Happy to absorb a little rep loss here. People are taking the words "threat" and "stick" a little too literally and that's partly my fault for using them. I stand by my point though, however obscured.
When working remotely it is very easy to not communicate. It's very easy to lose track of what's important. It's harder for a team hierarchy to quickly throw things around. It's easy for people who need motivation to become distracted.
That's really what I mean. Just a visual reminder that "you're at work" makes the difference to some people. It probably works in the opposite direction for some others but in almost 20 years of doing remote work, that's never been my experience. Maybe it's because it's technical web stuff. Maybe we have a demographic of easily-distracted layabouts.
You can be technically excellent, and perfect for an on-site role, and still be rubbish at self-motivation. You shouldn't avoid hiring somebody for an on-site role based on their off-site performance. Or get better at managing that sort of person.
I guess what I'm really saying is the article is still wrong: you should never have to trust you employees. You should have enough contact with them to know what they're doing, how they're doing and what their goals are. That doesn't mean pinning them to the ground with a chair and torturing them, just some effective communication.