Earlier quoted context omitted.
> leads to thinly-veiled, self-serving, biased arguments and proclamations of the benefits to everyone. > So I've now been WFH for 2 months and honestly I hate it. > I just don't think a company with 50,000+ employees can operate this way indefinitely. ok. Why do you consider your arguments against WFH not biased and useful. "other side is biased" ...quite funny :D
> ok. Why do you consider your arguments against WFH not biased and useful. Because what I'm saying is objectively true: physical colocation with your coworkers is inherently easier to work with than working remotely and no one in their right mind disputes that. The best you can argue for WFH-first is that it can be made to work. Your other clue is the choice of language. I said, for example, "I hate WFH" and (paraph…
This isn't even remotely objective. It's amusing how people think their personal perspective is the objective one.
> Why aren't there just as many (or more) articles about making WFO
There's an ocean of WFO content on the Internet - everything from leases, to security, to feng shui. I'm willing to wager there's an order of magnitude more WFO than WFH content. And it's all about making office life work (or work better).
Believe it or not, offices are a modern invention. Just because it's been the status quo for several decades, doesn't mean it's the only way to get things done.
Screwing over worker was the status quo at one point, too.