[wiseowise]

> I would also not judge you for having your own preferences and opinions. I too prefer working in an office to remote work, but when I say this out loud other developers take it as advocating RTO or saying remote work is worse when it just doesn't suit my personality. I get that it's a touchy subject but there is no need to get up in my face about it.

You ever wonder why? Serfes finally got freedom after corona, but apparently some actually prefer to be in a serfdom instead of having freedom to choose for yourself. You're being a useful idiot for managers, that's why you get backlash.

[TRiG_Ireland]

That is a very strange (and very emotional) take. I find it easier to focus with some other people around me, so long as they're being quiet. An office (or a library) is easier to work in than my house. I also really like the idea of separation between my home and my workplace. If I was rich and had room in my house for a separate office I could close the door on when the workday was over, perhaps I'd feel differently.

So I'd prefer to work in an office, so long as it was nearby and the commute was short and my officemates were fairly quiet. This does not mean that I'm "advocating for serfdom". Working for an employer is no more (and no less) serfdom in an office than it is at home.

[array_key_first]

The main problem with the office work versus WFH debate debacle is that the positions are not on equal footing and, actually, are not equally valid.

Working in an office as a preference is one that naturally relies on the control of other people. The reason people like working in an office isn't because of the office. If you went to the office, by yourself, it would be worthless. The value of the office is the communal nature of it.

So, one position naturally requires forcing other people to work where they might not want to, and one doesn't. With WFH, you can work in an office, nothing is stopping you.

When you say you prefer working in an office, you aren't stating your preference. You're stating what you arbitrarily think everyone elses preference should be.

[nazgul17]

I feel like you're putting words in someone else's mouth. Maybe you are not responding to OP but, in your mind, to an ex-colleague that did so in a different venue than this forum?

In a forum like this, stating your preference is just that: stating your preference.

If you were talking with your manager and stated your preference, you'd be stating your preference and, between the lines, asking to make it happen for yourself.

If you were talking with your manager and stated your preference and specified the reason is because you prefer working around people, only then, between the lines, you'd be asking to make it happen for your whole team.

[array_key_first]

I agree, the preferences don't do anything unless used as a collective. But from the point of view of comparing the viewpoints, they're not apples to apples, because one requires the cooperation of other people. WFH isn't actually 'from home', it's from not-office-with-everyone-else. So if you just want to work in an office, then WFH is perfect for you. Arguably even better than working in the one and only office, because you get to choose the office.

But the buried lede so to speak is that RTO has literally nothing to do with the office. The office is just an empty box that happens to exist somewhere.

So the level of control for each preference is wildly different, and they can't just be compared like that. One is naturally 'closed', and the other naturally 'open'. That, to me, does speak to the intrinsic value of each preference.

[Kerrick]

> Working in an office as a preference is one that naturally relies on the control of other people.

Not at all. Working in an office as a preference is one that can instead rely on working with other people who also share that preference. No control is necessary.

[array_key_first]

Right, sure, until one of your employee's eventually says "hey I want to work from home because X, Y, Z" and you have to force them to be in the office or fire them. Because everyone else's comfort, supposedly, relies on this person's discomfort.

With such a preference I can't help but wonder:

1. How genuine is it? Where is the "cutoff" point where in-office work no longer works? Do we need 100% compliance? What about 80%, is that good enough?

2. What, materially, do you gain from the preference and does that material gain actually rely on the preference? From what I've heard, 99% of the time it does not.

[TRiG_Ireland]

At what point did you decide that I have employees?

I find that I work better in an office, depending on the office. I'm in no position to enforce that position on anyone. (I'm currently unemployed and looking for work, in fact.) I find that I dislike giving up room in my small house for work. And I dislike having no separation between work and home.

These are all personal preferences. Nothing is being enforced on anyone. Your reaction is overblown.

[array_key_first]

Right, I understand all of that, but the indisputable reality is that such a preference requires actions from other people to be satisfied. That's just what it is - in office work requires people working... in an office.

This isn't a reaction on my end, I'm just explaining where the value judgment of the preference comes from. It's intrisincally a "closed" preference, and people don't like that generally.

You are not in a position of power to exercise said preference, you rely on the goodwill of your company. That's fine, but still, you exert some influence. People are listening, and some of them do have the power to exert that control. So when you say "I like that control", it makes people a little nervous.

And, onto my whole "does this actually require in office work" point:

> find that I dislike giving up room in my small house for work. And I dislike having no separation between work and home.

This is that. None of these preferences require in office work, that's just a close enough proxy. I would argue these are more obtainable in a WFH environment, because the cost savings of WFH can easily afford you a dedicated office space away from home.

Because, again, one is open, and one is closed. So with the open one you can just do that.

[venturecruelty]

Nobody is stopping you from spending time breathing the same stale, rhinovirus-ridden air as other people. What people take umbrage with is the idea that the rest of us should be forced into propping up the commercial rental market as well.

[diordiderot]

Dude chill. It's an air-conditioned room with desks and a coffee machine, not a cotton field.

Some people like having an office.

I could call someone like you a hyper dramatic agoraphobic socially inept recluse over a simple posted opinion but that wouldn't be kind,fair, or mature

[wiseowise]

> It's an air-conditioned room with desks and a coffee machine, not a cotton field.

It's a huge open space filled with stale, stinky, dry office air, obnoxious people and dirt. Conditions are not cotton field or not cotton field, only serfs think like that.

> I could call someone like you a hyper dramatic agoraphobic socially inept recluse over a simple posted opinion but that wouldn't be kind,fair, or mature

Projecting much? My home setup costs costs more than half of that "office" combined, and that's just my room.

Do you seriously think I want to kill my back, my eyes and my attention for 40 hours a week when I can comfortably work at home and be much more productive instead of playing clown because some bubs can't tolerate working without distracting another person for 5 minutes?