The Adderall analogy really drives the point home. This is well put, and a powerful message more people (especially those in a position to effect policy) ought to read.
The Adderall analogy is terribly suspect, though. Why should I believe it's a useful analogy? Are we suggesting that ANY kind of non-productive-but-fun behavior should be permitted, and that trying to say, "No, you can't do that because it's not productive" is like forcing someone to take drugs?
What if it's the reverse? Say I'd like to drink, or do heroin, in the office. Yes, sure, I'll be less productive, but I'll also be happier. Does that mean that an office "no getting drunk or high" policy is unreasonable? If not, what is the line that you're drawing between that scenario of "not productive, but happiness enhancing" and the author's scenario of "not productive, but happiness enhancing"?
The Adderall analogy is just a device to underscore his point that judging anything by a single metric (i.e. "productivity") can lead to equally absurd and inhumane work policies.
Also, productivity is nearly impossible to measure yet I'd argue that some of the "feel-good" benefits of work-at-home actually do result in higher productivity. Let's take a few:
1) Commute time: 2 hours that I can be more productive and/or take care of personal business that would have cut into work time
2) Focus: Everybody (not just execs) can have a door, can screen their interruptions, etc. This is vitally important for think-work and creative-work.
3) Other high-end perks that come for more or less free to the employer: healthy meals, exercise options nearby, potential 24x7 support when needed
Frankly, the only two arguments people are making against work-at-home boil down slacking and lack of face-to-face collaboration. Both are fixed by some technology and a measure of feedback and discipline.
I really don't expect companies to start forcing Adderall on people, but if productivity is all that matters then it's a viable strategy. Therefore, if you agree that giving Adderall to your employees is absurd, then you're forced to agree that productivity is not all that matters. (Or at least, that's the hope.)
But that's not the author's point. He says that even if we stipulate that working at home is not productive, he should get to work at home, and indeed that making him work in the office is like demanding that he take Adderall!
Pivoting from there to, "But actually maybe he is more productive at home" isn't defending his point.
