They’ve been rolling out similar stuff at my employer and I’m very mixed on it, but I try and participate and add input where I can since it’s an opportunity for that. It’s ultimately an HR initiative and meant to benefit the employer, sometimes in more nefarious ways than others. I’m in a union which I consider more important when it comes to my interests as an employee, as well as disability/discrimination law and your rights in that regard.

I read Neurotribes recently for a book club which is basically a book on autism from a very tech-industry point of view, the idea that autism is valuable and even sought out by tech employers is a big part of the thesis. We shared praise and concerns for this notion in the discussion, especially when it comes to the degree of exploitation involved, and the assumptions that someone being autistic would necessarily make them a good boss, or that they would be getting paid what they deserve (less adept at social skills and co-morbidities = less ability to negotiate fair compensation?)

The economic arrangement and inherent conflict of interest between employers and employees is always a wedge. Certain conditions are being commodified under the “neurodiverse” slogan, and often that allows the employer to contribute to their brand more than it benefits employees. I always separate the EDI-branded notions of these conditions and the topics from the actual meaning of them, because a lot of times they’re more appropriated by the diversity industry in ways that benefit employers more than employees. If it trickles down to employees in good ways then that’s the best case scenario, but given the current political climate I’m super skeptical this type of corporate EDI branding will last as long as I need to work to get my pension.