That’s like saying “We can’t do anything about hiring discrimination against people in wheelchairs because what if one wants to be a firefighter?” Employers must give reasonable accomodations, which, if provided, enable an employee to do the job. If you have a tech job and have a moral objection to computers or the internet, you won’t be able to do your job and that is not a reasonable accommodation.
All this means is that a manager can’t force you to use AI so long as you’re able to meet performance standards without it. It’s incredibly reasonable and your argument is completely disconnected from reality.
So now, employees can pick which software they have a religious exemption from? So I can say that I my religion does not permit me to use spreadsheets. Now I don’t have to use them?
I don’t care if people don’t want to use ai, but this precedent is not sustainable. One person on the team decides that their religion does not permit use of a computer. What the hell do you do? You can’t fire them for observing a religious practice (according to the ai thing) so what? They just sit there picking their nose while I have to cover all the work they aren’t doing? Work has to make accomodations? Give this person a typewriter and some carbon paper?
Maybe I have a religious exemption from thinking about anything but god.
All this does is makes work difficult for anyone else without an exemption. Now everyone gets one. Now companies just say, “fuck this, we will find new ways to fire people and bake them into law”.
I don’t care if people don’t want to use ai, but this precedent is not sustainable. One person on the team decides that their religion does not permit use of a computer. What the hell do you do? You can’t fire them for observing a religious practice (according to the ai thing) so what?
Completely wrong. If the job necessitates the use of a computer, then being unable or unwilling to use a computer is grounds to be fired. That in no way conflicts with this precedence.
Maybe I have a religious exemption from thinking about anything but god.
Seems like you’ll get fired very quickly then.
All this does is makes work difficult for anyone else without an exemption.
No it doesn’t.
You seem be having trouble understanding what the “reasonable” part of “reasonable accomodation” means.
You really don’t think this will ever be a problem. Just can’t see that eh?
Well enjoy your particular version of the world. I’ve had shit like this happen at work MANY times. Someone is “sick” and takes FMLA. Abuses it. Comes back just long enough to reset the clock then gone again for another 12 weeks. There are a good number of people who do nothing but find ways to do shit like this. Now they have another round in the clip.
If you’ve never had to deal with this shit, consider yourself lucky.
No, I’m the fucking chump that has to do the work while they’re out!!
Do any of you have jobs? You really think a big company is going to eat shit when this stuff happens?!
Here’s a fucking hint: they don’t. They just squeeze the remaining employees harder. Every company. You can go get a new job and it will happen there too.
When they do mass layoffs, did you think that the people who didn’t get cut just carry on like normal? The worst time to be at a company is after the cuts because there is the same amount of work and just fewer people to do it.
What if, instead of taking sick leave, a coworker just quit? Do they have a responsibility to keep working at a job they don’t like, because you’ll have more work to do? Are you going to blame every person on the planet for not applying to work at your company to lighten your workload? No, if the company increases your workload instead of just hiring someone else, that’s on the company.
Assuming you’re able to see that, then suppose a full-time employee changes to part-time. Again, if the company places more on your plate rather than finding someone else to make up the hours, that’s on them, not your coworker.
So now, we can consider if a coworker takes medical leave. All they’re doing is reducing the numbers of hours they end up working, for lower pay. How is that any different from the other two cases? If the company simply puts it on you to make up the difference, it is 0% the coworker’s fault and 100% on the company.
How can you not see how completely backwards your logic is? It’s the company making the decision to make your work more rather than bringing on more staff. This is like, if a husband beats his wife after the kid makes too much noise, and the wife blames the kid instead of the husband! Maybe your company decides to treat you worse when they’re short-staffed but that’s 100% the company’s decision to do that and it’s also 100% the company’s decision to not hire more people. You’re making huge leaps to blame your coworkers and lick the company’s boots.
That’s not how anything works.
That’s like saying “We can’t do anything about hiring discrimination against people in wheelchairs because what if one wants to be a firefighter?” Employers must give reasonable accomodations, which, if provided, enable an employee to do the job. If you have a tech job and have a moral objection to computers or the internet, you won’t be able to do your job and that is not a reasonable accommodation.
All this means is that a manager can’t force you to use AI so long as you’re able to meet performance standards without it. It’s incredibly reasonable and your argument is completely disconnected from reality.
Well now this whole thing is worse.
So now, employees can pick which software they have a religious exemption from? So I can say that I my religion does not permit me to use spreadsheets. Now I don’t have to use them?
I don’t care if people don’t want to use ai, but this precedent is not sustainable. One person on the team decides that their religion does not permit use of a computer. What the hell do you do? You can’t fire them for observing a religious practice (according to the ai thing) so what? They just sit there picking their nose while I have to cover all the work they aren’t doing? Work has to make accomodations? Give this person a typewriter and some carbon paper?
Maybe I have a religious exemption from thinking about anything but god.
All this does is makes work difficult for anyone else without an exemption. Now everyone gets one. Now companies just say, “fuck this, we will find new ways to fire people and bake them into law”.
None of this ends well.
I literally just addressed these points.
Completely wrong. If the job necessitates the use of a computer, then being unable or unwilling to use a computer is grounds to be fired. That in no way conflicts with this precedence.
Seems like you’ll get fired very quickly then.
No it doesn’t.
You seem be having trouble understanding what the “reasonable” part of “reasonable accomodation” means.
You really don’t think this will ever be a problem. Just can’t see that eh?
Well enjoy your particular version of the world. I’ve had shit like this happen at work MANY times. Someone is “sick” and takes FMLA. Abuses it. Comes back just long enough to reset the clock then gone again for another 12 weeks. There are a good number of people who do nothing but find ways to do shit like this. Now they have another round in the clip.
If you’ve never had to deal with this shit, consider yourself lucky.
Oh no! Someone’s “abusing” their unpaid sick days! The horror! What are you, a cop?
No, I’m the fucking chump that has to do the work while they’re out!!
Do any of you have jobs? You really think a big company is going to eat shit when this stuff happens?!
Here’s a fucking hint: they don’t. They just squeeze the remaining employees harder. Every company. You can go get a new job and it will happen there too.
When they do mass layoffs, did you think that the people who didn’t get cut just carry on like normal? The worst time to be at a company is after the cuts because there is the same amount of work and just fewer people to do it.
Wake the fuck up.
You’re blaming completely the wrong people.
What if, instead of taking sick leave, a coworker just quit? Do they have a responsibility to keep working at a job they don’t like, because you’ll have more work to do? Are you going to blame every person on the planet for not applying to work at your company to lighten your workload? No, if the company increases your workload instead of just hiring someone else, that’s on the company.
Assuming you’re able to see that, then suppose a full-time employee changes to part-time. Again, if the company places more on your plate rather than finding someone else to make up the hours, that’s on them, not your coworker.
So now, we can consider if a coworker takes medical leave. All they’re doing is reducing the numbers of hours they end up working, for lower pay. How is that any different from the other two cases? If the company simply puts it on you to make up the difference, it is 0% the coworker’s fault and 100% on the company.
How can you not see how completely backwards your logic is? It’s the company making the decision to make your work more rather than bringing on more staff. This is like, if a husband beats his wife after the kid makes too much noise, and the wife blames the kid instead of the husband! Maybe your company decides to treat you worse when they’re short-staffed but that’s 100% the company’s decision to do that and it’s also 100% the company’s decision to not hire more people. You’re making huge leaps to blame your coworkers and lick the company’s boots.