Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-05-20
Source: The Conversation – in French– By Alexandra Lecours, Full Professor, University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières (UQTR)
The question of returning to the office,widely in the news lately, often boils down to managing schedules: for example, three days on-site, two days remote. But for some people, the issue concerns the very possibility of working.
Remote work has not only offered flexibility, it has also reduced obstacles that in-person presence made unavoidable. When an organization closes this door, it does not return to a neutral state. It reinstates a norm that favors certain profiles of people and weakens others, notably people with disabilities.These constitute a significant proportion of the active population, a sign of the diversity of the Canadian workforce.
The wider use of remote work in recent years has concretely changed the conditions of access to work for certain groups. It has enabled people with disabilities to participate in work by reducing constraints related to being physically present, such as transportation or rigid scheduling. Returning to a presence-based norm without considering these effects does not simply constitute a step backward. It can also mean a regression regarding forms of inclusion that had gradually been established.
Employerswho advocate the return to in-personinvoke collective efficiency, creativity, cohesion, and mentoring. These objectives matter, but a single rule does not suit everyone, as mandatory attendance does not impose the same participation cost depending on the individuals.
In-person attendance adds travel, scheduling constraints, and a specific environment. The attendance rule becomes a condition for participation at work. When it creates a disadvantage linked to a disability, it raises an issue of equitable access and refers to the duty to accommodate.
Also to read:
Employment and disability in Quebec: a model running out of steam
A risk of weakening access to work
As a professor of occupational therapy at UQTR and a researcher at the Interdisciplinary Research Center on Rehabilitation and Social Integration, I have been interested for more than fifteen years in the work participation of people with disabilities. My work has documented how telework can support sustainable participation, provided there is adequate supervision and appropriate resources. Based on results from studies conducted over the past five years, I examine here how the massive return to in-person work risks undermining equitable access to work by turning an accessibility lever into a precarious exception.
The uniform return to the office reaffirms an implicit norm: that of a mobile worker, available and functionally stable. It imposes demands that seem ordinary but become selective in their effects.
In aStudy on telework among people with motor and sensory disabilities, they explain that working on-site adds constraints that reduce their capacity to work, even when the tasks to be performed remain the same. For example, commuting emerges as a major constraint, especially when adapted transportation imposes delays, waiting times, and heavy planning. Teleworking allows to recover this time and to preserve energy and availability.
Another study, conducted with people suffering from chronic pain, concurs in the same vein. The participants report that flexible scheduling and the possibility of organizing breaks promote a more sustainable work experience. They describe the ability to change positions, stretch, or apply heat as strategies that are easier to integrate at home.
These benefits do not eliminate the risks. The people interviewed mention isolation and the difficulty in maintaining time boundaries. However, they believe that teleworking remains relevant as an accommodation measure when the organization recognizes these risks and sets guidelines to prevent them.
Problems related to case-by-case management
The reaffirmation of in-person attendance as the norm changes the status of telework.
In a third study, conducted with managers this time, the participating individuals describe a case-by-case management, where decisions are based on trade-offs between benefits, team functioning, and perceptions of fairness. This logic leads to different practices depending on the teams and the managers. A person may obtain an arrangement in one team but not in another, or lose it during a change of manager. Access to teleworking thus becomes less predictable.
Also to read:
Telecommuting, a key factor in preventing burnout
The legal framework also contributes to this logic. Recent case law reminds us that teleworking is not an automatic right. An employer can require on-site presence when the tasks so require. OneQuébécois decisionconfirmed the refusal of exclusive long-term telework, holding that on-site presence remained essential to the functions and that this accommodation could constitute an excessive burden.
In workplaces, this interpretation can reinforce the idea that telework must be demonstrated and documented in each situation, which more often positions it as an exception rather than the rule. This logic of exception makes telework an agreement to be negotiated rather than an organized modality. It shifts the issue to the daily lives of teams, where managerial supervision becomes decisive.
A review concerning workers with health issuessuggests that teleworking is most often associated with a decrease in absenteeism, while indicating a risk of working while sick when the framework remains insufficient. This risk becomes more plausible when access depends on case-by-case arrangements, as the rules remain unclear and lack stability. In this context, somemanagers report a lack of resources and ethical dilemmaswhen they arbitrate between accommodation, fairness, productivity, and workplace health. Thus, the precariousness of access and varying supervision concretely influence the ability of people with disabilities to work and to do so without deteriorating their health.
Already thousands of subscribers to the newsletter ofThe Conversation. And you? Subscribe to our freenewsletterto better understand the major contemporary issues.
A lever of inclusion to consider
The return to in-person work is not only a question of office organization. It raises an issue of access to work. When access to telecommuting depends on exceptions, employees become vulnerable to changes in context and management shifts.
An organization can transform telework from a fragile exception into a lever for sustainable inclusion by defining clear, stable, and predictable rules that guarantee possible, sustainable, and equitable access to work for all.
Alexandra Lecours received funding from the Quebec Research Fund, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Quebec Disabled Persons Office.
–ref. The decline of telework exacerbates access inequalities for people with disabilities –https://theconversation.com/the-decline-of-telecommuting-exacerbates-access-inequalities-for-people-with-disabilities-282528