Remote work in the midst of the coronavirus exacerbates inequality

As the world tries to curb the rapid spread of COVID-19, workers are being encouraged to transition to working from home. Some have touted remote work as a show of digital resilience amid this pandemic, and a welcome change from less flexible work options — including time lost during long commutes to work — and, of course, a necessary measure for preventing the spread of the coronavirus. But it is also important to acknowledge that this shift also highlights the persisting inequalities in our societies.

Firstly, a huge population of the global workforce cannot work from home because of the nature of their jobs. People in service, maintenance and repair, delivery, and health care jobs are just some of the types of workers who are not able to work from home.

For those whose work can be done at home, they still need to have a computer and stable and reliable internet connection — not to mention electricity. While this may seem reasonable for countries in the Global North, a lot of countries still do not have the underlying infrastructure that makes remote work accessible. In countries like Nigeria, electricity is so unreliable that workers are being forced to go out of isolation and work in their offices or co-working spaces. In such cases, workers have to choose between staying at home and possibly putting their job at risk by not working, or risking their health in the name of productivity. Then there is the issue of unaffordable and unreliable internet connection. In southern African countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa, for instance, the cost of mobile internet is inaccessibly high for many: The cost of one gigabyte in Zimbabwe averages a whopping U.S. $75.20.

Many women are also sharing their experiences balancing remote work with care work. On one hand, since women are more often than not the primary caregivers in their homes, remote work gives them the flexibility to switch roles between working and caregiving more easily. On the other hand, when these women are home they are, by default, expected to perform both roles simultaneously — to be caregivers and deliver results at work. It is also important to note that during this crisis, a lot of women will be forced to take care of family members who may fall sick due to the virus. Women who can afford domestic care or have help at home through their extended family will be more likely to work productively throughout these conditions, while poor and otherwise marginalized women, such as single mothers, do not stand a chance at upward mobility at work in such systems.

Then there is the issue of authoritarianism and internet shutdowns. In emergencies such as the current COVID-19 crisis, a lot of governments may resort to shutting down the internet as a way of clamping down on misinformation. This is not unprecedented: Ethiopia shut down the internet nine times in 2019 to stop the spread of hate speech, clamp down on protests, and even prevent national examination leaks.

The question of who will participate in and who will be excluded from the future of work — in times of crisis and the rest — requires a thorough analysis. This analysis, however, is even more pertinent in the middle of such a crisis in which the safest social and economic participation is digital. And in a crisis like this, maybe the world needs to pause and heal and be empathetic enough to understand that people need to take care of themselves and their loved ones.