The companies “fighting” against this stuff are mostly large and not necessarily aiming at the same target for “benefit” as one might think.

On the whole, remote work gave workers more agency. That highlighted that the control that some layers of management weakened in some ways. It also highlights that poor processes are more easily exploited. Companies don’t vet their employees well where that is important, but not mandated by customer contracts… thus we’ve learned that many frauds are trivially accomplished if you never see people.

On the flip, less remote may ultimately be in the employees interest. If you’re some high level JPMC employee making $500k from your ski cottage in Vermont… well let’s say your NYC salary doesn’t reflect the market, and if you can succeed in Vermont, you can probably be replaced by someone making $100k in Iowa, $50k in Latin America or less in Asia.

The loudest voices on HN and other places about the awesomeness of remote work are really celebrating their success arbitrage… which always cuts both ways.

Businesses are not Austrian spherical rational actors. They are run by people with their own agendas that have much but not perfect alignment with the company.

I think you are probably right, however it could just be that managers are paranoid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...

CEOs are not the living embodiment of a company. They are an agent with their own values too.

None are is a pretty wide brush. The ones that are not are not making news headlines. Only the companies demanding RTO are making headlines.

There are plenty of smaller start ups that are remote only. There are also companies boot strapping so they again are not making news with funding rounds.

TLDR Just because something is not in the news does not mean it does not exist.

pesky evidence