OSHA Trying to "Protect" Telecommuters 237
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, IRS, The Man (Score:1)
Likewise, with regard to taking a tax deduction on one room of the house, a computer purchase, etc, isn't that just asking for the IRS to get their nose in your life? Do you really use said item strictly for work, and not for playing the latest, greatest Loki game? That TV in this room, how is it needed for your work? You can't use the room for personal storage. One thing I have heard from many, and Rush Limbaugh was just talking about on his radio show a little bit ago, is that some deductions like one room of a house are a big red flag to the IRS to audit you. It could certainly could be used by some to "cheat" on their taxes. My attitude is basically, why involve them if you don't have to? The chair at my desk is mine, I don't have to answer to anyone as to whether I use it only for work or also for porn viewing.
Heh, I guess many issues of an independant contractor and the big, bad government could be an Ask Slashdot forum in itself. Anyone suffered an audit because they were an independant contractor? Of course, we could just vote for folks like Forbes and have a flat tax with no loopholes, simple, no questions asked. But I guess the vast majority of folks just don't care enough, and they'll get scared their Welfare/Social Security will run out if we have no IRS.
Re:OSHA Trying to maintain its relevalance (Score:1)
Here's the conspiracy theorists' kicker. Some say the unions may be behind this. It's tough enough for them nowadays to gather a herd of sheep together and tell them what's best for them. First they get exclusive contracts with companies, if you want to work at X company, you MUST be in a union and pay dues. So if you spread those sheep out in their homes across the globe, it's pretty much impossible for them to get their hand in the kettle.
This is just the first of a series of dominos to start falling. If OSHA declares my home a workplace, then shouldn't I have wheelchair access in case someone with one wants to visit me during a business meeting? Or during their visit, what i f they see too many CDR discs lying around? Will they wind up reporting it, as it's an obvious sign of piracy? The video game (or DVD, music, etc) industries can't go losing sextillions because of such devices. So, in the name of them staying in business, you need to pop each disc in a computer in a courtroom, declare what each file is, where it came from, etc with sales receipts, notarized documents of source code you've written, etc. Of course, if you don't have all that, you can just pay the $10,000 fine and be done with it (until next time). With these sort of agencies, it's never the end. They are always looking for better ways to generate revenue under the guise of "We know what's best for you."
With all these hassles, who in their right mind would work at home? And with everyone back in workplaces like they belong, the man can continue to blast subliminal messages through that awful musak in the speakers. Mind control is a wonderful thing.
Rest assured, if it makes you less dependant, it cannot be good.
Re:Litigous Society (Score:1)
Likewise, to reduce liability, your employer would tell you "You can only use this zone while doing work." So now, that 10% is not considered your house, but your employer's work area. So much for that great feeling owning your own home. And when you quit, retire, or whatnot, since the company paid for everything in the work zone, it's all coming out.
Re:I smell abuse here..... (Score:1)
Who should get the profits from selling this house now? If you leave Company X, should you pay them back for all the home repairs they did?
The only conclusion I can see in all these hassles is the gubmint wants to cut back the number of people working at home. So axe yourself, why would they want that?
Re:I think it needs to be covered (Score:1)
In order for you to work at home, your company will have to get liability insurance on it. So the insurance company comes out, suggests what needs changing, then it's certified "OK to work in." Now if you refuse that, then the insurance isn't given to your company. Without insurance they won't let you work at home. So either you accept, or quit.
OSHA is only hinting that companies should start inspections. If you get hurt at home, then OSHA may come out and make an inspection. That, or a coworker gets pissed at you and rats you out anonymously to OSHA, in which case you've got to prove your innocence/safety. Much like people abuse DCFS, accusing each other of child molesting. Then, in the interest of keeping the child safe, you must prove you didn't molest your daughter. It's sad, but some people will do such things. And it's bound to spread to these home offices and OSHA.
Keep the 2nd ammendment equipment handy, nonetheless.
Most companies don't want telecommuting anyway (Score:1)
Many managers figure if they can't walk around the corner anytime they want and look in on you, you ain't working. They pick at the idea anyway. These are the same people who gripe about traffic jams. We don't need expensive commuter trains few will ride. Most office workers do not need to be at the workplace between 8 and 5 every day. The reasons why telecommuting isn't more widely deployed are mostly political now anyway. OSHA's announcement gives them another reason to stonewall.
Interesting moneymaking... (Score:1)
- Get a limilited liability company
- Get a loan
- Sue your company (and pocket the cash)
- Bankrupt your company
pop quiz -- what's wrong with this thinking?John
Re:IF WE DON'T VOTE FOR 'EM, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE 'E (Score:1)
People who actually have truly hazardous jobs definitely do support OSHA. Many companies used to get away with all kinds of things that they would not be able to get away with today. The working conditions in some jobs caused the premature deaths of the workers. Things such as inhaling lead particles or asbestos do bad things to people. Making employers responsible for a safe working environment was a good thing.
There is still the question of how far the power of OSHA should extend though. I think that there have been some good posts addressing just that.
Re:Borrowed Context (Score:1)
bye bye to telecommuting (Score:1)
Companies operate on one thing (dotcoms seemingly excepted)-- bottom line. If telecommuting does not provide quantifiable cost savings, it won't ever happen in 99% of companies. All of the other issues (worker productivity, turnover, employee happiness, etc) matter precisely one whit in the face of potential expenditures.
Most companies (specifically the old guard in management) are already reticent about telecommuting because of unfamiliarity. What is really needed to get them going is something like a Forrester report showing specific cost savings across the board for companies that allow/promote telecommuting.
Regulation like this has the potential to destroy all the potential positive benefits (less cars on the road, etc.) by preventing companies from ever implementing it. Companies aren't going to do something that costs them money and opens them up to more potential litigation.
Where the lines are drawn... (Score:1)
"I do think [employers] should help pay for ergonomic furniture and an appropriate working environment."--Slashdot
"An employer is responsible for ensuring that its employees have a safe and healthful workplace, not a safe and healthful home,"--OSHA
Looks like OSHA's done something Slashdot agrees with. Oh the humanity!
An LA Times article giving views both pro- and con- can be read here. [latimes.com]
Depends on why you're working at home (Score:1)
If I'm working at home by choice then what I use is up to me and if it causes me harm then its my own fault. However it might be in my employers best interest to spring for the Henry Miller Aeron chair, an ergonmicly sane desk and send me to a physiotherapist to learn a few exercises to keep my body working. If I'm not able to work then that effects the company.
If I'm required to work at home, whether due to mismanagement I'm required to work extra hours or its in the job description then the company should be responsible.
It's either unenforcible or extremely abusable though. Either the legislation will have no teeth and can be safely ignored or people who change jobs frequently (say a contractor) will be able to furnish their homes in nice new ergonmic furniture.
government bloat (Score:1)
OSHA's job is basically to take the common sense of the workplace and make it law. Seems like a good idea on the surface, yes? Flip through the hundreds of binders that house the collected works of OSHA and you'll change your mind. They have rules about EVERYTHING. Railings must be EXACTLY 42 inches off the ground (IIRC), planks may not extend more than 3 feet beyond the edge of a scaffold, et cetera, ad naseum.
If I want to build my railings forty-FOUR inches off the ground, or maybe THIRTY-SIX! I can, but not if I want to pass a building inspection. Why don't I have the right to build my railings whatever height I want? And, more to the point, why shouldn't telecommuters have the right to as un-ergonomic of a workstation as they like, without their employer fearing an OSHA audit?
As geeks, we have a different perspective on workplace ergonomics than most. Many of us live at our keyboards and mice/trackballs/whatever. We're just BEGGING to acquire Repetitive Stress Injury (correct term?). But, as geeks, we should also realize that the only way to do it right is to do it yourself. Some gov't agency requiring your employer to meet some arbitrarily set standard is NOT the right way to do it. YOU should go to YOUR employer and say, "I require better ergonomics. I need a new keyboard, a desk that's X units high and a chair that's blah blah blah. And if you can't cut it, I'm out." You get the idea. I'm sure a lot of you are making $50,000/yr or more, your employer can afford to buy you a new chair at your request. And if they "can't", is that the kind of place you want to work? I know *I'd* prefer to work somewhere where the management cares enough about its employees to either on its own or at their behest provide an ergonomically sound working environment, rather than waiting until some tax-wasting gov't agency forces them to.
Our government simply has its grubby paws in too many aspects of our lives, and with OUR money to boot. Enough is enough.
www.lp.org [lp.org]
www.self-gov.org [self-gov.org]
MoNsTeR
Re:Taxes (Score:1)
This leaves aside the whole point of the probably mythical character of the office-in-home deduction. The rules about it are so tight and intractable that practically nobody can take it.
osha bashing (Score:1)
I was looking at some osha standards just a week or two ago, regarding chemical exposure. The osha standard is actually above the level at which you can see medical problems due to exposure. I.e. the standard is rougly "not enough to keep you healthy, but enough to keep you from being too sick to do your job."
This is over regulation? This is pathetic. You shouldn't have to trade your health for a job. Osha doesn't have half the bite people are claiming it does. America is quite lax about protecting the health of workers.
There are certainly quite long and specific regulations, but what everyone overlooks is They were put there for a reason: an employer somewhere found a way make money by sacrificing the health of their employees (probably without their knowledge or consent), and Osha had to add more regulation to close the loop-hole.
In other words, if industry were mature enough to behave responsibly, these regulations wouldn't exist. They aren't, so regulations are put in place, and industry has to live with the paper work.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:1)
No.
The point is that more and more employers are requiring employees to work from home.
If the conditions of my employment require me to perform certain activities, then OSHA wants to make sure that the employer is responsible for providing a safe environment for me to work in. If that means an ergonomic chair, then the requirements at the office should be no different from the requirements at home. A decent chair is no less a "tool" of my trade than the keyboard and monitor are...
OSHA can kiss my ass! (Score:1)
No Way (Score:1)
Keep OSHA Outta My House (Score:1)
As Sensible as any OSHA Regs (Score:1)
I love telecommuting and a flex schedule. It improves the quality of my work life immensely. But the fact is that is it in both the employer's and employee's best interests that both parties agree on what constitutes an acceptible home office, and who is responsible for any and all of the costs associated with establishing, maintaining, and running a home office. As long as a telecommuter is considered an employee and not an independent contractor, it makes sense that any OSHA regulations pertaining to the workplace would apply to home offices.
Now, wether or not OSHA regulations are reasonable at all is an entirely different question. I'm sure my home office would not measure up in a few ways (like the overloaded circuits in my basement), but I wouldn't really mind discussing and negotiating these problems with my boss - even if I had to eat the expenses. In the meantime I'll probably continue to procrastinate and just live with conditions as they are.
Re: Ideological Rant (Score:1)
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:1)
Again, this has nothing to do with it. A job is a private transaction, and either party is free to walk away from it. If you are being required to work in an ergonomically unsafe environment, you have a numbher of options. You can ask the employer for the chair. If he refuses, you can quit. You can pay for the chair yourself.
I object to the idea that I'm too helpless to look out for my own health. If I accept a job that requires me to work in poor conditions, that is every bit as much my fault as if I accept a job that is boring, underpaid, requires me to work excessive hours, or has any number of other downsides. This is particularly silly because we're talking about programmers, as they are some of the best-paid and most sought-after employees in the market. Most telecommuters could quit their jobs and find a new one in a week. I suspect that most of them could go to their bosses and demand a new chair and they'd get it on the spot. And if they didn't, my guess is that most of them could afford to buy their own. We don't need OSHA beaurocrats to take care of us.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:1)
What about them? They need to take responsibility for their own health too.
What I often wonder about with these anti-government/anti-worker types is what do they think THEY get out of it?
Freedom. As a worker, I want the right to decide which benefits are worth demanding from my employer, and which I would prefer to do without. If the government sets a standard for telecommuters that doesn't include the chair I have (even if I'm perfectly happy with my existing chair) it is quite possible that my employer will simply prohibit me from working at home to prevent a lawsuit. This sort of thing occurs all the time. For example, I have been explicitly told not to work overtime because my employer is no willing to pay time-and-a-half. I would be perfectly happy to work at the normal rate, but because of that law, I am prevented from doing so.
Laws designed to "protect" workers simply force employers to give employees things that the employees my or may not want, and those things often come out of the worker's other benefits or paycheck. Workers (even coal miners) are not helpless victims of "the system." In a free society they have the option to quit at any time. That they don't is their choice, and they should take responsibility for that choice.
This is ridiculous (Score:1)
I don't understand why this has to be a seperate "benefit." After all, if the employer has to pay for lots of on-the-job benefits, he can just reduce the amount of your next raise to cover it. Money does not grow on trees.
That's not to say that employer-funded ergonomics is a bad thing, but I don't understand why it needs to become politicized by OSHA. A job is a private transaction between an employer and an employee, so the government should butt out.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:1)
The issue is the same for poor workers, it's just more ridiculous for poor workers. But I support the right of poor workers to accept any kind of job they like just as I accept that right for wealthy workers.
Farmed-out low-paying data processing will grow enormously. Let's start the laws now so we can develop useful ones. Contracting will soon be not just the employment of those with initiative.
True, but the issue will be the same. These ergonomic benefits will not come for free, and there may be many workers who would prefer to forgo them in exchange for other benefits or higher pay. This regulation will prevent them from doing that.
Re:Not just Telecommuters (Score:1)
Aaahh! That explains the solder blobs that were stuck all over the carpet of the apartment we lived in back in the early '90s.
While I've never really done any telecommuting, my wife did after our girls were born. But, she had to quit and become a contractor in order to telecommute (due to the dinosaur-brained reasoning of the company's HR people) and, basically, do the same programming job she had before. They did not supply her with a PC but she had my old one that was sitting around after I upgraded. They did supply her with the versions of any software she'd need to use on the PC in order to do the work (Office, Notes, etc.) and were pretty damned helpful in providing timely phone support while she get it installed and configured. But, as far as ergonimics was concerned, she had a better setup at home than she had at the company's headquarters. Most office environments are still pretty awful with regard to the proper ergonomics needed for extended computer use. Usually, the desktops are too high for use as a keyboard support. And I've never met anyone who's been able to tolerate those under-the-desktop, swing-up keyboard trays for more than a day.
At a previous employer, they were trying to encourage some people to telecommute! Of course, I think it was a perk/ploy to keep some key people from quitting, but they were supplying just about anything you'd need to do it (PCs, etc.). Trouble was that most of the people they were letting do this were in positions that made telecommuting really tough. It's a bear trying to do remote administration of the systems that these guys had to support (guess what kind those were [wink]) or to install printers when you're at home.
Would I want OSHA coming into our home to check out the workspace? Heck no! Glad they said they wouldn't be doing that. Would I want to have my employer coming in to inspect the setup? Again, heck no, but I might just tolerate it. Especially if it meant that I wasn't driving for 90 minutes one-way or spending two-plus hours getting to work via train and on foot. Unfortunately, my commute is only 10-15 minutes nowadays but it would still be nice to work at home. After a tough day, even a 15 minute commute is a pain. Funny how spoiled we get, eh? Of course, if I ever change jobs and I want to keep my commute short it'll probably mean starting a home-based business.
BTW, what is the smallest size company that comes under OSHA's jurisdiction? Anyone know off the top of their head? Somebody else posted that they thought that this OSHA decision would adversely affect the SOHO area.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:1)
--
Re:Disagree (Score:1)
Not necessarily. I've just been hired to work 75% out of my home, with the other 25% being travel, so there is no place of employment for me to go to. With the money employers save by not having to supply office space, I think it is not unreasonable to expect the employer to contribute to the health of my home work environment.
Better Red than Dead? (Score:1)
Face it, most employers don't force their employees to work at home, it's a benefit. All this does is prevent employers from providing the benefit to employees who want it, because of the few whiners who don't want to take any responsibility for their own lives.
Does this mean... (Score:1)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:1)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:1)
It looks like we're fighting over a definition of 'required'. As far as I'm concerned, a company is 'required' to carry out inspections if their insurance company refuses to cover them if they don't do so. And a company without liability insurance will last, oh, about three hours in america.
Legally, the company isn't required to carry out inspections. Practically, they are.
Re:Does this mean... (Score:1)
the alternative is grim. (Score:1)
Telecommuting is expected to increase drastically in popularity over the next few years. It could lead to considerable savings in workplace maintenance costs if it really takes off. That gives employers an incentive to encourage telecommuting.
Now suppose that employers were not held responsible for injuries incurred in a home office. That would be a winning lottery ticket for any big corporation. They would cream their jeans over that. They couldn't encourage telecommuting fast enough if they had that out. Working 16 hours a day gave you a bad case of carpal tunnel? Sorry, not our fault, you did it at home! Got migraines from straining to read that 13" monitor? Sucks to be you, since you did it at home and not here.
From a safety standpoint, the home office must be considered part of the workplace in order to avoid giving the corporate sector an incredible opportunity to save big bucks at the expense of their employees' health. This is exactly the sort of thing that OSHA is supposed to be doing.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:1)
"If an employer is allowing it to happen, it is covered," said Charles Jeffress, the assistant secretary of labor in charge of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, . . .
jeff_C
OSHA, EPA, and the IRS: Pure Evil (Score:1)
OSHA is a splendid example of the mess the US government is in. Much like EPA (Oh, don't get me started on the EPA...), they essentially have no accountability to anyone, and can, for all intents and purposes, make up whatever screwy rules they want. (I'm especially bitter about the EPA doing the same thing; Milwaukee, WI is in the same EPA "zone" as Gary, Indiana. So, we get stuck with the regulations for a high-pollution zone, most notably the incredibly shitty reformulated gas that lowers some emissions, raises some others, drops your power by as much as 10%, and drops your fuel economy by 5-9 mpg. (at least, it does in the last 5 car's I've owned, ranging from a '76 TransAm to a '91 turbo Eagle Talon) Why? Because OSHA says so, and there's not a damn thing anyone can really do about it. But I digress.
Interesting tidbit heard on the radio about this whole fiasco: The number of people claiming deductions on their taxes for home office / telecommuting has exploded in the last few years, and the IRS is concerned about revenue, so they nudge OSHA to issue some statement like this in hopes of scaring employers into eliminating telecommuting. I'm torn on this one: I despise OSHA, and the IRS (who, admittedly, have gotten a _little_ better in the last 2-3 years), but I'm also reminded of the saying "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetance".
Yes, organizations like OSHA have a small, limited use in preventing sweat-shop conditions in factories and the like, but for chrissakes, my previous employed was fined by OSHA for not having Material Safety Data Sheets for freekin' White-Out in the secretaries' desks. Yes, if you're moving crates of lye or drain cleaner, you need to know what's in there, and what to do if you pour a gallon of it in your eye, but WHITEOUT and Lysol? Come on.
The point I'm getting at, really, is that this declaration by OSHA is just a symptom of a much, much more serious problem with OSHA, the EPA, FEMA(*), etc. Government organizations with no accountability to anyone and no representation by anyone affected.
(Slightly off-topic:
(*) FEMA is scary. I'd dig up links, but if you care, they're easy to find.)
Re:If it's part of the job..... (Score:1)
However, if your company requires you to work from home and doesn't have a permanent place for you in the office, you should be able to get a least a desk, chair & phone. The company will still be saving on facilities costs.
Remove Your Blinders (Score:1)
Many people who work at home are doing data entry or light industrial work such as electronics assembly. This isn't voluntary, and it may be the only job they can get.
Electronics assembly often involves toxic chemicals and materials. They do work in conditions that would give an industrial safety engineer a heart attack. The company is not only outsourcing the work, it is using the off-site nature of the work as an excuse to dodge the costs of providing a safe workplace and a way to ignore labor laws.
Re:Does this mean... (Score:1)
1) Employers are not *required* to inspect employees homes
2) Not being required to do something does not mean they are not *allowed* to do something
3) therefore, if an employer wishes to inspect a home, there's nothing stopping them (sure, they can't just walk in anytime they want, but there's nothing stopping them from making inspections a requirement for those to wish to work at home)
Employers are not being *prevented* from doing inspections. They are just not *required* to do them. But even if they don't do them, they are still responsible for unsafe conditions. These are exactly the same rules that apply to the employer's own premises. Nobody makes them do inspections of their own property, but even if they don't inspect them, they are responsible for unsafe conditions. The main difference between the employer's property and the employee's property is that OSHA will not be knocking on the employee's door.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Re:Does this mean... (Score:1)
NO HOME INSPECTIONS
OSHA officials made it clear they have no intention of conducting inspections at private homes the way they do at employer work sites. And they are not requiring employers to routinely inspect the home work sites of their employees. But the advisory does hold employers responsible for any illnesses or injuries that occur in the home workplace.
What next? (Score:1)
I am also not suppose to read slashdot from the office (yeah right!... but they never said anything about posting. *smile*). Does this mean they have to right to tell me I can't balance my check book or browse the web using equipment they provide? Even during non-work hours?
If I choose to work at home, then all the employer should be concerned about is the quality of my work and prompt payment for services rendered.
quack
Ergonomic Keyboards (Score:1)
The thought of paying for a $400 US Maltron keyboard makes me feel ill. I'm typing on a Logitech NewTouch keyboard, but I still experience wrist pain. The employer should be responsible for this expense.
Re:I smell abuse here..... (Score:1)
Of course, this has the potential for working in the other direction as well. One of the things that doesn't seem to be terribly well-addressed is how much the employer can mandate what the conditions at home are.
For instance, can they (my employer) say that they don't want me to use my Aeron chair (for whatever reason). Or that I have to have the same glaring overhead flourescent lighting that I have at work? Do I have install anti-static carpet over my hardwood floor?
The whole thing just strikes me as being more than just a bit silly. How many telecommuter injuries have been reported, anyway?
Keep the suits out of my house.... (Score:1)
(Score:1)
You've go soap in the head.
(Score:1)
You've got soap in the head.
TIME TO *DO* SOMETHING ABOUT IT (Score:2)
OSHA Contact Directory http://www.osha.gov/oshdir/consult.html [osha.gov]
Find and contact your Representative http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ [visi.com]
White House Contact Info http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/html/principals.h tml [whitehouse.gov]
Contact other elected officials or candidates: http://www.vote-smart.org/ [vote-smart.org]
(And did we mention that a policy like this is unconstitutional?) Whatever you choose to do, just do SOMETHING.
This is unfortunate (Score:2)
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.
Rights (Score:2)
I think it needs to be covered (Score:2)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:2)
ARRRGGGHH! (Score:2)
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
Re:ARRRGGGHH! (Score:2)
1: Most companies that pull that kind of stuff will lose employees anyways due to being generally cheeseheaded. Chances are that would just be the tip of the iceberg.
2: Kind of related - a company that is in financial trouble isn't that likely to be sending employees off as telecommuters - it's likelier to be tossing them overboard entirely.
But you're right - the "take one for the team" pressure can be intense at times. Employees need to stand up for their right to be equipped properly. I would anticipate that existing laws should be sufficient to protect the worker, though.
- -Josh Turiel
This will only prevent telecommuting (Score:2)
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 don't know about this (Score:2)
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.
Update: OSHA ruling has been retracted (Score:2)
The Secretary of Labor has overruled OSHA. The ruling is cancelled. See this CNN story [cnn.com].
Productivity & Working at Home (Score:2)
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. :-)
Re:Borrowed Context (Score:2)
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.
Re:Litigous Society (Score:2)
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.
Torn (Score:2)
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.
This happened here in Holland and it went bad... (Score:2)
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
Re:Purpose of Government (Score:2)
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.
Purpose of Government (Score:2)
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.
Re:Employees don't stop being employees offsite. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Disagree (Score:2)
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.
Re:Disagree (Score:2)
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.
happy medium? what's the problem? (Score:2)
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 it's part of the job..... (Score:2)
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.
Waivers? (Score:2)
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
Re:Well, it depends... (Score:2)
This is going to be a real problem... (Score:2)
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.
In Need Of Revisement - Limited Waivers, Perhaps? (Score:2)
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!
If you want to kill telecommuting.... (Score:2)
OSHA has a duty to enforce workplace regulations; but if they push the issue, growth of SOHO's will drop like a plummeting anvil.
Re:This will only prevent telecommuting (Score:2)
And here's a tricky situation: you telecommute and also run a home business on the side. ConHugeCo, your employer, has provided you with a regulation-issue ergonomic chair, desk, lamp, blotter, keyboard, etc, all meeting OSHA and ConHugeCo standards. Now, after "work", when you sit down in the very same chair to run your side business, are you now improperly using company property? How about if you're using a separate ISP account?
A smarter regulation would be to prohibit companies from refusing to pay for ergonomic equipment requested by telecommuters (within reason, of course), not to force a certain home environment standard.
--
Re:Borrowed Context (Score:2)
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?
Re:Well, it depends... (Score:2)
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
Congressman looking to reverse this OSHA decision (Score:2)
I don't know if anybody reads day-old SlashDot threads, but today's Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] has an article [washingtonpost.com] 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.
OSHA Regulations - Good? Yes and No. (Score:2)
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
Re:Employees don't stop being employees offsite. (Score:2)
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.
--
Who owns it? (Score:2)
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.
--
Re:What about if your landlord provides furniture? (Score:2)
--
Re:This will only prevent telecommuting (Score:2)
If you produce significantly more by being able to work at home, it's easy to make a strong business case for that. On the other hand, if it's merely a matter of personal convenience, then don't expect an enthusiastic response; they aren't in business for your convenience, after all.
I suspect, although I have no personal knowledge in this instance, that they're simply leery about having people work at home, away from teams and/or management. Perhaps they have been burned in the past in this respect; perhaps they're merely conservative and slow to change. Or they're authoritarian. There are any number of reasons.
My own firm brings consulting work from across North America to our home base in Toronto for that reason, and very few of us work onsite (and even then only for as long as necessary); we can work from home at our own discretion, but that defeats the purpose of having every member of a team in one geographical location. As for me, I only work from home when I have to; working with a team is far more productive.
--
Re:Employees don't stop being employees offsite. (Score:2)
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.
--
Re:Waivers? (Score:2)
I'm going through something like this right now arranging for part time telecommuting. I don't have a satisfactory chair for work. Should my employer be forced to buy me one?
Also, although I like the notion of my employer not getting a free ride anymore, I certainly don't like the idea of OSHA inspectors or my employer inspecting my house!
ps. I do think the employer should provide a PC for this purpose. They should not be entitled to free storage on mine.
Short walk to the crapper (Score:2)
We'll all pay for this (Score:2)
Re:ARRRGGGHH! (Score:2)
Home Inspections!?!?!? (Score:2)
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.
Bad Policy Initiative... (Score:2)
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.
Re:OSHA Trying to maintain its relevalance (Score:2)
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.
Well, it depends... (Score:2)
Borrowed Context (Score:3)
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 Trying to maintain its relevalance (Score:3)
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.
My rotten employer. (Score:3)
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
IANAL (Joy, oh, joy!) (Score:3)
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?
Also on Washington Post (Score:3)
http://www.washing tonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A955-2000Jan3.html [washingtonpost.com]
I don't telecommute from home (Score:3)
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.
What about if your landlord provides furniture? (Score:3)
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?
Employees don't stop being employees offsite. (Score:3)
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.
--
I smell abuse here..... (Score:3)
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?