Thread by @BrentHodgson

Heard an absurd take that new WFH protections would see businesses refusing to hire “marginalised people” recently.

What a load of utter 🦖💩.

Here’s the facts:

• 21.9% of Australians have 1+ disabilities. Since widespread WFH adoption (2019) their employment is up 4.4%!

• The data shows mothers, carers, and those with chronic illnesses are all benefitting similarly.

• The data also shows WFH is taking pressure off infrastructure, and making it more feasible to live in more affordable outer-suburban housing.

• “Return to office mandates” are now being used in lieu of redundancies to squeeze out / thin-out workforces.

Those who suffer most from this: people with disabilities, chronic illnesses, carers & other significant non-workplace demands.

It isn’t a lifestyle choice for them.

• Similarly, WFH is being “traded” as a way to pay staff less – as if less work happens remotely.

(All evidence shows this is not true, exposing the shocking waste of attendeeism, water cooler chats, death-by-meetings and other seemingly “urgent” minutiae.)

• Those who do not benefit from WFH are already carved out of the policy: location-dependent frontline workers.

Although there are some risks of them being “left behind” by the social benefits of WFH, it’s absurd to claim they’re at risks of job losses because of WFH.

• Australia’s “full employment”-level unemployment rate is 4.5%.

Our current unemployment rate is BELOW that @ 4.3%.

The labour market is tight (and will be for years to come), and organisations who refuse to embrace WFH will simply miss out to those who choose to adapt.

• There is no language barrier or capability barrier in a 2-day-a-week WFH context that does not also exist in-person.

If a leader won’t embrace change, adapt to get the most out of their team, or build their own capabilities – they ought to step back from leadership entirely.

• Other workplace rights when staked in the ground did not erode employment: the 5 day work week, the 8 hour day, maternity leave, equal pay, etc.

Organisations who refused to embrace them were outcompeted by those who did: growth demands adaptation to the times.

• Leaders who claim they’ll be less willing to hire “marginalised” employees due to WFH protections reveal themselves.

They reveal their biases around marginalised people, and limitations around technology, diversity, and inclusion.

These fossils need to be left behind.

Those who are decrying protections around WFH are overwhelmingly those who have benefitted significantly from monocultural workplaces.

They invoke “marginalised people” as a vague human shield for the monocultures they routinely exclude them from.