No it's not. It makes no sense to say "oh, you can't commute to work and then home again five times a week? so how do you get groceries?" because those are two completely separate things in completely separate environments.
It's none of Amazon's business how people manage their disabilities outside of work. The only thing that matters is what the most effective way of managing their disabilities is inside of work. Amazon is not your doctor, and if your doctor says that this is the most effective way for you to manage things while being productive then they need to accept that the doctor knows what they're doing.
Part of which is that people face lots of stigma around disabilities still, but also the need to have some historical and diagnoses paperwork is a barrier that I suspect lots of people don't want to go through.
Frankly, I don't believe its rampant to begin with, and I can't find any real evidence that supports that people are widely abusing these accommodation requests.
I am suppose to believe that because you perceive society at large is abusing the situation around emotional support animals that this must also mean its rampant in the workplace?
Again, without any evidence that accommodations for disabilities in the workplace are an issue of this magnitude? Even though the bar for getting them is far higher than what it takes to claim you have an emotional support animal when out shopping?[0]
[0]: Stores have little incentive, and actually several disincentives, to ask for information about an emotional support animal. They actually can inquire if your animal is a service animal, and what tasks it has been trained to perform but they simply don't do the follow on. There's no incentive for them to do it. Not the case with workplace accommodations.
I would have to think food code trumps disability accommodation, especially since the law isn't "you have to let them do whatever the fuck they like" but "provide reasonable accommodations".
It's extremely naive and childish to still cling to the view that people are by and large honest when there are little or no repercussions for acting dishonestly.
We could look at medical marijuana as a case study too. As soon as it became available as a medicine, a whole industry to get people prescriptions popped up over night. You just had to make an appointment with a special doctor, check a box saying you were sad, and just like that you could be "disabled".
I would be impressed if you could look at me with a straight face and say "A law mandating people who feel stressed in the workplace need to unquestionably be given WFH rights would not be abused"
Lets get this off the table now. I didn't propose one, I'm not saying one exists, and that would be a shitty law because there are better ways to go about this anyway.
However, there are multiple instances where there are medically valid reasons where working from home is an appropriate accommodation for people. That is different from what you're saying. Extremely different. Disability should never be accommodated based on blanket actions, each situation tends to be unique to a person, and so is the accommodation requested
have you ever had to disclose a complex disability to an employee and seek ongoing accommodations for it?
>People will abuse protections meant to help others in need if it also benefits them.
Never argued they won't, but unlike medical marijuana and a host of other examples, there is strikingly no person actually coming forward with any evidence that people are rampantly abusing disability accommodations in the work place.
These laws already exist, and they already have decades worth of guidelines and such to go off of. I simply don't believe its a widely abused system. Its not a simple nor as private as doing any of the myriad of things people keep giving examples of.
You have to disclose it at your place of work, which means HR and your manager at a minimum will be aware of it, and on top of that, there is a long stigma of people with disabilities being discriminated against in the workplace, so its not exactly behooving of your career goals to do this either.
If anyone could reasonably come forward and show that there is actually more than hand wavy fears about people abusing laws around requiring disability accommodations in the work place to such a degree one could reasonably say its rampant, I'm all ears.
I can't find anything about that, I haven't observed that.
But i sure have observed a bunch of people who most likely do not have disabilities try and tell me, a person who absolutely has to do the thing of disclosing a disability in the workplace for proper accommodations, that I need to go through even more hoops and checks because I might be somehow taking advantage of the system. That I see alot.
At the end of the day, what if people were? Why does it matter? Can someone show me why defaulting to making the workplace more disability friendly is actually a problem?
The nerve of this community