As someone who has experienced it, I believe that the neoliberal concept of "workfare" and the related idea that just any job is good for the disabled is something we need to be really careful about. This isn't just a "late capitalism" thing, it's a historical problem where, for example, the mentally ill have been expected to work as gardeners at the institution which houses them, whether or not this is a fulfilling job for them. It goes back to the idea of the workhouse and beyond.
One crucial issue is that the person who is being asked to do the work needs to feel that they can say no.
Finding ways to extract labour from people who would otherwise be a "pure burden" on society is obviously fraught with risks of exploitation.
>One crucial issue is that the person who is being asked to do the work needs to feel that they can say no.
If more than one tele-operated cafe is founded, then their employees will have exactly the same choice as most people who work in the service industry today. If only one tele-operated cafe company is ever started, then it will not be a very big social change. That's really all I'm saying.
Of course, we could imagine that one company would become gigantic and also the world's only employer of disabled people, but that concern applies equally to every commercial enterprise and people group. Any company could become a labor monopsony in the right (wrong?) environment.
One crucial issue is that the person who is being asked to do the work needs to feel that they can say no.
Finding ways to extract labour from people who would otherwise be a "pure burden" on society is obviously fraught with risks of exploitation.