QuoteAs said a disadvantage of wfh is it favours the rich. For a poor person who needs an adapted workspace I imagine it could suck - but then are there not grants and such.
I have spoke to people who are really active in the accessibility community in the UK around this point and they have said for disabled people the rise of wfh is absolutely fantastic
QuoteIt ultimately depends on your boss.
Quote from: HVC on Today at 03:00:18 PMIntroverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 02:58:59 PMYou are assuming WFH helps with recruitment I think because of your preferences. It is actually not that great for younger people, who are the ones we are trying to recruit.
QuoteAlso, the accessibility issue is hard for WFH. It is just not feasible to have the same sort of accommodated work space area in a home environment. A number of our clients had challenges in that regard and when their employees who had accommodations could return to the office, they did.
QuoteWhy do you think that people are not treated like an adult in an office?It ultimately depends on your boss. But even the coolest of bosses can only get away with so much when everyone else is watching - indeed they're watching you even if you don't report to them.
QuoteIRA Green, Inc. v. Military Sales & Serv. Co.: 525 A.2d 432 (R.I. 1987) - This case outlined the elements of tortious interference with contractual relations in Rhode Island.
Cliftex Clothing Co. v. DiSanto: 88 R.I. 338, 148 A.2d 273 (1959) - This case discussed the issue of intentional interference and the requirement for wrongful means.
Avilla v. Newport Grand Jai Alai LLC: 935 A.2d 91 (R.I. 2007) - This case addressed the question of damages in tortious interference claims.
Quote from: HVC on Today at 03:00:18 PMIntroverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.
Quote from: Josquius on Today at 02:53:54 PMPeople need to recognise there are advantages and disadvantages for both.
Remote work pros:
* recruitment. It's popular and you have a broader choice of people to begin with in any one place.
* commute elimination
* easier for self organised exercise and interaction.
* more sleep.
* more flexibility
* opens up a broader array of jobs to people all over the country.
* much better for those with accessibility needs.
* no facilities costs for the company.
* privacy/being treat like an adult.
Remote work cons :
* miss out on incidental learning and colab.
* innovation workshops are much harder. I organised and ran one for Indian unis last year and it was just nowhere near as good as in person. So much lost without the physical space and face to face
* broader societal effects bode poorly (several here)
* less enforced exercise and interaction. Which some need.
* favours the already rich who have a home work space and don't care about the extra bills.
* puts company more out of reach of customers without a physical address where everyone is.
* potential retention suffering vs other remote jobs.
Quote from: Tamas on Today at 02:29:00 PMCC, have you surveyed your workforce how they'd feel about the option to WFH?
QuoteFive parents not holding the right guaranteed by s. 23 of the Charter to have their children receive instruction in one of the two official languages, where it is the minority language, applied to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment of the Northwest Territories ("Minister") for their children's admission to a French first language education program. In each case, the Commission scolaire francophone des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest ("CSFTNO") recommended admission because it would promote the development of the Francophone community of the Northwest Territories. In spite of those recommendations, the Minister denied each of the applications for admission on the ground that the non‑rights holder parents did not meet the conditions established by the ministerial directive on enrolment in French first language education programs, which created categories of eligible non‑rights holders.
QuoteSecond, the admission of children of parents who are not rights holders under s. 23 of the Charter can have an impact on the preservation and development of minority language communities. Population growth in the minority language community helps to ensure its development and prevent its decline, including by reducing the likelihood of assimilation and cultural erosion. The admission of children of non‑rights holder parents also contributes to fulfilling the promise of s. 23, which is to give effect to the equal partnership of Canada's two official language groups in the context of education. It follows that these values are always relevant when the government exercises its discretion to admit children of non‑rights holder parents to minority language schools and that they must therefore always be taken into account, even when there is no direct infringement of the right guaranteed by s. 23.
Quote from: Barrister on Today at 01:56:04 PMhttps://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-naturopath-adriana-lagrange-rob-roth-primary-care-1.7049522
Alberta government is meeting with naturopaths to consider wider role in primary health care. In particular they want to be able to prescribe some drugs.
This of course seems like something right up Danielle Smith's alley. She was supportive of ivermectin as a Covid treatment for example.
So I'm pretty opposed to Naturopaths - they mostly provide a whole series of quack treatments with no scientific background.
But I mean I could see some slight benefit from being able to go to a naturopath much more quickly in order to get a prescription for, I dunno, antibiotics or a topical cream or something.
But what I would fear is naturoapths handing out prescriptions for the next ivermectin with no basis to do so.
Page created in 0.038 seconds with 15 queries.