The problem is how you are accounted for doing work. By tasks or by time spent in office... I saw people in office doing nothing, just talks on kitchen or answering emails.. When asked about tasks.. Im working hard sir.. heh.
Its a bit complicated matter, because when you are more efficient, boss usually will attach new tasks so you have to work harder or be even more efficient. And those who are less efficient dont get new tasks.. Not smart..
"Why aren't you efficient at the office? We've optimized it for efficiency" or "Okay well we'll budget in making you more efficient in office so that you're even more productive here".
Another could be the argument that you need to be highly available during core hours, you shouldn't potentially not be available during the core 8 hour work day of your location, and the best way to force that is you being visible in office by management.
The root of the issue is we value our time, and commuting is basically a loss of time and is not compensated. If we don't make enough money when commuting to make up for how much we value that time, we're losing. Most of us are comparing our salaries to what we used to make before this was the norm, and its not that different from before. So when going back to the "norm" we are losing part of what we consider our compensation packate -> more free time.
I spend some time pottering about and doing chores during the workday when I wfh. But I also spend lots of time goofing off while at the office. The difference is that while at the office, I have to be constantly vigilant about how I'm perceived by others, so time spend goofing off isn't nearly as rejuvenating and reinvigorating as it would have been at home.
Isn't it pretty normal to only have a few hours of real-work capability per day?
They'd rather pay you to do NOTHING.
You can't use the argument of "being able to do things other than work" as an argument because its easily trumped. The best arguments are those having to do with lost time and increased stress due to commuting. Being able to more quickly transition to housework and looking after kids, or just being closer to them in general during your breaks/lunches, etc. You are losing time which is in itself compensation by being forced go to an office for a job that shouldn't necessitate it.
Another is health benefits: more easy access to preparing food at home. Less stress as mentioned. Easier to go to a gym or workout at home. etc.
It's not remotely true. Child care is a full time job. You might be able to move laundry around while tests run but that's about it.
If people are neglecting their jobs enough to take care of kids then they're giving ammo to the management class to argue that they can't trust us.
Ideally we should should hold employees to the work they produce but I still cringe a little when someone calls into a meeting because they had to run an errand. I want management to believe wfh isn't being abused. It's exclusively about the optics. The lack of interruptions is a net positive.
If we miss a deadline, it makes it easy for management to start blaming people not being at their desk. We shouldn't be giving them ammo
I can get up early and work an hour, then get the kids ready for school, then work five hours, then take them to my sister's place after school, then work two hours, then have dinner and read them stories before bed, then work another hour.
Can't do that from an office with an hour commute each way.
You are also not using the office, not commute and pollute.
Companies also put workers through the stress of working in inadequate workplaces - open plane offices to cram as many workers per square feet, like caged hens.
System will not balance itself, as people are just few missing pay checks from being homeless, so nobody is going to risk going against their master, sorry employer.
It will also not come from the government as these are as corrupt as they get.
The system will simply collapse at some point. Most likely the rich will be "hanged" and the cycle will start over.
Someone somewhere got in their excel that loss of productivity from RTO is lower than potential loss of the property investments.
Not sure where this idea came from
If company cannot fill the office, it will be looking at downsizing and breaking the lease. If there are many companies like this, then landlord may not find a new tenant at existing rate and they'll either have to lower the rate or sit with empty property. If they have mortgage on it, it is a tough cookie to swallow.
It's similar story for companies who own the buildings. It becomes an asset that is losing value.
https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/reits-to-capital...
Whilst these are not direct examples, they show the commercial estate market is in deep trouble if people are not going to return.