> But those aren’t moral issues

According to the dictionary, morality is simply “ principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.”

> they’re productivity issues

Some would say that choosing being unproductive when you could be productive IS immoral. Not only does Benjamin Franklin jump to mind, but the entire Protestant-informed culture of “the West”. Japan’s culture is also infused with a productivity mindset.

> According to the dictionary, morality is simply “ principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.”

Right/wrong in this case are meant in the sense of "it's wrong to murder people" as opposed to "saying 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong." The former is a statement of morality, the latter is a statement of correctness. This does not link productivity / morality.

> Some would say that choosing being unproductive when you could be productive IS immoral.

Therefore it's not an axiom. Most people would only consider it immoral if you chose to be unproductive for the sake of being unproductive. For example, refusing to do your job while expecting to be paid is something many people would consider immoral.

This is different from choosing a path you prefer, that happens to be less productive. For example, doing something more slowly but more safely may be less productive but also something many would not consider immoral.

> This is different from choosing a path you prefer, that happens to be less productive.

In the context of one's life, I agree fully. However, once you choose to work in a collective, choosing to be less productive without a positive tradeoff to the system, harms the ones around you.

The positive tradeoff to the system is that the employee who prefers to WFH is happier and less stressed, which leads to increased productivity and retention. Now whether this offsets the decreased productivity from not being there in person, that's what's being argued over.

Nothing you said here sufficiently answers the specific points I raised.

> those aren’t moral issues

I think you may have missed the issues they intended to bring up. The moral issues I see could be that you might have one class of worker ("knowledge worker") who is able to work from home and another class of worker who is unable to work from home. It's along the lines of the difference between paid catering for the executive suite but not the rest of the office.

No they’re not even remotely related. One type of work can’t be done from home, one can. That’s not a moral discussion, that’s just a description of reality.

Paid catering isn’t an intrinsic part of the work, so it has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

The exclusive paid catering I gave as an example is something that might foster resentment towards executives from the rest of the office staff. Work from home, regardless of circumstances around the work which allow for it, can be seen as a similar privilege which might draw resentment from one worker group to another. I think something like that is what was being suggested.