This is not at all surprising but I also feel like these lawsuits won't have much of an impact on the return to office mandates. If anything they may be more lenient with work from home policies...
This is not at all surprising but I also feel like these lawsuits won't have much of an impact on the return to office mandates. If anything they may be more lenient with work from home policies for specific groups (which is good and still a win if it happens) but overall they will still require it for the majority of people, even if there's no real justification.
While I agree that most companies will attempt that, I think culturally it’s going to be more difficult for the company to successfully get people back to the office if they see (perhaps without...
While I agree that most companies will attempt that, I think culturally it’s going to be more difficult for the company to successfully get people back to the office if they see (perhaps without knowing the reasons why) it’s only some people, not everyone.
For example, if almost everyone in a small team are in the office except for one or two, then the team meeting still has to be hybrid/digital, and therefore it fundamentally weakens many of the back to office arguments. And once the arguments are weakened, managers might be less inclined to try to push them as mandatory, as that hurts cohesion and trust to enforce rules that everyone can see are hollow and pointless.
The mandatory return to office is hollow and pointless anyway, but there’s a difference between knowing it, and seeing it.
I think they'll try at first, but long-term when companies look to cut costs the necessity of paying for so much office space is always going to be a question from now on. My employer is halving...
I think they'll try at first, but long-term when companies look to cut costs the necessity of paying for so much office space is always going to be a question from now on.
My employer is halving our office space next year, which will eliminate the risk of us ever being recalled to the office full time: there simply won't be room. Company saves massively on rent, win-win for everyone.
I've wondered where the line for WFH as a "reasonable accommodation" under the ADA lies now. If you work on a team split across multiple locations (meaning virtual meetings are a requirement...
I've wondered where the line for WFH as a "reasonable accommodation" under the ADA lies now. If you work on a team split across multiple locations (meaning virtual meetings are a requirement reguardless), and spent multiple years working from home successfully, does a company have any argument that allowing you to work outside the office is too expensive?
This is not at all surprising but I also feel like these lawsuits won't have much of an impact on the return to office mandates. If anything they may be more lenient with work from home policies for specific groups (which is good and still a win if it happens) but overall they will still require it for the majority of people, even if there's no real justification.
While I agree that most companies will attempt that, I think culturally it’s going to be more difficult for the company to successfully get people back to the office if they see (perhaps without knowing the reasons why) it’s only some people, not everyone.
For example, if almost everyone in a small team are in the office except for one or two, then the team meeting still has to be hybrid/digital, and therefore it fundamentally weakens many of the back to office arguments. And once the arguments are weakened, managers might be less inclined to try to push them as mandatory, as that hurts cohesion and trust to enforce rules that everyone can see are hollow and pointless.
The mandatory return to office is hollow and pointless anyway, but there’s a difference between knowing it, and seeing it.
I think they'll try at first, but long-term when companies look to cut costs the necessity of paying for so much office space is always going to be a question from now on.
My employer is halving our office space next year, which will eliminate the risk of us ever being recalled to the office full time: there simply won't be room. Company saves massively on rent, win-win for everyone.
I've wondered where the line for WFH as a "reasonable accommodation" under the ADA lies now. If you work on a team split across multiple locations (meaning virtual meetings are a requirement reguardless), and spent multiple years working from home successfully, does a company have any argument that allowing you to work outside the office is too expensive?