[dvfjsdhgfv]

I don't think it is true, because one side says: "You absolutely must come to the office at least N days a week", and the other side doesn't say "Nobody must come to the office" but "Why don't you let people decide for themselves"?

In other words, it is a discussion between inflexible dogmatism and elasticity.

[smokel]

I think the idea with companies is that management decides. If you don't like that, you can discuss it, go someplace else, or even start your own company. But demanding it, and calling management stupid would be my last resort.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

I wouldn't call i stupid if I didn't have direct experience, several times. Once a board asked my opinion regarding RTO and I told them openly if they do that, the top talent will leave. They answered, "Nah, they won't". Well, it turned out I was right. I'm not saying it was the same in the case of Allegro, maybe the board realized this will happen but decided to proceed anyway, but I have the right not to call it a smart strategy.

[alex_lav]

To suggest that everyone should be allowed to decide their own situation is either ignorant or dogmatic. Pretending everyone that works from home gets as much done as in person is either ignorant or dogmatic. Context is important. There are people working from home that shouldn't be. There are people working from an office that don't need to be. There is no single rule that will make everyone happy, nor should there be.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> To suggest that everyone should be allowed to decide their own situation is either ignorant or dogmatic.

Yet, this is exactly how the job market works.

[alex_lav]

Yes, literally everyone that wants to work from home is able to. That's what you're saying. That every single employable person decides whether to work from home?

Again, dogmatism.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

I see your point, but if you follow this avenue, any two arguments can be called dogmatic. Please try to se it differently: the other side doesn't insist on one solution, understands that people have different needs, that different jobs have different requirements, and opposes to one inflexible policy for everyone.

It's like having people who insist that everybody should wear shoes of the same size: you can call those who oppose this stupid idea "dogmatic" but it's just semantics.

[alex_lav]

> the other side doesn't insist on one solution

Are you not insisting on one solution that is "remote flexibility"?

> opposes to one inflexible policy for everyone.

Remote flexibility imposes remote peer requirements on everyone.

I understand that you want to work remote and have created a narrative in support of validating that desire. I'm saying if you can't see any valid reasons why an employer would choose not to do that beyond some pouty made up "Validating the purchase of office space", you're being stubborn just for the sake of it.