Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What I Know About Being Sick at Work (2018)

blog.bonnieeisenman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 132 posts

Re: What I Know About Being Sick at Work (2018)

#121

Post by danharaj »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #98
danharaj wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get a pair of musician's earplugs. They're wonderful. You can layer them with closed back headphones to get very robust silent isolation at a reasonable price. You can also get ear pieces molded by an audiologist for some high end earbuds that will block out sound almost completely even if you're not playing any sound.

Wearing earplugs over long periods of time can give you nasty ear infections that are near-impossible to get rid of. Note: they are suggested not because of necessity, a noisy plant for example, they are suggested because of a management fad. Open offices are a choice, the noise level in a steelworking plant is not.

I am aware. Take out your earplugs when you take the 5-10 minute break you should be taking regularly throughout the day anyway because sitting and staring at a screen for long periods of time is also deleterious to your health :shrug:.

Re: What I Know About Being Sick at Work (2018)

#122

Post by sokoloff »

wool_gather wrote: post #114
sokoloff wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ANC isn’t perfect. ANC leaves a noticeable low level of noise from imperfect sensing, processing, and cancellation. It’s quite easy to imagine that this could be detrimental (as compared to passive noise canceling). It’s probably not as good for your hearing as an equivalent level of passive NR. When I fly long trips, I notice that my hearing is slightly impaired for a day or so. There could be a lot of confounding f…

> leaves a noticeable low level of noise That's not added sound , though, that's a portion of the original sound that just didn't get cancelled.

The likelihood that it’s 100.0% original sound and 0.0% imperfect opposing waves is extraordinarily low.

Re: What I Know About Being Sick at Work (2018)

#123

Post by coldtea »

astura wrote: post #97
coldtea wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, like 22 year old men have certain tendencies that will prevail (e.g. a bro office culture), the same way a company of 22 year old females will have other tendencies that will prevail. People not understanding statistics doesn't mean there are not some dominant traits in each group, even if they are not shared by all members of the group -- nor that it is patronizing to mention them (as if someone making a gener…

>the same way a company of 22 year old females will have other tendencies that will prevail. ... Such as? Btw, the issue isn't really "the tendencies 22 year old men" so much as it is people hiring for friends and drinking buddies instead of hiring for employees and colleagues

>... Such as?

For one, a less competitive/macho culture, less booze friendly, less nerf guns, less nerdy references, -- on the other hand more agreeable collaboration, more petty antagonisms, etc.

Those are from empirical experiences working in a few XX and XY heavy environments.

But psychologists and social scientists have also long studied group dynamics in mens vs womens teams...

>Btw, the issue isn't really "the tendencies 22 year old men" so much as it is people hiring for friends and drinking buddies instead of hiring for employees and colleagues

Sure, but in startups and smaller companies in particular people also hire to match their idea of cool lifestyle, not just seeking employees and colleagues to maximize professional performance...

(Heck, they might even think that professional performance is secondary, and a 10x programmer that doesn't fit the culture will bring everybody down)

Re: What I Know About Being Sick at Work (2018)

#124

Post by paulryanrogers »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #39
sokoloff wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s another point of view that says “if it’s workable for person D who happens to have a disability, it is likely also workable for persons A-C and E-Z.”

With respect, you're ignoring my point. There's value to team cohesion in having a team physically together. It won't be fatal to make an exception, and indeed it's possible run a company purely on remote working, but the point stands.

> There's value to team cohesion in having a team physically together. It won't be fatal to make an exception, and indeed it's possible run a company purely on remote working, but the point stands.

Citation? I've worked partially remote, fully remote, entirely in open officers, and entirely in a private office. Remote has been the best by far, both all around and for the healthiest team relationships IME.

Re: What I Know About Being Sick at Work (2018)

#125

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

neilv wrote: post #82
hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you give a list of examples I can tell you how I would feel about them...

That seems a valid way to help figure out the full nature of how people in an organization feel about things (identify hidden contributing factors), but I'm going to need to apply for research funding at this point. :)

That's why it is difficult to answer. But giving one person something that you tell the rest of the team would make them less valuable is clearly not OK.

Re: What I Know About Being Sick at Work (2018)

#126

Post by komali2 »

roel_v wrote: post #118
astura wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the same way a company of 22 year old females will have other tendencies that will prevail. ... Such as? Btw, the issue isn't really "the tendencies 22 year old men" so much as it is people hiring for friends and drinking buddies instead of hiring for employees and colleagues

Spontaneous pink baby sock knitting sessions? Dude stop trying to provoke people into writing things you can pick apart to feel offended about.

I think its a legitimate criticism of reductive statements against an arbitrarily selected group of people.

It's an effective strategy to point out "don't say this about this selection of people if you aren't willing to start saying similarly about its opposite."

I.e. one might not realize a blanket statement about the habits of 22 year old men is incorrect/untenable until someone points asks one to do the same for women, at which case for whatever reason cultural training or mechanisms for avoiding prejudice kick in.

I don't see someone trying to be offended - I see someone challenging a baseless assumption about an arbitrarily defined group of humans. No matter how you draw those lines in your selection criteria, you're going to get it wrong for a not-insignificant group of that selection, so why bother? Just don't make such blanket statements.

Re: What I Know About Being Sick at Work (2018)

#127

Post by leggomylibro »

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #105
leggomylibro wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the best approach, though? You might not be the only one who feels like the practices are harmful, and by speaking up could help the people around you. You can also just leave without quitting. Tell your manager that you are unable to work in the current workspace, and walk out the door no matter what time it is. If you still get your work done and your co-workers catch on, you can help to improve the culture…

Because management would then put me and the disabled person in shitty situations. Me because I would be portrayed as opposed to all accommodations for people with disabilities - which I am not. Think Twitter storm. The disabled person because they would then be forced to explain their disability and no one should have to do that.

Maybe I didn't convey my point well enough - I meant that if you find your workplace to be too distracting/unaccommodating/etc, then you can tell your manager that it doesn't work for you and leave to do your work somewhere else or some other time. There's no third party besides the people who might also be annoyed by your workplace's dysfunction but don't want to say anything about it.

Re: What I Know About Being Sick at Work (2018)

#128

Post by neilv »

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #125
neilv wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems a valid way to help figure out the full nature of how people in an organization feel about things (identify hidden contributing factors), but I'm going to need to apply for research funding at this point. :)

That's why it is difficult to answer. But giving one person something that you tell the rest of the team would make them less valuable is clearly not OK.

I think the idealistic idea is that it's a bit of "to each, according to their needs" -- people happy to support each other's needs. Though there are also less-idealistic reasons organizations do it, and why the laws had to be made.

The most ideal would be that most all the desirable things (work from home, quiet office, standing desk, good chair, flexible hours, etc.) would be offered to everyone, and then there's no special accommodation needed in most cases -- because everyone has those options to use at their discretion. It would also be more considerate of those who need something rather than prefer it -- don't make them ask, don't make them have to talk about something they might not want to talk about, don't single them out.

I'm lucky to not need any special accommodation now, but I'd value an environment that gave me those options, and I'd appreciate how respectful and supportive that is of everyone.

In any case, I'm glad that at least people who know they need special accommodation can often get it, thanks to laws. I just wish they and others usually didn't have to even mention it.

Re: What I Know About Being Sick at Work (2018)

#129

Post by belorn »

coldtea wrote: post #123
astura wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the same way a company of 22 year old females will have other tendencies that will prevail. ... Such as? Btw, the issue isn't really "the tendencies 22 year old men" so much as it is people hiring for friends and drinking buddies instead of hiring for employees and colleagues

> ... Such as? For one, a less competitive/macho culture, less booze friendly, less nerf guns, less nerdy references, -- on the other hand more agreeable collaboration, more petty antagonisms, etc. Those are from empirical experiences working in a few XX and XY heavy environments. But psychologists and social scientists have also long studied group dynamics in mens vs womens teams... > Btw, the issue isn't really "th…

> psychologists and social scientists have also long studied group dynamics in mens vs womens teams...

If we are going down the researched stereotypical road, a group of 22 year old women has have more bullying, more social conflict, isolation tactics, and passive aggressiveness.

But do we really need to define group traits by gender if one is a few percent higher in competitiveness, other in bullying, and third in what kind of team building exercise that management think is suitable for their team? It all sound very stereotypical way of thinking about hiring procedures.

If we take a quick look at Sweden, there is this government department called Swedish Public Employment Service. A company sends in a list of requirements and they help to pick out suitable applicants. Seems like a good solution to the lifestyle hiring problem.

Re: What I Know About Being Sick at Work (2018)

#130

Post by coldtea »

belorn wrote: post #129
coldtea wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... Such as? For one, a less competitive/macho culture, less booze friendly, less nerf guns, less nerdy references, -- on the other hand more agreeable collaboration, more petty antagonisms, etc. Those are from empirical experiences working in a few XX and XY heavy environments. But psychologists and social scientists have also long studied group dynamics in mens vs womens teams... > Btw, the issue isn't really "th…

> psychologists and social scientists have also long studied group dynamics in mens vs womens teams... If we are going down the researched stereotypical road, a group of 22 year old women has have more bullying, more social conflict, isolation tactics, and passive aggressiveness. But do we really need to define group traits by gender if one is a few percent higher in competitiveness, other in bullying, and third in w…

>But do we really need to define group traits by gender if one is a few percent higher in competitiveness, other in bullying

Yes, if those percents affect group dynamics, and push towards one or the other direction (which happens).

Post reply on HN