> the WFH stans argue in terms defined by the employers
that just naturally follows from the employer-employee relationship and the fact is WFO has been the default for decades. So, somewhere the onus is falling onto employees if they want to go against what the default has been
I totally agree the onus is on workers - employers spontaneously giving workers more rights is rare. I just think the onus is not on proving that WFH is good for everyone, and instead on bargaining collectively. Especially since these RTO orders seem to be veiled, free layoffs - arguments about productivity are totally hopeless.
If Amazon engineers unionised, this RTO mandate could be fought without appeals to employers' business motivations. Workers shouldn't have to grovel for rights, we hold as much power as employers, and refusal to wield it is what hamstrings rights efforts.
that just naturally follows from the employer-employee relationship and the fact is WFO has been the default for decades. So, somewhere the onus is falling onto employees if they want to go against what the default has been