If those politicians capitalists could read, they would be very angry still not care.

Me too. Seriously hit my mental health because I was feeling so isolated. Even just two days a week from the office was better, the best for me personally is 4 days in the office, one or half from home.

My criticism towards most WFH set ups is that it erodes the unity of workers, making it easier for managers to pick on them. You end up knowing your coworkers less and therefore working less as a team.

• again, my personal experience.

I prefer working from my office. I don’t want everyone to be forced, however.

I like my colleagues, my boss is nice and we collaborate better together on site.

However, if I didn’t like my colleagues or my boss I would probably want to work from home full time. Or if I had an expensive or time consuming commute (10-15 min bicycle ride currently)

A bit harsh maybe on someone for enjoying to work in a different way than you?

There are always exceptions, including people who can’t manage their time and those that don’t have an adequate setup to work from home. We have an option to work from home several days a week but some people want to go into the office because it is a break from home or they don’t have a dedicated workspace and typing at the dining room table doesn’t work for them.

The big thing is that for those that can WFH successfully it is a huge positive for both happiness and productivity, and not having it as an option is a negative for them.

I like my boss and colleagues, but we have an option to work hybrid and working from home 3 days a week is awesome because there aren’t any office distractions and I get to do the in person thing for those that need it twice a week. Some people do go into the office every day because that works better for them, and the flexible arrangement works really well for everyone overall.

Now imagine: being home without working!

When I see this type of thing my default assumption is the actual source is ChatGPT. The article is attributed to “the editorial team” but that link just goes to a list of other articles and credits no-one. But somehow they’re putting out like 20 a day, all of them similarly lacking sources or authors, and only linking to other articles on the same site. Plus the writing style is full of AI-isms.

working does not make us thrive

Mandatory WFH isn’t as good as optional WFH.
After all it’s being able to choose, what makes most people with “WFH option” happy and thriving.
It sounds like you have found your balance between office and WFH. Now find a workplace that allows living that balance!
All the best!

Hybrid is the way

This article is based on verified sources and supported by editorial technologies.

Well then, list the sources, you twits. Also “editorial technologies” sounds suspiciously like “AI”.

The almost equivalent claim is that going to work sucks. This second claim is perhaps more instructive.

Now we need a genius architect to convert all of that office space into homes for the homeless. That includes changing any laws that would prevent that from happening.

Having a purpose makes us thrive. In some cases, it could be work.

There’s no superhero coming to save you. Bother your local city council yourself, or at least donate to groups who will.

Not when these losers are trying to make work from home look bad. I’m honestly betting it’s some middle management shill.

Different people prefer doing things in different ways, that should be obvious?

Anyone have a link to the actual study?

…Right?

“This article is supported by verified sources and supported by editorial technology”

Cool… So if those sources are verified you won’t mind sharing them with me?