[LawTalkingGuy]

> If you're a "manager", morale issues on the team are your issues.

If being told to do things that the company is paying you to do is triggering your morale issues then you probably aren't going to work out at all. If all you wanted was a few dollars more you'd have already asked that in a far simpler way.

When I get a coffee I don't check which one the barista wants to make, I assume they're willing to make anything on the menu because a job is a package deal.

> that employees need to feel a certain way about following your orders and realize that you were right all along

No, and in fact my point is that as your hypothetical boss I and the managers would have decided if we think WFH is working. Given that we already decided I'm not opening it up to you to debate and honestly I wouldn't believe you were arguing openly because you've got a huge motive to stay home and comfy.

The point of an office is to assemble a critical mass and if I'm trying to get everyone in and you aren't willing, you're basically deprecating yourself. As much as I may like you I'm not going to retain you because now I want a different style of work done than you want to do.

> you seem to be under the impression that "I'm the boss" is some kind of rational or moral argument

You're stuck on this idea like you have a right to have things discussed with you and to make everyone hold until you're happy that the situation centers you and you've been well heard. That's silly. You're like a landscaper and if I sell the house with the yard I'm letting you go.

It's not about disrespecting you because it's not about respecting you because it's not about you.

[BaseballPhysics]

> Given that we already decided I'm not opening it up to you to debate and honestly I wouldn't believe you were arguing openly because you've got a huge motive to stay home and comfy.

So, this is a basic labour rights question: How much say does the employee have in the way the business functions?

Your attitude seems to be "if you don't like management's decisions, you never should've worked there in the first place". It's clear your view is that management runs the business, the workers work, and they should not, and do not, have any meaningful say in the way the business functions.

And if you want to run your company that way, hey, that's your call.

But that's not the only way to run a business. Hell, this attitude is why labour unions were invented.

And given industry-wide labour shortages, I suspect you'll find that labour is a lot more empowered, and many people will opt to flee for another workplace where they have a greater say.

Again, your choice. But with that choice comes consequences.

As an aside, this comment:

> You're being paid so you can't claim to be outraged at being told to work.

Is a pretty strong indication that I'd never ever want to work for you.

Study after study shows that monetary compensation is not, in and of itself, motivating. There are myriad factors that lead someone to stay or leave a workplace, and "being paid" is just one, and not always a particularly big one.

[LawTalkingGuy]

> Hell, this attitude is why labour unions were invented.

Nope. Unions aren't to force bosses to hire a type of labor they don't need. I've got relatives who worked in dangerous jobs that needed unions and this sort of emotional grievance nonsense is literally insulting.

As I said, if I get rid of the house I'll get rid of the landscapers. You're trying to use a union to force me to pay you for unneeded work. If we decide we need an office then we need an office workers. No hate on you but you're saying you choose not to do that role.

Do I need to enter into collective bargaining with the Starbucks staff to convince them my desire for a latte is reasonable? Do they have "enough say" to make me drink an espresso instead?

> How much say does the employee have in the way the business functions?

As much as they have a financial stake in the business. Zero by default. I'll ask you if I want to know what you think but you have no "say" as in the ability to make demands. I pay for your knowledge and therefore advice, it's not your right to make me follow it.

> Study after study shows that monetary compensation is not, in and of itself, motivating.

Sure, and study after study shows that people who need external motivation are indistinguishable from potatoes. I don't expect money to motivate you directly, I expect you to connect the motivation from your life goals to your paycheck to the Monday mornings.

> And given industry-wide labour shortages, I suspect you'll find that labour is a lot more empowered, and many people will opt to flee for another workplace where they have a greater say.

You see, this is why I wouldn't have asked you in the first place because you think that explaining basic economics to me will suddenly convince me to make your cushy work-at-home time a human right. Trust me from my time as a boss and more recently merely as a hiring reviewer, the desire to "have a greater say" has never left the lips of a single productive employee.

If you want to "have a say" then join a poetry circle. I want you to have as much, and only as much, influence as you have sense. It's not about empowering you, it's about using you to make both of us a living.

> Is a pretty strong indication that I'd never ever want to work for you.

Oh no. Employee who refuses to do what is needed is unwilling to take my money.