Why Flexibility Became a Privilege, Not a Right, in the Job Market

Understanding why flexibility became a privilege, and not an inherent right, requires us to look beyond corporate buzzwords and into the quiet rooms where decisions are made.

Consider Sarah, a senior software analyst with a decade of experience and a degenerative spinal condition. For her, a ninety-minute commute in rush hour is not just exhausting; it is physically damaging.

In 2021, her professional world expanded. The shift to remote work allowed her to contribute at her peak, managing teams from a desk specifically contoured to her physical needs.

But by early 2026, the tides turned. A new “Return to Office” mandate arrived, often framed in the language of “collaboration” and “corporate culture.”

Sarah’s request to remain remote was met with a sympathetic but firm refusal. Flexibility, she was told, was now a “benefit” reserved for high-level performers or specific “hardship cases,” subject to quarterly reviews.

Suddenly, her ability to participate in the workforce was no longer judged solely on her skill, but treated as a concession.

The Great Reset of Expectations

• The Illusion of Progress: Why temporary shifts didn’t always lead to permanent structural rights.
• Corporate Architecture: How physical presence returned as a proxy for productivity.
• The Accessibility Gap: The impact of rigid schedules on persons with disabilities.
• Reframing the Right: Moving from “employee perks” back toward social inclusion.

Why is the job market retreating from remote options?

A structural shift is happening in the global economy that often gets buried under discussions about real estate values.

On the surface, companies claim that “synergy” happens better in person. However, a more critical analysis suggests that physical presence is frequently being used as a tool for behavioral control.

When an organization can physically monitor staff, there is often an increased sense of “ownership” over their time.

The retreat from remote work isn’t always about efficiency data frequently shows that remote workers remain highly productive. Instead, it often represents a restoration of traditional hierarchies.

The office was originally designed for a specific type of body: one that can sit for eight hours, navigate stairs, and tolerate sensory overload.

By mandating a return to this environment, companies may be unintentionally filtering out those who do not fit that mold.

The impact on inclusion is significant. For a worker with chronic fatigue or a mobility impairment, the flexibility to work from home is not a luxury; it is the infrastructure of their professional existence.

When companies treat this as a privilege to be granted or revoked, they risk turning accessibility into a bargaining chip.

++ The End of ‘Workplace Accommodations’ as a Concept?

How did we lose the momentum of the early 2020s?

A structural detail that is often overlooked is the lack of legislative weight behind flexible work. While several countries introduced “right to request” laws, few established a “right to receive.”

This distinction is significant. A “request” can be denied for vague business reasons, leaving the employee with little recourse but to seek other employment.

The pattern is recognizable: a crisis forces a social breakthrough, but without permanent policy anchoring, systems often revert to their original shape.

Decision-makers, who may not face barriers to physical attendance, sometimes view flexibility through the lens of their own experience.

To them, it might feel like a “soft perk” rather than a fundamental requirement for social equity.

There are valid reasons to question the narrative that the “market” is simply deciding what works best. Office mandates in 2024 and 2025 were often influenced by tax incentives provided by cities to keep downtown cores active.

In this light, an individual’s ability to work without pain is sometimes weighed against the economic needs of urban tax bases.

Is flexibility becoming a tool for workplace discrimination?

The question of why flexibility became a privilege is linked to how we define “merit.” In the current climate, the “flexible” employee is often defined as the one who can be in a meeting room on short notice.

This typically favors those without caregiving responsibilities or physical limitations. It can create a tiered workforce where those who require accommodations are viewed as less committed.

Imagine a qualified professional facing barriers that don’t appear in a standard handbook such as a neurodivergent employee who finds the sensory environment of an open-plan office overwhelming.

In 2022, they might have been a top performer in a quiet home office. Today, they might be labeled “difficult” for requesting the same quiet space. This shift in perception can push diverse minds out of the professional sphere.

By framing flexibility as a reward for high performance, a paradox is created.

To “earn” the right to work in a way that accommodates a disability, an individual must first survive an environment that may exacerbate their condition.

It acts as a gatekeeping mechanism that favors the most resilient or the most privileged.

Also read: Wearables for Workplace Accessibility: Innovation That Matters

Why do companies ignore the business case for inclusion?

There is a recurring misconception that accessibility is primarily a cost. In reality, many innovative companies have thrived by tapping into talent pools that were previously overlooked.

When a developer in a rural area or a designer with a disability is allowed to work on their own terms, the organization gains perspectives that a homogenous office cannot provide.

Yet, tradition remains a powerful force. There is often an emotional comfort for leadership in seeing a full office, as it can validate a specific sense of oversight.

This psychological preference sometimes overrides the rational case for a distributed, flexible workforce.

For many in the disabled community, professional progress is currently being weighed against these traditional management styles.

Read more: Inclusive Incubators: How Startup Hubs Are Supporting Disabled Founders

Can we reclaim flexibility as a universal right?

Moving forward requires a shift in how we define work. Rather than a place we go, work is a task we perform.

This would require a legal framework that recognizes remote work as a standard reasonable accommodation.

Shifting the burden of proof to the employer to show why it isn’t possible, rather than the employee to prove why they need it, would be a major step toward equity.

The fight for the five-day work week and the eight-hour day were also dismissed as “unrealistic” in the past.

Accessibility is a modern frontier of labor rights. If it remains a privilege, the right to earn a living effectively remains restricted to those with “standard” bodies and minds.

The next few years will likely be a battleground for these ideas.

We are seeing signs of resistance unions including remote work rights in collective bargaining and a newer generation of workers challenging the pre-pandemic status quo.

What actually changed after the “Return to Office” mandates?

To grasp the current state of play, we can look at the transition of workplace rights over the last few years.

Feature	The 2021 Reality	The 2026 Reality	Impact on Accessibility
Work Location	Default: Remote/Hybrid	Default: In-person	High: Reduced pool for disabled talent.
Accommodation	Proactive & Tech-driven	Reactive & Bureaucratic	Medium: Increased administrative burden.
Evaluation	Focus on Results	Focus on Visibility	High: Penalizes health-related pacing.
Legal Status	Widespread Flexibility	Discretionary Benefit	Critical: Accessibility as a “favor.”

We are at a point where the convenience of a majority is being weighed against the professional survival of a minority.

The “privilege” of flexibility is often a thin veil for the exclusion of those who cannot easily navigate traditional environments.

Reclaiming it as a right is about whether we value what a person contributes or simply where their body is located during a set block of hours.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protect remote work?

The ADA requires “reasonable accommodations,” but it does not automatically guarantee remote work.

Employers can deny a request if they can demonstrate “undue hardship” or if they maintain that essential functions must be performed in person. This ambiguity is a primary challenge for many workers today.

Can a person be terminated for refusing to return to the office?

In many jurisdictions with “at-will” employment, companies can generally make office attendance a condition of employment.

This is usually the case unless the individual has a documented accommodation or a specific contract that protects their remote status.

Is the “Return to Office” movement related to headcount reduction?

Some analysts suggest that strict mandates can serve as a form of “attrition by design.”

By reducing flexibility, organizations may anticipate that a portion of the workforce will resign, allowing for a reduction in staff without traditional layoffs.

How can colleagues support flexibility for everyone?

The most effective advocacy often involves framing flexibility as a universal benefit.

When caregivers, parents, and all employees stand together to demand flexible options, it helps prevent the stigmatization of those who require these measures for accessibility.