>Given the absolutely massive disadvantages WFH imposes on an entire company it's almost certainly going to continue to be considered a unreasonable burden.
I've seen a company spend 10 grand to make a specific door automatically open for a guy in a wheelchair only for that person to move on to a different office 2 months later. So this guy would, get up, shower daily, fling him and a wheelchair into a modified car and get out of the car twice a day, drive over an hour round trip, navigate poorly made sidewalks without curb cuts, go up an elevator, just to eventually arrive at the button on the door so we could of course, celebrate the equality with which they are treated. Oh yeah, and he also had to do a bunch of extra work every day of his life in other ways. But a lot of these problems were related to time he was technically off the clock, so on paper, he was treated equally.
I sort of think it's completely mad the unreasonable burden disabled people have stoically shouldered for so long. I am really happy that COVID has really changed people's perceptions enough that more people seem to be asking for and being permitted accommodations and are generally less stigmatised for doing so. I'd really like to see the research that allowing the disabled specifically to work from home imposes a massive burden on the entire company.
I don't accept the argument that the fact that the majority of the population is not working from home, means we shouldn't allow a minority of the population to work from home. The whole point of disability accommodations is that the accommodations are NOT the norm.
> I really doubt that. Given the absolutely massive disadvantages WFH imposes on an entire company it's almost certainly going to continue to be considered a unreasonable burden.Comments like these make me realize just how much of a insulated bubble a lot of hackernews lives in. Less then 15% of the countries works fully remote and it's trending down.
How am I propagating falsities? If anything you're just confirming my bubble point. I say a very small percentage of the country works fully remote you link to a tech company just outside of Austin having a lot of remote workers and somehow think you're not living in a bubble?
> I say a very small percentage of the country works fully remote you link to a tech company just outside of Austin having a lot of remote workers and somehow think you're not living in a bubble?
Dell is a traditional company, not a modern tech company. It wasn't able to push RTO, and that's telling.
And why the hell the average labor statistics of a country outside the tech sector and office work would be relevant to WFH? There isn't a way to do construction work, mining, transportation etc through remote work yet, so they have absolutely no relevance to this discussion - which makes aggregate labor statistics irrelevant.
Please don't propagate irrelevancies: that link is about a single tech company is Austin TX and has nothing to do with claim about aggregate labor statistics for the country.
The latest BLS data is here:
https://www.bls.gov/cps/telework.htm#data
From the look of it WFH is somewhere between 10-20% depending on how you count full vs hybrid WFH.
Dell is a gigantic, traditional company. If it wasn't able to push RTO, that's significant.
> aggregate labor statistics for the country
Why would that be relevant? There are still physical jobs that require people to go to places to do things. All these discussions related to WFH pertain to the tech sector and office jobs that can be done remotely for the time being.
The parent made a claim about the aggregate rate and its trend. You asserted that this claim is false and then provided a citation that is irrelevant and contains nothing to debunk the original claim (which appears to be true based on BLS data).
You're now trying to change the terms of your original disagreement to be about the tech sector alone. This is fine, I guess, but I would really appreciated it if this conversation would provide actual data instead of an anecdote from a single firm that may or may not be representative of the broader trend.
> You're now trying to change the terms of your original disagreement to be about the tech sector alone
I didn't say only tech. I said tech and office work that can be done remotely. And which of the discussions at hackernews is not related to tech? 0.1%? The proposition doesn't make sense.
