aTm2004 said:

---

Mine hasn't talked about a date yet, but they have talked about the possibility of changing the WFH policy with altering our current policy or making some positions permanent WFH. I can tell you one thing, after this, I do not want permanent WFH even though my position can be done remotely. I would prefer a rotating schedule where I'm in the office a week and WFH for a week, which would be the best of both worlds.

---

I think alternating days is better.

94chem said:

---

tylercsbn9 said:

---

CoachRTM said:

---

Just another data point, but our company went back to work downtown this past Monday. Seems like around 90% of people are here every day.

Masks required when in hallways, public areas, or when within 6 feet of another human. Temperature readings when we come in, limited people on elevators, etc. My work area is mostly cubicles, so basically anytime you get up from your desk, you put on the mask. Other than that, people work from their cubicles.

Everything has gone fine so far, but it'll be curious to see what happens if one person gets it on the floor.


I also know of one other major downtown company thinking about coming back in around two weeks. Probably a staggered approach compared to ours.

---

I'd rather just work at home than deal with all that

---

People used to wearing full FRC in 100 degrees would probably trade for a cubicle job in the AC if they had to put on a mask occasionally.

---

Most of the ones I know would not.

Im in the office about 60% of the time with the rest of my time being in the office. FRCs over the useless masks everyday.

None of the operators working outside want to be in a cubicle, FRCs be damned.

Lol. Field 60%

The house circus is right. We had WFH days already, and when the kids are in school and the wife is at work, it's great. I can put my head down and get things done. Now, there's 3 kids running around screaming, fighting, and interrupting everything. If my wife has a call or something at the same time I do, it's chaos. The thing that doesn't make it that bad right now is that everyone with young kids is experiencing the same thing.

I know I'll miss these days when they're older, though.

If I had to choose what I believed they would propose, that would be it. MWF and TR schedules that alternate. Both are better than driving into the office everyday.

TXTransplant said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

Mine hasn't talked about a date yet, but they have talked about the possibility of changing the WFH policy with altering our current policy or making some positions permanent WFH. I can tell you one thing, after this, I do not want permanent WFH even though my position can be done remotely. I would prefer a rotating schedule where I'm in the office a week and WFH for a week, which would be the best of both worlds.

---

i'm sure you will be first to speak out at what a wuss your management is being about the whole situation

---

While you're too scared to question your leadership.

---

I think you're grossly over-simplifying the decision-making behind companies continuing to tell people to work from home.

The CVXs, XOMs, LYBs, etc of the world don't make money because people sit in offices and cubes all day long.

They are also trying to mitigate their risk right now - probably more so than any other time in history.

So, if leaving me (as an office-dweller) to continue to work from home indefinitely is what my company needs to do to focus on making the products that make us money, I'm not going to question anyone's leadership.

Regardless of my personal beliefs, it's not my company's responsibility to prove to anyone that the world is "safe" by sending us all back to work.

If having people WFH does not negatively affect the bottom line and mitigates some risk in the short term, that's what I EXPECT my company (and its peers) to be doing.

---

Let me help you out, buddy. Saying pretty much the same thing. Companies are afraid of making the wrong decision, so their leadership and the board are being overly cautious. There's no questioning there, it's my opinion and one I feel is probably pretty accurate given today's society. We joke about school administrators and some of their decisions, but in reality, they're no different than the leadership at large companies.

And then...

Quote:

---

It's about money, not making some political statement.

---

I never said what the companies are doing is a political statement, I stated what the media has turned this into is political. There is a difference.

And seriously, where is Ag_07? Is he OK? If you personally know him, please check on him and make sure he's OK. I miss him telling me how I've turned this into a gutter by doing nothing but posting what I believe my company will do given the information provided by leadership, like others on this thread.

94chem said:

---

tylercsbn9 said:

---

CoachRTM said:

---

Just another data point, but our company went back to work downtown this past Monday. Seems like around 90% of people are here every day.

Masks required when in hallways, public areas, or when within 6 feet of another human. Temperature readings when we come in, limited people on elevators, etc. My work area is mostly cubicles, so basically anytime you get up from your desk, you put on the mask. Other than that, people work from their cubicles.

Everything has gone fine so far, but it'll be curious to see what happens if one person gets it on the floor.


I also know of one other major downtown company thinking about coming back in around two weeks. Probably a staggered approach compared to ours.

---

I'd rather just work at home than deal with all that

---

People used to wearing full FRC in 100 degrees would probably trade for a cubicle job in the AC if they had to put on a mask occasionally.

---

People wear FRCs because it's a safety issue.

You can say the same thing for all these companies choosing to have the office-dwellers WFH. Right now, if you CAN work from home, that's where you are the safest and create the least liability for the company (at least with respect to this virus).

Saying that office people having to wear a mask isn't "as bad" as people having to wear FRCs in 100* heat is and should be absolutely irrelevant to the decision making progress.

At least that's how I think about it. Certainly, if I was told I HAD to go back to the office and I HAD to wear a mask, I would suck it up and do it. But that's absolutely not necessary for my position (and a lot of others), and companies are recognizing that.

TXTransplant said:

---

94chem said:

---

tylercsbn9 said:

---

CoachRTM said:

---

Just another data point, but our company went back to work downtown this past Monday. Seems like around 90% of people are here every day.

Masks required when in hallways, public areas, or when within 6 feet of another human. Temperature readings when we come in, limited people on elevators, etc. My work area is mostly cubicles, so basically anytime you get up from your desk, you put on the mask. Other than that, people work from their cubicles.

Everything has gone fine so far, but it'll be curious to see what happens if one person gets it on the floor.


I also know of one other major downtown company thinking about coming back in around two weeks. Probably a staggered approach compared to ours.

---

I'd rather just work at home than deal with all that

---

People used to wearing full FRC in 100 degrees would probably trade for a cubicle job in the AC if they had to put on a mask occasionally.

---

People wear FRCs because it's a safety issue.

You can say the same thing for all these companies choosing to have the office-dwellers WFH. Right now, if you CAN work from home, that's where you are the safest and create the least liability for the company (at least with respect to this virus).

---

Liability for the company? Where have I, oh... "Nobody wants the bad PR to be the first to open then have an employee test positive, regardless of how they got it. The employee could test positive on day freaking 1, and the company will be dragged through the mud and watch its stock take a hit."

Quote:

---

Saying that office people having to wear a mask isn't "as bad" as people having to wear FRCs in 100* heat is and should be absolutely irrelevant to the decision making progress.

---

You may need to grab another cup of coffee. He's saying that people who have to wear FRCs in 100* would gladly trade that for having to wear a mask in an air conditioned office.

TXTransplant said:

---

Except we aren't saying the same thing.

I don't for one second think the leadership of these companies are being "chicken littles" (your words).

They are appealing to their boards, but it's because they are trying to protect every dollar, not because they are being "overly cautious" or "are afraid of making the wrong decision".

---

Never said they were being chicken littles. I said they're appealing to the board and chicken littles (Karens of the office). Again, there's a difference in what I posted and what you read.

Being overly cautions and being afraid of making the wrong decision is protecting every dollar. They don't want the negative press and the potential financial hit it would bring.

aTm2004 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

94chem said:

---

tylercsbn9 said:

---

CoachRTM said:

---

Just another data point, but our company went back to work downtown this past Monday. Seems like around 90% of people are here every day.

Masks required when in hallways, public areas, or when within 6 feet of another human. Temperature readings when we come in, limited people on elevators, etc. My work area is mostly cubicles, so basically anytime you get up from your desk, you put on the mask. Other than that, people work from their cubicles.

Everything has gone fine so far, but it'll be curious to see what happens if one person gets it on the floor.


I also know of one other major downtown company thinking about coming back in around two weeks. Probably a staggered approach compared to ours.

---

I'd rather just work at home than deal with all that

---

People used to wearing full FRC in 100 degrees would probably trade for a cubicle job in the AC if they had to put on a mask occasionally.

---

People wear FRCs because it's a safety issue.

You can say the same thing for all these companies choosing to have the office-dwellers WFH. Right now, if you CAN work from home, that's where you are the safest and create the least liability for the company (at least with respect to this virus).

---

Liability for the company? Where have I, oh... "Nobody wants the bad PR to be the first to open then have an employee test positive, regardless of how they got it. The employee could test positive on day freaking 1, and the company will be dragged through the mud and watch its stock take a hit."

Quote:

---

Saying that office people having to wear a mask isn't "as bad" as people having to wear FRCs in 100* heat is and should be absolutely irrelevant to the decision making progress.

---

You may need to grab another cup of coffee. He's saying that people who have to wear FRCs in 100* would gladly trade that for having to wear a mask in an air conditioned office.

---

Yes, and I could be wrong, but I read that to include an implication that no one who works in an office should disagree with/complain about having to wear a mask, since those plant workers have it so much harder. I took it that way because of the comment/post that it was in reply to (someone not wanting to "deal with" wearing a mask).

The fact that a person who has to wear FRCs in 100* heat might "be happy" to trade places with someone who works in an office and has to "occasionally" wear a mask is absolutely irrelevant to how these decisions should be made regarding when people who are WFH should go back to an office. I don't even know why someone would say it, other than for the inference I made behind the post.

It makes absolutely no sense to send people who can WFH back to the office, if all they are going to do is sit in their office all day, wearing a mask and doing conference calls. That's what people are doing at home (minus the mask)!

Maybe I am reading too much into his post, but this whole situation isn't a competition for "who has it worse".

If I hear one more person say "Well at least you still have a job", I'm going to scream. Just because some people and industries are suffering doesn't mean they all should be.

Let's do what makes sense, and that is NOT a one size fits all decision.

aTm2004 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

Except we aren't saying the same thing.

I don't for one second think the leadership of these companies are being "chicken littles" (your words).

They are appealing to their boards, but it's because they are trying to protect every dollar, not because they are being "overly cautious" or "are afraid of making the wrong decision".

---

Never said they were being chicken littles. I said they're appealing to the board and chicken littles (Karens of the office). Again, there's a difference in what I posted and what you read.

Being overly cautions and being afraid of making the wrong decision is protecting every dollar. They don't want the negative press and the potential financial hit it would bring.

---

Yeah, I did read your post with the wrong emphasis. But it's not as big of a difference as you are implying.

It's not just about the negative press or stock taking a hit.

Companies don't want outbreaks because they cost them money! (I think we do agree on this point).

I'm not sure what the current status is, but when this all first happened, an infection that could be traced back to the workplace was an OSHA recordable. If a company is truly safety-focused, they don't want to risk even one worker catching this and being in ICU for 50+ days. That would totally ruin their RIR.

And most of these companies are self-insured when it comes to health care. I don't know what the current cost of a 50+ day stay in ICU is, but considering the financial issues they are all having right now, the last thing they need is for their medical/health care budget to take a hit.

Not to mention the lost productivity if there is some kind of outbreak.

These all seem like extremely valid reasons for keeping people WFH, that are not overly cautious or appealing to chicken littles.

I can see how it can be read that way.

I understand if people can WFH to continue to allow them to do so, but seeing posts where companies are opening in the fall, and IIRC, early in '21, that's just crazy and being overly cautious, IMO. Now, if they've had some renovation plans and have decided this would be a good time, that's a different story.

To me, it's not about returning to the office just to return to the office. It's about getting things back to normal. Stores opening, being able to take the kids to places this summer, having sports on TV, etc.

Anyhow, bypassing the nerve I apparently touched earlier, I found out that OSHA considers office transmission to be a recordable.

You're right, it will cost them money, which again, what they're protecting.

I hear ya...I want to get back to normal ASAP, too, especially when it comes to travel. I don't quite understand companies making the decision now to stay closed until the fall or later, but I'm not in the mood to question it, either, as long as it means people stay employed.

We have a big trip to Alaska scheduled for July that is probably going to get cancelled. It's killing me because the hotels and activities planned as part of the trip have opening dates on their websites. But we are booked with a tour provider who wants to give people 5-6 weeks notice when it comes to cancellations. Not to mention, Denali National Park is not completely open and one of the hotels that says it will open next month is IN the park. The lack of coordination is killing me, and the idea of all these hotels and attractions being open only to have no visitors is just heartbreaking. States like Alaska and Hawaii can't afford to have the whole summer season shut down. But there is so little coordination of efforts.

Anyway - sorry for the rant. I just feel your frustration, but I also know at the end of the day, there isn't a darn thing I can do about any of it. This whole situation just sucks (for lack of a better term). All I can do is just take it day by day and not try to get my blood pressure up. Some days that's easier than others.

94chem said:

---

Anyhow, bypassing the nerve I apparently touched earlier, I found out that OSHA considers office transmission to be a recordable.

---

if that's the case, then certainly that is going to drive a lot of conservative practices.

sts7049 said:

---

94chem said:

---

Anyhow, bypassing the nerve I apparently touched earlier, I found out that OSHA considers office transmission to be a recordable.

---

if that's the case, then certainly that is going to drive a lot of conservative practices.

---

Yep, call me a cynic, but I think that's exactly what's driving the decision, at least by the big O&G and chemicals companies.

And as long as performance is tied to safety/RIR, they really don't have any choice. Most of these companies have extremely low safety targets that they are expected to meet.

You're right, there's nothing we can do about it as individuals. But as a society, there is. I'm happy to still have a job at a great company, but do want to get back to a normal life as quickly as possible. Many others are as well and we've seen many speak up around the country and get some traction to get things opened.

Hopefully the trip isn't cancelled. My wife and I went to Alaska about 10 years ago when she had a friend that lived in Anchorage (worked for a company who's purpose was to lobby to wean the state off of it's dependence of oil. Her private school college education and money that allowed her to do that were all financed by daddy...who made his money in oil!) who invited us up. Spent a couple days in Anchorage and then drove north and spent a night in Talkeenta, then headed up to spend a couple of days camping and hiking about 50 miles north of Fairbanks. We hit Alaska at a perfect time because out of the 11 or so days we were there, all but 2 were cloudless days with low 70* highs. Denali was beautiful and the weather allowed us to see everything. Coming back, we took Highway 2 down, which is a completely different topography than Highway 3 through Denali (more rolling mountains and lime green color). Stopped along the way to view some glaciers and headed back to Anchorage. Headed to Whittier for a glacier cruise and whale watching, then spent a couple of days hiking around Kenai, a night in Homer to hang out, and then another night in Seward. It was an unforgettable trip and one I won't forget.

I don't think he needs someone to speak for him.

Diggity said:

---

It's just funny. I imagine everyone at his office is glad he's working from home right now.

---

I imagine your wife is counting the days until you're back in the office.

A lot of RTW decisions aren't fully owned by the company... building owners are setting a lot of rules/guidelines that may be more stringent than what the company would put in place.