I think that it is, actually.

Sure it is! Free market competition was made for exactly this sort of scenario. As long as some employers offer WFH, workers can make the choice. If we put a $$ figure on WFH and this makes salaries cheaper for employers that offer WFH, they may eventually win out the market.

Saying "employees can't choose to WFH" may eventually be seen as silly of a decision as saying "we only buy inputs from countries with the highest import tariffs".

Let the market decide. It's going to either way.

Say I'm a company saving $50,000,000/year on office leases. That's a lot of room for higher salaries and nicer bonuses for my employees (including execs). And I still get to keep a huge chunk as extra profit.

Long-term what sounds better to the board: A CEO who says "I saved us 50mil" or a CEO that says "I lost 30% of our workforce but we got them all back to the office! Btw I need another 50mil for the office"

My company was like that. It started firing people who didn't return to work.

Then someone noticed that there weren't enough people left in certain departments to get things done.

Now the company is 90% remote, and selling some of its office buildings. The only people in the office are those who choose to be, and those whose jobs require them to be hands-on.