So yeah, many abused WFH and now the backlash is here. Amazon, Google, Apple, Meta, Zoom, Bloomberg ... all have the same conclusion: you can't trust people, at scale, to work full time from home.
These stories were posted here too! You think no exec reads HN?
I don't follow these forums where people are saying this, but your comment struck me because neither of the two things you listed are wrong, as long as the person involved is doing acceptable work. This assumes there are no requirements to disclose other jobs, no enforceable non-compete agreements, etc. The consequences for doing unacceptable work—or not doing any work at all—are well-established from before covid, and would still apply in this case: that is, if they can't do the job, fire them. I agree that it's different and perhaps scary new world for executives, but what about it is wrong?
Employees get full-time salaries to be available, well, full time.
WFH makes people hard to reach - sorry, was out walking the dog, etc. - and all the other stuff that would never fly in an office.
Not disclosing your other side gigs is a violation of most work contracts btw.
In my experience many managers (at all levels) like to make the "informal rounds" where they go around the office and have chats with everyone to see what they are doing (instead of e.g. Looking at tickets or waiting for the weekly meeting). That mostly stopped with WFH, so suddenly many in management felt like they are not working anymore. The thing is this absence was often helping the engineers etc to be more productive.
Just like an army without officers, amazing stuff.
Seriously, what's going on here on HN? YC has managers ffs!
You can't "abuse" WFH. Either you're producing results that satisfy your manager or you are not. Also, any exec making decisions based on Blind posts should be fired.
A managers job is generally more team results oriented.