> and companies shouldn't break their backs to accommodate people.

Why isn't the inverse equally true? That workers shouldn't have to break their back to accommodate a change in company policy?

> You took the risk in maybe unclear situation, you bear the consequences if the risk doesn't pan out your way.

Again, I think this is equally true going the other way. Companies allowed their workers to move away from the office, why don't they assume any risk that workers won't want to return?

I get that there needs to be a balance of power, but I don't understand why any request from the company is valid by default and any request by workers is somehow an imposition that the workers need to justify. Why isn't the company asked to justify why workers need to RTO?