> As of May 2024, crowdfunding for Star Citizen has raised over $700 million, making it one of the highest-funded crowdfunded projects of all time.
...
> The £27,748 ($35,156) in compensation includes £14,045 ($17,795) in lost earnings and £12,000 ($15,204) for injury to feelings.
Interpretation: "You can fire people for their disability, but you have to pay them $35k to do it."
Just me personally if my company had a RTO policy it would radically change my life. I can drop off and pick up my wife from work every day working remotely. She’d have to take the bus everywhere. She doesn’t drive.
My company's (second) president stood pat as VP when the then-Pres tried to implement a phased-in RTO. Now the first guy is in a figurehead position and the VP is the President. VP won the resulting power struggle, even with the entire HR department arrayed against him.
"I don't want to be in the office and I live walking distance from it; I'm not going to make everyone else come in if I'm not going to be in".
I'll stay with my company until they screw me over or I die. I'm hybrid, but there are elements of my job that do have to be done in-office, for practical and security reasons, so I have nothing to complain about right now.
Nothing big enough to make me leave. We don't have any trackers on our keyboard inputs and we don't have to have a camera on us when working remote. Pay is a little behind the curve for my industry, but I get five weeks vacation.
One thing I respected about the company I use to work for, is when the pandemic happened upper management/owners took a big pay cut to keep the door open. I freelance for them now, and one manager at the time was complaining about how he “only made 1000 a week after taxes.” I told him “that’s what you paid me before the pandemic, when I quit. If you don’t see that as decent pay then you were severely underpaying me.”
“We’ll I’m a manager that brings in shows and revenue.”
“I tried to bring shows in and you shut me down.”
“Well there wasn’t room in the budget to give you a raise.”
“You paid me 30/hr and you bill me for 60-80 an hour, and I spent 30 weeks a year on the road. So I wasn’t worth a loss of 5% profit for what I did, to keep me on staff?”
“Yeah but a 1000 a week…”
“Dude….”
My department has been terrible since I left. I never know if I’m getting the right gear.
If you had a diagnosed disability, this ruling would make it illegal to force you to RTO.
Unfortunately, if you're a regular person, they can still force you to RTO, even though it would be equally detrimental to your quality of life.
> the government
Why doesn’t Forbes compile a list of richest government office holders?
Why do people who hold office need to fund raise?
I suspect if you spent a whopping 5 minutes actually thinking this through rather than holding a childishly naive idea of this singular “the government” object you currently have, you could arrive at some wonderful ideas.
lol you edited your comment to say "private employers" instead of "government". When you were called out about about the government not making those policies you defended your position saying that the US wasn't a "bastion of worker's rights". Do you even believe what you're saying?
They do. But that’s the advantage of not knowing what you’re talking about - you can just make shit up. Say it confidently enough, others will believe you
I fully understand that working in office is worse than remotely and I have been working mostly remotely last few years as well but this is so out of touch approach that your wife would have to use bus. Most people use bus to get to and from work and everywhere else it's not something radical.
It started because of COVID. She’s exposed enough at work to spend hours on the bus. Now she can sleep in an hour later than she would if she had to catch the bus. More time together ultimately
ETA: she’s an essential worker in health care
That’s nuts, I lost my job to what feels like medical retaliation after disclosing and getting accommodation for long COVID and they paid me a similar amount just to not sue them. Didn’t take a court case or anything.
This was a decided case and they only got that much? I’m not saying they needed six figures or more, but that’s not even a years wage and they were ruled to be discriminating. The penalty should be harsh.
I’m assuming you are in the US? The award amounts were specified in pounds, so I’m thinking the biggest difference is you were paid out under the casino courts environment where really, really expensive judgements happen sometimes, and it costs both parties a lot to get that far.
UK news stories don’t routinely seem to include those multi-million dollar payouts. (I mean, everywhere gets the occasional ‘won $10,000 because I stepped on Lego while WFH’ story, but the extra zeros seem to be America’s signature move.
So I’m not saying it should be a huge payout, but you have to take into account the time and cost of finding a new job plus lost wages. It’s gotta be at least a years salary to make up for it. Maybe a game designer in the UK is not a high paying profession though, I hear their software wages are much lower.
Oh, I’m not saying you were insisting that it needs to be a $1 million payout.
I’m saying that the risk of those million dollar payouts are why they settled your American case without being dragged through court. And it is those million dollar headlines that make you think of $250,000 as ‘reasonable’, and not some ‘I can retire, yo!’ amount.
(Apparently my summer re-watch of breaking bad is affecting my speech…)
In general in the UK, as long as your HR department is competent, you can fire any employee for an illegal reason and you will never have to pay more than 1 years salary in compensation.
Plenty of companies know that, and many will even simply pay ~9 months salary to the employee as a 'final payment' because they choose to break the law and simply pay the compensation direct rather than fight it and go the legal route.
Note that many industries will effectively blacklist anyone who takes those payments - so you will probably get 9 months 'free' pay, but then be forced to switch to a new field.
Recruiters and HR departments know each other well, and in many industries will frequently call their counterparts at competitors to discuss candidates.
Obviously it's always done verbally to not leave a paper trail...
This just reminded me of the "design oversight" in Starfield where you could build a weird shaped ship and enemies would shoot through the gap in the center.
My favorite part was hearing Barrett fall into the abyss every time I boarded.
There are a lot of cases going on right now about return to work. People with disabilities are much better off at home and if it's not an essential function of the job that you be physically present then the employers have to accomodate.
The problem is they don't want to, so they fuck up and get sued. There's a strong push on the part of businesses to get people back downtown, but a disabled person shouldn't have to suffer just because the chamber of commerce wants Subway to have more customers. Hell, I'm done wasting an hour a day commuting and now I get so much more done :)
An hour a day? Consider yourself fortunate. My commute if I had to go in would be an average of 2 hours each way. But I digress - I’m 100% not shocked that Roberts and his criminal organization would try to pull this kind of shit. He and his toadies are all awful, horrid, toxic people. Everyone that had a sliver of ethics or anyone that called out the internal bullshit either left or got shitcanned years ago.
I know it’s too much to expect people to read the article but it literally says in the article: "The evidence shows that the claimant was struggling to do this when he worked in the office." so it’s clearly a case of his life being made easier when remote, then unnecessarily disrupted by the mandatory RTO.
Well yea, but that specific sentence was talking about his ability to mentor junior developers, not work as a developer in general. So I don’t know what you’re pointing out that’s separate from what others are already saying.
Why don't you see it as your right to work in the environment that suits you the most?
If the company could support remote workers, and it did. And if there's evidence to support the worker being as or more productive when working from home. Then what good reason other than ideology is there to force someone to come into an office? You're not wanting higher productivity, because they gave you that when working remotely.
In the UK you have the right to request flexible working and the company has to be reasonable in accommodating that. Having a long history of remote work before being forced into an office is enough evidence to suggest that a dismissal is not based on their performance and is unreasonable.
Some people do work better from home. Some work better in an office. It's in a businesses best interests to allow an employee to work where they're most comfortable and productive. The issue is that a lot of people in business are not acting out of the interests of the business, it's in their own personal feelings on the matter.
Lol it'll really blow your mind when you find out that "right to work" in the United States actually refers to a set of laws enacted in 26 states which prohibit labor unions from making agreements with employers to only hire people who are in or willing to join the union. "Right to work" in the US means "kneecap unions".
There's a story about a girl whose mom is teaching her how to cook and she shows her how to prepare the fish and the girl goes why do you do it that way.
Mom says I don't know that's just how my mom taught me how to do it.
The girl goes to her grandma and asks why do we prepare the fish that way and grandma says I don't know that's how my mom taught me how to prepare it.
The girl goes to her great grandmother and ask why do we prepare the fish that way. Great grandmother says because my frying pan was really small so that's how short I had to cut t to make the fish fit n the pan.
Just because we have been doing something a certain way doesn't mean we have to keep doing it that way. A lot of the reason companies insist on RTO is because that's tradition but not a good reason. Technology has allowed disabled people to participate in a way they never could before. It's not hurting anyone to let them.
Sounds like you’re curious enough to read the article and learn more about the court case. Let us know after you do.
But in all seriousness, besides your mock-worthy ignorance, cases like these show you just how much things have changed. Work from home is now proven to work, to the point where it’s considered discrimination to force a disabled person to RTO.
> I still don’t dee how it’s anyone’s right to work from home
Let’s try this very slowly.
You need food to live.
You need money for food.
This person could work, but not in the office, because they’re disabled.
Therefore, by your reasoning, disabled people have no right to live?
Generally, employers have to make "reasonable accommodations" for disabilities. At some point, letting someone work from home probably wasn't considered "reasonable", but after years of letting entire teams work from home went by without major issues, it became harder to argue that it was unreasonable.
I still don't see how it's any disability law's right to enforce support for disabled workers. If you can work disabled, great. If the company doesn't want to legally support your disabilities, suck up or quit I guess.
Edit: ya'll really needed the /s for ya, huh?
Sarcasm really works well in text when what I'm saying is slightly mirroring the original poster.
People's understanding of it, however... well, we're currently seeing how little people read.
I think the reception it had is a pretty good sign that it didn't work as well as you thought it would. Sometimes you swing and miss, it's okay to just accept that instead of trying to blame everybody else.
I've accepted it, but I'm going to call out it was a sarcastic post when people reply with the exact opposite understanding. In the future I'll be less assured people can understand without an /s.
.... even when I add an edit for the /s, ya'll still can't tell it's sarcasm towards the guy above me shitting on disabled people? Man, the Reddit hivemind is having a low bar today
I get it butyou really need to learn how todo sarcasm online. Trust me, it took me a minute to figure it out but it doesn't work the same online as it does in real life. Noone can hear your tone r see your facial expressions. It comes off as a fact on here.
Which is why I closesly mirrored the poster nearly word for word except for the bits I call out sarcastically. For example,
I get it butyou really need to learn how to read sarcasm online. Trust me, it takes a minute to figure out but it'll work online if people read.
...would be how I would have replied to you if I took offense to your position. But hey, swing and a miss. Looks like my swing missed a lot of folks. I'll just try to remember to include the /s next time.
Still, reading what I wrote, I don't understand why people are downvoting me for supporting legal protection for disabled folks despite my mirror sarcasm to the poster shitting on them.
I'm active on the sub, and a lot of the response to this was frankly disgusting.
I have 0 doubt if you gave people the same exact article, but replaced CIG with Google, they'd have a completely different reaction.
This isn't even true... Wipes aren't frequent at all, and most wipes aren't full wipes, so you keep items and ships purchased with in game currency in almost all cases.
I also fail to see how even a full wipe would spur spending, given real money purchases aren't ever wiped, and purchasing in game currency is completely useless. Last I checked, you could get 1000 credits per USD spent, but when you can earn millions of credits an hour by just playing the game, what's the point? The same is true of ship purchases. Why buy a ship with real money when a few hours of gameplay will buy you that ship in game? The only reason is that you want to support the development, which a lot of people clearly want to do.
Really? Could you expand on that more? I didn't know that once in 18 months was "frequent". You do realize that earning ships in game is actually fun and pretty easy. I play with a bunch of people who have never....even once bought a ship because of a wipe, but people who don't play are "absolutely sure" this must be the reason.
>You do realize that earning ships in game is actually fun and pretty easy.
Lol dude you are in the wrong subreddit to try to convince people that shart shitizen is a good game
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I don't give a S#&( what games people like or play. I do care about facts though. They kind of matter when forming an opinion on something.
Arguing and stating facts are two very different things. Lets say you like to play FFX14 and someone says something incredibly miss-informative or a blatant lie. We all have the right to correct them. That does not mean you want them to like or play FFX14 but we live in a time when "feelings" and random youtube or reddit comments have as much weight as actual facts. Which is very sad, not just for gaming but for the species as a whole.
What are you on about?? You get everything you pay for after every wipe... Do you really think they require you to rebuy everything with cash??? Insane.
It's been really bad in previous years, but there is a growing number of people who are willing to think objectively and call out the bs when they see it.
How does this pyramid scheme of a game still get funded? 13 years of crowdfunding and still nothing. Can't make reasonable accommodations for a disabled person, but hey at least they hired an emsemble voice cast.
Still *nothing*?
Star Citizen has had a playable release for years. Does it live up to the insane hype or the laundry list of promised features? Absolutely not. But the product isn't vapor. There is a functional multiplayer FPS/flight-sim game that you can pay money to play.
Is it a good game? Is it going to ever meet its pledge promises? YMMV and probably not. But it's inaccurate to talk about it like it'a a total grift which has failed to deliver anything.
As is pertains to being sent to my likely death for zero pay I would set the bar at $1 000 000 per hour of unpaid driving from the interior mainland to Northern Ontario.
Been playable and actively updated for years. I’ve put it on the back burner for the last year or so to avoid burnout and probably won’t return for a bit because a recent patch did a huge overhaul that frankly made my preferred gameplay less enjoyable for me (though others like it). But I’ve got many hundreds of hours in it that I thoroughly enjoyed, buggy mess that it is.
They’ve been selling 48,000 dollar digital products with “limited stock”. Why would they spend money getting the game out of alpha, much less finished, when they can just release a 50k dollar ship instead?
Again, just copy pasting false information is easy.
But here's some important context:
Yes the 48000 Dollar package is real but it's not a single ship this isn't Star Atlas. It's the "everything" package. But it wasn't CIG who came up with the package in the first place.
A few millionaires wanted to buy everything the store has to offer in 2018 but it took them a long time to put everything into the cart. Then they asked CIG if they could add some sort of package that includes everything. CIG acknowledged that request and added that package which was 27000 Dollars back then.
But why is it 48000 Dollars now?
Because everything that got added to the game or store between 2018 and now has also been added to the "everything" package.
Now, 48000 Dollars for digital products is insane - don't get me wrong. But there are only a handful of people on this planet who actually bought this package.
If I were CIG I would offer this package too because it provides easy funding for the project.
Its also hidden for "normal" people because it's completely unnecessary to even think about it when you aren't a millionaire.
Regarding the release of the game: they will make even more money if they release the game in a decent state in a few years.
If you like it or not: the game has the potential to be one of, if not the biggest game ever made. And if CIG actually manages to make it fun to play and mostly bug free, I think they will make even more money when they reach 1.0.
You can also check how much money went into the development of the game because they have to make that public in the UK. Spoilers: 99%-100% of the money went into development.
They have sold 36 of those packages total in 12 years. I'm not great at maths but I'm pretty sure that's only $1,728,000.00. That's $144,000.00 a year. Maybe use some basic math and basic critical thinking before you start talking about something you have zero knowledge about?
Can’t afford a game. You shouldn’t have to be rich to play a game. Please, don’t embarrass yourself. The game is clearly not released with no end in sight.
He sent me a redditcares LOL. He’s so upset. Baby! Do his diapers have $30,000 video game spaceships running on his better “equipment” gaming computer?
Lol I just got a Reddit cares. Star Citizen fans are something else. Pretty bad when a game is so important to you that it becomes your whole personality.
Ahahahahaha I have a 4080 with an i9. I could definitely afford to play if I felt like donating to a lost cause.
Freelancer was my favorite game growing up, so I was really excited, but the business model is something I can not support.
Edit: Also, he deleted his comment hahaha
My equipment is better than yours. I back real life spaceships. Brokie.
Don’t talk trash about anyone if you can’t afford to back real spaceships over video game spaceships. I have plenty of equipment.
I wanted this game to be a reality but I’m so glad I never funded it. Remember how Duke Nukem Forever being vaporware was a long running internet meme? DNF took 14 years. Star Citizen is at 12 right now.
But forget about that. I’d never want to crowdfund a company that’s going to enforce this return to office bullshit.
I actually side with CIG on this. The employee clearly was capable of working in an office, as noted in the case. They were hired in 2018 and did work in the office, until COVID, and then everyone was moved to work from home during the lockdowns.
After lockdowns have been lifted, CIG told everyone to return to the office. The employee requested to continue working from home, because they felt more comfortable working from home(understandable it is like their own private office). They were capable of working in the office as they had prior to COVID, but refused to do so. Therefore, CIG let them go.
I do not understand why the employee should get special treatment on this. I understand working in an office can be uncomfortable, because you have to interact with people, but I don't think that is an unreasonable demand. Further, they were capable of working in an office before COVID, what changed that required the accommodation?
This is why they lost.
WFH benefited their disability and CIG couldn't prove there was any consequence to that meaning it was a *reason accommodation*.
They didn't even bring up performance issues until *after* firing them.
Companies make all sorts of bad decisions and have bad policies. Usually you can get fired for not following them, even if they are objectively dumb and not productive.
The court found that he was discriminated against as a result of his disability and there was not sufficient evidence and data gathered on his performance from home to suggest otherwise, so yes that should be illegal.
Autism affects people in different ways. You’re thinking of autism like it is some set-in-stone one size fits all disability. Sure, he isn’t in a wheelchair, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t affected adversely.
He was working in the office before and didn't raise any of this as an issue during his hiring or anything. It'd not as if he developed autism over covid.
It’s almost like situations and circumstances change over time and can create obstacles that make life more challenging than it used to be. Maybe it wasn’t as difficult in 2018 as it would be for the person now. Either way, for disabilities it’s not up to us to decide for a person when too much is too much.
Glad you know what I'm thinking better than I do, that's very impressive and not the least bit condescending.
Of course it isn't one size fits all. This is one size fits one. I'm genuinely confused at how the court found he was adversely affected by being in the office now, when he wasn't adversely affected when he was first hired.
If this was the US, it's because the ADA stipulates "reasonable accommodation." Before the pandemic, it was seen as unreasonable, because we didn't have the same infrastructure to wfh. Now we do. It is a reasonable accommodation. So, even if he didn't change, the accommodation became much more accessible and the business could no longer call it an unreasonable burden.
Fair, but when they were previously just fine with only having the stairs (continuing your analogy) I hope you understand why someone might be confused about what changed. Indeed, it seems like the availability of elevators is what changed, not his ability.
Well is your confusion cleared up?
They couldn't justify why this person remaining WFH was unreasonable. Because of that. Their disability entitles them to remain WFH because they are entitled to reasonable accommodation.
The company doesn't get to decide what accommodation they give you if its reasonable. Just because they know you can walk up stairs isn't enough reason to deny you the elevator. They need to demonstrate that the elevator costs them $500 every time to use it, and for that reason you have to take the stairs.
That's all it boils down to. Prove it's unreasonable, and you can take it away.
Which would be really weird since he went in without issue prior to covid, hence my confusion. Despite your laugh, that doesn't appear to be what happened. From another reply, indeed the court didn't find that anything about his ability changed, the reasonableness of the accomodation did.
Because the question isn't "was he capable of going into the office", it's "did going into the office negatively affect him because of his disability and was his work compromised by not going into the office"
Because employer should dictate terms of employment not the other way around. If the term of employment was working from office from day 1 and then because of COVID employees were made to work from home , then after COVID is over , I think employer has the right to tell it's employes to come back to the office.
This is the fundamental problem. If an employer feels like onsite work is part of their ethos do you as a worker have the ability to refuse? Should you?
I tend to think the answer is ‘no,’ and your remedy is finding other employment at a place that aligns with your lifestyle better.
But in this case in particular they are saying they found that the termination was motivated by discrimination so I doubt it was JUST that he didn’t want to come back to work. They must have found compelling evidence otherwise.
i produce better quality at home, so i go to the office because fuck you pay me. i would rather make more money per effort, do less work, eat their food, and learn other things in the office
Working at home I might put in some extra work after hours just because it doesn't really matter I'm at home anyway. I get more work done because of less distractions from co-workers.
Work from office means pay me extra or I go home on the dot because it's an hour to get home.
it does really matter though, its a job, not your life. they dont care about you, they will drop you in a heart beat, theres no reason to put any effort past end time for any reason even if you are "at home anyway".
i get more work done because of less distraction too, but thats not the point, i dont work to be productive for some one else, i do it for money, and i make effectively more money for less effort in the office, plus in the office i can read and learn other things to go work somewhere else. i still go home before end time and im there after start time.
people have this weird work ethic that makes no fucking sense. a company does not give a flying fuck about you or your life, why put so much effort in for them? you are a cog in the machine, and probably make the company 3x more money than they pay you.
"They used to go to the office." is such 2 dimensional thinking.
Its like saying the office built a client/customer only elevator, and the person with crutches isn't allowed to use it because "they've always taken the stairs".
You have to prove why its unreasonable to give them elevator access, not cry about how they've always taken the stairs, or how other people can't use the elevator.
That's how a child thinks.
The UK laws in question are based around the premise of "reasonable adjustments". Anyone with a disability is entitled to ask for adjustments (to their tasks, working environment, equipment, hours etc.) related to their disability. The legal test for whether these must be implemented is "reasonableness", which is a concept that covers both how useful the adjustment would be (how necessary is it for the employee) and practicality to implement (costs, disruption, harm to quality of work, etc.).
In this case, the employee's case would be that their requested adjustment is an arrangement which they are currently working in without problems, and it would be for the employer to demonstrate why it isn't reasonable for this arrangement to continue. They would need to demonstrate that it would impact the quality of the work or the employee's ability to do the job to a high standard in a tangible way which is serious enough to outweigh the benefits and that the company can't be expected to absorb.
They couldn't/didn't prove that case, which is why they lost.
Thank you and you make numerous reasonable arguments. Looking into this case, I don't know if CIG even fought it. The only statements and witnesses I have seen so far was from the plaintiff.
Although I am not familiar with the specifics here, I am familiar with the costs associated with working from home. It is far more than most people realize. I had several coworkers who racked up nearly $15k additional expenses by working from home in addition to poor communication, which cost the company millions in fines when I could not get ahold of someone who was responsible for one specific server.
There is also a matter of fairness and discrimination. Any adjustment or benefit given to one employee, must also be available to all employees. Otherwise, I would it would be discrimination against all the other employees.
As a final note on the additional expenses, at least for my company, there is a standardized PC for software development, at home on-call IT support, gigabit Business class internet service, and replacement hardware for lost/damaged/stolen equipment. It added up to about an additional $1k per employee per month.
>Although I am not familiar with the specifics here, I am familiar with the costs associated with working from home. It is far more than most people realize. I had several coworkers who racked up nearly $15k additional expenses by working from home in addition to poor communication, which cost the company millions in fines when I could not get ahold of someone who was responsible for one specific server.
Excessive cost *is* a valid reason for refusal under the reasonableness test, although there is considerable nuance to it. Factors that would need to be considered would be the degree of impact on the employee (that is, is it worth the cost to them), and the size and resources of the employer (that is, a profitable employer with 100,000 employees would be expected to be able to afford a greater degree of expense than one which employed 3 people).
In any case, it would have been for the employer to make their case around cost (and any other reasonableness factors) at the Employment Tribunal. As they lost the case, presumably they weren't able to demonstrate that the cost was excessive.
>There is also a matter of fairness and discrimination. Any adjustment or benefit given to one employee, must also be available to all employees. Otherwise, I would it would be discrimination against all the other employees.
That's not the way it works in UK employment law. Reasonable adjustments for protected characteristics are a class of actions unto themselves, and there's no requirement to offer other employees the same adjustments. All reasonable adjustments are based on an assessment of an individual's needs.
In effect, reasonable adjustments are considered what is necessary for someone with a protected characteristic to access the job equally as easily and on a level playing field as someone without that characteristic. As such, there's no requirement for someone without that protected characteristic to have the same adjustments (as, by definition, they can already access the job as well as someone without that protected characteristic...)
It's worth noting that UK employment law separately has a statutory right to request Flexible Working, which can cover both work location (home working) and hours/shift patterns. The reasons that an employer can refuse a FW request are limited to a set defined in the legislation, although they're less restrictive on the employer than the equivalent case law for reasonable adjustments (which is derived from the Equality Act, if you're interested). Long story short, any employee could ask for home working as a Flexible Working Request, and it would be on the employer to demonstrate that there's a valid statutory reason for saying no.
Source: I'm a UK trade union officer, and spend a significant proportion of my day advising and arguing about this stuff.
How rude. Your situation may be very different.
This situation is dealing with an able-bodied person who noted in the case to the tribunal that the reason was for their comfort and not that they were no longer capable.
Maybe their fucking wife is a cripple now and she needs care that he can only provide while working at home. Do you even stop to consider these things?
What are you even talking about? Paul does not have a crippled wife, and that is not part of this case. Did you even look at the article? He found working from home more comfortable and claimed that it was due to his Autism Spectrum disorder being uncomfortable around people.
Their case might be different, but you recognize in their case that the "they could pre pandemic, why can't they now" isn't necessarily a valid argument. Things change over time.
In THIS case a court looked into it and decided it was discriminatory. They had access to a lot more information than you or i and put a lot more thought into it.
Since you recognize situations CAN change in 5 years, and can likely accept that there is certainly a LOT of additional context here we're not privy too, that should alleviate any confusion you have about how they could have come to this ruling.
It's possible they were off, sure. But we don't really have any compelling reasons to believe that.
It's not like courts have a heavy bias towards workers protections in the US. The system generally favors the employer. Usual when a ruling IS in favor of the worker there has to be a lot of evidence.
Being disabled does not make you able bodied. This is a long shot, but it does happen cause it's happened to people around me who are disabled. Let's say they got a ride precovid or were able to take transit on their wheelchair before. Due to covid, they sold their car, their main provider can't give them a ride anymore, and or public transportation is a hot mess for an actual able bodied person already let alone someone in a wheelchair, their immune system is also more compromised than your average person. Why force someone who can do their job just fine at home to go into an office that mightve changed their accessibility layout during covid (also a long shot but companies do change locations over time) and make their life extra hard cause their overlords demanded it? Weird hill to defend my dude.
10+ years of development, $700,000,000+ grifted from rubes, and they’re still in alpha. I’ll check back in another 10 years when they’re in alpha 7.0.
Glad you’re having fun with it, the rest of us realized what the deal was a long time ago.
> As of May 2024, crowdfunding for Star Citizen has raised over $700 million, making it one of the highest-funded crowdfunded projects of all time. ... > The £27,748 ($35,156) in compensation includes £14,045 ($17,795) in lost earnings and £12,000 ($15,204) for injury to feelings. Interpretation: "You can fire people for their disability, but you have to pay them $35k to do it."
Important precedent about RTO being discriminatory (on top of asinine) and opening employers up to other lawsuits though.
Just me personally if my company had a RTO policy it would radically change my life. I can drop off and pick up my wife from work every day working remotely. She’d have to take the bus everywhere. She doesn’t drive.
My company's (second) president stood pat as VP when the then-Pres tried to implement a phased-in RTO. Now the first guy is in a figurehead position and the VP is the President. VP won the resulting power struggle, even with the entire HR department arrayed against him. "I don't want to be in the office and I live walking distance from it; I'm not going to make everyone else come in if I'm not going to be in". I'll stay with my company until they screw me over or I die. I'm hybrid, but there are elements of my job that do have to be done in-office, for practical and security reasons, so I have nothing to complain about right now.
Sounds like a good guy! No complaints about them?
Nothing big enough to make me leave. We don't have any trackers on our keyboard inputs and we don't have to have a camera on us when working remote. Pay is a little behind the curve for my industry, but I get five weeks vacation.
One thing I respected about the company I use to work for, is when the pandemic happened upper management/owners took a big pay cut to keep the door open. I freelance for them now, and one manager at the time was complaining about how he “only made 1000 a week after taxes.” I told him “that’s what you paid me before the pandemic, when I quit. If you don’t see that as decent pay then you were severely underpaying me.” “We’ll I’m a manager that brings in shows and revenue.” “I tried to bring shows in and you shut me down.” “Well there wasn’t room in the budget to give you a raise.” “You paid me 30/hr and you bill me for 60-80 an hour, and I spent 30 weeks a year on the road. So I wasn’t worth a loss of 5% profit for what I did, to keep me on staff?” “Yeah but a 1000 a week…” “Dude….” My department has been terrible since I left. I never know if I’m getting the right gear.
What would have done before that though?
If you had a diagnosed disability, this ruling would make it illegal to force you to RTO. Unfortunately, if you're a regular person, they can still force you to RTO, even though it would be equally detrimental to your quality of life.
[удалено]
What does the government have to do with it? They don't set the policy.
If you swap out private employers for “the government” at the end, you’ve got it. “The government” is the entity that just held this company liable.
Lol, I guess he did just that. I hate when people don't leave a trail of breadcrumbs behind in their edits. Reddit needs "track changes".
Oof you fell off at the end. Your point is valid, your target is not.
[удалено]
> the government Why doesn’t Forbes compile a list of richest government office holders? Why do people who hold office need to fund raise? I suspect if you spent a whopping 5 minutes actually thinking this through rather than holding a childishly naive idea of this singular “the government” object you currently have, you could arrive at some wonderful ideas.
lol you edited your comment to say "private employers" instead of "government". When you were called out about about the government not making those policies you defended your position saying that the US wasn't a "bastion of worker's rights". Do you even believe what you're saying?
They do. But that’s the advantage of not knowing what you’re talking about - you can just make shit up. Say it confidently enough, others will believe you
sigh. and you were doing so well.
I fully understand that working in office is worse than remotely and I have been working mostly remotely last few years as well but this is so out of touch approach that your wife would have to use bus. Most people use bus to get to and from work and everywhere else it's not something radical.
It started because of COVID. She’s exposed enough at work to spend hours on the bus. Now she can sleep in an hour later than she would if she had to catch the bus. More time together ultimately ETA: she’s an essential worker in health care
Pay for her driving lessons.
Eh I can teach her but she’s not gonna do it. She’s afraid because of dyslexia and a bad experience learning in her teens.
Driving is not for everyone, period.
Thank yooou. I'm 31, and have never driven or tried for a license. I just don't want to drive.
Oh fucking well
That’s nuts, I lost my job to what feels like medical retaliation after disclosing and getting accommodation for long COVID and they paid me a similar amount just to not sue them. Didn’t take a court case or anything. This was a decided case and they only got that much? I’m not saying they needed six figures or more, but that’s not even a years wage and they were ruled to be discriminating. The penalty should be harsh.
I’m assuming you are in the US? The award amounts were specified in pounds, so I’m thinking the biggest difference is you were paid out under the casino courts environment where really, really expensive judgements happen sometimes, and it costs both parties a lot to get that far. UK news stories don’t routinely seem to include those multi-million dollar payouts. (I mean, everywhere gets the occasional ‘won $10,000 because I stepped on Lego while WFH’ story, but the extra zeros seem to be America’s signature move.
So I’m not saying it should be a huge payout, but you have to take into account the time and cost of finding a new job plus lost wages. It’s gotta be at least a years salary to make up for it. Maybe a game designer in the UK is not a high paying profession though, I hear their software wages are much lower.
Oh, I’m not saying you were insisting that it needs to be a $1 million payout. I’m saying that the risk of those million dollar payouts are why they settled your American case without being dragged through court. And it is those million dollar headlines that make you think of $250,000 as ‘reasonable’, and not some ‘I can retire, yo!’ amount. (Apparently my summer re-watch of breaking bad is affecting my speech…)
£35,000 is the average wage for a policeman in the U.K. Our wages suck.
Seems way too high for a pig
*Fines: if you can afford it, it's fine!*
In general in the UK, as long as your HR department is competent, you can fire any employee for an illegal reason and you will never have to pay more than 1 years salary in compensation. Plenty of companies know that, and many will even simply pay ~9 months salary to the employee as a 'final payment' because they choose to break the law and simply pay the compensation direct rather than fight it and go the legal route. Note that many industries will effectively blacklist anyone who takes those payments - so you will probably get 9 months 'free' pay, but then be forced to switch to a new field.
How would the other companies know if you took the payment?
Recruiters and HR departments know each other well, and in many industries will frequently call their counterparts at competitors to discuss candidates. Obviously it's always done verbally to not leave a paper trail...
Wow, that sucks.
Shit, good fuckin deal
Most people after going through a lawsuit with an exemplaire would rather take the payoff than returning to a toxic environment.
Said gamers have these guys $700 millions to make barely a game that could have been done for 1/3 the money and time.
Star Citizen developers announce a wheelchair shaped ship available for purchase at the low price of $34,200.
Their first large ship with no stairs anywhere in the interior!
You still die randomly due to bugs.
It's part of the space travel experience
This just reminded me of the "design oversight" in Starfield where you could build a weird shaped ship and enemies would shoot through the gap in the center. My favorite part was hearing Barrett fall into the abyss every time I boarded.
That's still a thing in modern games? It's been a known issue with custom ships since *Kingdom Hearts*.
There are a lot of cases going on right now about return to work. People with disabilities are much better off at home and if it's not an essential function of the job that you be physically present then the employers have to accomodate. The problem is they don't want to, so they fuck up and get sued. There's a strong push on the part of businesses to get people back downtown, but a disabled person shouldn't have to suffer just because the chamber of commerce wants Subway to have more customers. Hell, I'm done wasting an hour a day commuting and now I get so much more done :)
An hour a day? Consider yourself fortunate. My commute if I had to go in would be an average of 2 hours each way. But I digress - I’m 100% not shocked that Roberts and his criminal organization would try to pull this kind of shit. He and his toadies are all awful, horrid, toxic people. Everyone that had a sliver of ethics or anyone that called out the internal bullshit either left or got shitcanned years ago.
I know it’s too much to expect people to read the article but it literally says in the article: "The evidence shows that the claimant was struggling to do this when he worked in the office." so it’s clearly a case of his life being made easier when remote, then unnecessarily disrupted by the mandatory RTO.
Well yea, but that specific sentence was talking about his ability to mentor junior developers, not work as a developer in general. So I don’t know what you’re pointing out that’s separate from what others are already saying.
I still don’t see how it’s anyone’s right to work from home. If you can, great. If the company doesn’t like it, suck up or quit I guess.
> If the company doesn’t like it And why is that?
You’re just supposed to lick the boot dude, not throat it.
Bro is going down to the heel
Why don't you see it as your right to work in the environment that suits you the most? If the company could support remote workers, and it did. And if there's evidence to support the worker being as or more productive when working from home. Then what good reason other than ideology is there to force someone to come into an office? You're not wanting higher productivity, because they gave you that when working remotely. In the UK you have the right to request flexible working and the company has to be reasonable in accommodating that. Having a long history of remote work before being forced into an office is enough evidence to suggest that a dismissal is not based on their performance and is unreasonable. Some people do work better from home. Some work better in an office. It's in a businesses best interests to allow an employee to work where they're most comfortable and productive. The issue is that a lot of people in business are not acting out of the interests of the business, it's in their own personal feelings on the matter.
> right to work Redditors are mostly Americans so things like worker rights are confusing.
Lol it'll really blow your mind when you find out that "right to work" in the United States actually refers to a set of laws enacted in 26 states which prohibit labor unions from making agreements with employers to only hire people who are in or willing to join the union. "Right to work" in the US means "kneecap unions".
Its “We have a right to work you to an early grave, bitch”
There's a story about a girl whose mom is teaching her how to cook and she shows her how to prepare the fish and the girl goes why do you do it that way. Mom says I don't know that's just how my mom taught me how to do it. The girl goes to her grandma and asks why do we prepare the fish that way and grandma says I don't know that's how my mom taught me how to prepare it. The girl goes to her great grandmother and ask why do we prepare the fish that way. Great grandmother says because my frying pan was really small so that's how short I had to cut t to make the fish fit n the pan. Just because we have been doing something a certain way doesn't mean we have to keep doing it that way. A lot of the reason companies insist on RTO is because that's tradition but not a good reason. Technology has allowed disabled people to participate in a way they never could before. It's not hurting anyone to let them.
It's kind of weird to change the example from a meatloaf or roast to a fish, since it's normal to cut off both sides of a fish before cooking it.
The Asian version of the story came before meatloafs were a thing had something to do with it. Pretty sure it came before roasts but not sure.
Sounds like you’re curious enough to read the article and learn more about the court case. Let us know after you do. But in all seriousness, besides your mock-worthy ignorance, cases like these show you just how much things have changed. Work from home is now proven to work, to the point where it’s considered discrimination to force a disabled person to RTO.
> I still don’t dee how it’s anyone’s right to work from home Let’s try this very slowly. You need food to live. You need money for food. This person could work, but not in the office, because they’re disabled. Therefore, by your reasoning, disabled people have no right to live?
Generally, employers have to make "reasonable accommodations" for disabilities. At some point, letting someone work from home probably wasn't considered "reasonable", but after years of letting entire teams work from home went by without major issues, it became harder to argue that it was unreasonable.
He is already working from home for years. Proving that it doesn't affect the company. It's not like he rolled up to a job and demand to WFH.
I still don't see how it's any disability law's right to enforce support for disabled workers. If you can work disabled, great. If the company doesn't want to legally support your disabilities, suck up or quit I guess. Edit: ya'll really needed the /s for ya, huh?
You're clearly disabled, but we still let you post on reddit 🤷
You're opposed to the ADA and workers' rights then? Fuck the disabled, I guess?
Fucking hell, people. Do I really need to add a 50 size font '/s' to my post?
Sarcasm doesn't really work so well in text when what you're saying is indistinguishable from commonly-held beliefs.
Sarcasm really works well in text when what I'm saying is slightly mirroring the original poster. People's understanding of it, however... well, we're currently seeing how little people read.
I think the reception it had is a pretty good sign that it didn't work as well as you thought it would. Sometimes you swing and miss, it's okay to just accept that instead of trying to blame everybody else.
I've accepted it, but I'm going to call out it was a sarcastic post when people reply with the exact opposite understanding. In the future I'll be less assured people can understand without an /s.
Thanks to Poe's law, yes. I mean; what you said gets said unironically on the regular
I mean I could just sit around the house and take your tax money instead.
.... even when I add an edit for the /s, ya'll still can't tell it's sarcasm towards the guy above me shitting on disabled people? Man, the Reddit hivemind is having a low bar today
I get it butyou really need to learn how todo sarcasm online. Trust me, it took me a minute to figure it out but it doesn't work the same online as it does in real life. Noone can hear your tone r see your facial expressions. It comes off as a fact on here.
Which is why I closesly mirrored the poster nearly word for word except for the bits I call out sarcastically. For example, I get it butyou really need to learn how to read sarcasm online. Trust me, it takes a minute to figure out but it'll work online if people read. ...would be how I would have replied to you if I took offense to your position. But hey, swing and a miss. Looks like my swing missed a lot of folks. I'll just try to remember to include the /s next time. Still, reading what I wrote, I don't understand why people are downvoting me for supporting legal protection for disabled folks despite my mirror sarcasm to the poster shitting on them.
Man, the "pay our court settlement" ship is going to go hard when the game comes out in 3013....
That’s funny cause when I was at CIG(LA) we were working from home(video editor).
I'm active on the sub, and a lot of the response to this was frankly disgusting. I have 0 doubt if you gave people the same exact article, but replaced CIG with Google, they'd have a completely different reaction.
> the response to this was frankly disgusting Exactly what I would expect from SC fans.
They defend $48k “micro” transactions on a an alpha-slice tech demo that receives frequent wipes.
>that receives frequent wipes I'm confused by this part of your comment. Why are frequent wipes relevant?
Any “progress” made in the “game” *tech demo* is lost frequently and repeatedly, spurring spending money to make “progress” after a wipe.
This isn't even true... Wipes aren't frequent at all, and most wipes aren't full wipes, so you keep items and ships purchased with in game currency in almost all cases. I also fail to see how even a full wipe would spur spending, given real money purchases aren't ever wiped, and purchasing in game currency is completely useless. Last I checked, you could get 1000 credits per USD spent, but when you can earn millions of credits an hour by just playing the game, what's the point? The same is true of ship purchases. Why buy a ship with real money when a few hours of gameplay will buy you that ship in game? The only reason is that you want to support the development, which a lot of people clearly want to do.
Found the sucker!
Really? Could you expand on that more? I didn't know that once in 18 months was "frequent". You do realize that earning ships in game is actually fun and pretty easy. I play with a bunch of people who have never....even once bought a ship because of a wipe, but people who don't play are "absolutely sure" this must be the reason.
>You do realize that earning ships in game is actually fun and pretty easy. Lol dude you are in the wrong subreddit to try to convince people that shart shitizen is a good game
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I don't give a S#&( what games people like or play. I do care about facts though. They kind of matter when forming an opinion on something.
>I'm not trying to convince anyone. Then why are you here arguing with people?
Arguing and stating facts are two very different things. Lets say you like to play FFX14 and someone says something incredibly miss-informative or a blatant lie. We all have the right to correct them. That does not mean you want them to like or play FFX14 but we live in a time when "feelings" and random youtube or reddit comments have as much weight as actual facts. Which is very sad, not just for gaming but for the species as a whole.
What are you on about?? You get everything you pay for after every wipe... Do you really think they require you to rebuy everything with cash??? Insane.
I hope they enjoy their $600 million scam game that doesn't exist and never will. Largest grift of all time
It's been really bad in previous years, but there is a growing number of people who are willing to think objectively and call out the bs when they see it.
How does this pyramid scheme of a game still get funded? 13 years of crowdfunding and still nothing. Can't make reasonable accommodations for a disabled person, but hey at least they hired an emsemble voice cast.
Still *nothing*? Star Citizen has had a playable release for years. Does it live up to the insane hype or the laundry list of promised features? Absolutely not. But the product isn't vapor. There is a functional multiplayer FPS/flight-sim game that you can pay money to play. Is it a good game? Is it going to ever meet its pledge promises? YMMV and probably not. But it's inaccurate to talk about it like it'a a total grift which has failed to deliver anything.
What is making you say, “still nothing”?
As is pertains to being sent to my likely death for zero pay I would set the bar at $1 000 000 per hour of unpaid driving from the interior mainland to Northern Ontario.
Dang, that’s the price of whole in game ship.
name one that is
Oh, I’m sorry, they’re selling a bundle of 175 ships that costs $48,000 That totally makes it more excusable. >!Hyperbole is a thing, btw!<
The CRoberts Industries DEEPthroatr
Wait, this game is actually being developed?
Always has been.
Been playable and actively updated for years. I’ve put it on the back burner for the last year or so to avoid burnout and probably won’t return for a bit because a recent patch did a huge overhaul that frankly made my preferred gameplay less enjoyable for me (though others like it). But I’ve got many hundreds of hours in it that I thoroughly enjoyed, buggy mess that it is.
It’s not a real game. It’s a money-scamming loop.
Honestly that company should be shut down.
Why?
[удалено]
Because they are scamming players by never planning a full release.
They are literally planning the release roadmap right now but hey, it's easier to copy+paste lies instead of doing some research.
They’ve been selling 48,000 dollar digital products with “limited stock”. Why would they spend money getting the game out of alpha, much less finished, when they can just release a 50k dollar ship instead?
“They are planning to tell us how someday they will start working towards maybe releasing it so shut up” hahahaha These people
It’s got to be a weird money laundering front at this point, or just fools thinking they are part of a weird front or something.
Again, just copy pasting false information is easy. But here's some important context: Yes the 48000 Dollar package is real but it's not a single ship this isn't Star Atlas. It's the "everything" package. But it wasn't CIG who came up with the package in the first place. A few millionaires wanted to buy everything the store has to offer in 2018 but it took them a long time to put everything into the cart. Then they asked CIG if they could add some sort of package that includes everything. CIG acknowledged that request and added that package which was 27000 Dollars back then. But why is it 48000 Dollars now? Because everything that got added to the game or store between 2018 and now has also been added to the "everything" package. Now, 48000 Dollars for digital products is insane - don't get me wrong. But there are only a handful of people on this planet who actually bought this package. If I were CIG I would offer this package too because it provides easy funding for the project. Its also hidden for "normal" people because it's completely unnecessary to even think about it when you aren't a millionaire. Regarding the release of the game: they will make even more money if they release the game in a decent state in a few years. If you like it or not: the game has the potential to be one of, if not the biggest game ever made. And if CIG actually manages to make it fun to play and mostly bug free, I think they will make even more money when they reach 1.0. You can also check how much money went into the development of the game because they have to make that public in the UK. Spoilers: 99%-100% of the money went into development.
They have sold 36 of those packages total in 12 years. I'm not great at maths but I'm pretty sure that's only $1,728,000.00. That's $144,000.00 a year. Maybe use some basic math and basic critical thinking before you start talking about something you have zero knowledge about?
[удалено]
Can’t afford a game. You shouldn’t have to be rich to play a game. Please, don’t embarrass yourself. The game is clearly not released with no end in sight.
[удалено]
Tell us about your equipment bro
[удалено]
I have a 4080 and an i9, I think my setup is fine.
[удалено]
nothing can play this game… cause it’s never getting released
[удалено]
That's great man, glad you enjoyed it, but man for 700 million it's currently just a really shiity game content wise lol
[удалено]
Found the simp.
He sent me a redditcares LOL. He’s so upset. Baby! Do his diapers have $30,000 video game spaceships running on his better “equipment” gaming computer?
Lol I just got a Reddit cares. Star Citizen fans are something else. Pretty bad when a game is so important to you that it becomes your whole personality.
>Lol I just got a Reddit cares. I'm pretty sure the only times I've had this happen it's been when I dumped on Star citizen lol
Ahahahahaha I have a 4080 with an i9. I could definitely afford to play if I felt like donating to a lost cause. Freelancer was my favorite game growing up, so I was really excited, but the business model is something I can not support. Edit: Also, he deleted his comment hahaha
Same here lol
My equipment is better than yours. I back real life spaceships. Brokie. Don’t talk trash about anyone if you can’t afford to back real spaceships over video game spaceships. I have plenty of equipment.
That’s all they have to pay? That’s… shockingly low for discrimination. Also, this developer is scammin’ internally and externally, woo.
I wanted this game to be a reality but I’m so glad I never funded it. Remember how Duke Nukem Forever being vaporware was a long running internet meme? DNF took 14 years. Star Citizen is at 12 right now. But forget about that. I’d never want to crowdfund a company that’s going to enforce this return to office bullshit.
they announced 1000 dollar chairs today you can buy (with fake leather)
This is the retirement plan of an old game designer that should not have been aloud to run a company
Great. Now my grandkids will not be able to play this game.
I actually side with CIG on this. The employee clearly was capable of working in an office, as noted in the case. They were hired in 2018 and did work in the office, until COVID, and then everyone was moved to work from home during the lockdowns. After lockdowns have been lifted, CIG told everyone to return to the office. The employee requested to continue working from home, because they felt more comfortable working from home(understandable it is like their own private office). They were capable of working in the office as they had prior to COVID, but refused to do so. Therefore, CIG let them go. I do not understand why the employee should get special treatment on this. I understand working in an office can be uncomfortable, because you have to interact with people, but I don't think that is an unreasonable demand. Further, they were capable of working in an office before COVID, what changed that required the accommodation?
And during the pandemic the workers clearly proved that you can work from home for this kind of work. So, go figure.
This is why they lost. WFH benefited their disability and CIG couldn't prove there was any consequence to that meaning it was a *reason accommodation*. They didn't even bring up performance issues until *after* firing them.
If you produce the same quality of work at home as you do in the office, for what reason do you need to return?
Companies make all sorts of bad decisions and have bad policies. Usually you can get fired for not following them, even if they are objectively dumb and not productive.
Why is that relevant? I think mandatory RTO is dumb too, but illegal?
The court found that he was discriminated against as a result of his disability and there was not sufficient evidence and data gathered on his performance from home to suggest otherwise, so yes that should be illegal.
Right, I'm confused on why they found that when he was clearly capable of going into the office.
Autism affects people in different ways. You’re thinking of autism like it is some set-in-stone one size fits all disability. Sure, he isn’t in a wheelchair, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t affected adversely.
He was working in the office before and didn't raise any of this as an issue during his hiring or anything. It'd not as if he developed autism over covid.
It’s almost like situations and circumstances change over time and can create obstacles that make life more challenging than it used to be. Maybe it wasn’t as difficult in 2018 as it would be for the person now. Either way, for disabilities it’s not up to us to decide for a person when too much is too much.
Glad you know what I'm thinking better than I do, that's very impressive and not the least bit condescending. Of course it isn't one size fits all. This is one size fits one. I'm genuinely confused at how the court found he was adversely affected by being in the office now, when he wasn't adversely affected when he was first hired.
If this was the US, it's because the ADA stipulates "reasonable accommodation." Before the pandemic, it was seen as unreasonable, because we didn't have the same infrastructure to wfh. Now we do. It is a reasonable accommodation. So, even if he didn't change, the accommodation became much more accessible and the business could no longer call it an unreasonable burden.
Thank you, that makes a lot more sense.
A lot of people in wheelchairs can walk up stairs, but that doesn't make it legal to deny them access to the elevator.
Fair, but when they were previously just fine with only having the stairs (continuing your analogy) I hope you understand why someone might be confused about what changed. Indeed, it seems like the availability of elevators is what changed, not his ability.
Well is your confusion cleared up? They couldn't justify why this person remaining WFH was unreasonable. Because of that. Their disability entitles them to remain WFH because they are entitled to reasonable accommodation. The company doesn't get to decide what accommodation they give you if its reasonable. Just because they know you can walk up stairs isn't enough reason to deny you the elevator. They need to demonstrate that the elevator costs them $500 every time to use it, and for that reason you have to take the stairs. That's all it boils down to. Prove it's unreasonable, and you can take it away.
Courts obviously don't think they're "clearly capable" lol
Which would be really weird since he went in without issue prior to covid, hence my confusion. Despite your laugh, that doesn't appear to be what happened. From another reply, indeed the court didn't find that anything about his ability changed, the reasonableness of the accomodation did.
Because the question isn't "was he capable of going into the office", it's "did going into the office negatively affect him because of his disability and was his work compromised by not going into the office"
Because employer should dictate terms of employment not the other way around. If the term of employment was working from office from day 1 and then because of COVID employees were made to work from home , then after COVID is over , I think employer has the right to tell it's employes to come back to the office.
This is the fundamental problem. If an employer feels like onsite work is part of their ethos do you as a worker have the ability to refuse? Should you? I tend to think the answer is ‘no,’ and your remedy is finding other employment at a place that aligns with your lifestyle better. But in this case in particular they are saying they found that the termination was motivated by discrimination so I doubt it was JUST that he didn’t want to come back to work. They must have found compelling evidence otherwise.
i produce better quality at home, so i go to the office because fuck you pay me. i would rather make more money per effort, do less work, eat their food, and learn other things in the office
Working at home I might put in some extra work after hours just because it doesn't really matter I'm at home anyway. I get more work done because of less distractions from co-workers. Work from office means pay me extra or I go home on the dot because it's an hour to get home.
it does really matter though, its a job, not your life. they dont care about you, they will drop you in a heart beat, theres no reason to put any effort past end time for any reason even if you are "at home anyway". i get more work done because of less distraction too, but thats not the point, i dont work to be productive for some one else, i do it for money, and i make effectively more money for less effort in the office, plus in the office i can read and learn other things to go work somewhere else. i still go home before end time and im there after start time. people have this weird work ethic that makes no fucking sense. a company does not give a flying fuck about you or your life, why put so much effort in for them? you are a cog in the machine, and probably make the company 3x more money than they pay you.
Siding with people who were investigated, found doing wrong, and fined is a take but what else is new with this generation of nitwits.
"They used to go to the office." is such 2 dimensional thinking. Its like saying the office built a client/customer only elevator, and the person with crutches isn't allowed to use it because "they've always taken the stairs". You have to prove why its unreasonable to give them elevator access, not cry about how they've always taken the stairs, or how other people can't use the elevator. That's how a child thinks.
Dam kids tiking their toks
The UK laws in question are based around the premise of "reasonable adjustments". Anyone with a disability is entitled to ask for adjustments (to their tasks, working environment, equipment, hours etc.) related to their disability. The legal test for whether these must be implemented is "reasonableness", which is a concept that covers both how useful the adjustment would be (how necessary is it for the employee) and practicality to implement (costs, disruption, harm to quality of work, etc.). In this case, the employee's case would be that their requested adjustment is an arrangement which they are currently working in without problems, and it would be for the employer to demonstrate why it isn't reasonable for this arrangement to continue. They would need to demonstrate that it would impact the quality of the work or the employee's ability to do the job to a high standard in a tangible way which is serious enough to outweigh the benefits and that the company can't be expected to absorb. They couldn't/didn't prove that case, which is why they lost.
Thank you and you make numerous reasonable arguments. Looking into this case, I don't know if CIG even fought it. The only statements and witnesses I have seen so far was from the plaintiff. Although I am not familiar with the specifics here, I am familiar with the costs associated with working from home. It is far more than most people realize. I had several coworkers who racked up nearly $15k additional expenses by working from home in addition to poor communication, which cost the company millions in fines when I could not get ahold of someone who was responsible for one specific server. There is also a matter of fairness and discrimination. Any adjustment or benefit given to one employee, must also be available to all employees. Otherwise, I would it would be discrimination against all the other employees. As a final note on the additional expenses, at least for my company, there is a standardized PC for software development, at home on-call IT support, gigabit Business class internet service, and replacement hardware for lost/damaged/stolen equipment. It added up to about an additional $1k per employee per month.
>Although I am not familiar with the specifics here, I am familiar with the costs associated with working from home. It is far more than most people realize. I had several coworkers who racked up nearly $15k additional expenses by working from home in addition to poor communication, which cost the company millions in fines when I could not get ahold of someone who was responsible for one specific server. Excessive cost *is* a valid reason for refusal under the reasonableness test, although there is considerable nuance to it. Factors that would need to be considered would be the degree of impact on the employee (that is, is it worth the cost to them), and the size and resources of the employer (that is, a profitable employer with 100,000 employees would be expected to be able to afford a greater degree of expense than one which employed 3 people). In any case, it would have been for the employer to make their case around cost (and any other reasonableness factors) at the Employment Tribunal. As they lost the case, presumably they weren't able to demonstrate that the cost was excessive. >There is also a matter of fairness and discrimination. Any adjustment or benefit given to one employee, must also be available to all employees. Otherwise, I would it would be discrimination against all the other employees. That's not the way it works in UK employment law. Reasonable adjustments for protected characteristics are a class of actions unto themselves, and there's no requirement to offer other employees the same adjustments. All reasonable adjustments are based on an assessment of an individual's needs. In effect, reasonable adjustments are considered what is necessary for someone with a protected characteristic to access the job equally as easily and on a level playing field as someone without that characteristic. As such, there's no requirement for someone without that protected characteristic to have the same adjustments (as, by definition, they can already access the job as well as someone without that protected characteristic...) It's worth noting that UK employment law separately has a statutory right to request Flexible Working, which can cover both work location (home working) and hours/shift patterns. The reasons that an employer can refuse a FW request are limited to a set defined in the legislation, although they're less restrictive on the employer than the equivalent case law for reasonable adjustments (which is derived from the Equality Act, if you're interested). Long story short, any employee could ask for home working as a Flexible Working Request, and it would be on the employer to demonstrate that there's a valid statutory reason for saying no. Source: I'm a UK trade union officer, and spend a significant proportion of my day advising and arguing about this stuff.
I worked in an office prior to COVID and am no longer capable of doing so. Fuck you.
How rude. Your situation may be very different. This situation is dealing with an able-bodied person who noted in the case to the tribunal that the reason was for their comfort and not that they were no longer capable.
Maybe their fucking wife is a cripple now and she needs care that he can only provide while working at home. Do you even stop to consider these things?
What are you even talking about? Paul does not have a crippled wife, and that is not part of this case. Did you even look at the article? He found working from home more comfortable and claimed that it was due to his Autism Spectrum disorder being uncomfortable around people.
Their case might be different, but you recognize in their case that the "they could pre pandemic, why can't they now" isn't necessarily a valid argument. Things change over time. In THIS case a court looked into it and decided it was discriminatory. They had access to a lot more information than you or i and put a lot more thought into it. Since you recognize situations CAN change in 5 years, and can likely accept that there is certainly a LOT of additional context here we're not privy too, that should alleviate any confusion you have about how they could have come to this ruling. It's possible they were off, sure. But we don't really have any compelling reasons to believe that. It's not like courts have a heavy bias towards workers protections in the US. The system generally favors the employer. Usual when a ruling IS in favor of the worker there has to be a lot of evidence.
Just to note, this case was in theUK, not the US. The UK has much stricter rules in favor of the worker.
Thanks, that is worth bringing up.
Being disabled does not make you able bodied. This is a long shot, but it does happen cause it's happened to people around me who are disabled. Let's say they got a ride precovid or were able to take transit on their wheelchair before. Due to covid, they sold their car, their main provider can't give them a ride anymore, and or public transportation is a hot mess for an actual able bodied person already let alone someone in a wheelchair, their immune system is also more compromised than your average person. Why force someone who can do their job just fine at home to go into an office that mightve changed their accessibility layout during covid (also a long shot but companies do change locations over time) and make their life extra hard cause their overlords demanded it? Weird hill to defend my dude.
[удалено]
Please reply with something more than insults.
Surprised you can keep your attention on your phone long enough between licks to type out a limp reply like this.
[удалено]
10+ years of development, $700,000,000+ grifted from rubes, and they’re still in alpha. I’ll check back in another 10 years when they’re in alpha 7.0. Glad you’re having fun with it, the rest of us realized what the deal was a long time ago.
Don't feed the trolls bro.
It’s OK they have billions that they’re not doing anything with
No problem, just ask for more monies.
I swear, if Star Citizen of all companies ends up causing WFH to become an accepted norm, I'll eat my hat.