N.F.L.’s Push Ahead With Season Rankles Workers in the Home Office

[Punching Bag]

Did I miss discussion on this?  And is NY Times only publication which calls it "N.F.L."?

Note: NYT requires you provide account which it will send email to or paid subscription.  I was getting too many emails so I cancelled it and used another account which I rarely use to connect with.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/sports/football/coronavirus-nfl-restart-season.html

 

Quote

Workers who have been ordered back to the league’s headquarters are resisting, arguing that the reopening was rushed and that in some ways they have been put in an “impossible situation.”

 

Quote

League officials have said that allowances will be made for employees with particular health concerns or family challenges. But the parent network took issue with that, too. The N.F.L. is requiring workers who want to continue to work remotely to discuss these requests with human resources representatives. Workers said that requirement “puts our colleagues in an impossible situation” because of their desire to maintain their own and their family members’ privacy on matters of physical and mental health, among other reasons.

 

This is not unusual in my experience otherwise employees would be requiring exceptions to rules even when not warranted. 

In my case I needed to provide extensive information to HR and when my doctor decided I could increase my hours to 32 hours a week and disability company agreed HR refused and told me I needed to go back to work full time or they would change me involuntarily to part time employee and I would lose all benefits including ones I paid for which included long term disability.  I also had to provide documentation twice on bereavement leave of mother-in-law and mother.

 

Quote

The return was announced July 31 in an email from Goodell making the case to get back to the office, particularly as players have been asked to report to training camp.

“As our teams and players gear up for the season, it is critical that we quickly ramp up our physical presence in the workplace too,” Goodell wrote in the email, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times.

 

Quote

Unlike the players, workers in the league’s headquarters, as well as on individual teams, are not unionized, so they have less leverage to negotiate work conditions. In that regard, the league’s efforts to accommodate its workers’ needs, particularly parents, mirror challenges faced by many companies.

 

[whatdrought]

I mean, what do they want? I assume these are employees that have been paid during down time / compensated to work from home (which is traditionally less efficient/valuable to the company) instead of being laid off like many people have. But now they want it taken on faith that when they're not ready to come back to work it's all on the up and up? I mean, this is the real world. I get not wanting to divulge medical information, but there are certain rights you part with for the sake of employment. 

 

[NoSaint]

7 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

I mean, what do they want? I assume these are employees that have been paid during down time / compensated to work from home (which is traditionally less efficient/valuable to the company) instead of being laid off like many people have. But now they want it taken on faith that when they're not ready to come back to work it's all on the up and up? I mean, this is the real world. I get not wanting to divulge medical information, but there are certain rights you part with for the sake of employment. 

 

some of my very least productive days were spent in a cubicle 

 

and frankly, just because many employers treated their employees worse doesn’t mean nfl employees can’t ask for more. 

[atlbillsfan1975]

Another attempt by the Times to try and stir the pot. Misleading title and very vague article. Par for the course from the Times. 

Edited August 11, 2020 by atlbillsfan1975

[njbuff]

It's the New York Slimes.

 

That entity is the biggest POS in this country.

[whatdrought]

19 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

some of my very least productive days were spent in a cubicle 

 

and frankly, just because many employers treated their employees worse doesn’t mean nfl employees can’t ask for more. 

 

That makes sense, but the general rule is that in office is more productive. 

 

Right, but what they're asking for (at least from the context of the snips, as I couldn't see the article) is exemptions from returning to work without any proven reason. 

[NoSaint]

10 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

That makes sense, but the general rule is that in office is more productive. 

 

Right, but what they're asking for (at least from the context of the snips, as I couldn't see the article) is exemptions from returning to work without any proven reason. 

which in many work environments is pretty normal right now. More than a few office places are going the extra mile for safety and not bringing people back in unless they can provide a reason you are needed in person. 
 

It’s ok to press your employer on stuff like this. I know employees rights aren’t a thing to many many Americans... but “the players have to show up” isn’t a great reason for why sally in accounting can’t WFH any longer. If she is truly needed and they’ve taken the reasonable precautions that’s different. 
 

Also your assertion that the general rule is you are more productive in the office is not much of a rule. Many studies have found various roles accomplish more from home. Depends on the job and the person but broad strokes put WFH ahead for quite a few positions. 

Edited August 11, 2020 by NoSaint

[whatdrought]

3 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

which in many work environments is pretty normal right now. More than a few office places are going the extra mile for safety and not bringing people back in unless they can provide a reason you are needed in person. 
 

It’s ok to press your employer on stuff like this. I know employees rights aren’t a thing to many many Americans... but “the players have to show up” isn’t a great reason for why sally in accounting can’t WFH any longer. If she is truly needed and they’ve taken the reasonable precautions that’s different. 
 

Also your assertion that the general rule is you are more productive in the office is not much of a rule. Many studies have found various roles accomplish more from home. Depends on the job and the person but broad strokes put WFH ahead for quite a few positions. 

 

Valid points, and It makes sense. 
 

But if at the end of the day, if Sally is needed in the building and has a medical reason why she can’t be, it makes sense that she needs to validate that claim somehow. 
 

I see what you mean, but the missing issue in that conversation is the company as a whole. The NFL corporate offices have run via a group of people working in close proximity. Maybe they could do it as well, or better at home, but to get to that point (with normal, non-pandemic workload and function) would take a lot of investment, or so I would imagine. 
 

 

So the reality is that the employers needs dictate the work relationship and where that happens. 

[NoSaint]

17 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Valid points, and It makes sense. 
 

But if at the end of the day, if Sally is needed in the building and has a medical reason why she can’t be, it makes sense that she needs to validate that claim somehow. 
 

I see what you mean, but the missing issue in that conversation is the company as a whole. The NFL corporate offices have run via a group of people working in close proximity. Maybe they could do it as well, or better at home, but to get to that point (with normal, non-pandemic workload and function) would take a lot of investment, or so I would imagine. 
 

 

So the reality is that the employers needs dictate the work relationship and where that happens. 

While they do generally need to set up the work flow for sake of structuring a business...just because they declared their plan it doesn’t mean it’s a good one. Plenty of mid to senior managers have very little concrete data on best practices and simply revert to how it has been done as the safe “don’t rock the boat” way to do it.
 

In this case that boat may just be not wanting to look bad in front of people in the 32 other buildings- which wouldn’t be a good reason. 
 

I don’t know their individual tasks though so really I’m just railing against the assumption that it’s by default right because the employer said so and they should be grateful to work. Odds are general nfl office jobs could be overwhelmingly accomplished at home though, with quite limited time and titles in office.

Edited August 11, 2020 by NoSaint

[KD in CA]

41 minutes ago, atlbillsfan1975 said:

Another attempt by the Times to try an stir the pot. Misleading title and very vague article. Par for the course from the Times. 

 

Yup.  You'll never seen them write that article about an entity they like.

[Mike in Horseheads]

45 minutes ago, njbuff said:

It's the New York Slimes.

 

That entity is the biggest POS in this country.

Yes it should be something reputable like FOX News with Tucker and Sean

[quinnearlysghost88]

48 minutes ago, atlbillsfan1975 said:

Another attempt by the Times to try an stir the pot. Misleading title and very vague article. Par for the course from the Times. 

They’re not stirring the pot. They’re literally reporting that nfl workers don’t want to report to the headquarters for health/quality of life reasons. It’s actually a thing that’s taking place. And they’re reporting on it. Would it be easier if it were a meme on Facebook for you? 

[Mike in Horseheads]

3 minutes ago, quinnearlysghost88 said:

They’re not stirring the pot. They’re literally reporting that nfl workers don’t want to report to the headquarters for health/quality of life reasons. It’s actually a thing that’s taking place. And they’re reporting on it. Would it be easier if it were a meme on Facebook for you? 

Don't confuse him, on PPP nobody talks back

[MJS]

Yep, most people don't like going to work, so if they have the option to sit around at home they resist the requirement to go back.

[NoSaint]

10 minutes ago, MJS said:

Yep, most people don't like going to work, so if they have the option to sit around at home they resist the requirement to go back.

Ok, boomer 

[Lurker]

37 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

Don't confuse him, on PPP nobody talks back

 

More like nobody listens.  That place is an echo chamber...

[whatdrought]

52 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

While they do generally need to set up the work flow for sake of structuring a business...just because they declared their plan it doesn’t mean it’s a good one. Plenty of mid to senior managers have very little concrete data on best practices and simply revert to how it has been done as the safe “don’t rock the boat” way to do it.
 

In this case that boat may just be not wanting to look bad in front of people in the 32 other buildings- which wouldn’t be a good reason. 
 

I don’t know their individual tasks though so really I’m just railing against the assumption that it’s by default right because the employer said so and they should be grateful to work. Odds are general nfl office jobs could be overwhelmingly accomplished at home though, with quite limited time and titles in office.

 

I don’t care if the employer is right or wrong in this context. My main issue is that to be excused from work means a certain surrender of privacy. 

[Punching Bag]

I think unless people are being watched at work people act at home like they did do at work. 

 

?

I work with staff member who is unavailable for over an hour because he is on personal video call with his wife and he has barely been at work for an hour. The person is the night lead and is person who needs to call for support.  And due to his absences I have had to add support people to email chain which got his organization unhappy so I am not supposed to do that any more even when I can see he is absent, sleeping or not bother looking at computer chatting with someone.

 

I actually perform better at home since I do not see this and I am not frustrated and do not step over line and get people mad.

 

?

 

On my team I had part of a system down from Thursday to Saturday last week.  I did not work those days and discovered that it was down and nobody noticed it including the day staff who set it up and our staff who covers evenings, overnights and weekends.  The same two people were working who missed the issue same time.  I contacted day staff reporting it down and it was fixed; I pointed out this should not have been missed by day staff so lead coded a monitor to watch for this and added it to the page added last time something was missed.  I was one who caught issue last time as well.

 

If a problem occurred on server which was watched by that monitor there is a possibility we and more importantly me might be out of a job but we got lucky and he is ignoring problem again.  Quote from chat:

 

me:

Server was not down then but most of monitors were. Old "Health Of Monitoring Machines"  page would have reported health fine which Is why I got day staff to add items to that page.

him:

ok if it was not down then there is no problem...simpe

simple...no need to open a can of worms when nothing is there

[atlbillsfan1975]

11 hours ago, quinnearlysghost88 said:

They’re not stirring the pot. They’re literally reporting that nfl workers don’t want to report to the headquarters for health/quality of life reasons. It’s actually a thing that’s taking place. And they’re reporting on it. Would it be easier if it were a meme on Facebook for you? 

I am not on Facebook. Thank you for proving my point by trying to attack me. The employees of the NFL have a choice if they don’t think it’s safe, quit . Find someplace else to work

Edited August 11, 2020 by atlbillsfan1975

[MJS]

57 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

Ok, boomer 

I'm a millennial.

[Punching Bag]

1 hour ago, NoSaint said:

Ok, boomer 

 

Which boomer is MJS?

 

 

 

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, whatdrought said:

 

I don’t care if the employer is right or wrong in this context. My main issue is that to be excused from work means a certain surrender of privacy. 

and my point is that it really might not have to 

33 minutes ago, MJS said:

I'm a millennial.

ha- I’m mostly just ribbing you...

 

though that does kind of make the grumpy old man schtick even more... well... I’m not sure the best word. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, whatdrought said:

I mean, what do they want? I assume these are employees that have been paid during down time / compensated to work from home (which is traditionally less efficient/valuable to the company) instead of being laid off like many people have. But now they want it taken on faith that when they're not ready to come back to work it's all on the up and up? I mean, this is the real world. I get not wanting to divulge medical information, but there are certain rights you part with for the sake of employment.

 

I mean, that's the usual procedure in most companies, isn't it?  If you have a personal situation for which you would like accomodation, you discuss it with your boss and with HR?  Am I out of date?

 

I would have some sympathy for them if the NFL offices were located in an area where the amount of covid-19 in the community is a question because tests are backlogged 10-14 days, people with symptoms have to wait 3-5 days for a test slot, the positive test rate is 13%, contact tracing takes place less than 20% of the time, and hospitalizations are on the rise.

 

But they aren't.  They're in NY and NJ, which are valiantly trying to maintain that "pee free zone" in the swimming pool of the country.

 

Kid working at GM this summer.   Union negotiated for various covid-19 concessions including daily supply of paper medical masks for all.  But after that all the workers had a choice: take retirement if eligible, resign, or show up.

[Buftex]

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

More like nobody listens.  That place is an echo chamber...

A house of mirrors

[26TrapDraw]

What a bunch of crybaby dooshbags. Get back to work. You are what's wrong with this country . You should thank your lucky stars every second you have a job. There's people who would literally kill to have your job. So tired of the garbage attitude that has developed from this completely overhyped pandemic.

[GunnerBill]

There is such a disconnect between a lot of Americans and most of Europe on this. I challenge three of the repeated assumptions in this thread:

 

1) you give up certain rights for the sake of having a job.

 

The only think I give up for having a job is my time. That is literally the economic transaction that is taking place. I am giving the employer my time for payment of an agreed compensation. I do not give up any other right. Our culture in Europe is pro enhanced worker protections and indeed it is pretty much a consensus that they should be protected at all costs. Even the right wing Conservative Government here in the UK had to commit to no divergence from the EU standards on workers rights when delivering on Brexit. 

 

2) that people work harder in an office environment.  

 

My own employer has carried out an assessment just this month and has identified that on average staff are working around 2 hours a week longer during this imposed working from home period. You can chalk that up to no commute and less clear delineation between 'work' time and 'leisure' time. Speaking just for myself I have regularly been finishing around my normal time of 6.30 but then because the laptop stays on in the corner have returned to it at 8.30/9pm after dinner and cleared my inbox. 

 

3) that there are things that you simply can't replicate away from the office.

 

So while I think this one is true, it is fewer things than the perception. Yes those sort of team collaboration projects may take a little longer but the software out there now to support that kind of work remotely really is excellent. And many fewer of the things that people perceive as "face to face being necessary" are in reality. In my job where we were already encouraged to work away from the office two days a week to help manage building capacity there were three golden rules in terms of when you must be face to face:

- briefing Government Ministers;

- live negotiations (namely with the EU on future trade relationship);

- supporting Parliamentary debates;

 

Of those three what we have learnt is that only the third does, in reality, work a lot better in person. Briefing Government ministers remotely has been far more efficient, the live negotiations with the EU that happened remotely in April and May were as effective as the face to face ones.... the only area where it really doesn't work is supporting Parliamentary activity. So we are moving to a bit of a hybrid system for that in the fall. 

 

I think covid has brought forward a change that was bound to happen at some point anyway. Premises are one of the biggest expenses for any business. Many have already been running hot desking and flexible working for a decade... but the future is almost certainly downsizing of office space in prime real estate in city centres with more staff working more of their time from home. There will be other economic adjustments we see to support that. For example, fewer office workers in London city centre means fewer Starbucks and fewer Prets, but this day was coming at some point. Covid has just accelerated it.

[machine gun kelly]

Working from home or in an office boils down to the person.  I’ve been in Medical Device and Biotechnology sales and management for 20 years.  In my industry, you’re either in the field or working from home.  My friends and colleagues in order to be successful have to work well over 50 hours a week.  When in management I typically am living out of a hotel T-TR and in my office in my home M, and F.   I also usually have to spend an hour or two on Saturday morning or some do it Sunday evening.  As a field rep you’re basically in the field five days a week and working in you’re office in you’re home early in the am or in the evening.  I’m not complaining as I get to help doctors, nurses, staff and patients with various medical conditions.  
 

If someone had a serious medical condition and is disciplined enough to work from home without distraction, I don’t see a problem.  If they don’t have a serious medical condition and they have a brick and mortar job, then they should take precautions to protect their health, but follow corporate policies.  The poster who states to feel lucky to have a job is correct.  Unfortunately, this is such a tough time with hiring freezes, layoffs, etc. It is a luxury to be working and providing for you’re family.

[Jdragon2]

12 hours ago, atlbillsfan1975 said:

I am not on Facebook. Thank you for proving my point by trying to attack me. The employees of the NFL have a choice if they don’t think it’s safe, quit . Find someplace else to work

 

Your point isn't proven because he called you out, in fact if anything it was an affront on your disregard of information because you don't like the source. Like someone else said go watch something "reputable" like Tucker Carlson....

 

America gets dumber by the day.

 

Edit: Oh and before you say something along the lines of "Well you just called out Fox News so you disregard them too...." I'm able to discern ignorance from biased reporting. Fox News is both.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Jdragon2

[Mr. WEO]

12 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

 

 

 

But they aren't.  They're in NY and NJ, which are valiantly trying to maintain that "pee free zone" in the swimming pool of the country.

 

 

 

 

This is a good point.  The viral load in NYC (even) is at a stable low.  Perhaps nowhere will it ever be zero, but it has been mitigated better there than in any city.

 

These employees no doubt live in NYC/LI/NJ and are almost certainly enjoying the city as everyone is--outdoor dining, shopping at any store, big or small that is still in business, going to beaches and parks and riding the subway.  To profess a deathly fear of going into 345 Park Avenue with a mask on to do work seems like a stretch.

 

Sure, if you can work from home, you should.  But given what is going on with the virus outside off the City, it's hard for me to see a significant health risk going to work in a midtown office building.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

15 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

This is a good point.  The viral load in NYC (even) is at a stable low.  Perhaps nowhere will it ever be zero, but it has been mitigated better there than in any city.

 

These employees no doubt live in NYC/LI/NJ and are almost certainly enjoying the city as everyone is--outdoor dining, shopping at any store, big or small that is still in business, going to beaches and parks and riding the subway.  To profess a deathly fear of going into 345 Park Avenue with a mask on to do work seems like a stretch.

 

Sure, if you can work from home, you should.  But given what is going on with the virus outside off the City, it's hard for me to see a significant health risk going to work in a midtown office building.

 

I mean, it's possible that the NFL is expecting unsafe things of them such as inadequate isolation or distancing of work spaces, inadequate disinfection supplies or the like.  I don't spend 40 hrs a week every day at the beach or in a park, more shame to me.  If so, they may have a legit beef.

 

But the focus of the article appears to be that specific vulnerable individuals or individuals with vulnerable people at home need to request specific variances, and that their employees are having the same struggles with childcare and so forth that all working people with young children currently face.  And people in other professions (like yours) who are worried about exposing family members are living in RVs in their yard or basements or temporarily moving in with different family members or friends.

 

And as far as I can tell from here, NYS and NYC appear to have one of the best programs requiring businesses to present a reactivation plan that actually gets reviewed and amended as necessary before the business can reopen.

 

If they have a legit beef beyond the normal "covid-19 sucks" of this day and age, the article doesn't make it clear.

[Mr. WEO]

36 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I mean, it's possible that the NFL is expecting unsafe things of them such as inadequate isolation or distancing of work spaces, inadequate disinfection supplies or the like.  I don't spend 40 hrs a week every day at the beach or in a park, more shame to me.  If so, they may have a legit beef.

 

But the focus of the article appears to be that specific vulnerable individuals or individuals with vulnerable people at home need to request specific variances, and that their employees are having the same struggles with childcare and so forth that all working people with young children currently face.  And people in other professions (like yours) who are worried about exposing family members are living in RVs in their yard or basements or temporarily moving in with different family members or friends.

 

And as far as I can tell from here, NYS and NYC appear to have one of the best programs requiring businesses to present a reactivation plan that actually gets reviewed and amended as necessary before the business can reopen.

 

If they have a legit beef beyond the normal "covid-19 sucks" of this day and age, the article doesn't make it clear.

 

It is not legal to do so in NYS, so that is not likely.  

 

I know no one in the medical field at this point who lives in an RV/basement in Rochester, because it is unnecessary.  Houston, Miami--that would be different.  But my employer and that of the workers described in that article are located in NYS.  It just seems odd that the NYT would focus on a single company and its workers, when no doubt there are countless companies/workers in that very building and others all around it in midtown Manhattan that are already back in the office.  Seems like a bit of piling on.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

It is not legal to do so in NYS, so that is not likely.  

 

You have a valid point, but we all do know some companies push or disregard the law, so worth raising as point where if so, the workers would have a beef.  But that was not the focus of the article.

 

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

I know no one in the medical field at this point who lives in an RV/basement in Rochester, because it is unnecessary.  Houston, Miami--that would be different.  But my employer and that of the workers described in that article are located in NYS.  It just seems odd that the NYT would focus on a single company and its workers, when no doubt there are countless companies/workers in that very building and others all around it in midtown Manhattan that are already back in the office.  Seems like a bit of piling on.

 

I agree on the "piling on".  My point was that people do vary in their risk perception, and for someone concerned because they live with their 88 year old mother, there are mitigations available outside of not working.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You have a valid point, but we all do know some companies push or disregard the law, so worth raising as point where if so, the workers would have a beef.  But that was not the focus of the article.

 

 

I agree on the "piling on".  My point was that people do vary in their risk perception, and for someone concerned because they live with their 88 year old mother, there are mitigations available outside of not working.

 

I seriously doubt the NFL office workers could offer the NFL as a COVID abusive workplace.  My guess is that the NFL's square footage would be the tightest in the whole of midtown in regard to being COVID compliant.  They are higher profile than nearly any business I can think of so to me there's no way they would "expose" themselves to bad scrutiny/press over simple stuff like fitting out the office appropriately.

 

Working at home is a luxury afforded to relatively few American workers.

[hemma]

I read somewhere that some of them even have to chew their own food.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

17 hours ago, whatdrought said:

 

That makes sense, but the general rule is that in office is more productive. 

I don’t buy this as a general rule Any more.
 

People who want to work hard contribute and advance will do so.
 

People who want to hide will always find a way. 

 

With the quality of tools available for virtual work, there is no obstruction to those who wish to be productive. (Provided you job can be done virtually) 
 

I’ve actually felt a higher level of productivity personally And among my staff.  1) no time spent walking from conference room to another (2) commute is removed as an additional component of work day as well as ‘getting ready for work’. some even split this time with the employer by working extra time normally consumed by commute (3) many people go out of their way to show more production of of fear of not being visible (4) everyone is accessible, there really isn’t a ‘stepped out for lunch’ or the like 

 

I get the mentality of clock punching and watching, but I think managers can see who’s working and who’s not. 
 

some of the least productive people I Know spend 10 hours a day “in the office” 

 

 

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I seriously doubt the NFL office workers could offer the NFL as a COVID abusive workplace.  My guess is that the NFL's square footage would be the tightest in the whole of midtown in regard to being COVID compliant.  They are higher profile than nearly any business I can think of so to me there's no way they would "expose" themselves to bad scrutiny/press over simple stuff like fitting out the office appropriately.

 

Working at home is a luxury afforded to relatively few American workers.

so I think the verbiage around WFH is where I get a little rankled. In a past post you mentioned that if you could, you should... but now it’s a luxury.

 

I don’t think going to an office in NYC is a huge risk, but I’d venture the guess that the overwhelming majority of employees could work from home.

 

if you say they should WFH if they can, than why is there anything wrong with the nfl getting a little pushback from their workers?

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

15 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

I don’t buy this as a general rule Any more.
 

People who want to work hard contribute and advance will do so.
 

People who want to hide will always find a way. 

 

With the quality of tools available for virtual work, there is no obstruction to those who wish to be productive. (Provided you job can be done virtually) 
 

I’ve actually felt a higher level of productivity personally And among my staff.  1) no time spent walking from conference room to another (2) commute is removed as an additional component of work day as well as ‘getting ready for work’. some even split this time with the employer by working extra time normally consumed by commute (3) many people go out of their way to show more production of of fear of not being visible (4) everyone is accessible, there really isn’t a ‘stepped out for lunch’ or the like 

 

I get the mentality of clock punching and watching, but I think managers can see who’s working and who’s not. 
 

some of the least productive people I Know spend 10 hours a day “in the office” 

 

 

 

Amen to that. 

 

I think some of the push for people to get back in the office is from managers that don't do very much work. Pre-COVID they would spend most of their days chatting with people about nothing or scheduling hour long meetings that could've been a 30 second email. Now that they are WFH they have about an hour of work per day and assume everyone else is doing as little work as they are. They feel the need to be in the office to be productive because what they were doing in the office wasn't actually "productive". 

[njbuff]

17 hours ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

Yes it should be something reputable like FOX News with Tucker and Sean

 

The Slimes aren't called the Slimes for nothing.

 

They have earned every bit of that reputation.

 

 

[Mike in Horseheads]

10 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 

The Slimes aren't called the Slimes for nothing.

 

They have earned every bit of that reputation.

 

 

Yah I hear that a lot about Tucker and Sean

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, NoSaint said:

so I think the verbiage around WFH is where I get a little rankled. In a past post you mentioned that if you could, you should... but now it’s a luxury.

 

I don’t think going to an office in NYC is a huge risk, but I’d venture the guess that the overwhelming majority of employees could work from home.

 

if you say they should WFH if they can, than why is there anything wrong with the nfl getting a little pushback from their workers?

Mot sure why the pushback.  Really a low risk situation for office workers.  An employer is the arbiter o what can be done from home—this is always the case.

 

 This becomes a story only because of the company involved and for no other reason.  In an epidemiological sense,  the employees argument isn’t very compelling,  but it gets traction because the league is an easy target.