Feds Only Reasonable Accomodations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

You can argue whatever you would like. But the folks in your hypothetical could also wear adult diapers, or simply stop as needed even if it added a bit to the commute.

The PP you were responding to is wrong that telework can’t be an accommodation, but garden variety incontinence issues is not getting you work from home.

I never said TW can’t be an accommodation. What I said is that employers are not required to accommodate if the issue is the commute.

That’s false, unless in-person physical presence is an essential function of the job.

Where no one has been in-person for half a decade, the hill for proving that is steep, upwards, and likely to lead to losses in court.

You first would have to show a medically inability to commute.

A company does not have to show in office is essential more broadly. Them simply wanting you in the office is sufficient.

This is incorrect. Legal degree from Liberty ? Employer needs to show that the reasonable accommodation causes an unreasonable hardship. My office has been 100% telework for 5 years and was 60% 2009-2020. So, good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

You can argue whatever you would like. But the folks in your hypothetical could also wear adult diapers, or simply stop as needed even if it added a bit to the commute.

The PP you were responding to is wrong that telework can’t be an accommodation, but garden variety incontinence issues is not getting you work from home.

I never said TW can’t be an accommodation. What I said is that employers are not required to accommodate if the issue is the commute.

That’s false, unless in-person physical presence is an essential function of the job.

Where no one has been in-person for half a decade, the hill for proving that is steep, upwards, and likely to lead to losses in court.

You first would have to show a medically inability to commute.

A company does not have to show in office is essential more broadly. Them simply wanting you in the office is sufficient.

This is incorrect. Legal degree from Liberty ? Employer needs to show that the reasonable accommodation causes an unreasonable hardship. My office has been 100% telework for 5 years and was 60% 2009-2020. So, good luck with that.

You need to have a reason for the reasonable accommodation.

I’m a healthy 40 yr old who just had to return to the office after years remote. I’d love to save the two hours each day commuting and my reviews would show I have excelled remotely and no hardship would befall my employer if I stayed remote.

Despite all that, I am shit out of luck now that my employer has ordered me back. Doesn’t matter that they couldn’t show a hardship because I can’t show a medical need for accommodation.

Not Liberty, Harvard, actually, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

You can argue whatever you would like. But the folks in your hypothetical could also wear adult diapers, or simply stop as needed even if it added a bit to the commute.

The PP you were responding to is wrong that telework can’t be an accommodation, but garden variety incontinence issues is not getting you work from home.

I never said TW can’t be an accommodation. What I said is that employers are not required to accommodate if the issue is the commute.

That’s false, unless in-person physical presence is an essential function of the job.

Where no one has been in-person for half a decade, the hill for proving that is steep, upwards, and likely to lead to losses in court.

You first would have to show a medically inability to commute.

A company does not have to show in office is essential more broadly. Them simply wanting you in the office is sufficient.

This is incorrect. Legal degree from Liberty ? Employer needs to show that the reasonable accommodation causes an unreasonable hardship. My office has been 100% telework for 5 years and was 60% 2009-2020. So, good luck with that.

You need to have a reason for the reasonable accommodation.

I’m a healthy 40 yr old who just had to return to the office after years remote. I’d love to save the two hours each day commuting and my reviews would show I have excelled remotely and no hardship would befall my employer if I stayed remote.

Despite all that, I am shit out of luck now that my employer has ordered me back. Doesn’t matter that they couldn’t show a hardship because I can’t show a medical need for accommodation.

Not Liberty, Harvard, actually, btw.

but. isn't that kind of obvious, Harvard? You need a disability to qualify for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA (or in the case of the feds, the rehab act).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

You can argue whatever you would like. But the folks in your hypothetical could also wear adult diapers, or simply stop as needed even if it added a bit to the commute.

The PP you were responding to is wrong that telework can’t be an accommodation, but garden variety incontinence issues is not getting you work from home.

I never said TW can’t be an accommodation. What I said is that employers are not required to accommodate if the issue is the commute.

That’s false, unless in-person physical presence is an essential function of the job.

Where no one has been in-person for half a decade, the hill for proving that is steep, upwards, and likely to lead to losses in court.

You first would have to show a medically inability to commute.

A company does not have to show in office is essential more broadly. Them simply wanting you in the office is sufficient.

This is incorrect. Legal degree from Liberty ? Employer needs to show that the reasonable accommodation causes an unreasonable hardship. My office has been 100% telework for 5 years and was 60% 2009-2020. So, good luck with that.

You need to have a reason for the reasonable accommodation.

I’m a healthy 40 yr old who just had to return to the office after years remote. I’d love to save the two hours each day commuting and my reviews would show I have excelled remotely and no hardship would befall my employer if I stayed remote.

Despite all that, I am shit out of luck now that my employer has ordered me back. Doesn’t matter that they couldn’t show a hardship because I can’t show a medical need for accommodation.

Not Liberty, Harvard, actually, btw.

but. isn't that kind of obvious, Harvard? You need a disability to qualify for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA (or in the case of the feds, the rehab act).

Yes, but the PP I was responding to suggested it wasn’t by saying Al she needed to show was that she successfully teleworked and therefore the employer could never show telework would present an unreasonable burden to the employer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

You can argue whatever you would like. But the folks in your hypothetical could also wear adult diapers, or simply stop as needed even if it added a bit to the commute.

The PP you were responding to is wrong that telework can’t be an accommodation, but garden variety incontinence issues is not getting you work from home.

I never said TW can’t be an accommodation. What I said is that employers are not required to accommodate if the issue is the commute.

That’s false, unless in-person physical presence is an essential function of the job.

Where no one has been in-person for half a decade, the hill for proving that is steep, upwards, and likely to lead to losses in court.

You first would have to show a medically inability to commute.

A company does not have to show in office is essential more broadly. Them simply wanting you in the office is sufficient.

That's true. But if you have a medical inability to commute, and in-person presence is not an essential function, they are in fact required to accommodate you with remote work. That is the opposite of your claim above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

You can argue whatever you would like. But the folks in your hypothetical could also wear adult diapers, or simply stop as needed even if it added a bit to the commute.

The PP you were responding to is wrong that telework can’t be an accommodation, but garden variety incontinence issues is not getting you work from home.

I never said TW can’t be an accommodation. What I said is that employers are not required to accommodate if the issue is the commute.

That’s false, unless in-person physical presence is an essential function of the job.

Where no one has been in-person for half a decade, the hill for proving that is steep, upwards, and likely to lead to losses in court.

You first would have to show a medically inability to commute.

A company does not have to show in office is essential more broadly. Them simply wanting you in the office is sufficient.

That's true. But if you have a medical inability to commute, and in-person presence is not an essential function, they are in fact required to accommodate you with remote work. That is the opposite of your claim above.

That’s not the opposite of what I said above. And they would have to provide you a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the reasonable accommodation you prefer.

Now, in your hypothetical above, if you truly could not commute and there was no other form of accommodation that would allow you to work, then yes telework full time would be required. But there are relatively few people who are going to fall into that category, and those people are likely already to have an accommodation in place.

For the people who have managed to commute in a couple of times a pay period over the last few years who are now saying they need an accommodation to not have to RTO full time, that’s going to be a lot harder claim. Even if some sort of accommodation may be needed (say allowing someone to work very odd hours to reduce the length and therefore burden of the commute), there are likely alternatives to staying home that would suffice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

You can argue whatever you would like. But the folks in your hypothetical could also wear adult diapers, or simply stop as needed even if it added a bit to the commute.

The PP you were responding to is wrong that telework can’t be an accommodation, but garden variety incontinence issues is not getting you work from home.

I never said TW can’t be an accommodation. What I said is that employers are not required to accommodate if the issue is the commute.

That’s false, unless in-person physical presence is an essential function of the job.

Where no one has been in-person for half a decade, the hill for proving that is steep, upwards, and likely to lead to losses in court.

You first would have to show a medically inability to commute.

A company does not have to show in office is essential more broadly. Them simply wanting you in the office is sufficient.

That's true. But if you have a medical inability to commute, and in-person presence is not an essential function, they are in fact required to accommodate you with remote work. That is the opposite of your claim above.

That’s not the opposite of what I said above. And they would have to provide you a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the reasonable accommodation you prefer.

Now, in your hypothetical above, if you truly could not commute and there was no other form of accommodation that would allow you to work, then yes telework full time would be required. But there are relatively few people who are going to fall into that category, and those people are likely already to have an accommodation in place.

For the people who have managed to commute in a couple of times a pay period over the last few years who are now saying they need an accommodation to not have to RTO full time, that’s going to be a lot harder claim. Even if some sort of accommodation may be needed (say allowing someone to work very odd hours to reduce the length and therefore burden of the commute), there are likely alternatives to staying home that would suffice.

I am a supervisor and have not heard of a single person asking for this. You are arguing against a straw man here, why IDK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

You can argue whatever you would like. But the folks in your hypothetical could also wear adult diapers, or simply stop as needed even if it added a bit to the commute.

The PP you were responding to is wrong that telework can’t be an accommodation, but garden variety incontinence issues is not getting you work from home.

I never said TW can’t be an accommodation. What I said is that employers are not required to accommodate if the issue is the commute.

That’s false, unless in-person physical presence is an essential function of the job.

Where no one has been in-person for half a decade, the hill for proving that is steep, upwards, and likely to lead to losses in court.

You first would have to show a medically inability to commute.

A company does not have to show in office is essential more broadly. Them simply wanting you in the office is sufficient.

That's true. But if you have a medical inability to commute, and in-person presence is not an essential function, they are in fact required to accommodate you with remote work. That is the opposite of your claim above.

That’s not the opposite of what I said above. And they would have to provide you a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the reasonable accommodation you prefer.

Now, in your hypothetical above, if you truly could not commute and there was no other form of accommodation that would allow you to work, then yes telework full time would be required. But there are relatively few people who are going to fall into that category, and those people are likely already to have an accommodation in place.

For the people who have managed to commute in a couple of times a pay period over the last few years who are now saying they need an accommodation to not have to RTO full time, that’s going to be a lot harder claim. Even if some sort of accommodation may be needed (say allowing someone to work very odd hours to reduce the length and therefore burden of the commute), there are likely alternatives to staying home that would suffice.

I am a supervisor and have not heard of a single person asking for this. You are arguing against a straw man here, why IDK.

Then you clearly aren’t a supervisor in HR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

You can argue whatever you would like. But the folks in your hypothetical could also wear adult diapers, or simply stop as needed even if it added a bit to the commute.

The PP you were responding to is wrong that telework can’t be an accommodation, but garden variety incontinence issues is not getting you work from home.

I never said TW can’t be an accommodation. What I said is that employers are not required to accommodate if the issue is the commute.

That’s false, unless in-person physical presence is an essential function of the job.

Where no one has been in-person for half a decade, the hill for proving that is steep, upwards, and likely to lead to losses in court.

You first would have to show a medically inability to commute.

A company does not have to show in office is essential more broadly. Them simply wanting you in the office is sufficient.

That's true. But if you have a medical inability to commute, and in-person presence is not an essential function, they are in fact required to accommodate you with remote work. That is the opposite of your claim above.

That’s not the opposite of what I said above. And they would have to provide you a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the reasonable accommodation you prefer.

Now, in your hypothetical above, if you truly could not commute and there was no other form of accommodation that would allow you to work, then yes telework full time would be required. But there are relatively few people who are going to fall into that category, and those people are likely already to have an accommodation in place.

For the people who have managed to commute in a couple of times a pay period over the last few years who are now saying they need an accommodation to not have to RTO full time, that’s going to be a lot harder claim. Even if some sort of accommodation may be needed (say allowing someone to work very odd hours to reduce the length and therefore burden of the commute), there are likely alternatives to staying home that would suffice.

I am a supervisor and have not heard of a single person asking for this. You are arguing against a straw man here, why IDK.

Someone upthread insisted that post menopausal tinkling when you sneeze is a disability that must be accomodated by work from home because she bought a house 2 hours from the office or some such nonsense. It was downhill from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel for people, but I do think during Covid people got used to WFH/ being able to run to Target/go for walks/pick up kids and check emails a few times, etc. Be grateful for a job. Many people have been RTO since 2021/2022!

When I was a child my single mom (dad died) had cancer. She went to work and also had doctors appointments, surgery, chemo, etc. I still remember her picking me up from after school at the very end with lit her colostomy bag and kids also being picked up would make fun of her. She didn't complain, was a great and present mom, and went into an office and worked. She ended up dying and we moved in with an aunt who was/never got not married, who went into an office everyday and some weekends.

I learned a lot as kid, could do my own laundry, homework, etc, and was never babied! I see cousins who have parents who basically do/did everything for them. One lives at home at age 29 and refuses to work, two others had their mom write many papers in HS and college for them, and many have their parents pay for their expensive life after they graduated college.

My aunt hired high school babysitters and a neighbor who was a SAHM with similar aged kids to watch us after school and in the summer since camps were too expensive. My grandparents also took us for a couple weeks in the summer.

No one is forcing you to stay at your job. If you don't like RTO then apply elsewhere. It will be hard with so many people out of work, but if you don't like what is required as an employee then leave.

I feel for the people with real things that need to be protected. Being upset you have a 2 hour commute stinks but pushing for an accomodation takes time away from someone who actually needs one.

I did not vote for this, but reading posts on here make me realize so many people are out of touch.

That's what I was thinking, too. It was only 5 years ago that this was the life almost everyone led. Sucky commutes, less time with kids, long stressful days at the office.

I'm not saying it's ideal, but a lot of people are acting like WFH is kind of the baseline. An entitlement. When it's really the last few years that have been weird.

I agree with you except that your assumption is that the pre-Covid approach is the gold standard. It isn't. It reflects the way the work world operated before technology enabled us to do things differently.

If workers' lives are more manageable and the work still gets done and traffic is lighter and less carbon is emitted and children are better off and people have more time to exercise and cook dinner and enjoy the sunshine, what is the point of returning to the pre-Covid way of working?

I work unconventional hours so my free time is during the day.

All I can say is that the coffee shops, Homegoods, Target, Costco, Whole Foods and local restaurants are now half empty during the day. One month or so ago, they were packed all day long. Especially the coffee shops and stores.

A lot of people were getting their work done during the day, but just as many were out shopping, catching up with friends and getting their hair done.

Yep. I’m a nurse who has worked in person for the last 10 years, 3 days/week. The change on the roads in the middle of a weekday now — ie, a couple of weeks after massive RTO in the DMV — has been DRAMATIC. I am still doing my Target runs on a Tuesday at 10:30 am like I have been consistently since 2015. This week, the arterial roads and the stores and the hair salon and the vet and the Rock Creek trails look like they used to 2015-2020. Because tens of thousands of white collar workers are at their computers at 10:30 on a Tuesday instead of getting highlights, doing Pilates, doing tempo runs and exploring Bailey’s diarrhea at the vet.

Were you required to take an elective economics class before becoming a nurse? Because consumer confidence is way down across the board which means people just aren't spending in optional things like highlights, the vet, etc. But go on blaming people on remote work.

New poster.

Friday everything was packed as usual during the day. Monday and every day since, everything is empty.

A neighborhood facebook group had a not short thread discussing how women were going to get their hair appointments scheduled now that the fed return to the office made daytime appointments impossible. Hair coloring takes several hours, so they weren't talking about getting a quick buzz cut over lunch.

A lot of people were being productive at home, but a lot were getting their nails done and doing their target runs. The immediate flipping of the switch the day of return to work and since was fairly striking, and honestly surprised me.

You do know that feds can get their work done between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. A woman could easily log in at 6, flex out at 10, get her hair done by 12 and log in, and then log out at 4:30 after completing 8 hours of work. With the expanded flexband from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m., flextime was even more generous. Feds work is tracked by computer, so they are not out here pretending to work. They are actually working, whether you understand their schedules or not.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone had a RA approved for metal health issues like anxiety, OCD, panic disorder? Prior to COVID we had 3x a week remote - that was policy in my office since I have been at the Fed 15 years. It made dealing with these disorders/disabilities so much easier. But with 5x RTO in person, I’m struggling mentally and having flare ups making it very hard to function. Wondering if a psychiatrist or psychologist letter would suffice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m still waiting on mine. Multiple mental heath conditions that require sleep hygiene and medications not compatible with daily 4 hours spent commuting.

Commuting is not an ADA issue. You are not entitled to accommodations to avoid the commute regardless of the condition.

Are you an attorney?

Some of these commutes are 2 hours long. Many middle aged and older women suffer from degrees of incontinence. They would have to stop at a bathroom, making their commute even longer. I would argue that the commute itself absolutely is an issue for these people and that remote work is a reasonable accommodation.

You can argue whatever you would like. But the folks in your hypothetical could also wear adult diapers, or simply stop as needed even if it added a bit to the commute.

The PP you were responding to is wrong that telework can’t be an accommodation, but garden variety incontinence issues is not getting you work from home.

I never said TW can’t be an accommodation. What I said is that employers are not required to accommodate if the issue is the commute.

That’s false, unless in-person physical presence is an essential function of the job.

Where no one has been in-person for half a decade, the hill for proving that is steep, upwards, and likely to lead to losses in court.

You first would have to show a medically inability to commute.

A company does not have to show in office is essential more broadly. Them simply wanting you in the office is sufficient.

That's true. But if you have a medical inability to commute, and in-person presence is not an essential function, they are in fact required to accommodate you with remote work. That is the opposite of your claim above.

That’s not the opposite of what I said above. And they would have to provide you a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the reasonable accommodation you prefer.

Now, in your hypothetical above, if you truly could not commute and there was no other form of accommodation that would allow you to work, then yes telework full time would be required. But there are relatively few people who are going to fall into that category, and those people are likely already to have an accommodation in place.

For the people who have managed to commute in a couple of times a pay period over the last few years who are now saying they need an accommodation to not have to RTO full time, that’s going to be a lot harder claim. Even if some sort of accommodation may be needed (say allowing someone to work very odd hours to reduce the length and therefore burden of the commute), there are likely alternatives to staying home that would suffice.

I am a supervisor and have not heard of a single person asking for this. You are arguing against a straw man here, why IDK.

Two people in my office (both hired during COVID times) are doing exactly this. When 1-2 times a week became a thing, they sucked it up. Now 5 days a week and a 4 hour RT daily commute is a thing, they suddenly have medical issues. Too bad they are also at the top of the RIF list.

[Anonymous]

One of my co-workers lost her RA for asthma. Another kept his for major heart issues (including two heart attacks over the last 6 years).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel for people, but I do think during Covid people got used to WFH/ being able to run to Target/go for walks/pick up kids and check emails a few times, etc. Be grateful for a job. Many people have been RTO since 2021/2022!

When I was a child my single mom (dad died) had cancer. She went to work and also had doctors appointments, surgery, chemo, etc. I still remember her picking me up from after school at the very end with lit her colostomy bag and kids also being picked up would make fun of her. She didn't complain, was a great and present mom, and went into an office and worked. She ended up dying and we moved in with an aunt who was/never got not married, who went into an office everyday and some weekends.

I learned a lot as kid, could do my own laundry, homework, etc, and was never babied! I see cousins who have parents who basically do/did everything for them. One lives at home at age 29 and refuses to work, two others had their mom write many papers in HS and college for them, and many have their parents pay for their expensive life after they graduated college.

My aunt hired high school babysitters and a neighbor who was a SAHM with similar aged kids to watch us after school and in the summer since camps were too expensive. My grandparents also took us for a couple weeks in the summer.

No one is forcing you to stay at your job. If you don't like RTO then apply elsewhere. It will be hard with so many people out of work, but if you don't like what is required as an employee then leave.

I feel for the people with real things that need to be protected. Being upset you have a 2 hour commute stinks but pushing for an accomodation takes time away from someone who actually needs one.

I did not vote for this, but reading posts on here make me realize so many people are out of touch.

That's what I was thinking, too. It was only 5 years ago that this was the life almost everyone led. Sucky commutes, less time with kids, long stressful days at the office.

I'm not saying it's ideal, but a lot of people are acting like WFH is kind of the baseline. An entitlement. When it's really the last few years that have been weird.

I agree with you except that your assumption is that the pre-Covid approach is the gold standard. It isn't. It reflects the way the work world operated before technology enabled us to do things differently.

If workers' lives are more manageable and the work still gets done and traffic is lighter and less carbon is emitted and children are better off and people have more time to exercise and cook dinner and enjoy the sunshine, what is the point of returning to the pre-Covid way of working?

I work unconventional hours so my free time is during the day.

All I can say is that the coffee shops, Homegoods, Target, Costco, Whole Foods and local restaurants are now half empty during the day. One month or so ago, they were packed all day long. Especially the coffee shops and stores.

A lot of people were getting their work done during the day, but just as many were out shopping, catching up with friends and getting their hair done.

Yep. I’m a nurse who has worked in person for the last 10 years, 3 days/week. The change on the roads in the middle of a weekday now — ie, a couple of weeks after massive RTO in the DMV — has been DRAMATIC. I am still doing my Target runs on a Tuesday at 10:30 am like I have been consistently since 2015. This week, the arterial roads and the stores and the hair salon and the vet and the Rock Creek trails look like they used to 2015-2020. Because tens of thousands of white collar workers are at their computers at 10:30 on a Tuesday instead of getting highlights, doing Pilates, doing tempo runs and exploring Bailey’s diarrhea at the vet.

Were you required to take an elective economics class before becoming a nurse? Because consumer confidence is way down across the board which means people just aren't spending in optional things like highlights, the vet, etc. But go on blaming people on remote work.

New poster.

Friday everything was packed as usual during the day. Monday and every day since, everything is empty.

A neighborhood facebook group had a not short thread discussing how women were going to get their hair appointments scheduled now that the fed return to the office made daytime appointments impossible. Hair coloring takes several hours, so they weren't talking about getting a quick buzz cut over lunch.

A lot of people were being productive at home, but a lot were getting their nails done and doing their target runs. The immediate flipping of the switch the day of return to work and since was fairly striking, and honestly surprised me.

You do know that feds can get their work done between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. A woman could easily log in at 6, flex out at 10, get her hair done by 12 and log in, and then log out at 4:30 after completing 8 hours of work. With the expanded flexband from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m., flextime was even more generous. Feds work is tracked by computer, so they are not out here pretending to work. They are actually working, whether you understand their schedules or not.

I appreciate the larger point here but don’t you have core hours? I had maxiflex at 2 agencies but still have core hours

[Anonymous]

I am confused by commuting issue. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?