Every single article on HN that is remotely related to WFH has the same two camps coming out to.. state their case.. again.. to the crowd.
Group (1) loves WFH and can't understand how anyone would ever want to work in an office and will only work remotely from now on if they can.
Group (2) hates WFH and desperately needs the interactions an office provides and will be quitting any job that permanently works from home.
These two groups are two totally different types of people. They will never understand each other. It is probably not productive for each of them to keep rehashing their stances to each other. I don't know what the relative ratios of the two are, but I imagine we're gonna live in this two-types-of-employees world forever and ought to get used it. And we should probably stop belligerently pontificating to each other; nothing is going to change and it is just going to keep being a cycle of failing-to-communicate.
I don’t know many WFH advocates who want to close all offices and force everyone to work from home, but many (most?) WFO advocates want to go back to the office AND have everyone else go back too. This includes almost all company execs who are pushing for a return to office. I think that’s the big difference between the camps.
Also cognitive skills like reading comprehension become really hard to fake when you are at home interfacing with text only. It is much easier to fake competence when you just float from meeting to meeting all day.
Yea this all screams 'I need someone to scream at'.
Was a satirical article posted here a while back about a CEO wanting his people back so he could feel powerful again, and IMO that is 99.9% of the reason for management/C-suite's push.
Management becomes redundant/useless and c-suited only have each other to boss around, and we can't have that.
Or, as my grandparents used to say 'If everyone is rich(powerful), no one is rich, and no one would do the work.'
There are good reasons to go advocate for as few people in offices as possible though. Keeps people off roads, less traffic and pollution, those previous offices could be reused as homes that most cities desperately need.
I also don't see the point of an office when you only have a fraction of the people there.
Isn't it a better idea to work on public transportation and housing to actually fix those problems? Simply forcing everyone to work from home will probably alleviate traffic, but also introduce its own myriad of problems.
Public transportation seems to always bother someone. That's why we have nimby. It's the best solution when people have to go somewhere. If there is a solution that involves not even needing it in the first place, why wouldn't you advocate for that. Public transportation doesn't comes for free, there's still pollution involved and often runs at a loss
I don't know any WFO advocate who thinks that everyone must work from an office. Managers saying their workers must work from an office doesn't do that from the perspective of an WFO advocate, but to make their workers more efficient as they think that office workers perform better. Similarly managers who forces all their workers to WFH (by not having an office) doesn't advocate for everyone to WFH, rather they think that it is more efficient to work from home so that is how they run their team, there is no grand social statement about this.
What is the distinction between what you say and being an advocate? If they truly believed one way is more efficient, and managed accordingly, how are they not an advocate insofar as their team is concerned?
An advocate tries to convince people to do something without forcing something. CEO's doesn't try to convince everyone that working from office is great, they just say that if you don't come to office you are fired. A CEO advocating WFO would be if he was trying to convince other CEO's to also adopt WFO policies. But doing something yourself doesn't make you an advocate.
You're being obnoxiously literal with this. Words typically lead to action but action is the stronger proof. They don't need to be literally "advocating" anything if they're already showing it through action.
Was that before or after COVID ? Because Gitlab for example was always remote by principle. We are talking here about companies that were mostly in large offices in the first place.
Surely they have some offices? As a small company that has no offices, I actually run into problems at times because we don't have an official office address. For example, some financial and other types of companies want things like a copy of an office lease or a utility bill in the name of the company.
Probably not an issue for a public company like Dropbox. I suspect they have an official address and SEC filings ought to demonstrate they're real as much as an office lease.
I dislike this way of thinking about it. This take on things splits up people into two groups, and implicitly (or in this case explicitly) makes it seem like it's different "types of people". There's us, and them. There's the ones who think like me, and the ones who don't.
Reality is more complicated, nuanced, and doesn't easily split people into two groups, which is a good thing! It makes it easier to empathize.
For example, a few people in thread have already stated they like a hybrid approach (whether it's twice a week in-office and the other days from home, or even WFH most of the time but in-person meetings a few times a year).
For another example, most people will have different preferences at different times in their career and/or lives. Just starting out? Maybe it makes more sense to be around other people to lear more. Live far away and have a long commute? Maybe WFH is better. Have young kids but live in a small apartment? Office might be easier.
The truth is, this isn't really two ways of "being". This is dependent on personality, yes, but also on circumstance.
And btw, being a manager and meaning that your job is more effective if people work from the office is also a circumstance, and a legit one, despite many of the people on this site somehow implying this is somehow wrong. (Not that I'm saying managers should always get their way, but it's a real, valid concern).
That seems like an oversimplification, I guess I am in group 3 if I don't mind going to the office a few days per week 2-3 depending on what I am doing?
I do however have an issue with others trying to sell me their preference as some kind of objective truth when in practice software development is so diverse these days that one's reasons to go (or not) to the office are often irrelevant to someone else.
That being said I like to see that discussion happening on HN and I don't tire of reading the different takes.
Personally, it feels to me that these personality types are simply incompatible - conditions in which the first group will be happy will be disappointing for the other and vice versa.
The logical conclusion for all of that in my eyes is a split culture - certain companies and teams will go remote first, while others will go back to the office when safe, and the respective people will sooner or later migrate to the environments that are better suited to them, as long as such positions can be found.
However, this is not just an utilitarian decision but also something impacted by the people in management positions, who in my experience err on the side of the more traditional in person work. If it were not for the pandemic, remote work wouldn't be as prevalent nowadays.
I’m sure there are people who do want to drive 220-440 hours per year (SoCal) to bring their laptop to a cubicle. I am not one of them and I admit I do not understand them.
But I do not doubt they exist.
I just wish group 1 and group 2 could coexist without forcing the other group.
This is going to be the tech version of The Dress[0]. We're all seeing the same thing, yet half the population sees it one way and the other half sees it the other, and no one can understand why anyone wouldn't see it that way.
For those who do care about what reality has to say:
"The dress itself was confirmed as a royal blue "Lace Bodycon Dress" from the retailer Roman Originals, which was actually black and blue in colour"
Unfortunately, in the case of work environments, there is no objective reality we can appeal to. Different people prefer different kinds of environments. The best solution is the one that fits each person to the environment they are most productive in.
I have been nearly 90% WFH, on a different continent from my office, for more than 10 years now. But I feel those last 10% of in-person interaction are important for team chemistry, so not having had the opportunity to meet the rest of the team for more than two years now (before COVID, there were family related reasons) has been rather difficult for me.
Me too... Not 10 years but about 4. I can't imagine not WFH but finally I'm starting to see that I should probably force myself to do some physical interaction. I guess the brain didn't evolve for us to sit alone all the time, as much as I love that
The interesting thing for me is that I deal with group 2, but I work in a place with multiple head offices, and they've been like that since the early 90s.
Remote working, in the sense that very few medium or large businesses have a single location, is the norm. It always has been. What has also been the norm is shitty ways of dealing with that - creating a de facto priveleged class of decision makers in one location, flying people around, and the like.
I agree there's not going to be a reconciliation between people who mostly want to work where-ever suits them (whether that's home or a satellite office) but a rational response to reality would be to do a better job of dealing with what was already there before COVID.
You pretty much ignored hybrid WFH which is palatable to big chunks of members in both your groups.
> I imagine we're gonna live in this two-types-of-employees world forever and ought to get used it.
We won't, it will be hybrid in companies with collaborative work and WFH In others (to save costs + attract people).
Right now, now one can really say that WFH works at scale because going into current WFH there was a lot of momentum. You would need studies for new teams that are entirely WFH to really understand if WFH is good enough or not.
Totally agree that every single WFH post ends up like this. I'd really like to see discussion on how to reconcile the fact that these two groups exist and now have to work together somehow, rather than just being angry that the other side feels differently.
It feels especially jarring to me because I first came across this article via space Twitter, where it sort of fits into a broader recent collection of articles (from Sheetz, but also from Eric Berger at Ars Technica and others) generally railing on Bob Smith and his terrible management of Blue Origin, and I didn't really even register this article as being about WFH per se, as opposed to the poor handling of WFH policies just being the latest example among many of managerial ineptitude. I confess I don't really understand this being the one thing that catches the HN crowd's attention.
I'll go out on a limb and say this is pretty much most popular threads on HN. All interesting discussion is either 1) downvoted for going against the grain 2) disappeared as people see this place being diluted to nothing more than rehashing same points over and over.
you can't put a price on the feeling I get when 5-530 hits, and I step outside my home office to see my family and start unwinding for the evening. No wasted time on commute and the options for places to live are endless. Not to mention I eat my own food on my lunch break.
I miss some interaction/bonding with coworkers and certainly acknowledge that "hallway talk" helped clear up requirements but the pros of work from home life are incomparable to the cons. I will never go back to an office
It's a very personal decision though. For example, if I may offer up some counterarguments:
> I step outside my home office to see my family and start unwinding for the evening. No wasted time on commute
I find the commute (by train, I'm lucky enough to get a seat) far more effective for unwinding to be honest. And once I'm home, I'm far more engaged with the family due to having that buffer time between work and home.
> the options for places to live are endless.
That never actually stopped me before. Hence the commute
> Not to mention I eat my own food on my lunch break.
the biggest thing I miss about not commuting into London is the food. The variety, the quality, and above all, not having to cook it myself. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind cooking. But a lot of eateries do a lot better job of their signature meal than I could.
That all said, I'm in no rush to go back. And when I do, it'll be a hybrid approach. Some days in and some days from home.
edit: why am I getting heavily down voted for discussing personal reasons why I enjoyed working in the office? It's not like I'm telling you your opinions are wrong or that you should go back to the office. All I'm doing is voicing that there are some who do enjoy travelling into the city most days. Is it really that offensive a view point to read? Some people on here don't deserve to have moderation privileges.
It's not like you don't have the option of burning $duration_of_commute on personal time when you're already at home. You set the boundaries, enforce them.
That's one of those things that's much easier said than done.
It's also not always about personal time, sometimes it's just catching up on sleep on the train. Without wanting to go too much into personal circumstance, that sleep was really valuable in a way that trying to have a nap at home isn't. And that energy went directly back to the kids.
While I might have gained an hour during the week by not commuting, in practical terms that hour doesn't always translate into more engagement with the kids -- much as I'd love it if it could (again, not wanting to go too much into personal circumstance here).
Anyhow, I'm not trying to paint the picture that I'm better off commuting. I'm definitely better off working from home. I'm just trying to illustrate that some people do extract value from their commute.
> I'm just trying to illustrate that some people do extract value from their commute.
There's nothing preventing such people from commuting wastefully to their own home if the value is high enough.
Last I checked there was nothing prohibiting commuters from commuting in loops, and there's nothing controversial about appreciating some time away from the people at home. You can get in your car or board public transit if you want, that nap sounds pretty good from where I'm sitting atm.
I used to commute to a cafe for the separation and enjoyable travel time vs. just staying at home. The salient point is you have options with WFH, it isn't some kind of prison sentence unless you make it one.
> The salient point is you have options with WFH, it isn't some kind of prison sentence unless you make it one.
No. You only have that option if your company supports flexible working. Your approach of saying everyone has to work remotely regardless of whether they want to is as toxic as those who suggest everyone should work in the office, even if they want the option to work remotely.
This is what the "remote brigade" need to comprehend. Those of us who say "we like offices" aren't trying to take your freedom away. We're simply asking that you don't take our choices away when advocating for your flexibility.
Flexible working is the approach we should be striving for. Those who can work remotely can continue to do so. And those who want to come in to the office can do so. We shouldn't assume that remote work is a one size fits all and that's exactly what comments like the GPs does. Furthermore we should assume that those who do like office work are the unreasonable ones. We're not. We're still happy for you to work from home. We just don't personally want to do that every day ourselves.
This isn't just theoretical. I run 3 teams of engineers and push this rule onto them. Thus far it has been very successful.
The problem with flexibility with mixed on-prem and remote is the open plan offices. Open plan and mixed remote/on-prem are a nightmare combination.
I'd get to work, and right off the bat I'd be on calls with people who weren't working on prem. So I'm either that jerk on a call in the open plan office while everyone's trying to do heads-down work, or I'm scrambling to find a phone booth.
So I'd end up spending half my days crammed into a phone booth at the office so I could meet with people who weren't there. The office contributed zero to my productivity, it was just a miserable time hoping I could even find an available phone booth because there were a dozen other people on the office vying for one.
If we're going back to on-prem, even as an option, we should combine it with admitting that open plan was a mistake and doesn't work with the mixed remote/on-prem model.
> The problem with flexibility with mixed on-prem and remote is the open plan offices. Open plan and mixed remote/on-prem are a nightmare combination.
It's not that hard of a problem to solve. Easily more of a solvable problem than telling everyone they either have to come into the office or work fully remote without giving a crap about the employees personal circumstances.
> I'd get to work, and right off the bat I'd be on calls with people who weren't working on prem. So I'm either that jerk on a call in the open plan office while everyone's trying to do heads-down work, or I'm scrambling to find a phone booth.
Sounds like your office needs more meeting spaces. That's as true a problem when you have everyone in the office as it is when you have teams of mixed office and remote working.
> So I'd end up spending half my days crammed into a phone booth at the office so I could meet with people who weren't there.
Why are you in so many meetings in the first place? Are you not an engineer? That sounds like a bigger problem than your office space.
> The office contributed zero to my productivity, it was just a miserable time hoping I could even find an available phone booth because there were a dozen other people on the office vying for one.
Oh right. So you're just making up bullshit exaggerations to justify why your preference of working from home should be FORCED on everyone regardless of their preference or personal circumstances. That's a real dick move imo. Why not let other people chose how they work best for themselves just like you have done for yourself?
> If we're going back to on-prem, even as an option, we should combine it with admitting that open plan was a mistake and doesn't work with the mixed remote/on-prem model.
It sounds like your office specifically might be a nightmare to work in. However not everyone's company office is a large open plan space with people from different teams mixed in together. In that I don't work in an open plan office (there's just ~15 engineers in the same office. The sales people have their own office, and so on and so forth).
I think the real problem here is that you specifically just want your own space and you want it at home. So anything that doesn't match that is going to be a point of complaint with you. That's fine for you but please don't assume your preferences should be enshrined as company policy for every Tom, Dick and Sally and in every other company. Please don't assume that what works for you should work for everyone.
> So you're just making up bullshit exaggerations to justify why your preference of working from home should be FORCED on everyone regardless of their preference or personal circumstances.
I'm actually not completely against on-prem, or open plan, just against them as they've been done in 100% of my experience. Bullpen, team-focused open plan is fine, but that's not how open plan is done typically because it's not any cheaper than cubicle.
> However not everyone's company office is a large open plan space with people from different teams mixed in together.
There might be open plan offices where this is true, but I've never seen one. The general pattern of open plan has been to tell everyone that open plan is a wonderful enhancement that increases "organic interactions" or whatever, when in reality it's to shave 20% off seating costs. I get the allure, but this has been studied to death decades ago (see: Peopleware) and the finding (which tracks with my personal experience) was that the 20% savings in seating costs came with a 30% drop in productivity.
> There might be open plan offices where this is true, but I've never seen one.
Most of the companies I've worked for has been set up like that. So they do exist. Not saying it's universal or even the norm. But it's certainly not something I've made up :)
I wonder if some of this is down to the American vs European cultures.
Open plan doesn't work PERIOD, it's not a mixed-only problem. You'll have sales/marketing/bizdev types on the phone constantly while folks are trying to be head-down, mixed not required.
The "wasteful" bit and dismissive attitude really necessary to make your point? Not everyone can or finds it easy to keep healthy boundaries and having a physical separation between work and home with a mandatory commute works for those people.
There is a group of people who a 5 hour commute would be preferable because they hate their homelife. There are always people better off working more or staying out longer would make life easier. Trading 10 hours of commuting time for 10 hours of naps is something that could be addressed by going to sleep earlier and now those 10 hours can be family time. We shouldn't be going into offices for these secondary effects.
> something that could be addressed by going to sleep earlier
Please don't make bullshit assumptions like this when I've already said I didn't want to go into personal circumstances. In my case, the problem is medical, not motivational. And that's all I want to discuss because it's personal and, frankly put, none of your fucking business why I'm tired on an evening.
> We shouldn't be going into offices for these secondary effects.
I'm not advocating that people should be going into offices. What I'm advocating is that people should be allowed to decide for themselves if they want to go in. Having someone like yourself tell me I should work from home is just as toxic as any discussions arguing that employees should go in. What I'm suggesting is companies should offer flexibility because people will have different preferences.
Also you've just latched on the sleep thing as if that's the only benefit I get from going into the office. That's simply not the case. It was just a detail this tangent zeroed in on.
What’s the difference there versus workers who lived very close to the office? If a coworker is working harder than you, good for them. If that makes them more valuable, paid more, promoted faster, or whatever, so be it. At least with remote work, you could choose the same path as them if you wanted to.
For those who are worried that they’ll miss the commute, you should consider ending the work day with exercise. You still get the alone/unplugged time but combined with endorphins and a general feeling of wellness. And it’s way better for you than sitting in a car!
The commute was a form of exercise, I'd clock up several miles each day (most people don't drive into London. They usually take the train).
However I do completely agree with you about going for a run. That was the one commute replacement activity which I did find worked for me. Unfortunately the UK's weather often discourages one from non-mandatory forms of exercise. When it's raining, it is far easier to be motivated to walk home from the train station than it is to leave the house to go running. This is obviously a poor excuse but it is still the pragmatic truth of the matter.
I have experience with a company that went 'ROW' back in the 10s. If a majority of your company is remote, you can forget about the office, its a dead space. There's no water cooler talk, no games after work. I can see why some companies are going to try the hybrid model.
I do agree with the GP, there is something about the separation between work and living. I miss the feeling that when I did work from home "after hours", it was for special cases, rather than the "same old".
Which is one of several reasons for a lot of the emotion around the question. People are already discovering that if you’re largely a pre-pandemic office person, that doesn’t work if most of your co-workers are only wandering in maybe a day per week if at all.
When I was at GE we straight up ignored the division CTO and just worked from home when we felt like it...a whole org team under him (he specifically banned WFH more than 1 day a week, most of us worked at least two or three). We scheduled meetings in rooms at the office and came in on those days when we felt the need. It worked fine.
Most companies I have been at just ignored the CEOs stupid out-of-touch WFH proclaimations. This was tech though. The other departments usually obeyed on a case by case basis.
I do think there are a fair number of people looking for more than come into the office for meetings now and then though. There’s also the fact that you still need to live in some semblance of commuting distance. That says 1.5 to 2 hours one way is doable for a day a week and gives you quite a bit of flexibility.
Indeed. I've seen some companies say they want people back in 100% of the time but I've seen others close their office and have all their employees work remotely 100% of the time. I feel both are toxic policies to place on your entire workforce and the best approach is flexibility because different employees will have different preferences and needs.
Thankfully there are a good number of companies (in the UK at least) who are allowing their employees to make this decision themselves.
I've been thinking about this and perhaps the most appropriate solution is to not have onsite companies vs remote companies, and also not companies with a random mix of the both; but having a company consist of onsite teams and remote work teams - so both preferences can work well, but you can optimize the day-to-day work process (which usually happens within a team) to the very different needs of in-office vs work-from-home environment.
I disagree. I think the best solution is giving your employees flexibility. People who want to travel into the office can do so. People who want to work remotely can also do so. And people are able to come in as often or infrequently as they want.
There will always be instances where fully remote people might still want to come in (eg someone leaving social). And there will be reasons why people who normally like to come in every day might chose not to (eg a doctors appointment at lunch time).
I agree that this is what employees would prefer; however, I'm not certain that full flexibility is the most effective way of achieving results for the business. My (totally unverified) assumption is that giving employees a choice between a remote team and an on-site team captures most of the value that the employees care about in that choice, while still allowing teams to choose a reasonably effective remote or on-site work process.
I manage a few teams and have been trialling allowing employees to chose their working terms. It's been working fine for us thus far. I'm sure other companies could manage too.
He wanted to get rid of choice altogether. Hostile bias enforced by institutional power...not a sustainable position these days. Go back to Honeywell or GE.
> I find the commute far more effective for unwinding to be honest. And once I'm home, I'm far more engaged with the family due to having that buffer time between work and home.
I’ve found myself taking the car for a quick drive downtown where the grid locks, after I finish working from home. Can’t wait for it to be mandatory again!
I have been 100% remote for years and am content to continue to be so, but I totally see where you're coming from. I was never thrilled by my train journey into London, but the short walk I had on the home end was some of my best "thinking" time. One of the ways my mental health has suffered most since moving on from that time in my life is a steady decline in enforced personal time, and a lack of willpower to re-introduce it. Not made easier by our shitty weather discouraging impromptu walks.
Make them non-impromptu. Since the pandemic started I have made a 20 minute lunch walk, and a longer (30-90 minutes) walk part of my work-from-home routine. I have maybe skipped one if them five days the last 18 months.
This evening I walked 7k in 12C and a light drizzle, so the weather isn’t great here either.
On the other hand, I live alone and enjoy walking so I realize that it is perhaps nit as easy for everyone.
> I find the commute far more effective for unwinding to be honest
No one is stopping you from unwinding after work if you work from home. Hop in the car when you're done with work and enjoy a relaxing "commute" on your own terms.
I should have specified that my commute is a train ride. Taking the train somewhere for no reason and back again wouldn't be particularly relaxing. But if you have to take the train (and you're fortunate enough to get a seat like I can) then you do find ways to make the most of that commute.
But the real point I'm trying to make isn't that everyone should commute. No. What I'm saying is I'm as entitled to enjoy my commute to work as you are to enjoy working from home. A good company will offer flexibility rather than applying the same rule to everyone universally.
This is an important detail. A huge proportion of those in the US are going to be commuting by car (which is really unpleasant for me personally), or paying a lot of money to live somewhere with good transit options.
And an even larger proportion of those who work in technology don't live in the US. I know this is a very SV orientated forum but discussion companies are having with their employees regarding remote work is happening right across the globe.
Okay, but Blue Origin is in the US and is not in Silicon Valley. It is in Kent, Washington, which despite being <20 miles from downtown Seattle, takes an hour to get there via bus. Even longer if you live up in Fremont, or god forbid Bellevue (1h40m by bus, again for <20 miles).
I actually think city dwellers are entitled to not have a horde of office workers invade every day and demand roads and parking spaces be built for their utterly superfluous unwinding commute.
They call it congestion charge but it's more your suburban commuting habit is making everyone that actually lives here miserable.
London earns millions every day from office workers coming into the city, paying for food, drinks, and other local services. It's not like us commuters are draining money from your local economy.
Plus if you didn't want your home town to be invaded by commuters each day then a city, any city in fact, is absolutely the worst place you could chose to live.
I was in Paris for a conference in the mid-90s. Actually, it was in La Defense which is out in the 'burbs. In Paris, people live in the city and commute out to work. They can't build skyscrapers within the city.
While you're right that the ground isn't strong enough (which itself is a fascinating subject) for skyscrapers in the city centre, there are still plenty of multi-story office blocks. Plus there are plenty of business districts that fall outside the city centre but still very much within the parameter of Paris itself and those districts do have sky scrapers (I've spend some time in one of those districts myself). https://www.consorto.com/blog/paris-is-top-for-european-offi...
This isn't that unusual for European cities. Often you'll find the city centre will be buildings of historic significance so a lot of the office blocks in the city centre will still be multi-story but not 10s of floors. Even in London the skyscrapers are generally just outside the centre.
From what I gather about London, most of the skyscapers are pretty expensive units to rent so many offices find the relatively smaller blocks a more attractive option. Usually renting space from those skyscapers are more a signalling of importance -- or rather a business attempting to signal that.
> I find the commute far more effective for unwinding to be honest.
Nobody's stopping you from going for a couple hour-long drives on your own dime before and after work, if that's what you're really into. The pandemic has really shown everyone how absurd it is to take on the risk, expense, and uncompensated time consumed by commuting when it's been proven to be unnecessary in most cases.
Because, like everything else in this country, this discussion is super polarized. I am with you in that i actually enjoy my commute. Without it, the days blend in a very unsettling way.
But there is a vocal minority of people who do not want to go back to the office and they consider our position to be threatening. There are benefits to the hybrid model, which is what I’ll be pursuing.
Well, many companies do actually take employer feedback. So it’s not unreasonable that people who want to come into the office regularly and may in fact want to live or have already moved somewhere they can’t do so, at least react to pushes for environments that don’t accommodate them.
> why am I getting heavily down voted for discussing personal reasons why I enjoyed working in the office?
My guess is that there has been chatter on how discussions on WFO, specially in tech forums, are brigaded by shills to sell the illogical idea that getting back to the office is fantastic and awesome, and the hallmark of these shills is the fact that their arguments in favour of returning to office are simply unbelievable. And quite frankly you post reads like that.
I have to say that I found it very weird, and outright unbelievable, that someone was arguing that commutes were "far more effective for unwinding". To me that makes no sense at all, because when working from home you are free to pick whatever you'd like to do with that time, instead of being forced to sit in a car or public transportation and waste away your life while you endure traffic. I mean, if suffering commutes is something you enjoy then if you work from home nothing stops you from hopping into your preferred means of transportation and go anywhere you'd like. But you can also do any other thing. Is driving to/from the office during rush hour the most pleasurable and relaxing thing possible? I quite doubt it.
So why claim that being forced to do something is more effective at unwinding than actually pick whatever you'd like to do? It makes no sense.
I used to commute ~40 minutes each way by streetcar. I spent the time sardined in with the other unfortunate folk, one hand on a strap, the other on my Kindle. Every day I cursed SFs oversubscribed transit system.
Switching to WFH was way better. But I was reading a sci-fi book a week on the commute, after the shift I was lucky to get in four a year.
In theory I could set aside 80 minutes a day for personal reading, but in practice it feels incredibly selfish to not help with the family and housework.
Do I want to go back to muni hell? No. But I can understand how someone might have enjoyed their (non-car) commute. I will shoot myself before I ever go back to driving an hour each way on the 101 though.
I commute by train. I'm lucky enough to be guaranteed a seat. And it is a very comfortable ride. That time can be spent meditating with my favourite music playing in my earphones. There isn't a rats chance in hell I'd get that same quality time at home with two noisy kids running rampant throughout the house.
Have you considered that perhaps people making comments like mine are not shills, they just have different personal circumstances that you hadn't encountered before?
I wish commute by train would work in London. I had to commute for years out of London (living in Zone 1) and most of the time I didn't had a place to sit. Trains are also crazy loud in this country, and not really reliable and quite expensive.
They charge pricing here that could get me a year country-wide travel first class card in Switzerland.
Regarding London trains: it very much depends what line you go on and how far down that line you are as to whether you get a seat. The reliability and expense problems are very real though :(
By "train" I was thinking more the overground and national rail services rather than starting your journey from zone 1 of the underground. But I guess, technically, the underground is a "train" too
Assuming that your commute is around an hour means you're "only" paying £4k/annum (after tax) for that benefit. I agree there is a benefit to the commute (for me it was the walk/exercise), but I find it hard to rationalize otherwise and that's a willpower thing
> [...] found it very weird, and outright unbelievable, that someone was arguing that commutes were "far more effective for unwinding".
Ex (multi) FAANG engineering director here. I personally find that a 30 minute commute home is more effective for separating work and home than just the clock. The data published (by MSFT) shows employees are working more hours now than ever before.
Now, those pale in comparison to things like on-call rotations, email on Cell Phones, Slack & Team's notifications on mobile, etc. The Amazon practice of "DevOps SDEs are always on-call" that's spread across the industry makes disengaging from work in order to engage with family & friends generally impossible, even on vacation.
> Ex (multi) FAANG engineer here. I personally agree that a 30 minute commute home is more effective for separating work and home than just the clock. The data published (by MSFT) shows employees are working more hours now than ever before.
Current FAANG engineer here. I totally disagree, and the numbers support my case. My organization saw a jump in productivity when switching to WFO accompanied by a considerable increased in job satisfaction.
WFO, accompanied by flexible work hours, allowed everyone in my team to benefit from more personal time and also opportunities to research topics of interest, which already paid off in the product we developed.
> Current FAANG engineer here. I totally disagree, and the numbers support my case. My organization saw a jump in productivity when switching to WFO accompanied by a considerable increased in job satisfaction.
You're moving the goalpost on this. For me, as someone else stated, the separation between home life and work life is a bit easier with a commute. That's not touching on productivity, overall job satisfaction, or anything else.
I'm not even talking tradeoffs here - there's no "I prefer to work from the office because XYZ". I prefer working from home, for a variety of reasons. However, I do recognize that in this one specific area - separation of work/home life, the commute was beneficial.
Were I to list 50 pros/cons of working from home (which I've done), the winner is WFH. That doesn't mean an absence of positive aspects to the "work from the office" column.
> You're moving the goalpost on this. For me, as someone else stated, the separation between home life and work life is a bit easier with a commute.
The point is that separation from home and work life does not require or mandate a commute or even getting back to the office. That position is indefensible. Being forced to endure something unsavoury against your best wishes ever single work day is not easier nor the only effective way to get some separation between your personal and work life. That's something you do, not something that's done to you.
Some people are quite happy with a home office, some people opt to work anywhere. I have a team member that works by the pool, and another team member who worked while travelling through Europe. If you are not forced to be present on a specific cubicle in a specific building for X hours a day then you have quite literally the whole world at your disposal, and your imagination is the only limit.
And you know what? That reflects on quality of life work/life balance, and overall job satisfaction. Your life matters and enjoying how you live it matters. That's the whole point of working, not a whimsical position where a post happened to be moved.
So no, being packed like sardines along with dozens of depressed and tired and often smelly fellow drones in a train or subway or bus, of being forced to endure traffic jams or road rages, is neither the only way to separate work from personal life, nor the most enjoyable or even effective at all. There are far better things to do in life, and you're free to pick them all.
> That position is indefensible. Being forced to endure something unsavoury against your best wishes ever single work day is not easier nor the only effective way to get some separation between your personal and work life
The position that everyone should have to work from home even if they don't want to is also indefensible. What myself and others are saying when we argue the benefits we get from office work is that employees should have the freedom to chose the flexible working arrangement that works for them
There's a real tone on HN lately that everyone should work remotely and anyone who doesn't support that is against them and frankly I find that attitude to be just as toxic as the CEOs saying everyone should come back to the office.
Even yourself are saying all the reasons we like office work can be replicated when working from home -- maybe that's true on some level but it doesn't matter. If some of use want to come into the office then why can't we?
Flexible working is the approach we should be striving for. Those who can work remotely can continue to do so. And those who want to come in to the office can do so. We shouldn't assume that remote work is a one size fits all and that's exactly what comments like the GPs does. Furthermore we should assume that those who do like office work are the unreasonable ones. We're not. We're still happy for you to work from home. We just don't personally want to do that every day ourselves.
This isn't just theoretical. I run 3 teams of engineers and push this rule onto them. Thus far it has been very successful.
I’d never call my old ride home nuts to butts on BART “unwinding” but it certainly created a coda between work and home. Now when I walk out of my office at home I’m still in problem solving “work talk” mode and it takes a bit to get out of it.
Ditto. I’ve been doing a lot of managery stuff during the pandemic and the main things I miss are the water cooler talk that greased a lot of wheels and filled in a lot of gaps, as well as helped new people onboard with many to many learning, but we will cope.
What I would like, as a manager who had to do quarterly planning would be a week a month or a week per quarter for cross functional in office planning. It would help with a lot and probably be enough time in office to fill many of the real gaps being remote has left without being required full time.
> Ditto. I’ve been doing a lot of managery stuff during the pandemic and the main things I miss are the water cooler talk that greased a lot of wheels and filled in a lot of gaps (...)
I'm sure mileages vary, but between wasting a significant portion of my life commutting to be able to experience water cooler talks, and hugging my wife and children once I step out of my home office, you can keep all the water coolers in the world to yourself.
Work/life balance shouldn't fall all the way to the work side of the scale just because some managers struggle with remote work.
I agree. I’m speaking personally. I cut out a three hour commute and I’m never going back, but I lead a team of twelve people and it’s important to me that I also care about their lives and careers, helping them advance and grow is important to me beyond my current company because I hope to work with them again no matter where. To that end, trying to think of ways to improve their professional growth on the remote world is important. The week in the office is something I think leadership should do, I see almost no reason for ICs, except for onboarding/cross team socializing which can be done other ways too, just more work these days :)
Totally agree. I've been getting up to speed just fine at my new and (at least for now) fully remote job.
If you're struggling to fill the gaps or onboard people at a certain point you have to admit to either managerial or organizational failure to adapt. It's called taking responsibility
Just out of curiosity, how large of a company/companies have you been working for?
I’m asking because my experience is largely with <200 people companies (more so with <50) and onboarding and such is always very scant at startup stage and only starts to happen in my experience at stages of intense growth and post series C/D, but I may be in a weird niche.
These things also tend to happen organically at different stages depending on the team but don’t become mandated/invested in until later.
That required office time means everyone still needs to live within a short distance of the office though. For a lot of people that defeats some of the main benefits of remote.
For a quarterly 1 week meeting the company can just fly everyone in who needs to be there. They already do this for board meetings so why not important plannings?
Hell, put it in a fun location and call it a retreat.
I still think that’s a big ask. I’d bet that the group of people that want full remote also includes a large number of people who hate the idea of company retreats. I’d rather finish work at 5pm and have fun on my own terms than a week of proscribed company “fun”.
Sure it’s a big ask but if the planning is important and you are important to the planning and it is deemed a sufficient quality of planning can only happen in person … business travel seems far too common to be worthless. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nobody said anything about work activities after 5. You can go do whatever.
But hanging out with coworkers when you’re all seeing each other for a rare or even first time seems like a pretty common whatever.
I mentioned in another thread, my company is planning to do this twice a year but the actual company mandate is to make any in person meeting or gathering accessible to remote people.
This is exactly what my company plans when it’s safe though only twice a year, and we will easily pay for leadership to do the same more frequently if needed.
I planned to fly in where ever for that week, not commute every day.
To be clear: I do not advocate required office time for anyone. For me I’d like to spend a week in the office with my peers in leadership and we all have a lot of ability to do that without much chaos. We also can include folks actively who don’t want to come in, this is actually our company mandate, also. If there is any in person meeting it needs to be accessible and visible to remote folks.
Ugh that sucks. Speaking for myself there have been hiccups but for the most part slack contacts move things along where I am now and you can unironically ping a leader if you are ignored. We all know we are all busy and sometimes a reminder of priorities is helpful :)
> the main things I miss are the water cooler talk that greased a lot of wheels and filled in a lot of gaps
I hear that because informal stuff can solve a lot of problems, or prevent it even arising, but at the same time, it papers over a lot of cracks that should probably be exposed.
I've taken to virtual coffees during the week with people on a semi-regular basis to try and keep that sort of stuff going.
100% agree that water cooler talk being effective in the first place should raise some eyebrows about how things get done. I think there is a strong social component that doesn’t want that to change, but not much choice these days.
Filling in at water coolers and difficulty onboarding is mostly because companies still don’t really think about communication and information and have no strategy for either beyond “they will figure it out”
100% agree depending on company size. For startups training and enablement is wildly chaotic. That said I have tried a lot of strategies in the past year and none yet match insitu learning but again this is likely a startup problem, we started with almost nothing in terms of onboarding so it’s hard to stand up that program remotely too. I’ve had plenty of folks who are successful onboarding remotely but as a manager who has run this team for seven years I can tell it’s not as fast as before. Obviously change and innovation is needed but there not a lot of source material out there for such a change yet :) working on doing my part for my team though.
Working for a flexible work arrangement employer has made me appreciate the following alternatives to what I used to consider pros of working in the office.
- Hall way chats are now Slack chats. These are more likely to be in the open and allow more participants. When gathering feedback or ideas this allows interested parties to participate asynchronously, which they may not have been able to do in person.
- Quick tap on the shoulder assistance or conversations. These were always a little disruptive. With Slack statuses and huddles, I'm finding we can have explicit do-not-disturb signals and when everyone is ready, a quick low-friction way of having a discussion.
- Group meetings. There was always a limit to the effectiveness of this depending on the make up of the group and the size of the group. Being forced online means it's even more obvious when people are not comfortable participating. The solution being more async collaborative RFC-style processes before meeting in Zoom to discuss only the points of difference.
- Recordings. Often we would need to take notes, etc. Now everything can be recorded. Minutes are still good, but no longer need to be taken all the time. If the meeting was a bust and nothing of value was gained, you don't need to type it up. If something important was discussed, you don't have to rely on memory and can transcribe off the recording.
All of the above I consider to be a benefit to both the employer and employee as it allows for greater flexibility in how and when we interact and automated digitisation means a much easier process of persisting and communicating institutional knowledge that is being created among a group.
If there are cons to the employer, that means I'm worth less and can demand less salary - the market might take a bit to adjust for that, but probably not long. It means that I'm going to be working for a less successful company, which is a lot less fun.
Employers and employees are usually in a mostly cooperative relationship, this adversarial view of it just strikes me as wrong.
(And no, before someone accuses me of being biased, I do not and have never run a company or anything like that)
Rather I think separating out pros and cons between employees and employers makes little sense in most cases, including this one.
There are certainly both pros and cons of remote work, but the total cost/benefit will end up being a mutual one, in the same direction and of similar scale for both the employee and the employer.
> Rather I think separating out pros and cons between employees and employers makes little sense in most cases, including this one.
That's wild. Personally, I've thought about the pros and cons to me as an employee a lot. Hard to imagine anyone thinking that isn't a worthwhile exercise.
> There are certainly both pros and cons of remote work, but the total cost/benefit will end up being a mutual one, in the same direction and of similar scale for both the employee and the employer.
I think it will end up better for both parties as well, but most employers have a lot of work to do, updating processes, organization, and expectations, before they share that sentiment. Until then, they aren't going to like it.
It's not exactly that I think it's not a worthwhile exercise, it's that I think that unless you're considering the "second order" pros and cons to you as an employee that come about as a result of the company (and team) doing better/worse you're missing half of the equation, and that those second order effects are roughly as strong as the first order effects to the other party.
> If there are cons to the employer, that means I'm worth less and can demand less salary (...)
During the industrial revolution, some employers saw that there were significant pros in employing children and working them 12 to 14 hours a day for a fraction of a grown man's salary. Not being able to employ children was a significant con.
How did "the market" handled that?
There's more to life than what's convenient to corporations, and the despair of self-hating employees to think that self-deprecarion is a competitive sport.
Government regulation is different because it forces everyone on the even footing, there is no-one to out compete you.
Eliminating competition on the labor side of the market is also different, because while it hurts companies, it also makes employees be in higher demand. That's also a relevant difference here.
So, your analogy is just a poor one...
But while I'm at it, you'll notice that for the kinds of business that are easily shipped over seas (where the government regulations don't apply) and you can be outcompeted by people using child labor and paying below minimum wage (another case of government regulation) that did happen to an extent, see textile manufacturing for instance.
> Government regulation is different because it forces everyone (...)
It really isn't. It just stops unscrupulous employers from abusing their employees. There are already plenty of tech companies that went full remote, and clearly they don't interpret that as a competitive disadvantage.
The lockdowns also showed productivity increases and improvements in the quality of life and work/life balance. Therefore, returning to the office has absolutely nothing to do with productivity or company culture or dedication. At best, it's just lazy thinking enforced by strong-arming employees into positions that is overwhelmingly against their personal interests and quality of life.
> > Government regulation is different because it forces everyone (...)
> It really isn't. It just stops unscrupulous employers from abusing their employees.
If you're objecting to my use of the phrase "forces everyone", fair enough, but the point stands. If you're objecting to the point being made, I'm afraid I've missed your point.
> There are already plenty of tech companies that went full remote, and clearly they don't interpret that as a competitive disadvantage.
Indeed, one imagines that's because they don't see the (total) cons as outweighing the (total) benefits, and they (like me) don't see much use in separating out "benfits to employees" and "harm to the employer"... this is basically my original point (though going in the employee->employer direction as well as the employer->employee direction).
I'm not sure I would even agree with this. I have a better monitor setup at home, a quieter place to work and think, and I'm spending less of my day in pointless conversations for the sake of politeness.
My employer simply gets more out of me when I work from home AND turnover is reduced.
I think the pros outweigh the cons for employers, even if they don't care at all about their employees and even if we weren't in a tight labor market
You're measuring the cons in terms of labor productivity, which I am no longer convinced is what is driving executive behavior.
Frankly, I think that executives get a big ego boost seeing hundreds of workers working in an office of their design, and they miss that. I think that's why their arguments for returning to the office come across as ... strange and unpersuasive; they don't actually have a productivity based argument for returning to the office and they're trying to shoe horn one in anyways.
At my work, like most other works, productivity didn't go down with remote, and the company saved massively on office space.
It seems the people pushing for more office-time are in management, and this situation leads me to question the extent to which this change helps _their_ role rather than the company, and by extension their ability to manage their own conflicts of interest.
> The central sticking point, and cause cited by many people who recently left, was Smith’s strong push this year for all Blue Origin employees to return to the office.
This is without a doubt about Blue Origin's call to return to office.
I think a lot of people hadn't seriously considered the option of working from home before. Now that a lot more people have done so, they are starting to weigh the pros and cons as the parent comment is doing.
Sure. And one of the cons of working from home may be lower pay/increased competition. So if they are told to go back to the office and they don't want to they may need to put a price on it.
I don't know. When I changed work, first thing after passing a probation I rented a nice place 20 minutes by walk from the office (10 minutes by taxi in case of hurry or a bad weather). And I am totally okay with eating catered food. It is not haute cuisine, but it's free and readily available, so I may have two 15-minutes breaks instead of one hour lunch and call it a day half an hour earlier.
This. I don't know any senior engineers who want to work in an office. They know that the second they go back it is going to suck one way or other. I watched office space last night and was reminded of all the little tics and annoyances of being in an office. I had some good times in the office, but they will remain just good memories.
I feel the opposite and would gladly go back to the office.
It’s hard to keep working after five when the kids are home and making their usual racket. But it’s also hard to disconnect because the line between work and home is nonexistent.
The free breakfast and lunch at the office were much better than anything I can make or buy myself. Talking to random coworkers during the breaks made me feel more like part of something.
I didn’t even mind the “standing in a packed subway car” part that much. That’s just city life; I want more of it again.
As a big supporter of wfh for others, I’m personally not a fan.
My home is my sanctuary. It’s for sleep, rest, family and pleasure. It is modeled entirely around being comfortable.
I don’t want to hear my coworkers voices in my home. Or my manager. Or anything else work related. It gives me great anxiety and pain to hear my work in my apartment, and the feeling like I can never truly “leave” work. And I love my work and my team and the company.
To me there is nothing more alarming than the corporate overlords invading my home. And yet this is being applauded by many of my peers. Time will tell.
I think the work from home obsession is the “open office space” debate of our generation.
If you want to get out of the house, walk or ride a bike somewhere (park, coffee shop, etc.). There's no debate to be had: we need to stop driving cars so much, or you might need something like a stillsuit, Arrakis2021.
That’s a fair point about home being a sanctuary. After working out of my basement for almost a year I went ahead and built an office in the back yard.
I don’t think I’ve ever been happier.
Not everyone has this luxury but a hybrid model or choice of working environment is a necessity.. or maybe the real debate to a return to office isn’t location, but the forty hour work week.
> As a big supporter of wfh for others, I’m personally not a fan.
>My home is my sanctuary. It’s for sleep, rest, family and pleasure. It is modeled entirely around being comfortable.
>I don’t want to hear my coworkers voices in my home. Or my manager. Or anything else work related. It gives me great anxiety and pain to hear my work in my apartment, and the feeling like I can never truly “leave” work. And I love my work and my team and the company.
>To me there is nothing more alarming than the corporate overlords invading my home.
I think maybe your home is too small. Sounds like you don't have a separate study or home office.
> And yet this is being applauded by many of my peers. Time will tell.
Well, I dunno why the others are applauding, but I can tell you why I am: I have a study at home that is private and closed off from the rest of the house.
In effect, there is no bleed-over of the workplace into my home.
This is a nice pat answer, but truthfully I need two studies if I really expect working from home not to affect my home life. One will have my work in it and one will be filled with my personal projects (raspberry pi, small wood projects, electronics, music instruments, etc). My current house is sized for not having a dedicated workspace from home, and you could argue that that’s “too small” but the fact of the matter is buying a house with one more bedroom around here is no small bump in price, so I get by with my work life encroaching on my personal life. For now. If I want to continue working from home, my choices are to buy an even bigger house or accept that I will never have that separation.
I have a large enough house with a full-bedroom sized dedicated work office. I also don’t have a work phone (nor work email on my personal phone) and don’t check my computer outside work hours.
I’d say there is still plenty of psychological bleed-over for me. Not having a 100% physically separated work/home boundary has more of an effect than you might imagine. I can’t fully switch in and out of work mode.
>To me there is nothing more alarming than the corporate overlords invading my home.
I've worked from home for a while and pre-pandemic it seemed to be fine. However, I started to have issues when everybody could do every part of their job from home. More urgent requests in off-hours, simply because people had access 24/7. I used to take 60 to 90 minutes a couple nights a week just to take my time on some work that required thought or extreme focus. There were times that moved to Saturday in the past year.
I started hating going to the basement where my office is. I have a TV and seating for movies, but use it much less than I used to.
I agree with you I started working as a contractor before the pandemic and I don't have a spare bedroom for office. It was fine before my son was born but at this point it's not very productive. If I was living in a house it would be a different matter.
Paying for a small office/coworking desk close to home at my own expense > commuting to office on a daily basis. And I absolutely love that I can work from random airbnbs when I want to travel.
Remote first allows a lot of flexibility even if you have offices.
Pre-pandemic, I worked remotely, but rarely from home. In normal times, nothing is forcing you to work from home in particular if you're working remotely.
> the work from home obsession is the “open office space” debate of our generation.
There is not much of a debate, open offices are hated by knowledge workers and pushed by managers and accountants for cost reasons. I get the same feeling from those pushing back to office policies, they want control of employees under the guise of sparking ‘water cooler talk’.
> There is not much of a debate, open offices are hated by knowledge workers and pushed by managers and accountants for cost reasons. I get the same feeling from those pushing back to office policies, they want control of employees under the guise of sparking ‘water cooler talk’.
The return to offices is also pushed for cost reasons. Employers made billions of dollars in investments in commercial real estate, signed multiyear leases, and have executives, board members and shareholders that are invested in commercial real estate, as well.
It sounds less like this is about remote work, and more like this is about everyone there hating the CEO. And boy does the article do a good job of making him sound like an arrogant, micromanaging prick.
I am a solutions architect for one of the cloud providers. Pre-COVID, in-person meetings were the vast majority - and most were me travelling to the customer. While, often, that was a walk or Uber across the centre of town - it also, all too often, was getting on a plane for like a 1-2hr meeting.
So, what happens from here with my job has the added complexity of "will the customer both be in the office AND want me to visit them". In some cases customers have been in the office but they have banned anybody external from coming in. In others some of the staff are there but then some aren't - and so since some will be on VC anyway it is almost better for me to VC with them to ensure an equal experience. And, actually, I have found the more senior/tenured somebody technical at the customer is the more likely it is that they'll be the ones WFH and on the VC - with the more junior in the office - and so properly catering to the remote staff is usually the better call.
Our office was VERY open plan with staff jammed in like sardines with no assigned desks (we have lockers) and was designed to be a stop-over between customer site visits. So much so that they had to limit capacity at 50% with COVID to give people a bit of space between each other. And so, ultimately whether I can work from home is dependent on what the customers want - as going to our office and taking back-to-back VC calls in open plan is kind of dumb.
Before this last lockdown in Australia I was going in one day a week to have lunch & coffees & beers with my colleages - as I did miss that. The internal stuff. But one day a week was really enough for that as long as all the people who I wanted to hang out with standardised on the same day of the week.
I am not really sure which way it'll go. Will customers be in a big hurry for me to go to them - especially if it means I am on a plane of potentially infected people, get in a Uber and take it right into their office? As much as I do miss the magic that sometimes happens when everybody gathers around a whiteboard - I really hope not...
Speaking of that - I am surprised how a couple years into this the remote collaboration/whiteboarding stuff really hasn't improved. We all should have iPads with Apple Pencils and be able to get close-is to that in-person white boarding by now?
We believe you shouldn't need an iPad/apple pencil to conduct remote whiteboarding. With some handy CV/ML/Math your laptop is all you need to share legible content with remote viewers and even let them contribute to your board.
Check it out and let me know your thoughts, please. Thanks in advance.
I began a 100% remote job almost four years ago. I decided that being remote was worth maybe 20% of my salary (as in I’d take a 20% paycut if that’s what it took to keep working remote in a future job).
It’s honestly closer to 50% now that I’ve been doing it for years. It completely alters what having a career and raising a family is like. You’d have to give me a boatload of money to go back to the office because wow does that arrangement steal so many invaluable memories and times with my family.
I would have thought he's a "metrics" kind of guy... There's no way of judging what people outside his line of sight are accomplishing? Does he spend his whole day watching a set of monitors showing everybody at work?
Good. Insisting on forced commute is like insisting that horses are superior to motor vehicles. It’s living in the past. The sooner these companies are punished the sooner we can move on. If you work for a company that’s making you go back to the office AND you have other work options, I’d highly recommend quitting.
The no-remote mandate is just a symptom. The root cause appears to be Smith.
> broad internal distaste for Smith [...] reflected in the job site Glassdoor, which shows that just 19% of employees approve of Smith’s leadership. That’s sharply below the approval for other space executives, as Glassdoor shows 91% of SpaceX employees approve of CEO Elon Musk and 77% of United Launch Alliance approve of CEO Tory Bruno.
Usual comments about whether people prefer WFH or not. It doesn't matter. We need to stop driving cars so much, and most American cities have lousy transit.
Group (1) loves WFH and can't understand how anyone would ever want to work in an office and will only work remotely from now on if they can. Group (2) hates WFH and desperately needs the interactions an office provides and will be quitting any job that permanently works from home.
These two groups are two totally different types of people. They will never understand each other. It is probably not productive for each of them to keep rehashing their stances to each other. I don't know what the relative ratios of the two are, but I imagine we're gonna live in this two-types-of-employees world forever and ought to get used it. And we should probably stop belligerently pontificating to each other; nothing is going to change and it is just going to keep being a cycle of failing-to-communicate.