Taking FMLA in a rage over RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What diseases do u have

Laziness and entitlement

[Anonymous]

I went through a serious emergency surgery and took STD for 5 weeks even though recovery was 6 weeks. 1 week after starting STD they posted my job (only enough work for 1 person) and told me when I returned that they hired someone else and made up some BS excuse. They moved me into a lower paid position which I accepted because I was in a vulnerable state and had months of PT to get through and needed health insurance. I kept my head down and once I was mostly fully recovered, started looking for a new job and found a company that is paying me double my last salary and a better company. Focus on your health and then find a new employer. They suck.

[Anonymous]

OP just want to be sure you know FMLA can be "intermittent" if you choose. So you can go in certain days and take leave when you/your doctor decide. Thus dragging the overall FMLA leave period out longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP just want to be sure you know FMLA can be "intermittent" if you choose. So you can go in certain days and take leave when you/your doctor decide. Thus dragging the overall FMLA leave period out longer.

OP doesn’t want to go in at all though.

[Anonymous]

OP, I haven’t seen this mentioned yet, but the ADA only requires that you have *a* reasonable accommodation, not the accommodation of your choosing.

So if your position is, I have sepsis and have to be careful of not picking up germs, your employer doesn’t HAVE to let you work from home. They can say, for example, we’ll give you PPE. Or give you your own office. The ADA doesn’t mean that employees just get whatever they want. Sorry.

Just wanted to flag that as you think about next steps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would move on from whether or not OP needs FMLA.
1. As a nurse, I've seen the destruction sepsis can cause on a body. Some take a long time to recover. My MIL had it 5 years ago (she was 55) and STILL isn't at 100% and 2. Her docs signed off on it. It doesn't matter if you don't think she should get it, her docs do.

I get it OP and I find the whole thing ridiculous. I obviously cannot work from home as a nurse, so it isn't like I have a big thing in this WFH/RTO debate. But if you've been able to do your job remote for 3 years it seems insane to me that they won't let you keep working remotely, especially if it is negatively impacting the company!

Unfortunately, all you can do is keep look for WFM jobs. Are you in an industry where these are more common? It's tough because I imagine as offices start to RTO, more and more people will be looking for these remote only positions.

What you're missing is OP doesn't think she needs FMLA (as in time not working at all). She wants to work from home exclusively, not to not work. She's just using FMLA as part of her tantrum.

Definitely my impression.

OP's position is she cannot work in the office due to her condition, which apparently is supported by doctors. If that's the case and cannot WFH, that leaves FMLA.

FMLA/STD is for people who are going to come back to work. Clearly OP will never be well enough (in her own mind) to RTO.

The requirement is on the employer to hold the job, not the employee to return.

Yes but OP clearly doesn’t need FMLA or STD. She will never be “well” enough to meet the job requirements (on-site work).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grinder did RTO mandatory and 50 percent quit.

CEO said well the new lean business model should increase the bottom line.

No severance, no unemployment paid out.

That is exactly the strategy right now, for all companies requiring RTO. It’s absolutely a collective concerted effort by the powers that be in America to cull the employment herd, increase unemployment rates, reduce inflation and boost sagging corporate profits this year.

I work in finance so I understand this. People like OP think they can fight this but unfortunately it will be a losing battle for you OP. It’s much bigger than you. You can continue to put up your fight but ultimately you’ll just end up another casualty of the American corporate machine. It is powerful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

Employers will never do what's right unless forced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, you're taking it because you're "in a rage" or because you truly cannot work in office?

You sound like a complete brat and I would want you gone even if you're hard to replace, based on your post.

sorry I agree - it doesn't sound like you have a real medical need to WFH. FWIW i'd quit if required to RTO FT so I say this as someone who also hates RTO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grinder did RTO mandatory and 50 percent quit.

CEO said well the new lean business model should increase the bottom line.

No severance, no unemployment paid out.

That is exactly the strategy right now, for all companies requiring RTO. It’s absolutely a collective concerted effort by the powers that be in America to cull the employment herd, increase unemployment rates, reduce inflation and boost sagging corporate profits this year.

I work in finance so I understand this. People like OP think they can fight this but unfortunately it will be a losing battle for you OP. It’s much bigger than you. You can continue to put up your fight but ultimately you’ll just end up another casualty of the American corporate machine. It is powerful.

This is true- and sometimes the wrong people quit under this strategy - but this is the strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grinder did RTO mandatory and 50 percent quit.

CEO said well the new lean business model should increase the bottom line.

No severance, no unemployment paid out.

That is exactly the strategy right now, for all companies requiring RTO. It’s absolutely a collective concerted effort by the powers that be in America to cull the employment herd, increase unemployment rates, reduce inflation and boost sagging corporate profits this year.

I work in finance so I understand this. People like OP think they can fight this but unfortunately it will be a losing battle for you OP. It’s much bigger than you. You can continue to put up your fight but ultimately you’ll just end up another casualty of the American corporate machine. It is powerful.

This is true- and sometimes the wrong people quit under this strategy - but this is the strategy.

In this case they’re culling op, who is lazy and entitled, so they’re doing the smart thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grinder did RTO mandatory and 50 percent quit.

CEO said well the new lean business model should increase the bottom line.

No severance, no unemployment paid out.

That is exactly the strategy right now, for all companies requiring RTO. It’s absolutely a collective concerted effort by the powers that be in America to cull the employment herd, increase unemployment rates, reduce inflation and boost sagging corporate profits this year.

I work in finance so I understand this. People like OP think they can fight this but unfortunately it will be a losing battle for you OP. It’s much bigger than you. You can continue to put up your fight but ultimately you’ll just end up another casualty of the American corporate machine. It is powerful.

This is true- and sometimes the wrong people quit under this strategy - but this is the strategy.

+1 And the ones left behind are either inept or see talented coworkers gone and struggle with all their work too, plus dismay that that their company could behave this way-- and they quit too. You're left with nobody who can really do the work, which is much more expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

You have it backwards. Many people have medical conditions that "entitle us to FMLA" and--gasp--don't take that leave. It's usually better for our employers that we do not. Sometimes the way we are able to do this is via reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

If the employer is not reasonably engaging in the interactive process, it's reasonable for OP to be pretty damned angry--they have a legal obligation they are refusing to perform--and she's also entirely within her rights at that point to go on FMLA.

Crazies in this thread saying people bounce right back from sepsis. You're nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either:
1) have a medical condition that means you CAN'T work, at least a regular schedule, which entitles you to FMLA; or
2) have a medical condition that means you CAN work with an accommodation such as WFH

You played the game and you lost, overplayed your hand.

Can you articulate how your history of sepsis means that you can work, if remotely? Clearly, your medical providers could not.

You are mistaken. People who can’t work a regular schedule are often accommodated via schedule and location adjustments—thru ADA. If an employer refuses those accommodations and doesn’t engage on what could be done instead, taking leave protected by FMLA is an appropriate choice—and a right of the employee.

The condition may change, the employer’s sense of what is “reasonable” may change, and in all of our lifetimes underlying working conditions have abruptly shifted once so far.

I am not mistaken. Both of my numbered statements are correct.

Your two numbered statements do not cover every conceivable combination of medical condition, accommodation need and employer ability to tolerate accommodation. So, while true, they are mistaken in that they don’t account for all of the context. Bye.

They do. Let me put it another way- If you have a medical condition that entitles you to FMLA, which is "leave" which means NOT WORKING, then there would be no reason to even consider the location of this not working time.

You have it backwards. Many people have medical conditions that "entitle us to FMLA" and--gasp--don't take that leave. It's usually better for our employers that we do not. Sometimes the way we are able to do this is via reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

If the employer is not reasonably engaging in the interactive process, it's reasonable for OP to be pretty damned angry--they have a legal obligation they are refusing to perform--and she's also entirely within her rights at that point to go on FMLA.

Crazies in this thread saying people bounce right back from sepsis. You're nuts.

PP here. The bolded is accurate. My point though was that once OP decided to go the FMLA route, the employer has no reason/incentive to talk about WFM. OP's choice shifted the conversation not from location of work to WHETHER to work. What OP should have done was stay firmly on the RA path until documented approval or denial. This was the stategicaly exact wrong move.