4 ms·
Remote workers are not a protected class, and there is no reason to make them a pretected class, considering the reality that lots of jobs require a physical pr
by CompelTechnic 8y ago
Remote workers are not a protected class, and there is no reason to make them a pretected class, considering the reality that lots of jobs require a physical presence. Calling it discrimination implies that there is a permanent population of people who are capable of working, but can only possibly work if they do not have to commute, and that they are being oppressed because of this. It is not discrimination so much as it's a case of society having a different set of preferences than you.
- ben_w 8y agoGP is giving an economic rather than a social justice reason for making it a protected class. I don’t think I agree with him, but that doesn’t make it “not a reason”. Reason I disagree with him is that if workplaces rearrange themselves to not need physical presence, all the jobs suddenly get done by whichever genuinely third world nation can put high bandwidth internet connection into literal shantytown slums the fastest. If this was a gradual and planned-for change, starting with boosting the salary expectations of the poorest in the world up to our level, that’s one thing. Doing it to solve housing cost differences between rural and urban areas in developed nations will just blow up in everyone’s faces with unhandled side-effects.