[lostcolony]

If that includes an hour long lunch break, then the parent is basically just saying their employer pays them for their commute (especially since it sounds like they take the train or similar, and that probably is covered by their employer as well). Pretty sure most people who object to commutes do so because that time is uncompensated (and that people who demand them back in the office expect them in the office 8 hours a day), putting this into a squarely different bucket

[sciprojguy]

Pretty sure you're wrong. If you drive, the commute can be a stressful waste of time.

[lostcolony]

The parent isn't driving.

But, sure, let's go with that line - if you are salaried, and you have an hour each way commute, and your company okayed you working 6 hours a day (since your commute is 2), and they also paid you extra for mileage (to offset fuel and wear and tear), are you saying you'd object as strongly as the people objecting to those 2 hours ON TOP of 8 hours in the office, with no compensation for mileage?

Because that was my point; the general objection to commuting I've heard, and would raise myself, is that it is unpaid personal time. Not that it's just an unpleasant task that the company is compensating me fully for.