On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 05:55:23PM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote: > > "Scott Weeks" <sur...@mauigateway.com> wrote: > > > > Apologies for the rapid-shot email. It's Friday... :-) > > > > bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 04:35:27PM -0500, David Radcliffe wrote: > >> > The reason it is not more accepted is too many people still think "If I > >> > cannot see you you must not be working." > >> > >> actually, i've heard the real reason is corporate liability ... > >> that said, there is an advantage for team f2f mtgs on a periodic > >> basis. > > > > I don't follow. Could you elaborate? What is the liability? > > I don't know for certain, but I expect "work at home' employeees fall under > the scope of the employers "Workmans Compenstation" liability covrerage, > with regard to injuries sustained "on the job".
"There are those who say this has already happened" http://www.news.com.au/business/telstra-forced-to-pay-costs-compensation-after-worker-dale-hargreaves-slips-while-working-at-home/story-e6frfm1i-1226081649913 Now, I'm sure the facts of the matter haven't gotten in the way of the story there, but I'm struggling to come up with a set of circumstances which *don't* involve an application of palm to face. - Matt -- You know you have a distributed system when the crash of a computer you’ve never heard of stops you from getting any work done. -- Leslie Lamport "Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems"
