Are Return-to-Office Mandates Killing Workers' Trust in Workplaces? (thehill.com)
- Reference: 0184797160
- News link: https://it.slashdot.org/story/26/08/01/0420214/are-return-to-office-mandates-killing-workers-trust-in-workplaces
- Source link: https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5992056-office-attendance-backlash/
> A recent [3]EnhancV survey of 1,000 full-time U.S. workers subject to new or stricter return-to-office policies found that 72% suspect these mandates are really a voluntary attrition strategy — a strategy by their own employers to make them quit their jobs. A full 46% admit to the practice of coffee-badging. Thirty-six percent have applied for a new job while sitting at their current office desk. Thirty-six percent have started a side hustle since the mandate was announced, in anticipation of being let go or quitting. Those numbers do not prove that employees reject collaboration. They show that many employees no longer trust the official story...
>
> The central mistake in many in-office mandates is the assumption that proximity automatically produces commitment. It does not. A worker who spends two hours commuting to sit on video calls with colleagues in other cities is not experiencing culture. That worker is experiencing theater. When executives describe the office as a cure-all, many employees experience lost time, higher costs and lower autonomy. The policy's defining feature becomes its credibility gap. Research keeps undercutting the belief that more office time automatically means better performance. A [4]University of Pittsburgh analysis of S&P 500 firms found that return-to-office mandates reduced employee satisfaction without improving firm performance or firm value....
>
> Baylor University's reporting on [5]office mandates and brain drain found that firms with mandates faced greater turnover among women, senior employees, managers and high-skilled workers, while job vacancy duration increased and hiring rates declined. In other words, the people with the most options are often the first to leave. The employees who remain may not be the most committed — they may simply be the least mobile... Attendance can be mandated, but commitment cannot. When leaders confuse the two, they do not rebuild [6]workplace culture . They create a room full of people planning their exit.
[1] https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5992056-office-attendance-backlash/
[2] https://disasteravoidanceexperts.com/
[3] https://enhancv.com/blog/rto-stealth-layoffs/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[4] https://www.business.pitt.edu/return-to-office-mandates-dont-improve-employee-or-company-performance/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[5] https://hankamer.baylor.edu/news/story/2025/return-office-mandates-and-hidden-cost-brain-drain?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[6] https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/People-and-Organizational-Performance/Our-Insights/Returning-to-the-office-Focus-more-on-practices-and-less-on-the-policy?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Pretty simple (Score:1, Troll)
This utter hatred of going to an office has its roots in Covid.
Even in the article, it notes a 2 hour commute. Before the WFH situation grew people lived far away from their workplaces. During Covid times, many chose to look for cheap living expenses, and often lived much further away than 2 hours.
Now this was nice, rather like having our cake and eating it too. But a sober assessment would tell a person that it was not going to be permanent.
There are many positions that simply do not work for nev
Re: Pretty simple (Score:2)
iâ(TM)m not tracking why you think wfh is somehow necessary or even just better fir the enterprise in the current environment. it is it just resentment among coworkers?
Re: Pretty simple (Score:3)
I have been working from home for 15 years now. It was always attractive.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get why you think there is any "conundrum". WFH, or better, WFE = from elsewhere was a trend way before COVID, I went to 90-95% WFE by 2012. Sure there are some tasks that are better solved on-site, but they are few, and some planning wrt visits does it.
2012 was the year I just went for summer from the same city as the office was in to some village 800km away and did not even told anyone, it was already that seamless and expected.
Re: (Score:1)
> I don't get why you think there is any "conundrum". WFH, or better, WFE = from elsewhere was a trend way before COVID, I went to 90-95% WFE by 2012. Sure there are some tasks that are better solved on-site, but they are few, and some planning wrt visits does it.
> 2012 was the year I just went for summer from the same city as the office was in to some village 800km away and did not even told anyone, it was already that seamless and expected.
I don't get why you think that your personal situation is somehow applicable to everyone. I mean good for you. Your job supports almost total WFAand yes there are jobs like that.
If I were to claim mine was the standard, I would say that since I work 50 Percent from home, and 50 percent onsite, that is how everyone should work. There have been times I performed the non-site work in hotels while on vacation, so yeah, it's WFA. But this is not my point. My point is that during Covid times, there was a surge
Re: (Score:2)
Covid showed us that far, far more of us can successfully WFH than were previously doing so.
Yeah, IT is the low-hanging fruit here; but we now know virtually all white collar work can effectively be done remotely; and going further, unless your job specifically requires direct interaction with the product or customers, there's little legitimate reason to burn an extra 20% of our waking lives commuting. And that just to hang out in a noisy and disruptive environment full of people more interested in being
Re:Pretty simple (Score:4, Informative)
Im going to let you know that it was already allowed for introverts with high production to work from home. Before COVID WFH was allowed for quite a few people, including executives.
Those that do not earn an income off of physical labor, as you pointed out, waste personal time on daily travel that adds nothing of significance to the job. Is work being completed? Is there a concern with performance? Then address them, dont be scared to talk with the employee.
But they are scared, otherwise they wouldnt lie, they wouldnt worry about talking with the employee, and they wouldnt try some convoluted excuse.
There is nothing new here, except that the general public realized that the unnecessary bits were imposed upon them by Executives who are in charge of buildings they have a stake in or own, and freaked out when companies were re-evaluating the need for the physical presence.
The really good analysis was that WFH doesnt take away from the business. That was stated multiple times, and still is a valid point.
Re: (Score:2)
> Im going to let you know that it was already allowed for introverts with high production to work from home. Before COVID WFH was allowed for quite a few people, including executives.
I find it fascinating they my post pisses off so many people.
Yeah, there have always been careers that are not working in an office. This isn't about those. They aren't being asked to return to office. I'm speaking from the point of what happened in 2020 for a few years. If the job was performed onsite once, the employer will likely want that again.
This is utterly simple. If you have a personal requirement of never stepping in an office, that is just a personal requirement. Not one thing wrong with tha
Re: (Score:1)
If companies had to pay for your commuting time instead of just stealing it from you, they'd be way more interested in having as many employees as possible work from elsewhere.
Re: (Score:1)
Very much so, I've been full work from home for around 15 years now. They tried the whole 'return to the office after COVID with no work from home allowed' and it failed the first week because something broke right after they announced that change, and I didn't even look at it until 8 am the following Monday. When they asked why I didn't respond to the page - "You told me I'm no longer allowed to work from home. Answering pages and remoting in to fix things, is working, and I can't do that from home anym
Re: (Score:2)
While some companies allowed employees more ability to work remote due to Covid, some companies had those policies before Covid as they did not have enough office space for their employees. Now those companies are mandating workers make long commutes just to fight for desks.
Re: (Score:2)
> While some companies allowed employees more ability to work remote due to Covid, some companies had those policies before Covid as they did not have enough office space for their employees. Now those companies are mandating workers make long commutes just to fight for desks.
Which companies? Regardless, while I'm triggering everyone, I might as well restate, if you are opposed to going to an office and consider it a non-starter, it's time to look for a job that will give you the happiness you deserve
I'm just stating some facts that should be pretty obvious. [1]https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/v... [bls.gov]
I'm also stating why some people don't want to return to onsite, including FTA things like a 2 hour commute.
What is sort of funny is that while your post isn't angry, some are pretty
[1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-13/remote-work-productivity.htm
Re: (Score:2)
Disney. Even before COVID, a lot of folks did WFH at least on Fridays.
Prior to COVID, office space was tight. They did a bunch of "let's turn the conference rooms into cubes" move to try to make up for it. Former offices for executives became 2-4 person rooms. But even then, the chance that the majority of the attendees for any given meeting were in the same building was nearly zero. In FL there were at least a dozen different building each miles from the other. Add in CA and WA and most of your meeti
Re: (Score:2)
> If people have to be onsite while some programmer for the same company lives in some really low cost area
Absolutely no difference to one lucky on-site employee not paying rent or mortgage while others do.
> The conditions that made WFH the best path forward have changed.
Yeah, a C-level dick measuring contest appeared wherein company culture strength was measured by office attendance. Our CEO bragged about having better attendance than some friend of his.
Then they made attendance an inter-office compe
Re: (Score:2)
> This utter hatred of going to an office has its roots in Covid.
> Even in the article, it notes a 2 hour commute. Before the WFH situation grew people lived far away from their workplaces. During Covid times, many chose to look for cheap living expenses, and often lived much further away than 2 hours.
> Now this was nice, rather like having our cake and eating it too. But a sober assessment would tell a person that it was not going to be permanent.
Why isn't it permanent?
In many ways, it benefits the companies as much as the employees. Two companies I've worked for have been able to reduce their real estate footprint. Changing mandatory in-person weekend work to offsite saved thousands of dollars per day.
WFH employees who are sick are - by definition - already staying home. Myself and others have been able to choose to work while feeling iffy, rather than costing the company an entire day of productivity. Whole offices getting sick aren't an issue wit
Re: (Score:2)
>> This utter hatred of going to an office has its roots in Covid.
>> Even in the article, it notes a 2 hour commute. Before the WFH situation grew people lived far away from their workplaces. During Covid times, many chose to look for cheap living expenses, and often lived much further away than 2 hours.
>> Now this was nice, rather like having our cake and eating it too. But a sober assessment would tell a person that it was not going to be permanent.
> Why isn't it permanent?
Because the conditions that caused it went away. Because only a subset of job positions can be WFH only. Because those employees who have to go onsite might have a good reason to expect to be paid more. While I do 50/50 WFH - Onsite, if there was a person working only offsite and paid as much as me, I'd demand extra compensation for wearing suits, and work travel. They'd have to deal with it.
> In many ways, it benefits the companies as much as the employees. Two companies I've worked for have been able to reduce their real estate footprint. Changing mandatory in-person weekend work to offsite saved thousands of dollars per day.
I see - you appear to be saying that I claim that onsite work is a panacea for companies, I am not. But I will say sp
Re: (Score:2)
If your skills are in demand, being in the office demands a premium. I'd expect to be paid for the time commuting, and the cost of commuting, and some on top for the hassle. I don't really want to work more than 37.5 hours a week, so that costs a lot extra.
Re: Pretty simple (Score:2)
That's what I would look for if I was considering a job in the office. Does the extra salary cover transportation, time for transportation, parking, any "professional" clothing needed, any inconvienences to me because now laundry can't be done during the day etc.
Re: (Score:2)
> If your skills are in demand, being in the office demands a premium.
I agree. WFH only people probably think they should be paid the same.
I have a rather unique skillset. But application of that skillset requires onsite. I'm paid accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
> has its roots in Covid.
It exasperated it, but the hatred of going into the office has been a thing for far, far longer. Ever watch Office Space? (Interestingly, the number of software engineers who actually say Office Space, in spite of being a comedy, accurately reflects the hell they feel trapped in surprised me.)
Re: (Score:2)
You contradict yourself. Covid WFH showed us, explicitly, most jobs can be done in your underwear at home. The few jobs that can't? Those did not transition to WFH in the first place.
There is no reason to bring jobs back to the office, that ever left the office.
I'm lucky to have worked for two companies that saw the logic in this, and ended their real estate contracts after realizing the only job that needed to be in the offices were the front desk people(they got giant severance for their trouble, don't
The Hatred of an Office - A History Lesson. (Score:2)
> This utter hatred of going to an office has its roots in Covid.
The Remote Desktop Protocol and 128+ bits of entropy protecting a VPN tunnel, has existed for 20+ years now.
The same Remote Desktop Protocol that enables grown-ass professionals to not waste upwards of a fucking fiscal quarter** every calendar year sitting behind a steering wheel commuting to a job that could be done remotely.
The utter hatred of going into an office, has existed for a LOT longer than COVID-era investors refusing to degrade the 10x premium on dirt invested into your 401k and pension funds a
Re: (Score:2)
** - An hour-long commute, equates to 2+ hours a day sitting in traffic behind a steering wheel, wasted. 10+ hours every workweek, wasted. 40+ hours a month, wasted. 480+ hours a year, wasted. A fucking fiscal quarter of your salaried employees time, wasted sitting behind a steering wheel. You're damn right it adds up. CEOs should fucking learn the true value of Trusted Staff and RDP.
Retired, my jobs required being at work ! (Score:2)
Please note the RETIRED aspect and everything paid for !!! Where will working from home or contracted working at home get you when you want to retire ??? No if's, but''s. to it, where and what determines what you will have ?
Potemkin (Score:2)
> A worker who spends two hours commuting to sit on video calls with colleagues in other cities is not experiencing culture. That worker is experiencing theater.
It's Potemkin all the way up.
In my case attrition indeed was the goal. We all knew it. 15% of my team left, including both Linux devs. Apart from one person, all my peers were in other offices. RTO was just being on videocall in a room far from home.
Fortunately labour law was on our side, and they couldn't force me as remote work was written in t
ffs (Score:2)
Hard yes. We'd spent the better part of a decade trending towards WFH, open concept office, etc etc... now, there's not even enough seats. If we hit 100% compliance about a third of us would be sat on the floor.
The dumb sluts are still pushing for it.
I get the sentiment but... (Score:2)
I get the sentiment, but this article has very clearly been written by AI
"coffee badging" ? (Score:2)
JOURNALISM 101
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to enroll for the next semester? That's not how you enroll.
Filed under Duh... (Score:2)
"the people with the most options are often the first to leave."
Obviously.
My commute was 35 minutes each way, two hours would have been a real show stopper. Working remotely wasn't really an option at a chemical plant.
3 days a week at my place... but... (Score:2)
Whilst it is officially 3 days per week at my place there is clearly some shadow policy that HR aren't sharing. Firstly there is never a definitive answer about whether leave (regular, bank holiday or medical) counts. There are people signed off sick after surgery who get grief from HR for not attending the office FFS. And there is some peculiar 12 and 26 week average attendance that gets reported even though the policy that we can see doesn't mention those timescales at all.
But it gets worse. It's not jus
Re: (Score:2)
> Workers simply do not want to satisfy the job requirements, which includes set hours and physical presence. I also want to get paid without showing up or producing, but that's not the job.
TEr... not wanting to go to an office isn't "not producing," work from home is still working. You're combining two statements (one that is Captain Obvious-ing that people are taking issue with some of the office requirements, and then misconstruing them (while also, I'd argue, missing that the requirements ARE the point of contention and some can be out of date depending on the job).
Re: (Score:2)
These people aren't able to think with nuance. They're disposed to parrot the corporate line. They're not capable of considering anyone but themselves, their situation, and whatever sad sack they worked with that one time - and painting everyone with that narrow brush.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have you know I waste just as much time in the office as I did while working from home.
Re: (Score:2)
Cuz you're a true professional. One that will remain employed and employable.
The bitch-ass whiners, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Shitty managers deserve whiny employees.
where AI tangent? (Score:2)
I find it significant in the RTO debate of late, that I have not yet heard something along the lines of "Return to office or we'll give your job to AI!" (Perhaps with the argument added that any sufficiently digital artifact-based job that can be done remotely, can also be done by LLM.)
Perhaps this says more about the current state of AI than it does about this article's topic. Or perhaps not. Thoughts?
AI has not (yet) delivered sufficiently. (Score:2)
If/when it does there will be mass layoffs because the ideal business has no human employees.
The purpose of AI is to replace humans by facilitating legal constructive dismissal. Businesses are willing to invest enormous sums to be rid of workers.
Who cares? (Score:2)
Or rather who that matters actually cares?
Return to office was about commercial real estate property values so that a couple of billionaires who are heavily invested in it didn't lose their investments. Every single credible study has shown that work from home improves productivity and is universally beneficial because it gets people off the roads so if you are somebody who genuinely has to go into the office you have less traffic and cleaner air.
Nobody is going to care whether employees are happy o
I wish UK employees would push-back like USA (Score:2)
Quite sad that in the UK, the company and HR have won with forced return-to-office mandates, and there's been very little or no push-back by staff.
It's almost impossible to come across any job which is fully remote in UK now, unless it's a job from USA or a European company.
Wow (Score:2)
> They show that many employees no longer trust the official story.
Why did they ever trust the official story? [1]Lying has been standard in SV for a long time [nickoneill.com]. Obviously longer, but I can't find older links. A lot CxOs lie for no reason, in a transparent way that kills morale. I'm starting to think they [2]intentionally kill morale. [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.nickoneill.com/silicon-valley-is-filled-with-liars/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJUqZf3N9Fo
Re: (Score:2)
No, they just believe the job is needed by the employee more than the employer. They have no idea what the people who produce the goods to make the money, do.
Im sure the reason ranges from flexing, to ego, to wanting to validate their concerns about employees productivity.
All of this is validated by stories of extreme oversight, narcissistic bosses, and bad excuses they come up with for anything they do that is suspect.
Re: (Score:3)
It's much simpler than all that - Remote work proves management are exactly as useless and attention-seeking as we always suspected they were.
[1]Leaders equating line-of-sight supervision with effectiveness found themselves without their primary management tool [forbes.com]
[2]having well-trained, well-motivated managers leads to massive boosts in productivity from hybrid and remote working models. The data support this argument from the flip side, too. Among companies that reported struggles with remote work, this issue [lse.ac.uk]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/katewieczorek/2025/12/27/how-remote-work-exposed-weaknesses-in-corporate-leadership/
[2] https://researchonline.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/137524/
Re: (Score:2)
> , The study concludes that narcissistic leaders oppose virtual work primarily because it threatens their access to power and status, rather than out of concern for organizational productivity.
It's not narcissism, it's entirely rational: we are all working because of self interest, not because we care about the company.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you overall - I work because I need income to live, not because I give the least damn about my employer.
In my opinion, that's still drastically different than working because it gives me a captive audience of people highly motivated to kiss ass. Loyalty or not, I am invested in my work (as opposed to my job) - Doing it reasonably well is directly conducive to the company remaining solvent and me continuing to draw a salary.
Am I merely deluding myself by thinking doing the job well because i
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... I lost trust in my first full time employer decades ago when they tried to outsource my work to cheap Indian labor.
I then lost trust in my second full time employer when they tried to outsource my work to cheap Costa Rican labor.
For my third and fourth full time employers, I lost trust in them because they were giving me annual 2 1/2% "raises" that didn't even cover inflation while the companies were making record profits. I'm pretty sure they would have loved to outsource my job overseas as well, b