25 signatures reached
To: Rapid Response Monitoring
Before a fever! The Goal is to prevent infection
Without Operators, You Don’t Have Much
We are bargaining for our lives. In a good year, rrms is a safe work environment. I have never been asked to place myself in any kind of danger in my years at Rapid until March 23rd 2020. The office no longer offers a safe work environment but instead poses a higher risk than the Shelter at Home recommendation. We have been denied the opportunity to work from home only because our CEO has deemed it too expensive. Has RRMS asked it’s employees if it is too expensive for them to continue to go into the office given that it may cost workers their lives? No! Why has our CEO deemed a work from home setting more than it’s worth to save its own employees' lives? We feel strongly that rrms is being negligent by not expressly stating the risks of the in office model amidst a pandemic.
We kindly ask the company present in writing a survey that explains how although the risk of infection is higher at the office, the company is asking each employee to assume a greater personal risk by continuing to report to the office. Also, that rrms arrived at this decision in consideration of the cost of rolling out a work from home model, not logistics, I will again refer to the March23rd Memo from our CEO himself. If rrms is concerned about reducing loss, I ask it to take into account their workers' lives as part of that possible loss.
Each rrms employee should be given the opportunity to voice their individual objections about the in office model, offer their own suggestions and opt out of it. Our chairman practically promised us we would catch it.
Employees can sign either in agreement of the conditions or mark their survey as opposed to the conditions. If they are comfortable working at the office then they acknowledge the risk and continue in the office environment. If they mark the survey in opposition, they will be given leave to shelter at home during this emergency and granted 50% of their usual payroll for the next 30days. IF the order is extended beyond 30 days these employees will be given the option of returning to the office or the option of being furloughed in order for them to continue to shelter in a safe environment and survive financially through the rest of the crisis. It may be in the best interest of rrms to offer employees an incentive to continue work in the office.
Additionally, we ask new hires to be given access to their sick time immediately not after their 90day probationary period.
Our emphasis is on operators who are at higher risk of severe illness or death from coronavirus. Some are so concerned for their lives they will be calling out of work more frequently for their personal safety and we, the undersigned, are prepared to call out and stay home in solidarity with their right to want to live. Alternatively, rrms could make the work from home model "the goal".
Part of the mission statement of rrms is to protect life; let's start at Rapid Response Monitoring.
We are bargaining for our lives. In a good year, rrms is a safe work environment. I have never been asked to place myself in any kind of danger in my years at Rapid until March 23rd 2020. The office no longer offers a safe work environment but instead poses a higher risk than the Shelter at Home recommendation. We have been denied the opportunity to work from home only because our CEO has deemed it too expensive. Has RRMS asked it’s employees if it is too expensive for them to continue to go into the office given that it may cost workers their lives? No! Why has our CEO deemed a work from home setting more than it’s worth to save its own employees' lives? We feel strongly that rrms is being negligent by not expressly stating the risks of the in office model amidst a pandemic.
We kindly ask the company present in writing a survey that explains how although the risk of infection is higher at the office, the company is asking each employee to assume a greater personal risk by continuing to report to the office. Also, that rrms arrived at this decision in consideration of the cost of rolling out a work from home model, not logistics, I will again refer to the March23rd Memo from our CEO himself. If rrms is concerned about reducing loss, I ask it to take into account their workers' lives as part of that possible loss.
Each rrms employee should be given the opportunity to voice their individual objections about the in office model, offer their own suggestions and opt out of it. Our chairman practically promised us we would catch it.
Employees can sign either in agreement of the conditions or mark their survey as opposed to the conditions. If they are comfortable working at the office then they acknowledge the risk and continue in the office environment. If they mark the survey in opposition, they will be given leave to shelter at home during this emergency and granted 50% of their usual payroll for the next 30days. IF the order is extended beyond 30 days these employees will be given the option of returning to the office or the option of being furloughed in order for them to continue to shelter in a safe environment and survive financially through the rest of the crisis. It may be in the best interest of rrms to offer employees an incentive to continue work in the office.
Additionally, we ask new hires to be given access to their sick time immediately not after their 90day probationary period.
Our emphasis is on operators who are at higher risk of severe illness or death from coronavirus. Some are so concerned for their lives they will be calling out of work more frequently for their personal safety and we, the undersigned, are prepared to call out and stay home in solidarity with their right to want to live. Alternatively, rrms could make the work from home model "the goal".
Part of the mission statement of rrms is to protect life; let's start at Rapid Response Monitoring.
Why is this important?
RRMS needs to be transparent about the heightened risks of an in office work model during a pandemic and offer employees an opportunity to decline these working conditions. I am sincerely trying to offer suggestions on how this company can be resilient.
