The author points out on several occasions why it makes more sense for employers to have people return to the office. Then, he delivers the punchline for WFH: "many employees simply don't want to return." That's it - no more, no less. Hidden in there somewhere is the assumption that no more justification is needed - if an employee doesn't fancy going to work, the employer should let them do whatever they want.

For the record, I don't think that this article accurately portrays the arguments on either side of the fence, and in my company we've accommodated both approaches, depending on the specific needs of the employees. But regardless of what your views are on this topic, I hope we can collectively agree that returning to the office is a more complex topic than just a matter of surveying what the (vast?) majority of employees would love to see happen. If that were to be the case, why not also survey how many hours people would like to work, how much PTO time they should have, etc.

The problem with fast-journalism articles like this one is that they make employees look like spoiled children, without properly discerning the many aspects of this pandemic which all have to be addressed for everyone's mutual benefit, including employees as well as the people who are signing their checks. Saying "many employees simply don't want to return" is not helping anyone.