undefined | Better HN

0 pointstptacek12y ago0 comments

That's a good question. Lumberjacks and pipeline workers are not required to live in company dormitories; the North Dakota gas boomtowns have cheap family housing, and, presumably, subsidized housing provided by employers is considered employee compensation. Workers on oil rigs have no choice but to live on-site. What's the argument that says you can rig a software company in such a way as to precluding hiring people with families?

0 comments

yummyfajitas12y ago

Lumberjacks and pipeline workers are often required to live in encampments near the work site. Some jobs require living in isolation.

These jobs don't "preclude hiring people with families". If a person with a family worked there he'd probably do the same thing as the oil rig worker - live on site and skype his family at night.

The only difference I can see between this job and oil rig work is that the software guy probably has a few recruiters/week emailing him opportunities he likes more.

tptacekOP12y ago

That's not the only difference. Pipeline workers who work at remote encampments work in shifts, like truck drivers; they get prolonged time back at home. That's not how a software job works; that time at home is like PTO.

Also, pipeline workers need to work on remote sites. Software developers do not. That will matter at trial.

nknighthb12y ago

What if the company is based in northern Alaska? What if work hours are 2000-0400?

It's hard to make out a disparate impact claim to begin with. Doing so on the basis that you don't like the living arrangements would seem impossible. What limiting principle would the courts apply that wouldn't result in legal liability for every company that doesn't allow employees to telecommute?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse