> "Going to an empty office": why in the first place?
I don't understand what you're asking here.
My point is that a remote worker saying, "You work in the office while I work at home" is dissatisfying to many people who like the idea of working with people in person and who dislike collaborating with others who are working remote.
> If there are so many people missing the office life, why don't they go to the office? Why do they need to be forced?
Some people don't miss the office and need to be forced to go to the office – if the company decides they want employees in the office.
I don't get what you don't understand?
If a company wants all its employees in the office then allowing some to WFH isn't going to happen. If a company wants all its employees to WFH then working in office isn't going to happen. If a company wants a hybrid solution where some employees WFH and some work in office then it's going to be dissatisfying to those who want all employees in office.
Many companies I know don't reason so black or white. You can always find compromises, by making it attractive for employees to gather once or twice a week (e.g., free breakfast on wed), for example. That's good enough for many.
> If a company wants a hybrid solution where some employees WFH and some work in office then it's going to be dissatisfying to those who want all employees in office.
Right, but why should we care?
Extremes are specific situations that must be addressed differently: I want full remote, does my company allow it or not? If yes, ok, if not, either I leave, or I find another way.
Same applies for people wanting everyone at the office: things have changed over the years, why do we want or need that? It's a decision that forces 80% or more of the workforce to behave in a certain way, just because some people have a very specific need.
If someone wants everybody at the office, it's his/her own problem to deal with, as the person who wants full remote, yet forced to meet with colleagues from time to time. Extremes have huge impact over each other.
You can't make everyone happy, but it also means you should not take away a huge benefit for many. This is why I like how some companies are doing, and yet it surprises me to read that some companies are just back to precovid like WFH never existed. It doesn't make any sense.
Exactly! You only care about your own preferences. Nothing wrong with that.
So you should not be surprised when people who want to work in an office with other employees in an office don’t care about the people who want to work remotely.
> You can't make everyone happy, but it also means you should not take away a huge benefit for many
It doesn’t mean that at all.
It means that removing what some see as a huge benefit may have negative business consequences — or it might not.
I don't understand what you're asking here.
My point is that a remote worker saying, "You work in the office while I work at home" is dissatisfying to many people who like the idea of working with people in person and who dislike collaborating with others who are working remote.
> If there are so many people missing the office life, why don't they go to the office? Why do they need to be forced?
Some people don't miss the office and need to be forced to go to the office – if the company decides they want employees in the office.
I don't get what you don't understand?
If a company wants all its employees in the office then allowing some to WFH isn't going to happen. If a company wants all its employees to WFH then working in office isn't going to happen. If a company wants a hybrid solution where some employees WFH and some work in office then it's going to be dissatisfying to those who want all employees in office.