[aerosmile]

The author points out on several occasions why it makes more sense for employers to have people return to the office. Then, he delivers the punchline for WFH: "many employees simply don't want to return." That's it - no more, no less. Hidden in there somewhere is the assumption that no more justification is needed - if an employee doesn't fancy going to work, the employer should let them do whatever they want.

For the record, I don't think that this article accurately portrays the arguments on either side of the fence, and in my company we've accommodated both approaches, depending on the specific needs of the employees. But regardless of what your views are on this topic, I hope we can collectively agree that returning to the office is a more complex topic than just a matter of surveying what the (vast?) majority of employees would love to see happen. If that were to be the case, why not also survey how many hours people would like to work, how much PTO time they should have, etc.

The problem with fast-journalism articles like this one is that they make employees look like spoiled children, without properly discerning the many aspects of this pandemic which all have to be addressed for everyone's mutual benefit, including employees as well as the people who are signing their checks. Saying "many employees simply don't want to return" is not helping anyone.

[perl4ever]

>they make employees look like spoiled children

The choice being made to force people back in the office seems deranged when you calmly consider the facts in a logical manner.

Everybody, including those who have been vaccinated, is being told they must wear a mask and stay six feet apart at all times.

At the same time as employees are being forced back, everybody is agreeing that contagion could be a life and death matter, particularly for parents who have kids too young to be vaccinated yet.

And what's the benefit? It's agreed that people can't chat together, can't huddle in conference rooms, so everybody who is in the office will be videoconferencing just like at home. Except that there will be more noise and distraction from others doing the same.

Piling too many contradictions on people leads to stress and peculiar behavior even if they aren't consciously aware.

Turning anger outward, even if it doesn't make sense, is a common pattern. You have to go back to the office. This could be devastating for your family. But it's inconvenient (and maybe futile) to make demands to the organization's leaders, or to find a WFH job. So you lash out at coworkers or whoever's convenient.

The risks and (lack of) benefits are not my personal opinion; it's what other people seem to think.

I would go along with any coherent view of things that is internally consistent and believed by a majority.

But people are turning off their brains.

[aerosmile]

I am not interested in engaging in a political discussion. My points were entirely focused on the author who presented his case with the logic of a 5-year-old ("No! I don't want to!"). Your comments have the maturity and thoughtfulness that I was hoping to see in an article that was on the front page of HN.

[perl4ever]

>I am not interested in engaging in a political discussion

Nor I. What struck you as political in my comment?

I'm not that concerned with Google specifically, since I don't work there.

[aerosmile]

The opinion on the level of health risk one is supposed to take on in an effort to keep the economy running is very much split along the political lines. For every solid argument you brought up, there's a solid counterargument from the other side of the fence. Both sides of the fence include intellectuals who can be extremely thoughtful and reasonable. I don't think that HN would be the right time and place to regurgitate all the reasonable arguments from both sides (and certainly not all the unreasonable ones).

[perl4ever]

First of all, I was reflecting on the situation in the public sector, in a very blue state, where officially you strictly don't talk politics at work. Do you think my comments were all from "one side of the fence"? Which one?

Also, I wasn't expressing any opinion on what risk there is or what risk should be acceptable.

I don't see anything political in the fact that multiple parents are concerned about bringing covid home to their family if people don't wear masks.

It doesn't matter what people are saying in internet debates; I was stating this is what real people are saying in non-political, offline conversation.

I also don't see politics in the sense of left or right if the leader of our organization is making decisions that I don't see the sense in. I think leaders of all types can fall in a trap where they commit to something just because they don't want to look weak and wishy washy.

As far as my risk goes, if everybody wants to wear masks, I'm fine with it, and if nobody wants to wear mask, I'm fine with that too.

I waited my turn, then I got vaccinated promptly, now there is nothing for me to do. I just want whatever people decide to make sense.