7 ms·

WFH significantly increased workforce participation from those with disabilities

206 points by TheIronYuppie 3y ago

Rowanbarland 3y ago
[dead]
AuroraHens 3y ago
[dead]
smokel 3y ago
It would be great if we could simply flag an article with the tag "useless statistics". What does it even mean to measure a 4% increase in output per minute? Does that include the time spent fiddling with the microphone at the start of a Zoom call? Also, the title on HN does not match the title of the article.
- xkekjrktllss 3y ago
  the boss has entered the chat
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - smokel 3y ago
    I don't really understand your remark. Perhaps you (wrongly) assume that I do not like WFH? Rest assured that it is only the article, the statistics presented, and the title under which it was submitted, that I do not like.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > What does it even mean to measure a 4% increase in output per minute? Based on the context, I read this to mean that the overall 13% increase in productivity isn't just explained by remote workers working 9% more minutes.
- TheIronYuppie 3y ago
  OP here: Sorry! Here's why I linked to it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736879
pierat 3y ago
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? Color me shocked /sarcasm
- great_psy 3y ago
  Serious question: Why do they have that requirement? Wouldn’t that increase in workforce lower wages which is what companies want anyway ? How does the company benefit from this ?
  - jnovek 3y ago
    Accommodating disabilities is cost center and and failing to do so is a liability. Businesses use loopholes to “opt out” so they don’t have to deal with those things.
    - shortcake27 3y ago
      I thought the parent was making a joke. Is this actually a thing in America? In Australia I have never seen this in any of my contracts.
      - monetus 3y ago
        I'm in Appalachia; It is common.
      - waveBidder 3y ago
        it's a thing. companies are responsible for employees health insurance as well, so they'd rather not have someone who actually uses that a lot.
        0xcde4c3db 3y ago
        It's also pretty common IME for managers of retail and similar public-facing brick-and-mortar positions to have a bugbear about employees "looking lazy", which includes things like sitting, leaning, walking slowly or aimlessly, etc..
jnovek 3y ago
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. 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.
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
  > I know that the return to office is vogue now For a very strange definition of "vogue". The CEOs push for it, the employers push back, people are looking for new jobs etc. In my particular niche, 70% of jobs are fully remote, and I'm very happy it is this way.
voiper1 3y ago
NOTE: title doesn't match the article title. Article title: Does working from home damage productivity? Just look at the data. HN title: WFH significantly increased workforce participation from those with disabilities
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  De-clickbaiting the title is IMO a good thing, it's similar to what the YouTube extension DeArrow does, crowdsourcing more accurate and non-clickbait titles and thumbnails. It's made by the people who made SponsorBlock and it's great.
  - some_random 3y ago
    Oh wow, I've never seen a paid browser plugin before. It's interesting how the idea of paying what to me is a negligible amount of money still changes the way I think about it.
  - joveian 3y ago
    The problem here is that the HN title is incorrect for this article. I'd say a clickbait title matching the submisison is much better than an incorrect title.
    - TheIronYuppie 3y ago
      OP here - sorry! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736879
- squigz 3y ago
  There is a single mention, in passing, of disabled workers. This is absurdly misleading.
- TheIronYuppie 3y ago
  OP: Yeah, sorry, I linked to this because this is what the original tweeter posted. I should have linked to the underlying study - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kvh0jghr61ago7qm63t7m/September2023.pptx?rlkey=8zg1k6kq72n0em1sy4vmyenkp&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kvh0jghr61ago7qm63t7m/Septemb... The data that you may be looking for is here: https://twitter.com/I_Am_NickBloom/status/1708145963502833806 https://twitter.com/I_Am_NickBloom/status/170814596350283380...
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
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 both sides of the argument. 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 much better than companies that simply focus on "repeatable process improvement". 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 not enough time to assess the long term "innovation" impact of WFH.
- TheIronYuppie 3y ago
  OP: Yeah, sorry, I linked to this because this is what the original tweeter posted. I should have linked to the underlying study - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kvh0jghr61ago7qm63t7m/September2023.pptx?rlkey=8zg1k6kq72n0em1sy4vmyenkp&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kvh0jghr61ago7qm63t7m/Septemb... The data that you may be looking for is here: https://twitter.com/I_Am_NickBloom/status/1708145963502833806 https://twitter.com/I_Am_NickBloom/status/170814596350283380...
teeray 3y ago
The problem is that WFH decreases the workforce’s participation in commercial real estate.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  I genuinely don’t understand why this perspective is so compelling. CRE is a big deal, but I don’t think companies are so incentivized to optimize CRE value. They’re trying to succeed in their business.
  - eli_gottlieb 3y ago
    Your average productive firm is not incentivized to optimize CRE value. However, they are often renting commercial real-estate on a fixed-term lease and need to get what value from the remainder of their lease that they can.
    - jedberg 3y ago
      That's the sunk cost fallacy. They're gonna pay it regardless, it doesn't matter if people show up or not. It's still cheaper to not have folks show up because then you don't have to pay for all the ongoing incidental charges.
      - thrtythreeforty 3y ago
        I've been hearing this a lot, and I actually think you have the company's logic backward. (For what it's worth, I'm pro-WFH, and I think a lot of circles don't square with the rhetoric from my company regarding RTO, but hear me out.) The lease is locked in. From the company's perspective, the building is now free, except for marginal costs per employee that shows up. So the only remaining math for the company to consider is, are the benefits that the company gains from an onsite employee greater than the $2/day it costs to provide coffee and toilet paper? Remember, the company is happy to outsource the cost of commuting to employees, and only cares about the value of the building if they own it. And they have great institutional difficulty in weighing intangible employee satisfaction against other perceived gains for the company. Under this logic, I think it's easy to see why management, acting in the company's best interest, is pushing RTO so hard. If it costs employees $10/day but makes the company $3, that's free money.
havershank 3y ago
[dead]
syngrog66 3y ago
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 uh huh 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 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 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 its a de facto Scam right out in the open. relying on enough people to fall for it, and believe their Spin. nobody should play along with it 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
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  >if you give a false answer on a job app they can later cite it as cause for firing you. Lying about being disabled on a job applications is not considered legal cause for firing somebody in many jurisdictions. It's still rather career-limiting to start an employment relationship with somebody by LYING to them though, and employers can simply not follow the law and fire you anyways and it will hardly be worth suing them for damages, so this is cold comfort. I have counselled many extremely naive disabled teenager and 20 somethings about disability discrimination and how to get past it and get a job, generally talking to those who have some ability to hide it but would be much more productive and live a higher quality of life with accomidiation: - If you're going to reveal being disabled do it through a recruiter who will match you with employers who are looking to fill a quota or whatever. Or do it if you know the people hiring you and know they will respond well. - If you can hide being disabled, don't ask for any accommodation, and hide being disabled for at least long enough to get through a probationary period at which point people will be hesitant to retaliate against you because of the sunk costs and everybody involved in hiring you wanting to save face. This is usually what I usually end up recommending. - Where you are disabled, can live without accommodations indefinitely, and want to climb the ladder - never say that you're disabled or ask for accomidations. You will be discriminated against for being disabled and then discriminated against again over the perception that you must be a diversity hire.
5555624 3y ago
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. 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.

206 points by TheIronYuppie 3y ago

Rowanbarland 3y ago

[dead]

AuroraHens 3y ago

[dead]

smokel 3y ago

It would be great if we could simply flag an article with the tag "useless statistics". What does it even mean to measure a 4% increase in output per minute? Does that include the time spent fiddling with the microphone at the start of a Zoom call? Also, the title on HN does not match the title of the article.

xkekjrktllss 3y ago
the boss has entered the chat
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- smokel 3y ago
  I don't really understand your remark. Perhaps you (wrongly) assume that I do not like WFH? Rest assured that it is only the article, the statistics presented, and the title under which it was submitted, that I do not like.
CharlesW 3y ago
> What does it even mean to measure a 4% increase in output per minute? Based on the context, I read this to mean that the overall 13% increase in productivity isn't just explained by remote workers working 9% more minutes.
TheIronYuppie 3y ago
OP here: Sorry! Here's why I linked to it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736879

pierat 3y ago

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? Color me shocked /sarcasm

great_psy 3y ago
Serious question: Why do they have that requirement? Wouldn’t that increase in workforce lower wages which is what companies want anyway ? How does the company benefit from this ?
- jnovek 3y ago
  Accommodating disabilities is cost center and and failing to do so is a liability. Businesses use loopholes to “opt out” so they don’t have to deal with those things.
  - shortcake27 3y ago
    I thought the parent was making a joke. Is this actually a thing in America? In Australia I have never seen this in any of my contracts.
    - monetus 3y ago
      I'm in Appalachia; It is common.
    - waveBidder 3y ago
      it's a thing. companies are responsible for employees health insurance as well, so they'd rather not have someone who actually uses that a lot.
      - 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
        It's also pretty common IME for managers of retail and similar public-facing brick-and-mortar positions to have a bugbear about employees "looking lazy", which includes things like sitting, leaning, walking slowly or aimlessly, etc..

jnovek 3y ago

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. 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.

hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
> I know that the return to office is vogue now For a very strange definition of "vogue". The CEOs push for it, the employers push back, people are looking for new jobs etc. In my particular niche, 70% of jobs are fully remote, and I'm very happy it is this way.

voiper1 3y ago

NOTE: title doesn't match the article title. Article title: Does working from home damage productivity? Just look at the data. HN title: WFH significantly increased workforce participation from those with disabilities

satvikpendem 3y ago
De-clickbaiting the title is IMO a good thing, it's similar to what the YouTube extension DeArrow does, crowdsourcing more accurate and non-clickbait titles and thumbnails. It's made by the people who made SponsorBlock and it's great.
- some_random 3y ago
  Oh wow, I've never seen a paid browser plugin before. It's interesting how the idea of paying what to me is a negligible amount of money still changes the way I think about it.
- joveian 3y ago
  The problem here is that the HN title is incorrect for this article. I'd say a clickbait title matching the submisison is much better than an incorrect title.
  - TheIronYuppie 3y ago
    OP here - sorry! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736879
squigz 3y ago
There is a single mention, in passing, of disabled workers. This is absurdly misleading.
TheIronYuppie 3y ago
OP: Yeah, sorry, I linked to this because this is what the original tweeter posted. I should have linked to the underlying study - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kvh0jghr61ago7qm63t7m/September2023.pptx?rlkey=8zg1k6kq72n0em1sy4vmyenkp&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kvh0jghr61ago7qm63t7m/Septemb... The data that you may be looking for is here: https://twitter.com/I_Am_NickBloom/status/1708145963502833806 https://twitter.com/I_Am_NickBloom/status/170814596350283380...

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

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 both sides of the argument. 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 much better than companies that simply focus on "repeatable process improvement". 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 not enough time to assess the long term "innovation" impact of WFH.

TheIronYuppie 3y ago
OP: Yeah, sorry, I linked to this because this is what the original tweeter posted. I should have linked to the underlying study - https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kvh0jghr61ago7qm63t7m/September2023.pptx?rlkey=8zg1k6kq72n0em1sy4vmyenkp&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kvh0jghr61ago7qm63t7m/Septemb... The data that you may be looking for is here: https://twitter.com/I_Am_NickBloom/status/1708145963502833806 https://twitter.com/I_Am_NickBloom/status/170814596350283380...

teeray 3y ago

The problem is that WFH decreases the workforce’s participation in commercial real estate.

DiggyJohnson 3y ago
I genuinely don’t understand why this perspective is so compelling. CRE is a big deal, but I don’t think companies are so incentivized to optimize CRE value. They’re trying to succeed in their business.
- eli_gottlieb 3y ago
  Your average productive firm is not incentivized to optimize CRE value. However, they are often renting commercial real-estate on a fixed-term lease and need to get what value from the remainder of their lease that they can.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    That's the sunk cost fallacy. They're gonna pay it regardless, it doesn't matter if people show up or not. It's still cheaper to not have folks show up because then you don't have to pay for all the ongoing incidental charges.
    - thrtythreeforty 3y ago
      I've been hearing this a lot, and I actually think you have the company's logic backward. (For what it's worth, I'm pro-WFH, and I think a lot of circles don't square with the rhetoric from my company regarding RTO, but hear me out.) The lease is locked in. From the company's perspective, the building is now free, except for marginal costs per employee that shows up. So the only remaining math for the company to consider is, are the benefits that the company gains from an onsite employee greater than the $2/day it costs to provide coffee and toilet paper? Remember, the company is happy to outsource the cost of commuting to employees, and only cares about the value of the building if they own it. And they have great institutional difficulty in weighing intangible employee satisfaction against other perceived gains for the company. Under this logic, I think it's easy to see why management, acting in the company's best interest, is pushing RTO so hard. If it costs employees $10/day but makes the company $3, that's free money.

havershank 3y ago

[dead]

syngrog66 3y ago

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 uh huh 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 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 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 its a de facto Scam right out in the open. relying on enough people to fall for it, and believe their Spin. nobody should play along with it 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

faeriechangling 3y ago
>if you give a false answer on a job app they can later cite it as cause for firing you. Lying about being disabled on a job applications is not considered legal cause for firing somebody in many jurisdictions. It's still rather career-limiting to start an employment relationship with somebody by LYING to them though, and employers can simply not follow the law and fire you anyways and it will hardly be worth suing them for damages, so this is cold comfort. I have counselled many extremely naive disabled teenager and 20 somethings about disability discrimination and how to get past it and get a job, generally talking to those who have some ability to hide it but would be much more productive and live a higher quality of life with accomidiation: - If you're going to reveal being disabled do it through a recruiter who will match you with employers who are looking to fill a quota or whatever. Or do it if you know the people hiring you and know they will respond well. - If you can hide being disabled, don't ask for any accommodation, and hide being disabled for at least long enough to get through a probationary period at which point people will be hesitant to retaliate against you because of the sunk costs and everybody involved in hiring you wanting to save face. This is usually what I usually end up recommending. - Where you are disabled, can live without accommodations indefinitely, and want to climb the ladder - never say that you're disabled or ask for accomidations. You will be discriminated against for being disabled and then discriminated against again over the perception that you must be a diversity hire.

5555624 3y ago

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. 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.