I understand it may be more difficult for certain people, but I guess to me it's a non sequitur. Doing different things is varying levels of difficult for different people. Is the conclusion that nobody should ask you to do anything inconvenient?
If you can understand that, then you should understand that certain people will make rational decisions to minimize their difficulty. Remote work positions are more available now, and such people will likely naturally gravitate towards them. Consequently, non-remote positions will be disproportionally more able-bodied, which is exactly the point of the Apple employee statement.
It could certainly trend that way though. I don't see that as super problematic.
Extend that to everything. We shouldn't ask people to do something inconvenient when we could make it convenient.
That’s a joke… we need the flexibility to cater to those who require it. We don’t need to make the baseline match the minimum. I think ADA and other items do well in this regard. So, just let a person WFH if attendance is overly inconvenient. It’s not the standard expectation. If working in the office is a baseline then It doesn’t mean they get to move to another country then claim the commute is now inconvenient. I think this wasn’t really much of an issue before Covid. Why is it now?
In the end it's a trade off, and while we should have minimum standards of accessibility, after that point its a trade off between productivity, efficiency, and accessibility. If having the entire team in office 2x a week makes the average worker XX% more productive, should we sacrifice that for the one teammate who has a harder time to getting to the office? What about the coworker who choose to live further away? Should my team push meetings around because I am not a morning person? What about the dead worker who can understand coworkers better when in person, should we require everyone to go in every day for them?
