The target audience of this article isn't workers in general though, its white collar workers who have white collar jobs that 100% allow workers to work from home.

I don't think its a crime of omission to focus on the target audience by any means. The Register is a tech focused news outlet and an overwhelming amount of tech jobs are white collar jobs.

> The target audience...

True.

> I don't think its a crime of omission...

Nobody else thinks that, either.

Perhaps I should have been longer-winded than "As usual, "? My concern is not particular to this article, nor to The Register. Whether you figure that journalism merely reflects the worldviews of its audience, or that it also shapes those - there seems to be a near-universal "less-privileged people don't exist, or we should never give thought to their welfare" undertone to the whole RTO issue. Historically, that kinda thing was often a bad sign for a society.

How many are there? Not even people in finance/accounting can do that as they need to handle physical documents that must never leave the office. HR, marketing, sales people need to do the same and meet the humans. IT people seem to be the only group capable of doing so, I don't know anyone else in any other profession who would even consider 100% remote a possibility.

More than you're letting on.

Entire finance departments can work from home, my company is 100% remote, its a fintech company that handles and processes sensitive stuff all day.

Never impeded by regulation or data safety concerns, in fact, I think this company has better security practices than others I've worked for in the past to be quite honest.

There is an illusion that security requires an office. Most of it comes down to 'can you trust X person' vs any locality stuff.

You probably don't live in EU... Here it's illegal to not have the papers or to let them be taken away from the office.

We do have UK employees which I realize is decidedly not the EU though. We also have quite a few Canadian employees

I'm unaware of any meaningful difference in practice when it comes to the work stream though.

That said, I'm no lawyer nor an expert on the differences between the US (where I reside) and the rest of the world, in terms of specific data laws and handling procedures

My uncle was a CPA who worked in finance for decades. His last few were partially or fully remote. Some consulting was onsite, but that was never a surprise and didn't change suddenly with the winds of management trends.

So where does he keep his client's documents?

Online

Lucky you, to live in such jurisdiction.

FWIW, the vast majority of sales people I’ve spoken to over the past 5 years have been WFH/WFCS (work from coffee shop).

Certainly for bigger deals they come onsite for the final stages of the sales process, but most interaction is handled remotely and they aren't in an office.

They probably sell SaaS, don't they? What about industrial machinery, make up, whatever else?

It doesn't have to be entirely remote.

I do manual labor. My manager (a very nice guy) must show up on location. After we talk about things I message him and repeat the very things we've talked about so that I have a written record of things.

They have him drive around the country for useless chit chat. If I ask him why stuff isn't done it is always this same excuse. He has to go to meetings where the goal pretty much is to write my whatsapp message on a piece of paper and for other people to hear themselves talk. I sometimes jokingly ask him how it went. The usual response is PFFF, a 5 hour drive for nothing. He manages both the day and the night shifts which adds to the joke.

I think we need to send in the environmentalists so that people can stop burning my gasoline, eroding my roads, killing the birds, stinking up my city, taking my parking spots and wearing out their car.

I propose a special daily commute tax, a flat fee for the first 20 km with extras per additional km and a multiplier for each hour shorter than 8 before the return trip. Lets also do an office tax per square meter.

Why would it, it's an article about office jobs. The word "office" is mentioned in the headline and multiple times in the article, so why should the article mention factory workers or truck drivers? White collar workers working from home is better for anyone, less traffic, less pollution, better home situation (e.g. if you live in a household where the other party is not an office worker) and so on.

I have picked up on some social ..animosity towards those who WFH. You make a very good point, there are many, many more people who can never WFH, and I think there is growing negativity towards those who complain about having to go into an office. Working from home is very logical, cheaper, and better for a lot of office workers but the campaign against RTO could backfire if we are seen as privileged.

> if we are seen as privileged

This is not a matter of interpretation or view. You are privileged and your comment shows exactly that.

That's cool but I have crippling debt and I was just laid off. I'm considering signing up for disability or going to debtor's prison. I'm in my early 30s and I've spent way more than 10,000 hours programming and now my vision is suffering. Sure I was lucky enough I had WFH at a FAANG. I give to charity and I pay taxes. Do I need to self-flagellate some more or am I privileged enough now? I suppose I can always get a job at Walmart and apply for welfare because those are not exclusive at all.

Lest my negative attitude get the better of both of us, we should believe that society's goals are to improve everyone's quality of life.

I find the privileged argument to be unproductive. Do you work in a coal mine or a third world factory? Nearly every position has some level of privilege, does that make the desires of the workers invalid? Does that mean that every job needs to find the lowest common denominator working conditions?

As many should know by know, the reality is not as relevant as the perception of the issue. Even the economy can be 'felt' differently depending on one's perception of their circumstances regardless of the facts on the ground.

> You are privileged and your comment shows exactly that.

It definitely is a view. If you don't see it as such, that just means that's probably the primary way you view the world.

If we are privileged, does that mean we should NOT work from home when it's clearly possible?

It is indeed privilege, and that's worth noting, but acting like having privilege makes you a bad person really misses the point.

Now this is the important piece. This focus is not accidental, but deliberate. I have thought how corporates will try to counter the movement, because, clearly, the old guard has placed itself in RTO corner.

Splitting popular support ( akin to Musk's attempt to cast WFH as 'laptop class' ) would accomplish that.

I have no good counter, but it only reminds me that maybe we do need some pan-wfh org that tries to deal with social media narratives.

all true; there is though a useful point to be made that more WFH-ing office folks does free up transport for those who need to travel, be it rail/bus or just car commutes

One thing to consider is that most of the blue-collar workers who would have an easier commute into a city center due to WFH will have their job negatively affected by office workers not also traveling to the city center.

If you do facilities work in a downtown area, people not working from the office means you have less work to do and your job is potentially affected. Same goes for restaurant workers, sanitation workers, etc.

What exactly is your point?

There are billions of humans who live in countries that don't have a functioning democracy, but we still find it to be valuable to fight to keep and advance democracy in those countries that have it. There are billions of humans who are poorer than the poor in rich countries, but we still find it to be valuable to fight for better living conditions for the poor in our own countries.

Are you proposing that no one should fight for WFH because not everyone can? Or that there should be one of those "privilege disclaimers" at the top of all of these articles that apologizes for bothering to write a piece that fights for improved conditions for a group that is already perceived as privileged?

Eh, you institute WFH where it makes sense. I am a heavy WFH proponent and I am not suggesting that surgery should be done remotely ( at least not yet, but technology is supposedly improving in that area ). On the other hand, some jobs absolutely can be.

Why on earth does everyone have to fit the same mold?

> Why on earth does everyone...

They don't. (And I don't know a single person who thinks they do).

But in any society where the "haves vs. have-nots" division is a major social problem - there can be serious downsides to convincing the latter that the former really don't give a crap about them.

Why should you be entitled to WFH and a cashier not? How would you create a mold for like someone above?

If automation was to be implemented then there would be no job at all for the cashier.

Or is it "my job is bigger and important" argument?

Hmm? I am amused by the attempted framing, but it is neither of those. The job is not entitled, but it is bound by requirements bestowed by reality of how that job functions. For example, cashier's job happens to, often, involve physically moving stuff around at the same time customer wants to have it moved. Therefore, they, currently, have to physically be there.

My job, for better or worse, however, has to exist in the same time-zone for the sake of meetings, while my output is more ephemeral.

<< Or is it "my job is bigger and important" argument?

Hadly. If anything, I would argue that my job is less important.

So what is your reason to wanting to WFH? You advocate it yet give none or is it "I don't need to commute, family matters, can do my washing through the day"

Does it matter what my reason for the preference is? The fact of the matter is that when I have to commute, my performance suffers. That alone should be a big reason for corporations to consider their decisions carefully, because last time my bosses indicated anything close to moving us in we collectively said 'fine, but you will not see us doing the extra you are used to'( edit: and they backed off, because some stuff need to be done). But the companies want 100% in person, 100% after work, bringing your whole self-in, but not while being offensive, but also being brand ambassador, but not in a way that alienates anyone..

What is my reason..

I believe the argument is just ”my job can be performed from home”. It’s not about entitlement, it is about making ones life easier without additional downside to your employer. You might disagree with the no downside part but that is orthogonal to the entitlement argument.

But the "my job can be performed from home" is entitlement. It can be done in the office too.

You want to work from home because it's easier for you. And I agree, it takes a lot of weight off your shoulders but for me who enjoys working in the office a caveat is that it's harder communicating with those who do work from home.

I couldn't work from home, even if I wanted to.

It's easier, yes. But also it's harder to effectively work in a badly designed office (read open office). At home, I can create my ideal work environment. Specifically for me, I don't want to sit in traffic for an hour a day just to work in a worse environment. It's also my time. Work is not paying for my commute so my 40 hour week turns into a 45 hour week. This dilutes my pay while at the same time reducing my free time to spend with/for my family. With young kids, you can't get that time back.

I don't think importance is a factor; it's simply a matter of whether a job can be done remotely.

Not every occupation, at this point, can fall under this categorization.

That's the worst of all takes, I'm afraid.

What would be the point in return to office mandates for people who don’t work in an office? It’s not mentioned because it’s irrelevant.