "I don't like coming in to the office" or "It's more convenient for me this way", then the burden of setting up the home office should fall largely on the employee.
I do think that bringing the OSHA in is a little heavy handed for a situation that relies a lot on personal preferences and individual employer-employee relationships.
---- I'm going to lead you kicking and screaming, giggling and laughing into the future.
if I'm a clumsy dumbass and I trip over my clumsy dumbass foot in my home, thats my fault, not anyone's. at the same time, if I work AT HOME. I could see an employer paying for *PART* of some better work equipment, but not if I don't do a shred of work at home. I expect my employer to leave me alone while I'm not at work, and I expect to do the same for my employer.. this is crazy.
OSHA is just wasting our tax bucks on this garbage.
Fook
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
The story in the WashingtonPost also says that employers are responsible for HOME INDOOR AIR QUALITY and even if you fall down your own stairway in your house!!
Basically, as an employer, I would never allow telecommuting under this regulation. It leaves the employer too at risk to arbitrary open ended lawsuits. Your mom waxed the floor, and you fell down and busted your hip on your way to the basement. Ooppps! Sue my employers!
You can argue on the pros and cons about whether or not an employer should be responsible for the ergo-correctness of a tele-commuters workstation, but this seems to miss a more distrubing ramification of the decision. If this were to be true, then workers would be forces to alter there homes to reflect their employer's understanding of the legality of certain workspaces; i.e. I live in a studio apartment which allows only 25 square feet to devote to anything like an office, my landlord refuses to turn on the heat until it's 20 degrees outside, etc. Now I like living here because I pay about nothing in rent, but it's clearly not a healthy working environment. So what is my employer supposed to do? They must force me to move to a "better apartment" which is properly heated and large enough for a standard working area, and then they'll force me to give up my grandfather's desk which is 6 inches too tall for anyone but my grandfather. in short they'll have invaded my private living space. Not to mention the fact my boss will have to see the mess i live in. With the privledges this ruling requires employees to accept come some unacceptable violations of basic privacy.
-m.d.
I working independently from my home now, at my last regular job, I got to work from home a couple days a week.
I have 6 Linux systems, several Xterminals, two 19" monitors, two leather executive chairs, two phone lines & cable modem. In other words, much more than businesses are required to provide telecommutors.
I bought these things for myself to help make telecommuting pleasant, but I would have never got my last job to approve the concept if OSHA were required to provide me these goodies.
STAY OUT, OSHA!
Indeed - every telecommuter I know who is dialing into the company for their internet access is subject to exactly the same snooping as if they were at work.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
That is, of course, unless the employer mandates telecommuting. Not that that would ever happen.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
Telecommuting is a rather agressive extension of employer authority into our homes. Part of the baggage which comes with that extension may include all sorts of government, legal & customary regulation/authority. I don't think that just because my employer wants to save a few bucks by having me work from home for half the week should mean that my employer also gets to throw out all regard for the body of laws and regulations built up over the years which are designed to protect me (regardless of whether you think those laws etc actually do so - that's a seperate debate).
If my employer wants me to work at home, he/she has two options: to find some mutually agreeable way to continue to ensure I am provided with the safe workplace etc I am entitled to by law (too hard? don't try & save pennies by getting your workforce to telecommute then); or to turn me into a contractor, passing responsibility for everything from workplace safety to (potentially, depending on what country you're in) healthcare and retirement benefits over to you in exchange for a larger paypacket. And if you were dumb enough to get sucked into becoming a contractor and taking on all that for only a hundred bucks or so a week extra, more fool you.
Let's remove all responsibility from the individual and place it all on the various organizations that they deal with. Do you have to worry about your employees dangerously exposing themselves to dental dangers if they come to work with bad breath from not brushing their teeth?
Yes, tasks specifically requested by employers should be covered, but if somebody has an unsafe house there's no way in hell the employer should be responsible for it.
Personally I like the concept that I'm responsible for my actions and the consequence of those actions. This is just another excuse to blame (and sue) somebody else for things that are your own damn fault.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Doesn't the governmennt pay (so to speak), for home work spaces already. I was under the impression that if you work from home (for self or for others), you can claim an exemption from your taxes. Thus, this is a move for corporate government to pay for this, and not federal government. Personally, I think (if there really needs to be a law) that employers should provide for work at home office expenses only if they require or don't provide normal on-site resources.
Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you
I wonder how many persons would CHOOSE to spend
their tax $$ to support OSHA?
I hate to "me too" a post, but I feel strongly about this ruling too. I've been trying to getting my boss to let me telecommute for almost a year now with no success. It's one excuse after another. When I heard about this decision, I knew that I could forget about the big dream of coding in my boxer shorts and getting paid for it. I agree with the posters that say that an employer should help with office equipment. For instance before I could even think about telecommuting, I'd need a faster internet connection (56k right now *grin*). I'd expect them to help me out with a DSL connection or something, not to mention software. But office furniture? Come on! What about the other 120 hours a week when I'm using my computer for non-work? Like when I'm slashdotting? Do you think I could when a disability case because I spend 40 hours a week on bad equipment for work, and another 40 playing quake? I dunno. I just want to telecommute. Is that so wrong?
The government needs to come up with a common-sense drawing line as to when this rule would apply. As a programmer who occasionally carries a beeper and has to dial in to work once every couple of weeks, it makes no sense to put that kind of liability on my employer (although I wouldn't mind the comfy chair). There should be some requirement that the employee's position involves regular at-home work, something like 50% of the work week.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Think about it folks, OSHA was established to fight "unsafe work conditions"...
:-) that everyone owns their home desk, computer, keyboard, etc.
/.er who dislikes the dorm setting; I'm home for break, but it sounds like our dorm rooms must have the same furniture :-(
They were not set up with the employee's goals in mind, they were set up for people working in factories who had to use LARGE and EXPENSIVE equipment which they couldn't dream of buying. If you didn't like it, you couldn't change it.
The home office is a different world. For those of us who don't rummage around looking for discarded parts, I'm guessing (quick, run a poll
In this case, I don't think its appropriate to regulate "what equipment home users should use." Money doesn't come from nowhere; all your health benefits are just parts of your salary pre-bookmarked for health care. That's fine for most people. I just don't want them buying me a $60 MS Intellimouse, when I prefer my (just as ergonomic) trackball.
Thanks and tune in next time,
D Herring
P.S. I sympathize with the
For essentially all office jobs today, cheap off-the-shelf hardware does just fine. Same form factor as found in the office; and for most cost-sane companies, it may even be the same hardware. Particularly if augmented by fancy backends at the office to do stuff like crunch numbers, run simulations, and so on.
Dell (and I presume others) offer to let a company "sell" Dell product to employees at the corporate rate. The goal is obviously to have Tim the LAN guy buy a Dell for home that matches his Dell at the office.
That said, I agree with Intel on this one...the more box, the better!
Meow
Yes, that's really my e-mail. Don't change a thing.
You missed it completely Orb. Watch and learn.
The corp only cares about one thing, $$$$$.
The corp can take over part of your house, and not pay (or pay very little) for the taxes, the electricity, the water, the soap in the loo, etc.
If they have to pay for ergo desks and inspectors to make sure they're set up and used correctly etc, then there's less motivation for them to send workers home.
Meow.
Yes, that's really my e-mail. Don't change a thing.
This will be the death of telecommuting. Air pollution will never come under control as businesses will not put up with this sort of thing (they will, in effect, have to furnish two offices per person). I do not need the government, or anyone from my company, in my basement telling me what is safe and what is not! Talk about privacy!! The quote I thought was very ironic was "OSHA officials said they aren't particularly concerned about the state of an employee's home outside the designated work site. "An employer is responsible for ensuring that its employees have a safe and healthful workplace, not a safe and healthful home," the advisory letter said." So if my home is in disrepair, but my workspace is OK then they will "allow" me to work there? How nice of them. What if they don't like where your workspace is and the company refuses to make it come up to arbitrary code? Do I lose my job? Our (American for those of you not in the states) government is getting way to big and way to intrusive. This is utterly amazing.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
This is the problem with OSHA. It imposes on businesses a level of safety that almost all of us would never choose for ourselves. I know that my house would never pass an OSHA inspection and I have no desire to bring it up to what they consider safe.
We should get rid of OSHA entirely. It's wrong and counterproductive for OSHA to inspect my house and it's wrong and counterproductive for OSHA to inspect my work place.
(This is why OSHA has had so little impact on the rates of workplace injuries -- because it focuses on such silly things. Workplace injuries have been steadily falling throughout the century due to private initiatives with almost no help from OSHA. We should get rid of OSHA).
My home system has never been particularly ergonomic. I've never done much beyond surfing and gaming, so it didn't have to be. Suddenly, I was coding on my home system -- for hours at a sitting.
Within three weeks, I had a soft tissue injury in my right wrist that required an arm brace to heal. I bought the arm brace, and I bought a new mouse pad with an integral wrist rest, and a couple of wrist rests for work, just to be safe.
Not only did my employer pay for those materials, they wouldn't allow me to work until I had acquired them. The potential liability for aggravating a known injury was not something they cared to face.
This may be a rare example, but I somehow doubt it. In the technology industries, employees are the second scarcest commodity, with time taking the top spot. Companies which once fought to maintain a good reputation with customers now must also face the effects of their reputations with the labor force.
--
Casey
More scratches on the cave wall, thanks be to anonymity.
So, now it comes down to two options. Either your boss can pay for your home office, or you can. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to this. I mean, if you get fired, then basically your boss will come over and take away your nice new leather office chair.
Or you can pay. Furnishing a room in your home to be used as a home office comes with tax breaks. Simply purchase the furnature, and claim it on your taxes. And if you get fired, you keep your chair.
Besides, if your boss pays for your home office, then shouln't you subsidise some of that? After all, you do use it for other purposes. Here's an example:
Joey's boss buys him a new office chair for his office at the company. I think it reasonable to expect this chair to have a life expectancy of roughly 3 years.
But if Joey's boss buys the same office chair for his home office, then I think the life expectancy drops to around 1.5 years. The chair is going to be worn out a LOT faster. So, the fair thing to do, is require the home user to pay half of the price of the chair. But then who gets the chair when he's fired?
As far as the insurance question goes, what ever happened to home owner's insurance? I mean, I have automobile insurance, and I use my car for work (at a very fair and non-taxable rate of $.31 per mile). But all the while I am uing that car, my original insurance is what's protecting me.
So what now? Is my employer required to provide me with a vehicle? Using this analogy, they're supposed to hand me the keys to a car, as well as an unlimited gas card, just because I drive as part of my job. And as much as I would enjoy that, I don't find it practical.
Bringing the two together, my work pays me a premium rate for using my own vehicle, and providing my own insurance. An employer usually provides an at-home employee a premium rate as a result of the savings from reduced office space. So why can't an employer with at-home workers claim that the premium wage is THEIR way of providing a safe work environment?
I haven't read all the comments posted, so I can't be sure someone hasn't already suggested this, but could it be possible for telecommuting workers to voluntarily apply for the workers' compensation program? If an open-collar worker wants workman's comp, then they should be subject to a hope office inspection, simply because someone else other than the worker would then be responsible for the office conditions. However, if somone does not want a hope inspection, I feel that they should be given the choice to waive their right to recieve worker's compensation for any job-related injuries suffered at home. Any siggestions for this?
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
BUT! This is my HOME we are talking about...
Can anyone say 4th ammendment?
Any time someone besides myself starts doing inspections of my house, I will kindly suggest they get the hell off my property, and use my 2nd ammendment rights to back it up.
{Feel free to use your 1st ammendment rights to flame me}
If our homes and cars are considering places of work to be policed, controlled, and regulated, that means anything not allowed in your company building is not allowed in your home or car. Firearms will be illegal in your own office or car. You won't be allowed to smoke either. What if you use a laptop while watching TV in the living room, bedroom, kitchen? No firearms, cigarettes, or non-ergonomic furniture will be allowed. Better get rid of that soft mattress and couch cushions...bad for your back.
This is the work of bureaucratic liberals whose goal is to elimate ALL firearms from your possession.
Btw, I don't own firearms or smoke cigarettes, but we cannot let anybody usurp our constitutional rights (Amendments 2 and 4, here). Notice how OSHA is made up of people who were NOT ELECTED and cannot be VOTED OUT of office or IMPEACHED! Furthermore, it is questionable whether the mere existence of government agencies is constitutional. They are often called the 4th branch of the federal governement.
Usually I am for increased OSHA regulations, because often so many employers fail to provide adequate safety for their employees. However, I am of the same opinion as some of the people here. Telecommuting has been a great achievement for so many professionals, allowing them to eliminate the disastrous rush hour commute. I would kill to have the option to perform at least some of my work at home rather than travelling to an office. It also saves the environment and helps reduce traffic problems. I hope that OSHA doesn't push this legislation, but instead makes it a suggested guideline for employers who reduce office space and require employees to telecommute.
bun-fhuinneog agam!
As a manager of a group of 30 developers, my first reaction after reading this report is to abandon all telecommuting programs within my devlopment team. Of course I won't do that, but I can easily see many managers doing that in the coming months.
I guess the smog here in phoenix will start getting worse...
Ah to work from home. The ultimate dream, well to some people that is. Now if I could just do it for my current job.
Telecommuting WishList:
-Let me VPN in over my cable modem, or buy me a T1 you cheap bastards. While we are on the subject, why not make it a T3 so I can run my Quake3, Half-Life, and UT servers on. 8-)
-Also send in a work crew and build a cube for me in my house. You know, with the drab walls, the whiteboard, the crappy chair.
-Oh, and don't forget the phone. I like being woken up by calls at 2 in the morning because some web editor can't code HTML properly. Learn to code in HTML, not use that Fr0ntP@ge P.O.S.!!!
Ah, just think of the possibilities.
I agree with the statement that you should find a new employer if you don't agree with the conditions of your work place, even if it is in your home. This is likely goig to become one of those benefits issues that will seperate the good employers from the bad. Personally, I like to keep my home computing environment obnoxiously confortable, because I am likely to spend hours after work in that environment. I would doubt that anything my employer would offer would be as comfortable as what I've come to expect, so I'll be happy furnishing my own environment, better than what I can get in my employers "office". Then I'll be sure that I always get the most comfortable chair in the office ;)
There's another reference to soap in the toilet! What the hell is wrong with you people??? Can't you think of anywhere else to keep your soap???
I agree.
There are times when it makes sense for your company to provide you with desk, computer, lamp electricity, air, etc. But I don't see why we need OSHA setting this in stone when it should be part of the normal salary/working conditions negotiations.
Compared to your salary and (especially!) benefits, the cost of furniture is pretty minimal. And if my company gives me an extra thousand a year and says "buy your own" then what is OSHA's beef? That we aren't doing it Their Way (TM)?
i work for a rather large "not-for-profit" hospital. in my group, we alternate being on-call 24/7 for a week, every 8 weeks. osha's announcement could mean any of the following:
1) the hospital will have to make sure we have the proper equipment to work from home
2) we will no longer be allowed to work from home - the on-call person will have to live at work for a week
3) they hire permanent night-time on-call people
since this is a "not-for-profit" organization, they are CHEAP, and i doubt they will make sure everybody has proper equipment at home. way way way too expensive. it would take too much money away from the "give the doctors whatever they want" fund. although, in their defense, we are given pagers, rotating on-call cell phones, and an on-call laptop (if you need it). i set the stuff on the floor next to my bed so i don't have to roll very far when i get those 4am calls.
as far as the keeping people at the office - i think everybody who works here would quit if they had to live here for a week.
finally, there's no way they'd hire specific nighttime on-call personnell. it would not be cost-effective. sometimes you get no after-hours calls for days, sometimes you work all night, every night.
it almost makes me want to bring the subject up with our IS vp, just to see what he says.
I think that I would just assume my work worry about their building and I worry about mine....I do not desire nor want any division of the government OSHA or otherwise to come into my home and concern themselves with my chair, desk, etc...I suppose next we should require the airlines to supply ergonomically correct seating arrangments for those business passengers bringing in their laptop to work on the plane as they fly cross country....No I think people need to use their own judgement and make some decisions for themselves and stop letting the government or any other body come and start forcing decisions on you..If you start letting OSHA tell your work what kind of furniture they must provide the telecommuter to use at home is the telecommuter going to then be subject to SURPRISE inspections by OSHA knocking on their front door to inspect their workstation environment???? And then if not up to par...fine the business???and then what do they do.....fine the employee for not being up to par???or fire em???or maybe be PC and just let them go????NO NO NO you can keep your OSHA workstation environment and keep your inspections to yourself....Ill be responsible and look out for my own well being thank you!!!! -Ray
If your workplace is safe, they will allow the company to pay you to work there. If the company will not take reasonable actions to see that you have a safe working environment, the company should not be offering you telecommuting as part of the job. Thats what OSHA is saying.
There is a difference between an employee and an independant contractor. If you are an independant contractor, OSHA doesn't necassarily care if you are working chained to your basement wall while a dominatrix whips you and shouts "code faster you pig-dog linux slave!". Theoretically, neither does the person paying you for the end product. All that matters is that you are trading a "job" (a finished program, an article, a blueprint for a building) for money.
When you are an employee, on the other hand, your relationship is different. You are trading money for a certain amount of work, be it in definitive hours or not. Your employer pays different taxes, and has different responsibilities. Most importantly in this case, they have to care about your work environment. This is where OSHA steps in.
Here's an example, off of the telecommuting topic. A friend of mine sued a former employer for injuries sustained while working for her. She was a groomer, and was vicisously bitten by a cat while trying to handle it. The employer had no first aid materials on hand - no alcohol, no peroxide, nothing. She had also allowed a dog in the room where the cat was caged, riling it up without telling my friend. Then she said that she couldn't close the shop and my friend would have to wait until "a good time" to take her to the hospital. During the suit, the employer tried to get out of her liability by saying that the groomer was an independant contractor, and was thus responsible for her own safety and work environment. Since the judge disagreed, the employer paid a lot of money and got in big trouble with OSHA.
So, you can work in whatever conditions you want as long as you're a contractor. But by paying you to work at home but dealing with you in all other ways as an employee, your employer is trying to get around the rules.
Now, all that said, I really didn't see much reason to panic in the article. Not only does it explicitly state that OSHA is only interested in the workplace (so chill about wheelchair access and all the other silliness that has been going around this discussion) but it also states that an employer is responsible only for things it knows about, or should reasonably have known about.
So, a simple solution presents itself. If you want to telecommunte, the company gives you a form to describe your home workspace and equipment and lays out certain fire and air safety standards. After you work out any details on equipment to avoid repeditive motion problems, you both sign off on it. If you lied, they had no reasonable way of knowing, since they are not required to check your home, and if you can't come to an agreement on something, they don't have to let you work from home. Simple, non intrusive and maintains the responsibility that employers are required to take.
Kahuna Burger
P.S. In all the jobs I've had that OSHA was an issue, I have never considered them arbitrary. In most cases, the rules are straightforward and designed to protect the employee from corner cutting management.
...will work for Chick tracts...
- daycare
I am now responsible for all this osha stuff.gas car insurance
clothing
food
Well, as far as I (the theoretical employer) am concerned this makes the telecommuting concept a moot point.
The message OSHA has just sent all these employers is this: it will not save you anything for your employees to work at home.If they trip on thier kids toys or scald themselves drinking coffee and they are on the clock, you are now responsible for that.
Bring them back to the office, make sure they look spiffy everyday, spend a few hundred dollars a month from thier paychecks on child care, and be sure you waste resources by heving them drive a car.
I knew it was too good to be true...the office of the future will not be in your home! It will be in some Dilbertarian cube menagerie. Chalk this one up to the lawyers who will ruin society and any kind of step forward that it brings.
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
The whole point of telecommuting is that you get to work out of the comfort of your own home. The employer has no responsibility for what happens at a persons home. Expect to see many frivilous lawsuits.
well, if i am typing at home, and i develop carpal tunnel or a myriad of other maladies which result from poor ergonomic environments, and i am working for this company, they are responsible for the damage done, a-la workman's comp, whatever. so it is probably cheaper for them to outfit me with an ergonomic environment to telecommute from than to pay for my rehabilitaion.
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
The owner of a small company is usually asked to be personally responsible for the loan if the "company" fails to repay it.
Hidden Win2K Menu
Since I'm sorta responsible for out telecommuters I was shown this article this morning. To make this ridiculous law work I'd have to do the even more ridiculous task of visiting employee's homes and ensuring compliance with our rules so that they used their (hypothetical) ergonomic devices in a proper fashion.
There are certain necessities that every telecommuter needs, and they are: 1) T3 line into the home (we gotta have fast connections...) 2) 25" flatscreen monitor (wouldn't want eyestrain, now would we?) 3) Kryotech SuperG workstation (gotta keep up with the network) 4) Biomorph ergonomic desk and chair (dont want carpel tunnel, do we?) With these simple necessities, anyone can work comfortably, and effectively from home, whilst still having a great quake'n system!
=======
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
oh, wait, help pay for my work enviroment. I still have to pay for my own computer?! Not only does the employer get free workspace, now he gets free computer upgrades and electricity, etc. If not a new "workstation", how about a T1 line to my house? :-)
Come on if you decide to work from home that should be a privilge to do so. They are making it out to be a right. I do work from home some days and think this is just plain silly. I know the first time someone brings this up to their boss he's going to say ok then start driving into work and you will have your telecomuting taken away from you Just my .02
This is a disaster for telecommuting. Many of us have a very difficult time getting our employers to allow us to telecommute. If you add financial burden to the bottom line then we can forget it. I'm not all up in arms about govt. invasion, if I can't even be allowed to telecommute, what worry do I have about the govt. coming to my house to check things out? Don't Govt. agencies talk to one another? The net result of this action, as was rightly pointed out earlier, is that fewer people will be allowed to telecommute, which ultimately will mean too many cars on the road and not environmental improvements... -Andre'
OSHA Contact Directory http://www.osha.gov/oshdir/consult.html
Find and contact your Representative http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
White House Contact Info http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/html/principals.h tml
Contact other elected officials or candidates: http://www.vote-smart.org/
(And did we mention that a policy like this is unconstitutional?) Whatever you choose to do, just do SOMETHING.
Telecommuting is societally important; it could radically reduce automobile traffic, and could strengthen neighborhoods and outlying communities.
But those benefits will only be available if telecommuting becomes more common. Really, most office workers could work at least one day a week from home. If they did so, it would make a tremendous difference, and would reduce the stress on transporation infrastructure.
I hope OSHA clarifies this decision, so as not to scare off employers from adopting telecommuting on a larger scale.
Companies are only able to enforce ergonomic rools at work by share brute force. I.e. They give you an ergonomic chair and you are fired if you trade it in for one you like. How dose this aply to a home environment ? At the very least they wold have to check your fixtures and fidle with stuff. It gets worse when you start dealing with People like Alan Cox who by definition canot work in a 'safe' environment. I.e. His home lab is a mess and must remain one for him to be eficent ( Eaven his 'old fasioned' wife puts up with it ). Never mind the fact that so many telecomuters are in diferent contries from the employers. Especialy in the Linux space ( Alan in britain and some samba person from Australia at RedHat and Linuxcare respectively ). Sory about the dislexia and the funny quotes. It's Forge on someone elses NT machine :(
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
IANAL. "If an employer is allowing it to happen, it is covered" should IMO be interpreted as "If the accident happened because of something the employer wanted the worker to do, then it's primarily their responsibility to ensure that the facilities are provided and conform to the standards". The responsibility of the employee to keep their working environment in safe order, or to report any problems, needs to be clarified. Maybe a quarterly inspecton by a company H&S officer should be recommended.
There was a similar piece about OSHA sticking their noses where they don't belong a few weeks back, if anyone recalls. If I am going to work at home in my own "facility", it's my damn business whether or not I want to work in ergonomically correct surroundings. If I'm more comfortable on the sofa with a keyboard balanced on my lap it's my business and not OSHA's. An employer's liability should be confined to making sure that ergonomically correct materials are available to the employee, should they choose to use them. Employers that fail to meet this need will lose employees to the companies that do.
As for the question of liability, injuries that occur in the course of doing your job, wherever they occur, should be covered by existing workman's comp laws. If you choose to not use an ergonomically correct work area, that should absolve the employer of the liability for your injury (if that's the reason you were injured).
Falling down your stairs when you go downstairs for a slice of leftover pizza should not be grounds for workman's comp claims, either.
All that's needed (if anything) is to add that to existing law.
This is yet another example of government expanding to fill all the available space in our society. Welcome to the world of ever-growing mandates. This sucks.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
If you job requires you to telecommute, then they should be responsible for making sure that you have good equipment. On the other hand, if they are letting you telecommute, then requiring them to spend more money on telecommuters will only discourage them from letting people telecommute.
I'm very upset because when I got my current job (over an hour drive from my house) they said that I could telecommute, they later changed their minds. With rules like this, I'd never be able to get them to relent and let me telecommute.
I think telecommuting should be a trade-off... the employee gets to work at home in a customized environment... the benefit for the employer is twofold: one, the employee is happier and more productive because they get to set their own schedules; two, the employer saves on a LOT of resources... office space, etc.
Personally, I think that if the employer WANTS employees to telecommute, they should provide all the tools the employee will need... a computer, the software needed to log into the company's network remotely, etc. Everything else (desks, chairs, etc) are the responsibility of the employee.
I think that if the employer is WILLING to permit telecommuting but doesn't MANDATE it, the employee needs to be willing to provide most of the @-home materials... computer, etc. The employer still needs to provide any specialized software, though... including software to allow remote access onto the network (if necessary).
But this whole thing about mandating that employers provide this, and that, etc... I don't know if I want to give my employers that much access to my home. I mean, I like them just fine, but it generally sets a bad precident.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
The Secretary of Labor has overruled OSHA. The ruling is cancelled. See this CNN story.
It's hard enough to convince your employer that you can work from home and be efficient and productive.
Actually, I think some employers fear that you'll be too productive at home. You'll get the work they give you done in half the time because you have no distractive co-workers singing in their cubes or dropping by with the latest gossip. In my case, I they know that I'll finish my day's work in four hours, and they're paying me for eight, so from their point of view they're out four hours. Combine that with the fact that most managers have absolutely no idea how to manage remote workers, and that's why the PHBs don't let you telecommute.
I get to work from home, but only on nights and weekends when one of our customers has some special event going on that requires my assistance. I don't consider it a perk of my job, but my employer certainly does. :-)
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
We do provide dial-up, but we mainly only provide support to help people get connected via their portables, thus there is no defined off-site work area such as a home office. (this is mainly for security reasons, but also 'cause I don't want to have to shlep off to the rat hole some employees call home.) In fact, I'm specifically looking at services that allow access to out network from anywhere. I personally have a Nokia 8810 and I have checked my e-mail from places as odd as the local zoo.
As an extreme example, I'm investigating Bluetooth, wireless data and the PalmOS such that I could be wandering down the central city mall while I work on server stuff back at the office. I know I'm usually a bit ahead of the wave, but it does look like this OSHA stuff is too little, too late.
I'm really torn on this issue.
I worked in a styrofoam manufacturing plant for two years ago before I got into IT. Now most people in the computing industry have never had to deal with OSHA or material safety data sheets and what not. Legally your company is required to have MSDS's on hand for something as simple as your printer toner.
When you work in an environment like I used too OSHA is your friend. They aren't like a union in the negative sense of the word.
Now that the backgorund is out of the way, let's look at this for what it is..an attempt at funding. I personally don't want my employer to have any say so in what is in my home. I consider it that sacred. Telecommuting is currently a choice, not a requirement in most places. OSHA needs the funding desperatly in this age of clean tech industry but I don't think this kind of thing is the way to go about it. Maybe when I am REQUIRED to work at home, then I'll give some leeway but for now this seems like a dangerous (liberty wise) road to head down. Just as with the speed tracking post earlier, give the government an inch and it'll take your wife and kids.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Here in the Netherlands the following happened:
,at 200% productivity. (Figures from the Dutch statistics agency, not mine!)
One very large multinational started a telecommuting programme. They allowed most workers to work 2 days from home, they would supply the computer, ISDN etc. They even payed HFl 10000 (about $5000) for office stuff and home remodelling so the workers would have a decent home office. They even won some business prize for best telecommuting promotion.
Then, one worker complained: "Well I spent the 10000 already on my office, but I still need a height-adjustable desk, have my windows enlarged so I get more light, more wall outlets etc etc." He complained to ARBO (the Dutch OSHA) and they agreed the employer should pay for all this, since technically all his demands were valid for "regular" offices.
The result? The corporation cancelled the entire telecommuting programme. It was just too expensive. Now all those workers are back in the daily traffic jams.
IMHO it is alright to enforce rules for office requirements, but we need different rules for regular offices and home offices. Why? Because generally people do not work as long and often at home as at the office. The average # of days telecommuters spend at home is 2 days a week. The average number of hours worked is 5,5 hours a day
Excuse me. Now I understand. You want the cops going to every homeworker's private residence and inspecting it for violations And when violations are found, shut that business down so that the homeworkers lose their jobs. I understand now. The new compassion of big government.
I've seen neighbors lose their jobs because the state didn't consider their piece-work job to be legal. So now they're unemployed, and much much worse off.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Things have progressed so far in their ridiculousness that it's time officials were reminded of government's purpose. The purpose of government is to protect the lives, liberties and properties of citizens. This is why armies and police forces are maintained, and why there are laws against theft and fraud. When a government strays too far away from this purpose, or twists the meanings of these rights, it quickly becomes a tyranny.
But this modern age has brought with it the strange notion that government must also protect people from themselves. This protection of life is counter to the protection of liberty. Although I need the government's assistance in protecting my life from foreign invaders or domestic criminals, I have no use for them trying to protect me from myself. You would get quite irate if you hired a security guard for your workplace and then discovered he removed the vending machines from the break room in order to protect the employees from heart disease.
Well government is doing the same thing. And in the U.S., OSHA is the over-zealous security guard for businesses. And now it wants to follow employees home and dictate what they can do there.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"The act of approving the home as a suitable worksite by a company makes them responsible for occupational injury there, just like it was any other jobsite - because it is just that, any other jobsite."
Sorry for the blunt language, but this is bullshit. I used to be a salesman that frequently visted the homes of people. These were my jobsites. Do you really expect OSHA or my employer to preceed me to the customers' homes and certify them safe before I can make a sales pitch?
I'm sorry, but the employers do not force you to work at home. It is a perk that you ask for. If you feel that your home is unsafe, then do your work at work. It is incredibly presumptuous to demand that your employer give you an ergonomic workstation when the one you currently have is perfectly acceptable to during off-work hours.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"...it's not unreasonable to expect a heavy telecommuter receive a computing environment that respects their health."
Disagree. Your employer has already furnished you space at the place of employment. That you choose to work at home is your choice, not his. If your home does not respect your health already, that's your fault, and your fault alone.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"They weren't going to give me any space at the home office."
Okay, okay, I was generalizing. I am now doing appropriate penance by admitting it.
However...
If your place of employment (your home) is such a hellhole and sweatshop, why did you ever acccept the job to begin with? (you didn't) If you wouldn't work at a jobsite that had unhealthy conditions, why would work from home with the same unhealthy conditions? (you don't)
When you are hired, there are conditions to the employment. You have some conditions for your boss, and he or she has some for you. By accepting the job you are accepting those conditions. If your boss's conditions includes working from home, and your home environment is not safe (though why you would even live there if that's the case is beyond me), then it is up to you to submit conditions of your own that list ergonomic furniture and equipment. But bringing in the might of the US government in the guise of OSHA to demand your conditions (under pain of fine or imprisonment) is pretty heavy-handed.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I see it as very simple.
if the Employer *requires* you to work from home, then the employer is responsible for providing you with the tools to do your job, unless your employment contract states otherwise.
If he is responsible for providing you tools, then he is responsible for providing SAFE tools.
If you are working on a consulting/contract basis, then you are your own employer, and are responsible for yourself, completely. If a prospective client (employer) requires you to spend millions of hours in front of your computer, and your computer is inadequate for the task, you ahd best factor in required upgrades to your work environment into the contract price.
If a signifigent part of one's job is working at home via telacommuting, then the same rules that apply at work need to apply to the work area, which has now been defined by the employer/OSHA as part of the work environment.
No, not the leather executive chair, but the employer needs to supply the same workstations/chairs available at the office, or a reasonable equivilent. Of course, a home environment is not going to accomodate the exact same workstation as in an office, but there are plenty of equivilents for home use.
-- Error: Cannot find file REALITY.SYS - Universe halted, please reboot!
It would probably be a good idea to allow choice. So an employee could choose to use the employers stuff (i.e. desk, chairs) that would normally be used at the office. However the telecomuter could waive these benefits by signing a document. This would allow the person the using their own environment.
At the same time OSHA getting involved is kinda silly. I mean what if my apartment (or house) is not handicap accessible, which is an OSHA requirement for workplaces. My house needs an elevator? Seems screwey to me.
-cpd
The employers in the high-tech arena are really going to be in a bind about this. They really don't have any choice - there is a lot of competition for good software people out there today, and telecommuting is just one of the expected 'benefits' (IME), as expected as 401K or stock options.
I work from home occasionally, and it's just as important to me to have a good environment for doing it as it would be for my employer - I treat telecommuting as a privalege, not a right, and so I need to be not as productive as at work, but more productive than at work.
I even have one of those big metal desks (used - weighs a ton), ergonomic keyboard, 17" monitor(used), and a nice computer(built by me from components). And I didn't pay a lot for any of them - you just have to hunt around a bit.
I can see the compromise being photos of the "workplace" to prove the employer does 'know' you have a good setup, and maybe a signed statement that you've read the rules on ergonomics and will abide by them. Other than that, it really does not make much difference - my medical covers me at home just as well as at the office.
I can also see this as a good excuse for insurance companies to raise rates if any employee telecommutes.
The regulations, as described in the article, are needlessly vague. They seem locked on the idea that workplaces must be fixed, communal locations.
I'll bet my employer wouldn't like it much if I refused to dial into work to fix problems because they didn't purchase OSHA-approved office furniture and a computer with ergonomic features. Perhaps the government will relax a bit and allow employees to sign a limited liability waiver with their employer.
If enforced at the state or lower levels, this could really burn a lot of employer's butts!
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
this is one way to do it. Not that business shouldn't offer some ergonomic aid. Many good companies will. However, if this practice will open them up to more lawsuits or higher costs than what they would have in a regular office enviroment, telecommuting will be killed off. A company will, usually, only use this option if there is also a benefit to the company. If this benefit is out weighed by possible costs of regulations/lawsuits, they won't think twice about cutting it.
OSHA has a duty to enforce workplace regulations; but if they push the issue, growth of SOHO's will drop like a plummeting anvil.
I did a six month stint of telecommuting, and I really want to find a job where I can do it again - anyone looking for a good Unix hacker who likes to work from his bedroom?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I agree. If your employer *forces* you to work from home against your will, find another employer. Likewise, if your job calls for considerable at home work, an employer who is unwilling to work with you on your ergonomic concerns is probably not a great employer anyway. Find one who is.
:)
And, other posters are correct. This will hurt the overall push for telecommuting. Employers are loathe to spend even *more* money on employees when the end result is that they will see *less* of the employee.
Again, find an employer who is good to you and stick with them. I do not need big brother stopping by to see if my home office floors are non-slip and I am wearing steel-toed boots (might drop that monitor on my toes).
Jeepers Cripes! It's my home and my job. Get the heck out!
respectfully submitted IMHO, of course
I don't know if anybody reads day-old SlashDot threads, but today's Washington Post has an article about Congressman Frank Wolf trying to get this reversed.
Don't know if he reads SlashDot, maybe it was the Rush Limbaugh crowd that made him jump so fast, but it certainly is quick response.
My first reaction to this outrage, then after thinking about it and looking at other poster's opinions I came to understand it, but I still wasn't satisified.
I think that in situations that the company MANDATES a non-traditional office there need to be certain guidelines, and their should be strong responsibilities of the office to assist that worker and to ensure that they are taking care of that worker and their safety.
When the company has an ELECTIVE policy of non-traditional office, there should be a system set up by the company to provide stipends and equiptment for the use of the home office. When you work at the office you are given a networked PC, a desk, a networked phone, necessary office supplies, etc. There should be definate policy to provide the telecommuter with the office supplies that they would have normally recieved at the office, but the responsibility should be on the employee to request what they need when it is their decision to telecommute.
TC
This is why this is bullshit
Actually, it sounds like you may have a claim against them, given that you were injured while pursuing duties assigned you. Of course, they might, in turn, claim that you fell because of the unshoveled driveway - and that's your house, your problem, and your negligence in not shovelling, not theirs.
Likewise for the cat scratch, the malfunctioning furnace, etcetera: they're dangers of your own creation, and not risks undertaken on behalf of your employer over the course of your employment.
If you drove to work drunk and got in an accident because of it, it would be on your head, not theirs. However, if you drove to work sober and got in an accident, you would most likely be eligible for some kind of worker's compensation.
IANAL, but the number one mistake that people make when learning about law is that they assume that it corresponds to their own particular brand of common sense. It doesn't and, considering most people's short supply of common sense, shouldn't.
Both you and the other poster use what's called a red herring - an argument of distraction. All the hazards that you mention above are of your causing; if you bring a gun to work and shoot yourself, you can expect the same sympathy from OSHA.
A hazard of the employer's causing, on the other hand, would be something like carpal tunnel, caused (or exacerbated) by the keyboard work you're doing at an unsuitable workstation. This is work that you do on their behalf, which you would not otherwise do, and which is a condition of employment. It's not a difficult concept - it might even, believe it or not, be common sense.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
If they own the machine that you use at home, then they're entitled to recover it and examine it at any time. My own company has this regulation spelled out in their policy - and it's just common sense, really. I use my own computer, for obvious reasons.
They, theoretically, could get a court order to examine my computers at home - but they could only do that if they suspected I'd stolen company property and it was located there. Keep a log of what you're working on for every minute of your work at home, and make it clear to your manager what you will do and what you did do for offsite work. For that matter, keep a log of what you're working on for your work at work, too.
If they're paying for your line, fast or slow, it stands to reason that at one point they could examine what you're downloading using it. So don't let them pay for your connection; if you really want to skirt the edge of it, charge them for the use of it, pro rated on an hourly basis. But, really, don't do that if you don't want to give them an expense to snoop. I have my own cable modem connection, and use an encrypted connection to work when I want to work. If I want to download pornography, I'm obviously not going to route it through there.
If they buy you furniture, it's their property. The cushy leather ergonomic executive chair goes back to the company when you leave them. Likewise for anything that you've expensed. I know that geeks love to accumulate geek books, and if it's at their employer's expense so much the better (and I've done that too) but right now if I want a book I pay for it myself; if I think that the company needs a book for my work, on the other hand, I buy it, expense it, and turn it over to the company's library when I'm done with it.
This is called simple professionalism and common sense. That it would have to be codified is guaranteed employment for lawyers; it also boggles the imagination that an explanation is even needed.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
Doesn't your dorm room contract prevent you from running a business from it? ;-). Mine did, at least, although that was nearly ten years ago.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
A salesperson isn't in control of their environment; the people whom you visit are. I'm sure OSHA visits their offices to repond to complaints, just like they visit your own.
The parts of your travelling menagerie that are under your employer's control (such as your laptop, sales props, and the likes) are presumably subject to OSHA control. If you get carpal tunnel from your laptop, your employer is going to have to pay for rehabilitation.
Working at home isn't a perk; it's work. A perk is secondary to your job function; working is your job function. Your boss still retains the responsibility for what happens there. Your employer couldn't send you into a coal mine and then disavow responsibility when you come down with black lung. Even if you asked to do sales calls in a coal mine, they'd still be responsible.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
I just don't know where I'd be without my 500 feet of stainless steel hand-railing and 4 handicap accessible toilets in my $200 a month studio apartment. Thanks OSHA!
This raises the cost of working at home for the employer. I believe that employers are forbidden to differentiate between work-at-home and on site employees in determining salaries, raises, bonuses, hiring and firing. That means that one or both of two things will happen. The opportunities to work from home will diminish or inflation-adjusted salaries will decline across the board. The bottom line is that the compensation I can expect for exactly the same work next year that I had already expected to provide to my employer just went down regardless of where I do my work.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Let me start by saying that I have seen an OSHA inpsector walk into an office I worked in and site and fine the employer for not having MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) stickers on bottles of White-Out. So, I have kind of a Satan == OSHA opinion. I understand that they have done a lot to help workers, yada-yada-yada, but they have gotten out of friggin' control.
Now, it their opinion that my employer can inspect my home office for workplace safety compliance? Well, lets see, OSHA can freely inpect the office, OSHA thinks that my employer can inspect my home office, it's not too big of a leap to believe that they would feel they (OSHA) have the right to inpsect my home office.
Some OSHA bastard wants to waltz into my house and look around at their convienence, better bring a warrant. And backup.
In labour markets in general, more labour regulation causes higher unemployment. This is the fundamental fallacy of many forms of labour laws: in an attempt to protect workers, many forms of labour policy actually end up hurting workers. (Many introductory microeconomic texts use minimum wage and labour unions fighting for higher wages as "textbook" examples... pick one up one if you want to find out more)
This is no different, but it has a twist. Employers have a choice between hiring an in-office worker, or a telecommuting worker. By increasing the regulations on telecommuting workers, the government is inadvertantly making it HARDER for people to telecommute.
It's important to understand *why* safety regulation on the workplace exist: before they were around, industrial jobs were unnecessarily dangerous. People would get mutilated or die due to avoidable accidents. Employees complained, but firms didn't listen well enough, so labour unions and governments rammed safety regulations down their throats.
The purpose was not to make firms "big daddy" it was to get them to listen to what everyone knew: the workplace could be made safe. If you're working at home, your employer does not control the safety of the environment, *you*do*. This is in stark contrast to the workplace the policy was designed to work in.
Also, please note, this *does*not* seem to be about giving employees ergonomic keyboards as it seems to be about legal liability. That's the real cost to employers, not the cost of funky keyboards.
In the end, all this policy will do is to deter firms from hiring telecommuting workers. It DOES NOT protect these workers. A better idea would be to allow these workers to deduct home workplace expenses off their taxes.
OSHA will be relevant as long as there are private corporations who pay people for their labor.
While telecommuting is a great thing for those who can do it, it has big benefits for the company as well. Less office space, less electricity use, less money out of their pocket, basically. It helps to increase the marginalization of workers that we've been seeing over the past 25 years or so. With sliding labor rights and globalization we've seen workers turn from being treated as somewhat human to commodities. This issue is a small part of that but a part nevertheless. The company saves money, and makes you provide the space, and they may or may not pay for your work area. When they don't need you anymore, they can send you an email and that's that.
There is no reason to reduce the rights of office workers when they work at home. Why give corporations another break? OSHA can help carry this out. Common sense should apply, if you don't clean your house and trip on something that's your own fault. But you should be compensated in some way for having to provide your own office space, and have liabilities for the company if you are hurt somehow while working for them in your own dwelling.
If you're working at home because you don't like going in to the office, then that's your choice... your company shouldn't have to be responsible for that... This smacks a little too much of the modern "I'm entitled to this" attitude for my taste.
"He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom." --Gandalf the Grey
Telecommuting is one of those fascinating aspects of life that one really has to sit down and think about for a second:
A) No commute? That's great! Except for the fact that you weren't being paid to commute in the first place, and that the time you commute is in excess of your original eight hour workday. So while you were losing hours of your time for work, it somehow got onto your "personal time".
B) Home conversion? Suddenly, work has far fewer square feet of space it requires to house its workers--they get some of the worker's home, for free! Maybe it's a room, maybe it's a bookshelf, maybe it's a desk, but there always ends up being one area of work controlled space. Again, this happens at the expense of the worker.
C) Predictable hours. Are people getting paid more to be available to check their email 24/7? It's one thing to stay at the office late, but you can only do this so much before you realize you're not spending any time at home. When there's a conduit to your office at any time, you work more hours because you can.
That being said, I love telecommuting, and do alot of development at work to make it possible, but I'm very clear on the fact that it can save companies millions while mainly giving back workers time that they weren't even getting paid for in the first place.
OSHA has rules regarding workstations that cost companies money but in the long run save employees much pain and misery. With all that the company gets out of having a worker stay at home, it's not unreasonable to expect a heavy telecommuter receive a computing environment that respects their health. Telecommuting should not be a way to escape ergonomic regulations.
Agree? Disagree?
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
OSHA may just be trying to maintain its relevance in the face of a changing workplace, where less and less people are required to actually be present on company property in order to work. In a world where we are all wired to our wearables, able to work while walking down the street muttering subvocally to our wrist-PCs, OSHA may not have any mission, unless it redefines its own. This may be some of what this is about.
In any event, this entire thing has some disturbing connations, yet should not be dismissed out of hand. For one thing, does this give OSHA the authority to MANDATE what kind of furniture I have in my home. What if it clashes with what the interior decorator did? What if I simply don't want to wear a hard hat in the bathroom? Although toung in cheek, it should be lost on none of us that this is a rather aggressive extention of governmental authroity into our own homes, and I do not recall even being consulted about it, much less inviting them in.
Another rather grim ramification may be the chilling effect this has on telecommuting altogether. It is a daunting task for an employer to be responsible for safety and ergonomic comfort on their own premisis -- to require the same safety standards in all of the homes of each telecommuniter is simply untenable. Sorry, you'll have to risk the 40 minute drive through snow into the office -- we cannot be held responsible for the unsavory working conditions of your bed-room, which hasn't been cleaned in years.
Furthermore, it invites, even mandates, a rather intrusive involvement of the employer in the employee's homelife (in addition to yet another government beaurocracy). And what of the kid fresh out of college, living in a small rundown apartment which could not meet any standards to speak of? Disemploy them? Force them to move?
On the other hand, the danger of an employer using telecommuting as a way of dodging their own responsibility for maintaining a safe working environment, or putting the onus of such on the employee, cannot be entirely discounted either.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
OSHA has cited my company with 6 violations for a total of $50,000 in fines.
1. Shoeboy Industries provided its sole employee a dinner of canned beans - following which the atmosphere in Shoeboy's apartment became incapable of supporting human life.
2. Shoeboy Industries also provided Shoeboy with a discount transvestite prostitute. This caused Shoeboy to develop a worrying rash.
3. Shoeboy Industries frequently leaves cartons of Camels in Shoeboy's closet, thus encouraging his smoking habit.
4. Shoeboy Industries has failed to adequately clean the restroom of Shoeboy's apartment. As a result, the population of Shoeboy's shower curtain is agitating for a seat in the UN general assembly.
5. Shoeboy Industries has failed to provide Shoeboy with treatement for his syphilis induced madness.
6. Shoeboy Industries has left the decaying corpse of a marine biologist on Shoeboy's balcony for several weeks.
An OSHA representative stated that Shoeboy needed to be taught a lesson about his evil capitalist exploitation of himself.
--Shoeboy
I am not a lawyer, but:
I am deeply worried that the business response to OSHA setting telecommuting workplace standards will be to forbid telecommuting. If I ran a business, I would.
As a telecommuter, do I really want to have some portion of my home retooled every time I change employers or move from contract to contract (when I work for a consulting company) to bring my workstation in line with each employer's standards?
They simply should not do this unless the employer REQUIRES teclommuting. So long as telecommuting is comething I want (and believe me, I consider a day or more telecommuting to be an enormous benefit, ENORMOUS [I can't overstate this -- it is really, really ENORMOUS ]) and is permitted but not required by the employer, I should be able to specifically idemnify the employer from any responsibility for workplace injury, so long as the workplace my employer provides meets specifications.
I see this as potentially the death of telecommuting.
What word on this waiver possibility?
Check here for the Post's version.
http://www.washing tonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A955-2000Jan3.html
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
I telecommute from hotel rooms. Rooms rented by the Company, in fact. I also do lots of Company work on a Company laptop while flying on Company-paid air trips.
Seems like these are far more promising opportunities for OSHA: regulating business hotel accomodations, regulating laptop ergonomics, and regulating airline seating used for business travel. Just think of the fun they'll have with the FAA over seating standards.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I'm sitting in my dorm room at college, and I can tell you that these desks are far from ergonomic. At this point, I think that if your landlord provides a workspace, then it must be an ergonomic one.
Aside from that, in this college setting we cannot remove the furniture from the room. How, then, would my employer (if I were telecommuting) be able to pay for an ergonomic setting?
I think that this was inevitable; it revisits the distinction between a contractor/consultant and an employee.
An employee works as an extension of the employer. They are required to perform at an adequate, previously discussed level but are paid on a time (even salaried workers - they merely have a larger time increment than hourly) rather than work performed basis.
A consultant performs work for or on the behalf of a company, but they are professionals who work for themselves. The work produced is the basis for compensation, not the length of time which it takes to produce said work. (I know about time and materials contracts, btw, but the point is that you're compensated for the work you produce).
An employee, who is paid for time, therefore, is entitled to a proper working environment during that time. That is, wherever the work is performed. I haven't heard that occupational health and safety regulations were automatically suspended when an employee is out making a client call, for example. Why should they be suspended merely because the employee is working at a different but still acceptable location (in this case, his or her home)? The essence of this is that the home is an acceptable location to the employer; when they sanction work at home they acquire the responsibility to provide a proper work environment there, just like they couldn't send you down a mineshaft without a helmet.
A consultant produces work, and the contractual nature of the work means that they must provide for themselves or their subcontractors. They aren't subject to most occupational health and safety rules because of the nature of that employment - or, at least, the company tendering the contract is not responsible for conformation to those rules. The company employing the individual (in many cases themself or a small consultancy) is.
To sum this up: employees don't stop being employees just because they're working at a different site. The act of approving the home as a suitable worksite by a company makes them responsible for occupational injury there, just like it was any other jobsite - because it is just that, any other jobsite. They don't turn into ersatz consultants when they work from home, and employers which treat them like that will no doubt discover the error of their ways.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
According to the MSNBC article, "Employers can be charged and fined by OSHA if they do not provide safe workplaces and employers are responsible for making any needed corrections."
So let's say I'm working at home for Company X. I have a few loose floorboards around the house that have been there long before I started working for Company X that I just never got around to fixing. I'm at my terminal doing some work, when I decide to get up and go to the fridge for a drink. Along the way, I step on one of these loose floorboards. I trip and sprain my ankle. So does this mean that Company X must pay to have the floorboards fixed, even though I knew of the problem long before I began working with Company X and neglected to fix them myself?
The MSNBC article further states that "employers are responsible for making sure an employee has ergonomically correct furniture, such as chairs and computer tables, as well as proper lighting, heating, cooling and ventilation systems in the home office." These new OSHA regulations are practically begging to be abused by people looking to get some home improvements done courtesy of their employer. So let's look at another situation....
I work at home for Company Y. I have an old air conditioner in my house (the kind that fits into a window). I've always wanted central air conditioning in my house, but I've never gotten around to having one put in. Now that OSHA mandates that Company Y is responsible for making sure I'm comfortable in my house, does this mean I can force Company Y to install central air conditioning in my home?
These new mandates from OSHA are going to cause more trouble than good down the road when work-at-home people complain that they want expensive ergonomic leather chairs, central air and heating, etc. Anyone think different?
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters