Start with, "I'd like to be converted to full remote, what's the process for that?" The answer is probably "I don't know but I don't think it would fly." Insist that your manager ask up the chain for an official answer.
If the answer is "nope", next say: "I'm not comfortable returning to the office for health reasons. Will I be fired?" This is two-pronged:
a) it introduces private healthcare decisions, a legally fraught topic they do not want to deal with. Is it legal to fire someone for refusing to return to the office despite health concerns? Probably, but no one knows for sure and your employer does not want to be the test case. (If they ask, "what health concerns?" remind them that's private. Don't invent a fictitious medically-fragile aunt.)
b) It may force them to confront the fact that they will lose people over this. They very likely think of wfh as a perk, something they can decide by fiat without consequence. If no one quits over it, that's exactly what it will be.
If they stick to their guns, it's time to look for another job I suppose. If they have some explanation for why wfh is bad ("productivity is down, look at this graph", or "the value of hallway conversations" or whatever) I wouldn't bother arguing unless it's a small enough company that you can argue with the person who made the decision.
@ineptech knows what he's talking about. Follow this advice.
Here are some more ideas to consider. Source: 18+ years of experience as an engineer, manager, and director.
The theme is make your manager's life easy and he/she will do whatever they can to help you out.
Depending upon the size of your company, your manager may have more or less discretion with WFH. Whatever you do, don't put him/her into a corner with an all or nothing demand. Be clear with what you want, but be willing to negotiate how it happens.
If you've consistently delivered in the past, you have a tremendous amount of leverage. Believe me, the last thing a manager will want to do is lose one of his/her top engineers especially given this job market. Make sure they know you have options and you're willing to exercise them, but you really want to stay put.
Be patient, but hold a hard line. Most managers are inundated with bureaucracy which means almost nothing moves fast. Don't be surprised if your request gets pushed down the stack due to the latest fire that needs attention. Keep offering up options that make their life easier. I know, I know, this is about you not them, but trust me on this one. Make whatever solution you want easy for them. HR says no? Talk to HR, find the loop hole (private healthcare decision sounds perfect).
Alright, this one may be a bit more out there. Reader discretion advised. Just do it. Don't come back in the office. Don't make a lot of noise about it, make sure your productivity stays up, and have numbers to back it up. If your manager catches heat, do whatever is necessary to relieve him or her then go back to WFH.
> a) it introduces private healthcare decisions, a legally fraught topic they do not want to deal with. Is it legal to fire someone for refusing to return to the office despite health concerns? Probably, but no one knows for sure and your employer does not want to be the test case. (If they ask, "what health concerns?" remind them that's private. Don't invent a fictitious medically-fragile aunt.)
I used to be a lawyer (though was never a labor/employment lawyer) and am having a hard time coming up with reasons it would be illegal to fire someone who refuses to come into the office for unspecified medical reasons.
It seems like you've thought about this quite a bit — what would the reasoning be? Employees have lots of protections, some of them related to medical conditions. For example, employees can get access to FML under the appropriate circumstances. But my understanding (having claimed such benefits for my family when babies were born) is that some sort of proof is required to establish eligibility.
Are there other benefits or protections that would not require this? Or is there a 'protected class' designation that could be claimed? For the record, I have no dog in this fight — I work for myself and don't have employees, so this doesn't affect me personally. I'm just curious what the arguments are for employees who want to remain remote.
> It seems like you've thought about this quite a bit — what would the reasoning be?
I have not, no, this is just guesswork, but the reasoning is how much of an unknown quantity the covid risk still is. If Bob's doctor says it's not safe for Bob to return to the office because Bob's wife had a pulmonary embolism two years ago, who's to say the doctor is wrong? If Bob's psychologist says he has PTSD and the only way he can work safely is from his couch, how can you argue that allowing him to wfh isn't a "reasonable accommodation", after he's done it for a year and gotten a good annual review?
But again, I'm talking out my butt on this. My point was not that medical necessity is a convincing case, just that conjuring up the specter of medical necessity might change things if they were only loosely committed. And I don't think this is duplicitous: I think a very likely outcome for a lot of big corporations will be a "mandatory" return to the office which, in practice, is so riddled with exemptions that everyone who wants to wfh is allowed to.
> If Bob's psychologist says he has PTSD and the only way he can work safely is from his couch, how can you argue that allowing him to wfh isn't a "reasonable accommodation", after he's done it for a year and gotten a good annual review?
I'm no expert, but I'm reasonably sure you can't get 'reasonable accommodations' of much substance for a secret medical condition.
What's "reasonable" depends on cost. Suppose I have concerns about eye strain. Is it reasonable for me to demand that my employer install skylights? Probably not. Is it reasonable for me to demand a brighter desk lamp for my cube? Probably so. And when the cost is negligible, I don't think I should need a doctor's note; "I want a brighter lamp for health reasons" ought to be enough, even if my concerns are based on nothing more than a Facebook post I read.
The crux of the issue, then, is whether the cost to OP's employer to allow OP to wfh is negligible or not. And I am assuming OP's position would be that their performance last year proves the cost is negligible, not that they demand an accommodation despite the cost.
I believe the framework of "reasonable accommodation" only applies in the context of employees with disabilities. I'll again say that I'm not an employment lawyer, but I do work in the accessibility world and have only heard "reasonable accommodations" discussed in regard to the ADA.
There may be some broader context where this framework also applies, but absent that there wouldn't be a 'hook' to get it to apply to COVID-related WFH.
> But again, I'm talking out my butt on this. My point was not that medical necessity is a convincing case
I'm not a lawyer, or a manager, but I'm not quite convinced. I think OP should have that conversation with their doctor first. Claiming to need WFH to be safe is sounds related to some anti-Covid vaccination arguments. If the company cares about safety they are probably going to take reopening safely seriously, if they don't take Covid seriously they won't like accepting the initial request.
Though the eeoc does say having any WFH program makes it more likely it could be a reasonable accommodation. And I think my employer is already thinking about accommodations when reopening. Getting WFH might be a good possibility if their doctor agrees it's needed. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/work-hometelework-reasona...
I clarified this down-thread but let me say it again here: I don't mean to suggest anyone make anything up, I meant to suggest that being afraid of getting covid is a reasonable reason to want to wfh.
^^ Listen to this! As a manager and developer as well, I 100% agree. If you are a great worker and your manager isn't incompetent, they will fight for you up the chain. But don't approach it abrasively at first. That just sets the wrong tone for everyone.
On the other hand, if a good manager doesn't care if you quit, it also says a lot. There are developers I was so relieved just quit. It wasn't worth it keeping them.
This also sends a signal though, if other employees know you let the guy go because remote wasn't an option then they're going to just assume their is no negotiation and quit.
Although some may see the extra leverage they now have because losing multiple people at once is far worse than losing a single person.
> (If they ask, "what health concerns?" remind them that's private. Don't invent a fictitious medically-fragile aunt.)
I don't think anybody needs to make anything up in the midst of worldwide pandemic. This past year is a blockbuster example of why somebody could reasonably be concerned.
If your health really is your concern, go for it. Otherwise, deception during negotiation in a scenario where you have to maintain working relationships is playing with fire.
> a) it introduces private healthcare decisions, a legally fraught topic they do not want to deal with.
Weaponizing (perhaps too aggressive a word) private health decisions feels weird to me. The OP didn't mention any health concerns, so I'm assuming you're suggesting he just hide behind fictitious ones?
Your advice is probably useful and could potentially get him what he desires, but it still feels off to me. It feels especially off because I've seen people use the same approach so they can avoid wearing masks in public.
> I'm assuming you're suggesting he just hide behind fictitious ones?
I don't think "I'm not comfortable returning to the office for health reasons" implies any medical condition beyond being afraid to get covid. Which ought to be reason enough, if there's no particular downside to allowing OP to continue working remotely. And if there is a downside, it'd be good if OP and their employer discussed it.
Are you assuming his reasons for not wanting to return are health related? It would be dubious and dishonest to use that as an excuse if not.
I completely disagree with the strategy if you aren’t vulnerable to the virus. Negotiate remote on its merits without throwing something emotive in there for your personal gain.
How would you know? Maybe you only spotted 1% of the lies people are telling you and you’re thinking they’re really bad at lying when they’ve effectively lied to you 99% of the time and you never found out.
I was tempted to ask: "how do you know?", but I will rather just state that I think you are wrong. In fact, I think most people are excellent liars, especially if lying about something they don't consider to be morally wrong.
One thing I would say on claiming health reasons is, from the employers perspective it might be taken more as "I'm not ready to return to the office" instead of "I don't want to come back ever".
They are still going to expect you back at some point so this may result in just kicking the can down the road.
Ok... but you’re still literally asking your boss “will I be fired”. Not exactly a great negotiating posture! Not a great position to be in overall.
Instead, if you’re good enough, find somewhere where this isn’t an issue. That way you can work however is best for you without literally asking your boss if you’re going to be fired. Sheesh.
If there are places that are amenable to what you want, quit wasting your time going against the grain and just move on. Even if you got them to agree, it will constantly be an issue. They will always act like they’re doing you a favor and continually remind how weird it is that you work remote.
Just leave all this behind, it isn’t worth it. There are places where they just don’t care about this, it just won’t be an issue.
Start with, "I'd like to be converted to full remote, what's the process for that?" The answer is probably "I don't know but I don't think it would fly." Insist that your manager ask up the chain for an official answer.
If the answer is "nope", next say: "I'm not comfortable returning to the office for health reasons. Will I be fired?" This is two-pronged:
a) it introduces private healthcare decisions, a legally fraught topic they do not want to deal with. Is it legal to fire someone for refusing to return to the office despite health concerns? Probably, but no one knows for sure and your employer does not want to be the test case. (If they ask, "what health concerns?" remind them that's private. Don't invent a fictitious medically-fragile aunt.)
b) It may force them to confront the fact that they will lose people over this. They very likely think of wfh as a perk, something they can decide by fiat without consequence. If no one quits over it, that's exactly what it will be.
If they stick to their guns, it's time to look for another job I suppose. If they have some explanation for why wfh is bad ("productivity is down, look at this graph", or "the value of hallway conversations" or whatever) I wouldn't bother arguing unless it's a small enough company that you can argue with the person who made the decision.