Date: 2020-03-14 12:54 pm (UTC)
hudebnik: (Default)
From: [personal profile] hudebnik
"lots of employees need to be physically present, so those of us with purely office jobs are helping protect the production folks from potential exposure"

See, that makes sense. [personal profile] shalmestere's employer, a large public library system, has refused for years to let the people without public-contact jobs telecommute because "it wouldn't be fair". Whether they'll reconsider that now in terms of "it reduces risk for the people who are coming in," I don't know. Whether they'll close the doors and furlough everybody except the ones who can telecommute ("unfair" in the other direction), I also don't know.

Meanwhile, Google has allowed WFH for many years, although you're technically supposed to clear it with your manager in advance. A week and a half ago they went to "voluntary WFH" (whatever that means) in NYC, and "recommended WFH" in Seattle. A few days later they went to "recommended WFH" for all US and Canada sites. I was in the office on Wednesday to pick up a package at the mailroom, and it was pretty deserted.

My team has gone from a weekly "stand-up" meeting (in which each person has a minute to describe current work and blockers) to a daily update of a shared doc, and an optional teleconference, to keep everybody in sync. In addition to the usual e-mails, team chat room, bug-tracker threads, etc.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not on Access List)
(will be screened if not on Access List)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

hrj: (Default)
hrj

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1 234567
8 91011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 16th, 2025 03:52 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios