> Work is a third of our life, and it seems reasonable that many people would want social interaction during that time
Yeh thats reasonable enough. I do miss the social aspects of working in an office, I just don't miss the logistics of it like the commute, or the cost, the social pressures or the lack of freedom. As you say work is a third of our life, it seems reasonable that people wouldn't want it to be any more consuming.
> You think WFH is every individuals choice in this new world. It isn’t.
You say this and then don't really expand on it further. Do you mean its not a choice for those not in IT? Of course we all know this, thats the point, if you can do your job from home it should be a choice thats open to you. Its not for everyone, thats the problem.
> WFH is a group decision. Don’t think it’s morally superior to choose WFH.
1. No its not. Its an individual decision. It affects a wider group, as does any individual decision, as is the decision to force working in an office.
2. Nobody said its morally superior, other than that it seems to me morally superior not to force decisions on people because it makes you personally happy.
As for the arguments on community, that community mainly seems to be involved with shops and land mass. I'm not sure I'd call that a community, at least one thats not corporate controlled or impossible to replicate remotely.
What I mean by "WFH is not an individual choice" is that in the post-COVID jargon, WFH is a company policy. And when people advocate for WFH in this environment, they are implicitly advocating for no one to be in the office - because me being alone in an office park because everyone else is at home does nothing for my ability to collaborate or have a positive work experience. As someone else stated, I think the end result will be different companies choosing how they want to have their workforce operate, and workers deciding whether to work for a WFH or WFO company.
And I do think some are saying WFH is morally superior in that they think WFO is something "forced" on introverts. My point is that WFH is something "forced" on extroverts. Introverts' decision to WFH affects an office advocate as much as an extrovert's decision to have everyone work from office affects a WFH advocate.
> What I mean by "WFH is not an individual choice" is that in the post-COVID jargon, WFH is a company policy.
Ah, apologies, that makes much more sense, though it is of course an individuals choice as to whether you will work somewhere that allows WFH or not (all factors considered, of course).
> As someone else stated, I think the end result will be different companies choosing how they want to have their workforce operate, and workers deciding whether to work for a WFH or WFO company.
This seems to be a fair solution, though I don't think we're there yet. If a big tech company decided to declare itself as entirely WHX, you'd get a wave of people resigning (because it doesn't match their preference, so they're going somewhere that does), which would restart the whole fight over it, which is why a lot of companies are still in this middle ground of not doing anything yet. But after that initial wave you'd hope it'd get a lot more smooth, and it'd just be treated as any other job preference thing.
> I do think some are saying WFH is morally superior
I haven't seen this myself, but as another commenter pointed out there are of course bound to be a load of subcultures on both sides. I'm sure there are some that say WFO is morally superior. But I don't think the majority of either group are saying that.
The issue is the moral weight of action vs inaction. WFO advocate for action from people who don’t want to do this. WFH do not advocate for an action. WFO do suffer from inaction of WFH, but in almost every moral system suffering caused by inaction is preferable to suffering caused by forcing someone to act.
Yeh thats reasonable enough. I do miss the social aspects of working in an office, I just don't miss the logistics of it like the commute, or the cost, the social pressures or the lack of freedom. As you say work is a third of our life, it seems reasonable that people wouldn't want it to be any more consuming.
> You think WFH is every individuals choice in this new world. It isn’t.
You say this and then don't really expand on it further. Do you mean its not a choice for those not in IT? Of course we all know this, thats the point, if you can do your job from home it should be a choice thats open to you. Its not for everyone, thats the problem.
> WFH is a group decision. Don’t think it’s morally superior to choose WFH.
1. No its not. Its an individual decision. It affects a wider group, as does any individual decision, as is the decision to force working in an office.
2. Nobody said its morally superior, other than that it seems to me morally superior not to force decisions on people because it makes you personally happy.
As for the arguments on community, that community mainly seems to be involved with shops and land mass. I'm not sure I'd call that a community, at least one thats not corporate controlled or impossible to replicate remotely.