
Court: Employers Must Allow Workers to Sit If They Prefer While on the Job - eplanit
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/04/04/court-employers-must-allow-workers-to-sit-if-they-prefer-while-on-the-job/
======
cmsmith
Reminds me of a couple paragraphs in this [1] story:

>Over and over again, I'd listen to someone's story of how back pain meant
they could no longer work, or how a shoulder injury had put them out of a job.
Then I would ask: What about a job where you don't have to lift things, or a
job where you don't have to use your shoulder, or a job where you can sit
down? They would look at me as if I were asking, "How come you didn't consider
becoming an astronaut?"

>One woman I met, Ethel Thomas, is on disability for back pain after working
many years at the fish plant, and then as a nurse's aide. When I asked her
what job she would have in her dream world, she told me she would be the woman
at the Social Security office who weeds through disability applications. I
figured she said this because she thought she'd be good at weeding out the
cheaters. But that wasn't it. She said she wanted this job because it is the
only job she's seen where you get to sit all day.

It's easy to denounce things like this as a burden on employers. But I think
it's certainly better for society than having a bunch of people not working
because in order to work, you need to either have a college degree or be
willing to stand for 8 hours straight every day.

[1] [http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/](http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/)

~~~
SilasX
Sort of funny how office jobs have the opposite problem: of people who are
suffering pain because they have to sit without standing for long periods, and
can be accomodated with adjustable, standing desks. (I suspect these will be
standard in the future because of findings about the long term damage of
sitting.)

Also funny, in a gallows humor kind of way, how people are being considered
disabled (both by themselves and the social insurance system) despite the
existence of trivial accommodations. It's like if someone's "dream job" were
where they could move up close to the stuff they work with so they could see
it better, since "the faraway stuff is so blurry".

~~~
tremon
_Also funny, in a gallows humor kind of way, how people are being considered
disabled despite the existence of trivial accommodations_

It's about as funny as how companies are letting their employees acquire
disabilities despite the existence of trivial accommodations.

~~~
3825
I find it easier to drink lots of water while at work. It is difficult to
remember to drink water and if I drink more water, I will use the restroom at
least once every hour.

Thankfully, I've yet to work at a place that prohibited employees from going
to the restroom every hour. If they want to check if I am really using the
restroom, they're free to do so I guess (although I would start looking for a
new job if this were the case).

------
tartuffe78
I thought this was gonna be about some manager at a tech company forcing
everyone to use standing desks.

~~~
yardie
I had the same thought. What sort of maniacal startup requires their employees
to use standing desks?!

------
takno
Weird that the headline and most of the story are completely at odds with the
court decision they describe. Literally all the court seems to have said is
that you have to make a decision about providing seats at cash desks on the
basis of the task of working at the cash desk, and not based on the complete
set of tasks the worker might have to do across the day. The employers are
still free to argue that cashier will do better cashiering while standing up.

------
cmdrfred
I worked as a cook for about ten years before I got into tech, my back still
hurts to the point that I have trouble getting out of bed about 5 - 10 times a
year from 50+ hours of standing/running around on tile floors. I'm 27. If
employers don't want to provide chairs then they should be on the hook for
medical costs (and none of this "pay a lawyer and sue us and maybe in 3 years
you'll get a partial payment provided we didn't go bankrupt" nonsense). The
new American trend appears to be that business should never have to pay any of
the externalities they cause and it seems to be a model that both the left and
right agree with lately.

------
anexprogrammer
Why on earth would they want a bank teller to stand? I've never seen a bank
which didn't provide everyone with seating.

~~~
dominotw
>Why on earth would they want a bank teller to stand?

Because the client is standing.

~~~
JoshGlazebrook
Here's a weird observation. I recently moved from the Seattle to Austin. In
Washington State, every single bank I went to it was open air between the
teller and the customer. Here in Austin, the credit union I use has a physical
non-transparent wall and you can only see the teller through a video screen
and microphone.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
How much stabbier is Austin than Seattle?

~~~
6stringmerc
If they're in the rapidly gentrifying area(s) on the East, which have
traditionally been rife with poverty and petty crime (they were 10 years ago
when I was there and before real estate is what it is now), then I'd answer "A
lot more, a lot more stabbier."

------
ryanmarsh
How about stand if they prefer? Big problem in office environments. Bad for
the back to sit.

~~~
dominotw
Do employers stop you from standing at work or do you mean employers not
providing the right equipment.

~~~
ryanmarsh
Not providing.

------
stuaxo
They denied people working as cashiers a seat? This is barbarism !

~~~
Broken_Hippo
I honestly don't know if that is sarcasm or not.

~~~
mikeash
Why would it be sarcasm? Requiring someone to stand at work, when nothing
about what they do requires it, and they prefer to sit, is pretty ridiculous.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
I probably know some horrible people, actually, that would use sarcasm. My
apologies, and thank you for clearing it up.

I do agree, completely, it is torturous. I've done it many times, and only at
a school was I ever allowed to sit without getting written up. Weirdly, the
employees comfort was rarely an issue.

~~~
mikeash
You raise a good point, there's no view so outrageous that you can't find
someone who wants to make it seriously.

------
kirykl
George Costanza would be proud

------
33W
Sent this to my scrum master, hopefully he finds it funny. Or takes it really
really seriously.

------
zeveb
_Why_ is this an issue for courts to decide? It should be between employees
and employers, period.

