During the pandemic years, much of the working world discovered something it had long insisted was too difficult, too risky or too disruptive: a great deal of work could in fact be reorganised. Meetings could happen online. Commutes could be cut. Schedules could be handled with more flexibility. Output did not collapse. In many sectors, it simply changed shape.
For disabled workers, that period was more than an experiment in convenience. It was, for many, a rare moment in which the structure of work moved closer to the realities of ordinary life. Energy could be managed better. Pain, fatigue or health routines could be worked around more intelligently. The office did not disappear, but the assumption that all serious work had to happen there lost some of its force.
That is why the current rollback matters. In 2026, the Work Foundation at Lancaster University published findings from a major study involving a UK-wide survey of 1,221 disabled people, along with interviews and case studies with employers and managers.[1] Most participants reported a strong preference for continuing to work remotely or in a hybrid way, and they linked those arrangements to better health, improved work-life balance and stronger employment outcomes.
The findings become even more striking when set against what is happening in the job market. Lancaster’s researchers found that 85 percent of respondents said access to remote or hybrid work would be essential or very important when looking for a new job.[2] Nearly half wanted to work remotely all the time. Yet the same research found that only 4.3 percent of UK job adverts in 2024/25 were fully remote, down sharply from the pandemic peak, while hybrid roles appeared to have stalled at 13.5 percent.[2]
This is where the issue becomes larger than workplace preference. For many disabled people, remote work is not a lifestyle perk. It is part of the infrastructure that makes employment possible. Without it, some people can still work, but at a far higher physical or mental cost. Others are forced into narrower job choices, lower pay, slower progression or, in some cases, out of the workforce entirely.
Governments are not unaware of the point. In the UK, all employees have the legal right to request flexible working, including where they work.[3] A 2026 government consultation on improving access to flexible working made the case in plain terms, saying flexibility can support wellbeing, break down barriers to working for disabled people, and help carers and parents remain in work.[4] That language is important because it moves the discussion away from favour and toward function. Flexible work is not a reward for certain employees. It is one of the ways modern work can be organised more intelligently.
Still, this is where an even-keeled view matters. Remote work is not a universal answer. Some disabled workers prefer the office, or a mixture of office and home, because home can be isolating, cramped or poorly equipped. Some roles are genuinely harder to perform remotely. Some employees find it more difficult to build relationships, learn informally or be noticed for promotion when they are rarely seen in person. A simplistic ‘remote good, office bad’ argument misses the point and does not survive contact with reality.
The more useful question is what kind of flexibility produces fairer outcomes. In some jobs, that may mean permanent homeworking. In others, it may mean hybrid schedules, compressed hours, rest breaks, quieter workspaces, predictable routines or the ability to shift start and finish times. The core issue is not whether everyone should work from home. It is whether employers are willing to organise work around what helps people do their jobs well.
That willingness matters because the stakes remain high. The UK government’s Keep Britain Working review, published in 2026, said disabled people remain locked out of work at twice the rate of non-disabled people.[5] A labour market with that kind of gap cannot afford lazy thinking about flexibility. Nor can it keep acting as though attendance is a proxy for contribution.
There are practical solutions that do not require a revolution. Employers can advertise flexibility upfront instead of forcing applicants to negotiate from a weaker position later. Managers can be trained to think in terms of outcomes rather than visibility. Remote employees can be included deliberately in promotion pathways and not treated as peripheral staff. Homeworking equipment and adjustments can be handled properly, just as office adjustments should be. Hybrid arrangements can be designed, not improvised. The question should not be whether to allow flexibility in rare cases, but how to structure it well.
There is also a cultural opportunity here. The pandemic proved that a more varied model of working is possible. The lesson should not be forgotten simply because some leaders feel more comfortable when everyone is back in sight. A modern workplace should be able to distinguish between roles that truly require physical presence and roles where old habits are pretending to be necessities.
That is where hope lies. Not in imagining that remote work will fix every barrier, but in recognising that work has already been widened once and can be widened again with intent. Disabled workers do not need special rhetoric about resilience. They need labour markets and employers that are realistic enough to understand how talent is lost when work is designed too narrowly.
The door that opened in recent years should not be allowed to swing shut just because institutions are drifting back toward familiar routines. If work can be organised in ways that keep more people productive, healthier and in employment, that is not an indulgence. It is good sense.
And in a labour market still trying to reconcile productivity, wellbeing and fairness, good sense should count for more than nostalgia.
Sources cited
[1] Lancaster University Work Foundation, ‘Breaking down barriers: How remote and hybrid work can support disabled workers,’ 21 February 2026. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/work-foundation/publications/breaking-down-barriers
[2] Lancaster University Work Foundation, ‘Decline in remote jobs could undermine Government plans to get Britain working, research warns,’ 21 February 2026. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/work-foundation/news/decline-in-remote-jobs-could-undermine-government-plans-to-get-britain-working-research-warns
[3] GOV.UK, ‘Flexible working: Overview.’ https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working
[4] UK Government, ‘Make Work Pay: consultation on improving access to flexible working,’ launched 5 February 2026. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6984cee12df808759a7bd772/make-work-pay-consultation-on-improving-access-to-flexible-working.pdf
[5] GOV.UK, ‘Keep Britain Working: Final report,’ 31 March 2026. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keep-britain-working-review-final-report/keep-britain-working-final-report