[BadHumans]

> Hang on, why would I rent office space, to WFH? I don't mean to be blunt but I this seems ridiculous.

>If it works for you I'm happy for you. For me I like that clear separation where it's not easy to slip into working beyond your time.

You answered your own question. The article is using work from home as a catchall term for remote work but not everyone who works from home wants to literally work from home. Some companies will even reimburse you if you want to get a membership at a co-working space.

[itohihiyt]

If I did I can't see it.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance for assuming we were talking WFH instead of remote working. I got confused when it stated work from home instead of remote working.

Either way "some companies" ain't mine, and I'm not being out of pocket for work.

[dublinben]

>and I'm not being out of pocket for work.

Are you paid for the time spent commuting? Are your transportation expenses fully reimbursed?

[itohihiyt]

That's a definite false equivalence.

[albedoa]

[flagged]

[itohihiyt]

If it's silly and pedantic to assume we're talking about the thing plainly stated in both the title and body of the article, then yes I am.

Now if you're actual stance is that when someone says WFH you include all remote work then we are clearly talking about two different things. In which case it should be plainly stated. As it stands it just seems to me you were moving the goalposts.

For clarity WFH when I say it means a type of remote work where you work from you home. You can set up as many straw mans as you want but this it what I've been discussing from the start.

Ultimately WFH is a matter of opinion. I don't like it, you do; and that's fine.

[albedoa]

[flagged]

[itohihiyt]

You started by moving the goalposts, then set up strawman arguments, and now resorting to ad hominem attacks. Pathetic really.

But I stand corrected, apparently: WFH != WFH. Good to know.