Agreed.

There is quite a serious problem with letting people choose - financial overhead. If we go back to pre-2020 the systems that needed to be maintained, e.g. office space, pipes, parking, etc. was a done deal. Since 2020 the lines are quite a bit more blurry so providing for employees at the same level would mean worst case scenario double the burden for the employer, because both options come with their own requirements. Then you could say - but hey now employers can just adjust the office space for a lower number of employees and we're good. Not really, though, because for one the efficiency of yesteryear came from buying up stuff/services in bulk with a fixed capacity - we don't have that now. Then there is training your managers to deal with a hybrid environment, new systems/software - all additional costs.

My point is in a lot of cases maintaining options for people costs money/time/effort/opportunity for the provider. That's money that could have gone to your pocket. And note I'm not saying we're not going to have both options - just don't expect to live in a simpler, more cost efficient system.

I think a lot of people are judging WFH by looking at the results of sudden unplanned WFH with no childcare and no coworking spaces/coffee shops/libraries.

Majority of the long posts I've seen on reddit have the tldr at the bottom...