|
|
|
|
|
by Vampires123432
3435 days ago
|
|
Working from home was removed from our office because of "abuse". Who was "abusing" it? We have 7 Indian (not American) females working in our office in various functions. All (100%) of them were found to have been "working" from home on multiple occasions where they were inaccessible (not logged in, not responding to emails). Their reasons for working from home ranged from children to car troubles. By all measurable attributes, their work output was less than their peers. Now before you knee jerk, please understand that I'm simply pointing out the measurable facts of the situation. I'm not making any claims regarding cultural background. I am, however, questioning whether or not there exists a cultural component here that leads to a different understanding of the "work from home policy". To that degree, the statement, "If you don't trust your employees to work remotely you shouldn't have hired them" can perhaps come across as a bit racist. |
|
Were there other employees who were abusing the system? What was the consequence of this abuse? Missed tickets? Pagers unattended? Meetings missed? How large was your organization? Is seven a small or a huge number relative to the number of employees in your org?
> To that degree, the statement, "If you don't trust your employees to work remotely you shouldn't have hired them" can perhaps come across as a bit racist.
Explain. In a statement that says nothing about race, just an employee-employer relationship, how would you perceive that as racist?