[danaris]

If you're talking about needs for work, then that's reasonable to ask, once in a while. As long as it's genuine needs and not just preferences.

But if you're asking your coworkers to regularly come in to work to meet your social needs? No. That's your responsibility. If you can't meet those needs at work, then you need to find other avenues outside of work to meet them, or find a different job where more of the people have the same expectations as you regarding the social nature of work.

You are also a member of society, and need to help ensure that your coworkers' needs are being met. You don't get to demand that they all sacrifice time, money, greenhouse gases, and mental energy just to help you feel like it's still 2019.

[Volundr]

> But if you're asking your coworkers to regularly come in to work to meet your social needs? No. That's your responsibility.

This. Your coworkers are not your friends. If your coworkers are all that's filling your social needs that should be a red flag for you and something you should work on.

[kiawe_fire]

That sounds very one sided.

The compromise (as the poster to whom you replied mentioned) should be “as members of society, we should occasionally compromise our needs to help meet the needs of people who prefer a more social office atmosphere, perhaps once or twice a week”, should it not?

Why should one type of member of society always be inconvenienced so that the other side never is?

[ghaff]

There are lots of perfectly legitimate things that people do which inconvenience me in various ways. But I don't think I'm within my rights to demand that airlines don't allow young children or obese people in planes for example. If management doesn't feel I have a need to come into the office a couple days a week, I'm not coming in just because some people want the buzz of a busy 2019 office.

And if that makes me selfish, so be it.

[danaris]

Well, for one thing, that means that even if you're working remotely, you still need to be physically located in close proximity to the office. It takes full-remote, with all the fairly obvious benefits it offers, off the table.

For another, it's one person asking many people to sacrifice their own needs to meet his.

For a third, he's presenting it as if having all his coworkers, or at least most of them, in the office is the only reasonable way to meet his social needs, when there are certainly other options.

Overall, what it sounds very much like is "Everything was going just fine for me before the pandemic, and then when other people started finding ways to meet their needs better, and the "default" changed, suddenly I was no longer automatically getting my needs met. The obvious solution to this is that we just need to go back to everyone else giving up what they've gained so I don't have to change my lifestyle in any way!"

If that's not what tallanvor means, then I apologize for misconstruing them; however, I have definitely seen many, many people who clearly feel that way advocating for full return-to-office policies specifically for their own comfort and convenience.

[ryandrake]

I would be totally OK with doing this if those people who want a more social office atmosphere would be willing to pool together and pay for the gasoline I would have to use to commute 2-3 hours each way to the office. If it cost them real money, would they be willing to pay for those "magical hallway conversations" and "office buzz"?