> It isn’t nearly as easy to connect to people outside the workplace.

I think this is absolute core of the discussion. Like nearly all bad decisions ultimately it comes down to convenience. If this form of political discourse were as important as people claim they would find a way.

You know, unless the difficulty of doing without it makes it infeasible.

Mobility impaired people lobbied for curb cutouts waybackwhen because it would make it easier to use sidewalks. I think that situation obviously shouldn't be belittled by saying it's about convenience. Ugh, if going to the grocery store were as important as they claim they would find a way /s.

I'm not convinced this particular situation isn't also about feasibility.

Accessibility is justified by equal access or anti-discrimination, which isn't the same as convenience. As an accessibility advocate I find that equivalence either insulting or grossly misinformed. This conversation isn't about equal access. Trying to warp it into such is insulting.

> This conversation isn't about equal access.

You're right. It's about workers rights. I'm telling you that I think construing the ability of workers to effectively organize as a convenience is also an insulting stance. In fact, I'm glad I chose an example that you find important. Maybe you can consider the possibility that there is a higher principle at work, maybe one that is as important to society as equal access is.

> Maybe you can consider the possibility that there is a higher principle at work

I would have started with that. At this point you are shifting ground to qualify an indefensible position on a topic that isn't that important.

The only purpose of my example was to show that in general the implication that ease of use reduces to convenience is false. I used an obvious counterexample. In summary, to imply that I think your assertion that it's about convenience is unjustified and off-base. If you think I was drawing an equivalence between the two situations, then I apologize for not being clear.