WWGRMD - dog allergy in a dog friendly workplace

bluej wrote: Are dogs the ONLY allergens you have? Are you SURE they are the sole reason for needing the drops? If not, thus gets a lot easier from m your perspective as its just the insurance company being a bag of dicks and HR should be ready to go to bat with you.

Over the winter, yes - I have mild hay fever, but for that we'd need grass that's growing. And the allergic reactions/infections that necessitate the eye drops are a recent development.

z31maniac wrote: Maybe an excuse to let you work from home?

I can only do that part time due to the nature of my job - I wear multiple hats as a software developer and development manager. For the latter I need to be in the office regularly.

I still don't see why there is/needs to be a connection from your healthcare needs for your allergies back to your workplace? Insurance shouldn't be seeing anything other than that you have allergies that require a prescribed eyedrop. They give you E36 M3 and you go to HR to get help with your insurance giving you grief and wasting your/their time. What part of that needs to be about allergens in your workplace? Allergens are everywhere.

Well, those allergens aren't really "everywhere" in sufficient concentration, but that's partially besides the point and partially why I was asking the question .

Keep in mind that I am not the customer of the health insurance (my employer is, I just get the benefit) and thus overall have little or no power over what they are willing to pay for and what they aren't willing to pay for.

My exposure to dogs is at the workplace and what I'm trying to determine is if is considered reasonable to ask HR for help in dealing with the employer provided health insurance, or if that isn't considered reasonable over here. Keep in mind that I haven't lived over here for that long and as an expat, one sometimes ends up in situation where it's not clear how things are supposed to be handled and you have to find out, preferably without stepping on too many toes.

Yes, it's reasonable to ask HR for help.

OK, that makes sense, and I commend you for wanting to check around before making assumptions. Like SVreX said, it's part of HR's job.

mazdeuce wrote: This right here. It's HR's job to deal with insurance and workplace conflict. It's the whole reason they exist.

Incorrect. HR exists to protect the company. Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age.

Brett_Murphy wrote:

mazdeuce wrote: This right here. It's HR's job to deal with insurance and workplace conflict. It's the whole reason they exist.

Incorrect. HR exists to protect the company. Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age.

Nope, that is a spot on observation.

slefain wrote:

Brett_Murphy wrote:

mazdeuce wrote: This right here. It's HR's job to deal with insurance and workplace conflict. It's the whole reason they exist.

Incorrect. HR exists to protect the company. Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age.

Nope, that is a spot on observation.

That is actually a philosophical debate that I've considered starting a thread about.

In theory and ethical concept, HR exists to improve the relations between the employee and the company. That would include mediating a direct conflict between an employee and the owner.

In modern practice, HR has frequently morphed into protecting the company. They keep records for the purpose of holding the employee's feet to the fire when there are conflicts.

I'm still positive enough to believe in the former (which DOES exist in some companies).

The very term "Human Resources" belies their function- people are resources, just like a desk, lathe or delivery truck. The goal is to get maximum productivity out of them while providing the absolute minimum benefit required to attract and keep employees. If their function really was to help us, it would be "Employee Services".

Geez, you guys must work for lousy companies. I really enjoy dealing with HR at my company--never had a bad experience, albeit many slow ones. But in a company with 15k employees in my location and over 60k nationwide, that is to be expected.

I guess people are going to hear what they want to hear.

It used to be called "Personel".

I consider "Human Resources" to be a great improvement, because it recognizes the importance of the people.

"Personel" sounds like chattel. They are just "stuff".

"Resources" are valuable assets. "Human Resources" are more valuable assets.

Go figure.

I don't really care what we call them. They are the department that manages the interaction between staff and management.

It is a corruption to morph them into a department for the protection of the company. That's the job of the Legal Department.

In reply to SVreX:

HR might sound better than personnel but here I am just like any other piece of property just cheaper to replace.

In reply to Wally:

I understand.

Working for a E36 M3ty company doesn't make all companies E36 M3ty.

SVreX wrote: In modern practice, HR has frequently morphed into protecting the company.

In this case it seems HR's role is to protect the company from itself. After all, it is the company that instituted a policy that puts its' employees' health at risk.

As one of the resident HR people on the forum, I'll weigh in here. Tim, you should definitely talk to your HR person. If the eye drops are clearly covered by your policy someone can intercede with the insurance company. If its a grey area, then it will be a test to see how well he or she can walk the "competing interests" tight rope that is built into HR work. Insurance companies love to jack up rates whenever a chronic condition shows up. I am guessing you are not the only person with allergies that is working there or you management would like to recruit. How (or whether) the company will accommodate you, and others like you, will need to be addressed.

It always interesting to hear peoples perceptions of HR. I will offer this thought. The role HR plays in any company reflects the role the senior management expects them to play in the company. If you have pleasant, intelligent, problems solvers in you HR function, its because the someone in management chose that. If you dealing with overgrown hall monitors, its because someone in management chose that.