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?
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.
If you have cabling requirements to perform your work, then this should be professionally done by a qualified person.
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 think that 80% of lawsuits are futile and a waste of the courts time
I think 80% of the lawsuits filed get settled out of court, and thus don't cost the taxpayers or the court very much at all. Actually, the figure is much higher than 80%.
Of the small percentage of suits that go to court, the vast majority are dispatched in a matter of hours at most.
Of the absurdly small number of cases that make it to the 11 o'clock news that you hear about, very well 80% of them may be a waste. But don't presume that they are representative of the cases the courts deal with every day.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
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