Hacker News Reader

This line of reasoning makes no sense. If full remote were more productive, companies would continue to do it.

The fixed costs don't change either way.

What protective measures do you want to see? The aggregate risk here has not changed significantly at this point vs. before remote policies were implemented.

View on HN

If productivity were the only factor and companies behaved logically sure, but you know that's not the only factor and they often make decisions that aren't logical. Yet you argue as if it is. Why?

What decisions do you think they're basing RTO on that don't boil down to the production and costs of the business?

Mandated masking, up-to-date vaccines, exceptions for at-risk employees would be a good start... but I'm not a doctor or epidemiologist. The point is that COVID-19 pandemic is not over and there should be policies followed to protect at-risk and differently-abled employees. They shouldn't have to expose themselves to health risks in order to comply with an RTO policy due to local conditions allowing people to be in public spaces unmasked and with no vaccination.

Full remote is more productive. Enough people seem to think so based off of various surveys.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com