[cgsmith]

I realized that the OP can correct these actions himself. If he is in a useless meeting then he should speak up and work towards changing that policy.

If he doesn't have good equipment he could work with management to lobby for better equipment or bring his own there.

Instead of working for 4 hours then "doing whatever" he could make meaningful changes in the organization but he chooses not too.

Maybe it isn't a terrible place to work. Maybe he is a terrible employee.

[chrsig]

Why is that a better option for the OP than finding a job that better aligns with how they would like to work? It's really better for everyone in the long run. Company has fewer malcontent workers and can replace the headcount with people that do want to be in the office, and OP isn't suffering in an environment they can't tolerate.

Maybe neither are terrible. Maybe they're just poorly suited for each other.

[Apocryphon]

Just as changing jobs tends to boost salary more than getting raises, changing jobs and disclosing all of one's grievances at the exit interview is probably a stronger signal than being the squeaky wheel while still in the company.

[xmprt]

I agree in theory but in practice regular employees have extremely little agency in team wide matters. With the points you're making you might as well say "he should take things into his own hands and set his own personal permanent WFH policy." See how ridiculous that sounds?