
Ask HN: How to implement a stricter “stay at home while sick” office policy? - paulw88
My company&#x27;s official policy is already that people should stay home if they&#x27;re sick. It doesn&#x27;t work though. Even with a very liberal WFH policy, people just don&#x27;t want to suffer the setback in productivity that staying home entails.<p>I&#x27;ve had a similar experience in virtually every office I&#x27;ve worked in.<p>Is there some good way of making this process more rigorous? Do you work for a company that does it well? Is it a matter of integrating this policy more strongly into the company culture through enforcement?<p>Or does no company do this well and we&#x27;re all doomed to being subject to regular and unavoidable sickness?
======
duxup
I had a boss that would simply send people home.

For some folks that was what they needed. It was the Midwest and some folks
just want to work and would come in by default if they were able to walk.

After a while people started to understand that he really meant "stay home if
you are sick", not just if they're borderline on their deathbed.

Lots of places are less tolerant of people staying home so they sometimes need
to see what level of "too sick" is "sick" before they stay home on their own.

This, like a lot of things, requires a good relationship to avoid hurt
feelings.

------
brudgers
The psychology is more nuanced. It is not uncommon for people to go to work to
get away from home. Not everyone. Not all the time. But it happens. The
problem isn't that people aren't working from home while ill. The problem is
that people work at work when they are ill.

Paying for a hotel room would allow people to work away from home and away
from work. It solves both sides of the equation when someone would _prefer_
not to work from home.

------
at-fates-hands
If you're sick, and don't want to get others sick, that's one thing. Your
productivity shouldn't slip in that case. If you're bed ridden with the flu,
then you're not going to be working and likewise, you really shouldn't be
working.

At many of the offices I've worked at, if you're a developer, you have one or
two people you know who know what you're working on and are capable (and
expected) to take your work and push it forward in the case you are too sick
to work. It's like a partner system that assures that no lapses in
productivity will happen.

If you break the work up for one person, between two other developers, it's
worked well to make sure the work gets covered, without interruption. At my
current gig, it's kind of an unwritten rule if you get sick and your partners
cover for you, a free lunch or 12 pack of some quality micro-brew should be
forthcoming.

I've been here for several years and it hasn't been an issue yet.

------
gshdg
If WFH entails a setback in productivity, then your solution has to address
making WFH as productive as being in the office.

------
tdeck
To be honest, I don't think people are coming into work to avoid a setback in
productivity, I think they're coming in to avoid being perceived as lazy and
not dedicated to the work. A typical cold is contagious with symptoms for 7-10
days, I can't imagine how I would be perceived for staying home that long due
to a cold, which is considered trivial.

------
afarrell
When you say "making this process more rigorous" and "through enforcement",
this sounds very much like you're saying that you want to know how to hold
people accountable for coming in while sick.

Is that right?

If so, I'm going to have to agree with Jocko Willink on this one:
accountability is kinda a crutch. People should be _led_ so that they
themselves drive toward this. And in order to lead people, you need to create
clarity on:

\- Why? -- What is the impact of this thing you want?

\- Why not? -- What are the barriers? How shall we tackle them

\- What is the coherent overall leadership intent?

If you have some parts of your intent which are in tension, you need to really
identify those because the way those you lead try to resolve that tension is
probably at the core of the problem.

------
auslegung
People will stay home if there’s no detriment to doing so, and you say people
don’t want to suffer the productivity setbacks. What are those setbacks? If
they can be addressed people will almost certainly stay home when sick.

~~~
machello13
> People will stay home if there’s no detriment to doing so

This is not true. I, personally, hate working from home and will come into the
office any chance I get. There are people who would prefer to work from home
and people who wouldn't, and I'm not sure which group is bigger. I imagine it
depends a lot on your personality and your living situation (people with
families and a big house might prefer to work from home compared to young
single 20-somethings living in a city apartment).

~~~
auslegung
Our definitions (or maybe scope) of "detriment" are different because you're
saying exactly what I mean. If being at home is bad in any way, that's a
detriment to staying home. People's opinions differ on whether the employer
should help make the employee's home a better work environment.

------
pzxc
An answer I haven't seen yet in this thread: give people actual sick days
instead of PTO.

At most companies I've worked at, including my current employer, sick days and
vacation days are combined into PTO - Paid Time Off. Who wants to burn a
vacation day if you're sick but capable of working?

------
charwalker
Does your team have set WFH days each week to better that practice and be
prepared for sick days that are WFH days?

Is there a policy for sick days and their usage and minimal if any retaliation
for regular use? If sick days are part of vaca days or general PTO but make up
a small number then I'd say that doesn't count.

------
diehunde
A person I know was given thousands of dollars to pay for their home office
setup. They got a modern desk, chair, giant monitor and pretty good computer.
This kind of setup would make working from home much more attractive IMO.

