I’m disabled. 2023 has been all about re-entering the workforce for me and I couldn’t have done it (yet, anyway) without WFH.<p>I know that the return to office is vogue now, but I really hope we don’t forget that many of us are only able to work because we have WFH.
I've became disabled two years ago. My supervisor and I filled out the Reasonable Accommodation paperwork for our EEO and HR offices. At the time, I thought we were filling it out prematurely, since I was not sure what accommodations I'd need. (And two weeks after losing my leg to Necrotizing Fasciitis and Sepsis, work was not the first thing on my mind.) We did not ask about working from home; but, that was the accommodation they came back with.<p>I had to catch up a lot once I got home from the hospital and rehab; but, since then, I haven't missed a beat. It became a major part of my recovery. If I couldn't work from home, I'd be basket case.
NOTE: title doesn't match the article title.<p>Article title: Does working from home damage productivity? Just look at the data.<p>HN title: WFH significantly increased workforce participation from those with disabilities
Ignoring the unnecessarily editorialized title, this article is an example of "lie with statistics". The are basically arguing "look at the data", but every single example I've seen about arguing a data-driven approach to WFH is cherry picking things to fit their desired outcome, and that's on <i>both</i> sides of the argument.<p>Yes, it's fairly straightforward to look at productivity for rote, repeatable tasks. "How many calls did a CSR handle?" or "How many insurance claims did this person process?" are easily measurable. But that ignores the fears that business leaders have that, over time, the kind of innovation, motivation and culture that in-person interactions help foster will fade, leading to a sort of slow, long term decline. And the past 25 years have shown that companies that can foster and harness innovation well do <i>much</i> better than companies that simply focus on "repeatable process improvement".<p>I'm certainly not arguing either side is "right", but I would say anyone arguing "look at the data" on this topic is just using data to match their desired outcome, as there is simply <i>not enough time</i> to assess the long term "innovation" impact of WFH.
You mean the desk IT job (programming, qa, systems, etc) that also has a "must be able to lift 50 lbs" was there solely to keep out handicapped people with an arbitrary requirement?<p>Color me shocked /sarcasm
its shocking that so many online job apps ask you for your race, gender, sexuality (?!?) and health/disability status. and with a straight face ALSO say they Promise-Pinky-Swear to not use the answers to discriminate against you<p>uh huh<p>1. you cant know whether they will or not. you're pointing a gun at your head, pulling a trigger and hoping a bullet doesnt come out<p>2. even if they dont, you've just shared that data with strangers. and data lives forever and can leak out to anywhere else, replicating endlessly. ultimately ending up in Enemy Hands (defined here as folks who dont mean you well & plan to act on it), and thus, used to hurt you<p>3. if you give a false answer on a job app they can later cite it as cause for firing you. ie. it givea the biz HR/legal dept yet another gun they can point at your head, financially and legally<p>its a de facto Scam right out in the open. relying on enough people to fall for it, and believe their Spin. <i>nobody</i> should play along with it<p>ps. and yes I know its "required" by "law" in some cases. it doesnt change the point and the tangible impacts of it. it doesnt make it NOT creepy, dangerous and immoral. evil is evil
It would be great if we could simply flag an article with the tag "useless statistics".<p>What does it even mean to measure a 4% increase in output <i>per minute</i>? Does that include the time spent fiddling with the microphone at the start of a Zoom call?<p>Also, the title on HN does not match the title of the article.