[JDiculous]

> but we need to get over this idea that WFH is the best option for everyone.

I don't think anybody is claiming this. The argument is more that WFH is best for people who prefer to WFH and are able to do so effectively.

Last time I checked, most big tech companies have little tolerance for WFH, only allowing workers to WFH at most once or twice per week. There's clearly a middle ground between "no remote workers" and "WFH is the best option for everyone".

[wolco]

If you are at a place that doesn't allow some form of wfh in todays age that environment is considered toxic and should factor into your job search.

[NateEag]

"Toxic"?

Seriously?

I'm quite grateful to be able to work from home as needed in my current gig, but "toxic" seems like it should mean something more than "not doing what I want."

Then again, I've suspected "toxic" of being a meaningless phrase primarily used to tar and feather things the speaker dislikes for a while now, do maybe it fits perfectly.

[Nasrudith]

The criticism of the (ab)use of toxic is fair but I see is a meaningful use in this context implicitly.

It isn't the policy itself that does it but in context without a need. That implicitly has an assumption of "no need for the restriction in this context and yet here it is". In this case it implies a management which is too rigid to accept the possibility of working from home at all. It implies one or more of the following.

1. "Not invented here" syndrome for remote working. Willful ignorance isn't a very good look. 2. A complete lack of trust is implicit in the social environment. 3. Needing a physical presense to apply some sort of office social manipulation. 4. Excessive authoritarianism from leadership and management

Essentially "toxic" means "red flag" hinting at a messed up culture. It is like taking away free coffee being a sign it is time to move on. It isn't that the expense is crippling but it hints that they aren't being valued anymore and are starting to bean count.

These signals are completely negated when there is a reason outside of any dynamics. To give a silly hypothetical example if a stupidly powerful crazed fundamentalist Mormon splinter sect manages to create a worldwide prohibition on coffee it doesn't really reflect upon the management.

For more grounded in reality examples a job where part of it involves say physically examining devices on a daily basis or say in a SIF where "no information physically leaving the site and designed to be network independent" wouldn't be toxic as it would have an actual somewhat legitimate reason behind it (even if one may have very reasonable qualms about the secrecy philosophically - let alone what they are keeping secret).

[greenhatman]

It might not necessarily be toxic. But it's a possible red flag that the company doesn't trust their employees. And that they time lunch breaks and other breaks.