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?
It was. The ADA was the result of an enormous amount of struggle and activism, and that movement continues to the present. Reach out to a local disability rights organization (I guarantee there's one near you) and ask if they had any concerns about office work before Covid. I'd also recommend the documentary Crip Camp if you're not familiar with this part of American history.
Edit: Here's an article from the start of the pandemic with lots of quotes relevant to your question. Sorry for the archive link, the site seems to be down right now.
> Watching these accommodations become available in a wide-spread way so quickly has been really painful. It hurts not only because I could have benefited from accommodations like this throughout my education, but because there are so many others who could have benefited, or were forced to drop out of school, or quit their jobs because their school or employer told them they were impossible to accommodate. These accommodations have always been possible but acknowledging that requires acknowledging the ableism behind their denial.
- https://web.archive.org/web/20200329102738/https://www.teenv...
It's a quick read and it's very good, I recommend reading it. Most of the issues discussed could be most easily addressed by allowing full remote work. Also, many of the people quoted have "invisible disabilities" - you may have coworkers like them without realizing it. This isn't just about ramps and elevators and other common accommodations.
If everyone has more flexibility, I don't need to risk my job asking for reasonable accommodations.
It also helps stomp on stupidity like requiring 14 people in a remote office in the middle of Nowhere, Midwest to wear black tennis shoes. (I own no tennis shoes and can't wear them.) There was literally no reason for it except to have a dress code.
I guess that's the core disagreement here. The people who wrote this letter do not think getting to the top of the skyscraper is an important part of the job worth sacrificing even a small amount of accessibility, and the executives do.
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?
The people who wrote this letter are arguing that the cost of full remote work is low or even negative, and the benefits are quite high, so the tradeoff is worth it. That's what this discussion is about, how should we balance the tradeoffs.
And yes, I don't know if they were meant to be sarcastic, but all of your questions are worth considering. If you have a deaf coworker that struggles with remote work, you should absolutely consider making changes up to and including in-person work. I can't tell you what tradeoff would be appropriate for your particular team and situation, but of course you should think about it and not just default to the status quo.
I also think many people with disabilities would argue that we as a society have not yet reached "minimum standards of accessibility".
