Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »My employer with several sites across the U.S. (and other countries) announced a new policy today, effective immediately. The policy is that anyone who travels for personal reasons to a "red zone" state* is not allowed to come to the facility for 14 days after returning, and that it will be unpaid. There isn't anything clear about those of us who are able to work from home if we can work and get paid without having to come into the facility. It does state that if we live in a "red zone" state, then our home is not included in the policy (we can come to work anyway).
*Red zone state in the policy is defined as a state with a 7 day positive test rate of 10% or greater, which will be updated weekly.
More recently, testing has become scarce again in some places and that means the positive test rate increases (only people who are really sick are getting tested).
I'm thinking this policy may make some managers re-consider letting those of us who can WFH do so.
Interesting but how does the company tell if someone has been to a 'red" state?
Some of us were discussing that. We have to keep it very quiet, I suppose... honor system only goes so far. But of course, many of us talk about our vacations at least some. I know the dept. manager (I work in the dept, but am unusual as I report directly to someone at corp. and not to her) has vacation scheduled next month in a red state and everyone knows where she goes on her annual vacation every year.
The trouble is that it doesn't say in the policy whether we can WFH and get paid. Many of us did that for more than 2 months earlier, so we have proven we can do it. Our corp. office is still WFH and was already planned to be that way through Sept. I'm looking into that as an option in case my race on Sept. 6 still ends up happening.1 -
Disagree all you like but doesn't change my thoughts. Tell me why you disagree. I'd love to hear it.2
-
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »My employer with several sites across the U.S. (and other countries) announced a new policy today, effective immediately. The policy is that anyone who travels for personal reasons to a "red zone" state* is not allowed to come to the facility for 14 days after returning, and that it will be unpaid. There isn't anything clear about those of us who are able to work from home if we can work and get paid without having to come into the facility. It does state that if we live in a "red zone" state, then our home is not included in the policy (we can come to work anyway).
*Red zone state in the policy is defined as a state with a 7 day positive test rate of 10% or greater, which will be updated weekly.
More recently, testing has become scarce again in some places and that means the positive test rate increases (only people who are really sick are getting tested).
I'm thinking this policy may make some managers re-consider letting those of us who can WFH do so.
Interesting but how does the company tell if someone has been to a 'red" state?
Some of us were discussing that. We have to keep it very quiet, I suppose... honor system only goes so far. But of course, many of us talk about our vacations at least some. I know the dept. manager (I work in the dept, but am unusual as I report directly to someone at corp. and not to her) has vacation scheduled next month in a red state and everyone knows where she goes on her annual vacation every year.
The trouble is that it doesn't say in the policy whether we can WFH and get paid. Many of us did that for more than 2 months earlier, so we have proven we can do it. Our corp. office is still WFH and was already planned to be that way through Sept. I'm looking into that as an option in case my race on Sept. 6 still ends up happening.
My multinational company wants those travelling internationally for business or pleasure to quarantine for 14 days (currently not saying anything about travel to US hotspots) and specifies if you can WFH that is what one should do (otherwise vacation time or no pay).1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »
Ok you might be right old fella. Still I tend to think many of them think they are better than everyone and do what they like. Not all but that is what I've seen before here.4 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »My employer with several sites across the U.S. (and other countries) announced a new policy today, effective immediately. The policy is that anyone who travels for personal reasons to a "red zone" state* is not allowed to come to the facility for 14 days after returning, and that it will be unpaid. There isn't anything clear about those of us who are able to work from home if we can work and get paid without having to come into the facility. It does state that if we live in a "red zone" state, then our home is not included in the policy (we can come to work anyway).
*Red zone state in the policy is defined as a state with a 7 day positive test rate of 10% or greater, which will be updated weekly.
More recently, testing has become scarce again in some places and that means the positive test rate increases (only people who are really sick are getting tested).
I'm thinking this policy may make some managers re-consider letting those of us who can WFH do so.
Interesting but how does the company tell if someone has been to a 'red" state?
Some of us were discussing that. We have to keep it very quiet, I suppose... honor system only goes so far. But of course, many of us talk about our vacations at least some. I know the dept. manager (I work in the dept, but am unusual as I report directly to someone at corp. and not to her) has vacation scheduled next month in a red state and everyone knows where she goes on her annual vacation every year.
The trouble is that it doesn't say in the policy whether we can WFH and get paid. Many of us did that for more than 2 months earlier, so we have proven we can do it. Our corp. office is still WFH and was already planned to be that way through Sept. I'm looking into that as an option in case my race on Sept. 6 still ends up happening.
Yeah, as company HR for 25ish people I’m surprisingly well aware of everyone’s whereabouts and travel plans. When this thing hit the fan in March, I was able to personally call out everyone who had recently traveled, ban them from the office and send them to quarantine working from home. People really do talk. Of course things like this are harder in a bigger company, but there’s probably some kind of shift manager or supervisor at least who would know these things about their team.
And yeah, this WFH issue is a prime example why ”follow cues from health officials” isn’t enough when writing company policy. There’s a lot of details to be considered.2 -
Disagree all you like but doesn't change my thoughts. Tell me why you disagree. I'd love to hear it.
I disagreed because I think making sweeping blanket statements about people because they are professional sports men (or any occupation) is not something I agree with.
Many AFL footballers (and other codes I'm sure but I follow AFL) spend quite a bit of their time on things like charities, community promotions etc and because they are in the public limelight they are held to a higher standard than general public.
Like general public though, they are a mix of people - some more concientious than others and some silly rule breakers.
10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »My large multinational corporation just said we are delaying our planned start of return to the office from 9/1 to no earlier than 10/1.
My large corporation told us not to expect anything earlier than January.
When I read things like this, I wonder how we can even think about sending 'our' children back to schools in good conscience. Am I the only one who feels that's incredibly hypocritical??
Yes. Pro athletes making millions get every possible safeguard, down to living in a Disney bubble, but school children, teachers, school staff, bus drivers, and all their families are just supposed to participate in a massive experiment while new cases and death rates are on the rise.
I saw a story today that in Arizona, foster children will have to attend school in person, even while their foster parents are allowed a choice of in-person, virtual, or hybrid for other children in the household (bio/adopted/legal guardianship). There currently are no exceptions, although they are apparently going to consider the possibility of allowing foster children with underlying conditions that put them at added risk of not attending in person. Excuse my language, but what the *baby sloth*?
The only possible benevolent spin I can put on this is that they're worried that foster children who are being abused won't have a way to alert any adults or possibly get help if they're not physically going to school. I HOPE at least there were good intentions behind this plan - trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.
Yes, that's exactly the reason they give, and I have great sympathy for the intent (although I also have a cynical take that if the system was so good at having schools act as reporters and child welfare follow through, why do we have so many horrific cases of neglected and abused children?). But to institute a policy like this with no consideration of even the direct health risk to a child with an underlying condition, much less the emotional damage of being treated as "expendable" while other children are "protected" at home, or the health implications to other folks in the household with underlying conditions ... That seems more a product of a bureaucratic mind-set that can only deal with a single hard-and-fast rule than a system that's willing to consider the best interests of individual children.
I generally try to give people credit for any possible benign explanation for what appear to be bad actions, but I'm finding that increasingly hard to do in many cases these days. These are children who have already been dealt a bad hand in life, and the JOB of the people making these policies is to take care of each and everyone one of them, yet they decide that having a single rule that on average may benefit more kids than it hurts -- although that's really a shot-in-the-dark judgment under current circumstances -- justifies not taking into consideration the individual medical circumstances of individual children?0 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »I live in AZ now, but I'm a huge (and hopeless) Bengals fan. NFL fans are hoping the season gets played and if you pay any attention to the draft, Joe Burrow is now a Bengal, so fans are even more excited about Cincinnati.
I personally don't see an NFL season happening, as much as I'd like it to. They, like MLB and the NBA, are allowing players to "opt out" of the season. Here's the thing with football players. Be definition, O-linemen are obese. They have to be to be 300 plus pounds. It's part of the job.
I'd be curious how other football fans feel. Though I'd love to see my team play this year, I have no desire for anyone to die for my entertainment.
If MLB is already down about a fifth of its teams from covid outbreaks or exposure, and even NBA-in-a-bubble can't keep players from sneaking off to nightclubs, when both have teams rosters under 20, I don't see the NFL keeping it in control with rosters in excess of 50 (not a huge sports follower in recent years, but I think those numbers are least in the ballpark -- please correct me if I've got it wrong).1 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »I live in AZ now, but I'm a huge (and hopeless) Bengals fan. NFL fans are hoping the season gets played and if you pay any attention to the draft, Joe Burrow is now a Bengal, so fans are even more excited about Cincinnati.
I personally don't see an NFL season happening, as much as I'd like it to. They, like MLB and the NBA, are allowing players to "opt out" of the season. Here's the thing with football players. Be definition, O-linemen are obese. They have to be to be 300 plus pounds. It's part of the job.
I'd be curious how other football fans feel. Though I'd love to see my team play this year, I have no desire for anyone to die for my entertainment.
Every professional league and university athletic program is desperate for their seasons to start. Even if they can't host fans, they need the TV revenue. They are trying to preserve their profitability and their jobs, regardless of the risk to players and staff.
So, far, the NBA and NHL have been successful in restarting their seasons ONLY because they are keeping players and staff in a quarantined "bubble" in host/hub cities. No travel, no going home, no outside food, no families, no women.
MLB opted for allowing teams to play in their home ballparks, travel to other team's ballparks, stay at their own homes in their home cities. And now you see the Miami Marlins have a huge outbreak with at least 17 players testing positive. That was in the first week of play. This will happen to other baseball teams, and I will be very surprised if the MLB season plays through to its conclusion.
The NFL will be in the same boat, since they are also allowing teams to play in their home facilities. They may have a slight advantage over MLB, with travel only once a week and far fewer games.
I'm a sports fan, but I just don't see how any of this is going to work right now. As with many industries, shutting down is going to cost people their jobs, but at least they'll have their lives.
As an NHL fan, I give them a slight edge in making it work as not only are they in a bubble but the two bubbles are in Canada.
But as much as I will enjoy watching as many of any of these games as they can put out, I'm concerned by the sheer volume of testing supplies they are using for something that is just entertainment. Here in the US where there are still people waiting 7+ days for test results, it just doesn't seem responsible.
The Cardinals just announced two players have tested positive, so here we go again. The worst case scenario for MLB is they don't even manage to play the season and several players or staff members see their careers ruined or even lose their lives. Not that completing the season would be worth it either, but you know what I mean.
I keep waiting to hear the NFL cancel the season. Between the example baseball is setting, the fact you mentioned that there are obese football players, and the NFLs crappy history of taking care of their players long term, it just seems like a tragedy waiting to happen.
I also think that being covered pretty much from head to toe and not, at least by the rules of the game, being able to touch the same surfaces, and, other than the occasional body slam or brawl, not being in physical contact or generally even in really close physical vicinity, playing under conditions that exhalations should rise from the players toward the ceiling (exhalations being warmer than the air being cooled by the ice) are all factors that should give hockey an advantage over other sports.
Baseball players all handle the same ball with bare hands, and players from opposing teams may meet up repeatedly less than six feet apart for a half minute or so at the bases.
Football players often wear gloves that expose some of their skin, and the defensive and offensive lines are inches apart breathing each other's exhalations dozens of times each game -- or maybe they will be playing with plexiglass face guards on their helmets?
Basketball, at least in the NBA, is in reality a contact sport, no matter what rules say, and there is going to be a lot of sweat and spittle exchanged in the heat of a game (whether or not Miami is involved
). 3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »
Ok you might be right old fella. Still I tend to think many of them think they are better than everyone and do what they like. Not all but that is what I've seen before here.
I have to think that some of them -- the ones that have chosen to sit out the season -- know that you are right about some of their teammates. The ones sitting it out know that they can't trust all of their teammates to follow sensible social distancing practices -- well, they probably have a pretty good idea of exactly which of their teammates they can't trust, and they've also been around enough pro ballplayers to be able to assess the odds of every other team having at least one guy who can't be trusted to follow sensible social distances practices.4 -
paperpudding wrote: »Disagree all you like but doesn't change my thoughts. Tell me why you disagree. I'd love to hear it.
I disagreed because I think making sweeping blanket statements about people because they are professional sports men (or any occupation) is not something I agree with.
Many AFL footballers (and other codes I'm sure but I follow AFL) spend quite a bit of their time on things like charities, community promotions etc and because they are in the public limelight they are held to a higher standard than general public.
Like general public though, they are a mix of people - some more concientious than others and some silly rule breakers.
Yes you are right I'm sure but I still don't want teams moving up here for games right now thank you very much. Do it some where else. Invite them to your town maybe? Sorry but I should add our mayor or whatever she is is trying to do this and I don't agree at all.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »Disagree all you like but doesn't change my thoughts. Tell me why you disagree. I'd love to hear it.
I disagreed because I think making sweeping blanket statements about people because they are professional sports men (or any occupation) is not something I agree with.
Many AFL footballers (and other codes I'm sure but I follow AFL) spend quite a bit of their time on things like charities, community promotions etc and because they are in the public limelight they are held to a higher standard than general public.
Like general public though, they are a mix of people - some more concientious than others and some silly rule breakers.
Yes you are right I'm sure but I still don't want teams moving up here for games right now thank you very much. Do it some where else. Invite them to your town maybe? Sorry but I should add our mayor or whatever she is is trying to do this and I don't agree at all.
Well I imagine my regional town would jump at the chance of an AFL match, although highly unlikely we would get one other than in pre season community games - and certainly many people have pushed for a bubble in Adelaide and some games are being played there already.
I dont have any issue with you thinking sports games are too much of a risk though or of not wanting them where you live.
I don't disagree with that
I disagreed with the sweeping blanket statement about all proffesional footballers.
4 -
Hmmm, not sure about all the sports teams discussion going on. I am not a sports person at all.
But they don't sound much different from the general population; people just see them more close-up due to being in the public eye.
I've even heard a smattering from family members about how they should be doing this or that, but don't.
People are people, they're going to follow the rules, not see them as applying to them, skip it just this one time, don't give a crap, or disregard them altogether. 
The main differences I see with sports figures are 1) the crowds that follow and 2) many people look up to them as role models(silly but there is that)8 -
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/07/31/new-evidence-suggests-young-children-spread-covid-19-more-efficiently-than-adults
Apparently young children are super spreaders. Schools are reopening in some places, so this is going to be bad.7 -
I see masses of Germans are leading by the USA and other examples. I am taken back by leaders without an understanding of human behavior that drove this reaction and now are surprised by human nature.
https://apnews.com/ef70c1af702b89c23e71fcd843e632931 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »My employer with several sites across the U.S. (and other countries) announced a new policy today, effective immediately. The policy is that anyone who travels for personal reasons to a "red zone" state* is not allowed to come to the facility for 14 days after returning, and that it will be unpaid. There isn't anything clear about those of us who are able to work from home if we can work and get paid without having to come into the facility. It does state that if we live in a "red zone" state, then our home is not included in the policy (we can come to work anyway).
*Red zone state in the policy is defined as a state with a 7 day positive test rate of 10% or greater, which will be updated weekly.
More recently, testing has become scarce again in some places and that means the positive test rate increases (only people who are really sick are getting tested).
I'm thinking this policy may make some managers re-consider letting those of us who can WFH do so.
Interesting but how does the company tell if someone has been to a 'red" state?
Some of us were discussing that. We have to keep it very quiet, I suppose... honor system only goes so far. But of course, many of us talk about our vacations at least some. I know the dept. manager (I work in the dept, but am unusual as I report directly to someone at corp. and not to her) has vacation scheduled next month in a red state and everyone knows where she goes on her annual vacation every year.
The trouble is that it doesn't say in the policy whether we can WFH and get paid. Many of us did that for more than 2 months earlier, so we have proven we can do it. Our corp. office is still WFH and was already planned to be that way through Sept. I'm looking into that as an option in case my race on Sept. 6 still ends up happening.
Yeah, as company HR for 25ish people I’m surprisingly well aware of everyone’s whereabouts and travel plans. When this thing hit the fan in March, I was able to personally call out everyone who had recently traveled, ban them from the office and send them to quarantine working from home. People really do talk. Of course things like this are harder in a bigger company, but there’s probably some kind of shift manager or supervisor at least who would know these things about their team.
And yeah, this WFH issue is a prime example why ”follow cues from health officials” isn’t enough when writing company policy. There’s a lot of details to be considered.
Just a good reason to keep some aspects of one's personal life out of the workplace IMO. Anything you say can and will be used against you lol.5 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »My employer with several sites across the U.S. (and other countries) announced a new policy today, effective immediately. The policy is that anyone who travels for personal reasons to a "red zone" state* is not allowed to come to the facility for 14 days after returning, and that it will be unpaid. There isn't anything clear about those of us who are able to work from home if we can work and get paid without having to come into the facility. It does state that if we live in a "red zone" state, then our home is not included in the policy (we can come to work anyway).
*Red zone state in the policy is defined as a state with a 7 day positive test rate of 10% or greater, which will be updated weekly.
More recently, testing has become scarce again in some places and that means the positive test rate increases (only people who are really sick are getting tested).
I'm thinking this policy may make some managers re-consider letting those of us who can WFH do so.
Interesting but how does the company tell if someone has been to a 'red" state?
Some of us were discussing that. We have to keep it very quiet, I suppose... honor system only goes so far. But of course, many of us talk about our vacations at least some. I know the dept. manager (I work in the dept, but am unusual as I report directly to someone at corp. and not to her) has vacation scheduled next month in a red state and everyone knows where she goes on her annual vacation every year.
The trouble is that it doesn't say in the policy whether we can WFH and get paid. Many of us did that for more than 2 months earlier, so we have proven we can do it. Our corp. office is still WFH and was already planned to be that way through Sept. I'm looking into that as an option in case my race on Sept. 6 still ends up happening.
Yeah, as company HR for 25ish people I’m surprisingly well aware of everyone’s whereabouts and travel plans. When this thing hit the fan in March, I was able to personally call out everyone who had recently traveled, ban them from the office and send them to quarantine working from home. People really do talk. Of course things like this are harder in a bigger company, but there’s probably some kind of shift manager or supervisor at least who would know these things about their team.
And yeah, this WFH issue is a prime example why ”follow cues from health officials” isn’t enough when writing company policy. There’s a lot of details to be considered.
Just a good reason to keep some aspects of one's personal life out of the workplace IMO. Anything you say can and will be used against you lol.
Yep, agreed. I pro-actively blocked everyone I work with on Facebook. But I do talk about races at work, but not all the weekend trips I do when not racing.3 -
https://dnyuz.com/2020/07/28/tennessee-governor-rejects-white-house-call-to-close-bars-wont-issue-mask-mandate/
Our first hospital staff member to test positive came through a TN person visiting back in March. Now we are up to 10-20 positive tests daily locally so KY is going red as the virus keeps moving up on its way to Canada. With schools and colleges restarting classroom classes it looks like we are going to learn the fuller meaning of the word Pandemic.7 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »My employer with several sites across the U.S. (and other countries) announced a new policy today, effective immediately. The policy is that anyone who travels for personal reasons to a "red zone" state* is not allowed to come to the facility for 14 days after returning, and that it will be unpaid. There isn't anything clear about those of us who are able to work from home if we can work and get paid without having to come into the facility. It does state that if we live in a "red zone" state, then our home is not included in the policy (we can come to work anyway).
*Red zone state in the policy is defined as a state with a 7 day positive test rate of 10% or greater, which will be updated weekly.
More recently, testing has become scarce again in some places and that means the positive test rate increases (only people who are really sick are getting tested).
I'm thinking this policy may make some managers re-consider letting those of us who can WFH do so.
Interesting but how does the company tell if someone has been to a 'red" state?
Some of us were discussing that. We have to keep it very quiet, I suppose... honor system only goes so far. But of course, many of us talk about our vacations at least some. I know the dept. manager (I work in the dept, but am unusual as I report directly to someone at corp. and not to her) has vacation scheduled next month in a red state and everyone knows where she goes on her annual vacation every year.
The trouble is that it doesn't say in the policy whether we can WFH and get paid. Many of us did that for more than 2 months earlier, so we have proven we can do it. Our corp. office is still WFH and was already planned to be that way through Sept. I'm looking into that as an option in case my race on Sept. 6 still ends up happening.
Yeah, as company HR for 25ish people I’m surprisingly well aware of everyone’s whereabouts and travel plans. When this thing hit the fan in March, I was able to personally call out everyone who had recently traveled, ban them from the office and send them to quarantine working from home. People really do talk. Of course things like this are harder in a bigger company, but there’s probably some kind of shift manager or supervisor at least who would know these things about their team.
And yeah, this WFH issue is a prime example why ”follow cues from health officials” isn’t enough when writing company policy. There’s a lot of details to be considered.
Just a good reason to keep some aspects of one's personal life out of the workplace IMO. Anything you say can and will be used against you lol.
Yep, agreed. I pro-actively blocked everyone I work with on Facebook. But I do talk about races at work, but not all the weekend trips I do when not racing.
For sure. I'm friendly at work, talking sports, activities etc, but not so much where I'm going or have recently been, private family matters, etc.6 -
So update on schools here...
Another one of the schools that reopened already has 2 confirmed positive tests on teachers. Teachers who have has contact with other teachers, admins, and students.
This is just gonna go bad.12 -
My dd is a kindergarten teacher.. They start school in 3 weeks, I worry about her. & of course, for the gkids (ages13, 11, 10, & 9) who will be starting also. 2 of them start on the 13th & the other 2 on the 24th. They all have the option of in person or virtual learning, but virtual didn’t work too well for the ones whose Mom was working from home this spring. & teacher daughter figures if she is there, they might as well be also since no one home to supervise them. It is sad that the school expects them to make a decision soon, even though they can’t give them definite plans for how it will work. Of course, no one knows how it will work, thus no definite plans. I believe the people that say it could be lessened if everyone would wear a mask, but .....
(I am in Iowa)6 -
So update on schools here...
Another one of the schools that reopened already has 2 confirmed positive tests on teachers. Teachers who have has contact with other teachers, admins, and students.
This is just gonna go bad.
We haven't started yet but I fully expect our experience to be 100% the same here.3 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »My employer with several sites across the U.S. (and other countries) announced a new policy today, effective immediately. The policy is that anyone who travels for personal reasons to a "red zone" state* is not allowed to come to the facility for 14 days after returning, and that it will be unpaid. There isn't anything clear about those of us who are able to work from home if we can work and get paid without having to come into the facility. It does state that if we live in a "red zone" state, then our home is not included in the policy (we can come to work anyway).
*Red zone state in the policy is defined as a state with a 7 day positive test rate of 10% or greater, which will be updated weekly.
More recently, testing has become scarce again in some places and that means the positive test rate increases (only people who are really sick are getting tested).
I'm thinking this policy may make some managers re-consider letting those of us who can WFH do so.
Interesting but how does the company tell if someone has been to a 'red" state?
Some of us were discussing that. We have to keep it very quiet, I suppose... honor system only goes so far. But of course, many of us talk about our vacations at least some. I know the dept. manager (I work in the dept, but am unusual as I report directly to someone at corp. and not to her) has vacation scheduled next month in a red state and everyone knows where she goes on her annual vacation every year.
The trouble is that it doesn't say in the policy whether we can WFH and get paid. Many of us did that for more than 2 months earlier, so we have proven we can do it. Our corp. office is still WFH and was already planned to be that way through Sept. I'm looking into that as an option in case my race on Sept. 6 still ends up happening.
Yeah, as company HR for 25ish people I’m surprisingly well aware of everyone’s whereabouts and travel plans. When this thing hit the fan in March, I was able to personally call out everyone who had recently traveled, ban them from the office and send them to quarantine working from home. People really do talk. Of course things like this are harder in a bigger company, but there’s probably some kind of shift manager or supervisor at least who would know these things about their team.
And yeah, this WFH issue is a prime example why ”follow cues from health officials” isn’t enough when writing company policy. There’s a lot of details to be considered.
Back in March all business travel was stopped. We often send people to the provincial capital for training and conferences, no more of that. Travel outside our district was "strongly discouraged" and our pre-work screen asked us to identify if we'd left the district in the past 14 days. Now that we are in Stage 3 reopening it says "out of the country". Federal quarantine law requires 14 days of self isolation coming into the country so no one should be presenting at work within that period anyway.
Our current policy is that employees are required to notify HR of any travel plans outside our district. One supervisor told me that she had to ask permission to visit her mum and stepdad in another part of the province that has considerably more cases than our area. I'm not sure if it was granted or not.3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »My employer with several sites across the U.S. (and other countries) announced a new policy today, effective immediately. The policy is that anyone who travels for personal reasons to a "red zone" state* is not allowed to come to the facility for 14 days after returning, and that it will be unpaid. There isn't anything clear about those of us who are able to work from home if we can work and get paid without having to come into the facility. It does state that if we live in a "red zone" state, then our home is not included in the policy (we can come to work anyway).
*Red zone state in the policy is defined as a state with a 7 day positive test rate of 10% or greater, which will be updated weekly.
More recently, testing has become scarce again in some places and that means the positive test rate increases (only people who are really sick are getting tested).
I'm thinking this policy may make some managers re-consider letting those of us who can WFH do so.
Interesting but how does the company tell if someone has been to a 'red" state?
Some of us were discussing that. We have to keep it very quiet, I suppose... honor system only goes so far. But of course, many of us talk about our vacations at least some. I know the dept. manager (I work in the dept, but am unusual as I report directly to someone at corp. and not to her) has vacation scheduled next month in a red state and everyone knows where she goes on her annual vacation every year.
The trouble is that it doesn't say in the policy whether we can WFH and get paid. Many of us did that for more than 2 months earlier, so we have proven we can do it. Our corp. office is still WFH and was already planned to be that way through Sept. I'm looking into that as an option in case my race on Sept. 6 still ends up happening.
Yeah, as company HR for 25ish people I’m surprisingly well aware of everyone’s whereabouts and travel plans. When this thing hit the fan in March, I was able to personally call out everyone who had recently traveled, ban them from the office and send them to quarantine working from home. People really do talk. Of course things like this are harder in a bigger company, but there’s probably some kind of shift manager or supervisor at least who would know these things about their team.
And yeah, this WFH issue is a prime example why ”follow cues from health officials” isn’t enough when writing company policy. There’s a lot of details to be considered.
Just a good reason to keep some aspects of one's personal life out of the workplace IMO. Anything you say can and will be used against you lol.
Yep, agreed. I pro-actively blocked everyone I work with on Facebook. But I do talk about races at work, but not all the weekend trips I do when not racing.
For sure. I'm friendly at work, talking sports, activities etc, but not so much where I'm going or have recently been, private family matters, etc.
I think my races are one of the very few personal things I do talk about at work. When my grandpa died in April, I was WFH, but I did let a few people know about that in advance of potentially taking bereavement leave. If not for that, I wouldn't have said anything otherwise. In the end, I didn't take any time off because it was just a grave-side service limited to 10 people anyway and I didn't want to take the travel risk. Same happened when my grandma went into the hospital in June - she was unlikely to make it, so I gave a couple of people an advanced warning that I might end up taking a few days off to go to the funeral and back at some point. But in her case, surprisingly, she actually survived. That was extraordinarily unlikely... nearly impossible with the condition she was in, but somehow she pulled through. Anyway, these types of things that affect others, I let the 2 people know that need to know. That would be my boss (at corp. office) and the dept. manager of the location where I'm working because that would mean she needs to cover for me while I'm out. In the first case, I let HR know as well when I asked about how much bereavement leave was allowed for that relationship. My company's policy allows different amounts of time depending upon the relationship, which I see as odd since it would take the same amount of time to travel, attend the funeral, and travel back regardless. However, I suppose the theory may be that an employee needs more time if a closer relationship as that person is more likely to be involved in planning the funeral.6 -
Found a new virus shortage. Went to the car wash normally they have spray bottles of bug remover, general cleaner etc to use after you wash. Sign said temporarily not available due to national shortage of spray bottles. It did say they would fill with products if you brought your own bottles.1
-
So update on schools here...
Another one of the schools that reopened already has 2 confirmed positive tests on teachers. Teachers who have has contact with other teachers, admins, and students.
This is just gonna go bad.
https://thedailybeast.com/a-summer-camp-took-almost-every-precaution-the-majority-of-kids-still-got-covid-19
Very bad per stories out of other places.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
I really wish they'd not reopen schools until, at the very least, the 2nd half of the school year. Yes, it'll be tough but maybe, just maybe, things will be a little better by then. With everyone travelling now, and seeing as how we're already hearing of it spreading with the earlier opening schools, you'd think they'd wait. They may not have a choice when too many of the teachers and staff start getting it.
Stay healthy everyone, please!!!9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
I really wish they'd not reopen schools until, at the very least, the 2nd half of the school year. Yes, it'll be tough but maybe, just maybe, things will be a little better by then. With everyone travelling now, and seeing as how we're already hearing of it spreading with the earlier opening schools, you'd think they'd wait. They may not have a choice when too many of the teachers and staff start getting it.
Stay healthy everyone, please!!!
I think we all agree with you but money carries a lot of weight and some states are at risk of failing but the big thing like the people in Germany I read about is in some states the people are about ready to take governors heads over mishandling to the pandemic. We went into this more or less blind and now the populations are in rebellion of some shape or form around the world now. Child abuse typically comes from adults. If as some doctors predict this is not over until spring of 2022 a lot of suffering is coming to the kids and the rest of us. This thing is just getting too large to wrap one's head around.
Sadly there are more than a few parents that want the kids out of the house at any cost.7 -
I am so frustrated with people.
My husband and I tried to go on an early walk this morning on a local trail.
The trail was PACKED with large groups of runners...all geared up in their marathon shirts, running in tightly packed groups of 10-12 people. A few wearing masks, but most not. All were talking loudly, laughing, obviously breathing heavily, right in each other's faces. There were people of all ages...some definitely old enough to be in a high-risk category.
After encountering about 6-7 of these groups, we abandoned our walk, doubled back and went home. We had our masks on, but the trail is narrow, without much room to move out of their way. The runners were also unwilling to interrupt their conversations and pass us single file so we could have more room.
There were a few other people we saw walking...an elderly couple decided to abandon the trail at the same time we did. The older gentleman said to his wife "This is not worth it."
All of the cancelled official races have led to people doing "virtual" marathons, which is obviously what that was this morning. What is the point of cancelling the race if people are just going to get together in big groups anyways?
This is why this virus is not going away.23
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions