Can Tech Workers Skip The Olympics As Easily As Athletes? (networkworld.com)

netbuzz writes: [Network World reports:] "Golfer Jordan Spieth announced this morning that he will not play in the Olympics, citing Zika, meaning the world's top four players in his sport have now opted out of going to Brazil. They're self-employed and answer to no one. But what of the rank-and-file employees who work for major technology companies sending large contingents to Brazil? Are they being asked -- or compelled -- to ignore the risks? Conversely, could women of child-bearing age be denied the opportunity to go at an employer's discretion?" Major vendors like Cisco and GE say they're not making anyone go, though at least one expert says that doing so wouldn't necessarily be a violation of employment law. When asked if anyone declined to go, a Cisco spokesperson said via email: "We're not in a position to confirm whether employees have opted out (that is between them and their manager), but we provide for that option." GE provided a similar response, saying, "No GE employees have opted out of going, but GE employees are free to opt out at any time." Patricia Pryor, an attorney at Jackson Lewis P.C. in Cincinnati who has addressed these issues in a piece for The National Law Review earlier this year, was asked by Network World as well. She says: "Employers are wise to be flexible with travel requirements to Zika-infested areas when they can and when doing so is reasonable. However, there are some jobs where the purpose of the job/or the essential functions of the job require travel to these areas. If it is not reasonable or possible to delay travel to the area, an employer generally can require employees to travel."

Comments

Zika or Money?

[Anonymous Coward]

The golfers aren't pulling out because of the health risks. The golfers are pulling out because they play 20+ tournaments a year and they're not getting paid for this one.

Re:Zika or Money?

[Cinnamon Beige]

As I recall, there's reports of sexual transmission of Zika so they would have the worry of infecting a female partner--especially if they're having unprotected sex because they're attempting to make a baby.

But if you've paid attention to the news, Zika is only one of Rio's problems: Rio just plain doesn't have the money for this. The state of Rio (not quite the same as the city) ran out of money, they've not been able to pay hospital workers, ditto firefighters, ditto police, there's already been a few fun games of Find the Corpse (Some Assembly Needed) on the site of the Olympics itself...and, well, the general problems that could be summed up as 'being Rio' due to just how long-term they've been a problem--and thus they should have been known to the Olympic committee back when picking the city for the 2016 Olympics... Even before Zika, there were Questions about if Rio was really up to this.

There's a lot of reasons to not go to this year's Olympics, really.

Olympics unfair to tech workers!

[Chelloveck]

No, tech workers can't opt out as easily as athletes. And if they do go, they can't get laid as easily as athletes, either. Life is unfair on so many levels.

Re:Olympics unfair to tech workers!

[guruevi]

However if they do go and they do get sick/injured, the company would be liable for 'knowingly' exposing their employees.

Re:Dumb article

[Calydor]

Wouldn't it fall under OSHA laws, though? Can an employer legally expose his employees to pathogens under threat of being fired if they refuse?

In my experience this is a reward post

[Snotnose]

As in, "Hey, you're a great employee, wanna go to Rio for a few weeks?". The employee can then yay or nay, with a nay having no negative consequences.

Now, if you said yay 6 months ago, but at this late date say "ummm, about that....", I can see how companies can be upset.

Me? I wouldn't go anywhere near Rio. Between the raw sewage on the beaches, to the crime on tourists, to the cops not being paid, to the very real possibility these games will be a fiasco, no thank you.

Males have a bigger risk factor

[Registered Coward v2]

The Zika virus apparently can remain in sperm for some time after an infection and recovery, thus the risk of an infected baby could be higher for a male than a female. A women can delay pregnancy until she is free of the virus but if her partner is infected it would still be possible to pass the infection to the baby, per an NPR report.