[pjettter]

For some, WFH is more attractive and more productive than for others. But why does it have to be an either or? There are advantages with sitting next to colleagues. There are advantages with being able to skip the commute and being able to concentrate at home. Ideally, someone would choose what's most productive, which is probably a mix of WFH and working on site.

[ryandrake]

Yea, I don’t think the WFH advocates are proposing “mandatory remote work.” All we want is the option. It’s the WFO folks that are saying “we want to WFO and we want to make everyone do it too!”

[DoofusOfDeath]

> But why does it have to be an either or?

In mixed onsite / remote teams, the remote employees can be seriously disadvantaged regarding access to information, participation in decision-making, etc.

Some of the comments above mention this effect, and my own personal experience has very painfully confirmed it. It was a truly awful experience for me. I suspect it's what lead to the maxim, "If anyone is remote, then everyone must be remote."

[pjettter]

Thanks. That partly confirms my feelings. Now with Covid here in Sweden at my company, everyone is remote. It works (equally bad and equally good) for everyone.

I think if a company is serious about a mix, there needs to be optimization around this. Like, remote Mondays and Fridays, if you want to be remote. Meetings on Tue/Thu. Something like that.