I think both our preferences are legitimate and people should be able to sort themselves into teams that suit their preferences.
I understand people are distressed about commuting and the office. I’m also distressed about the prospect of spending the majority of my waking hours over the next 30 years on Zoom. If that’s the way things are shaping up I need to go be a farmer or something.
Is this something you entertain as an actual possibility or shudder to think about?
If a company stays remote because you do not personally need social interaction at the office, what has just happened?
Your personal needs have been put above the personal needs of other employees.
(IMO companies stay this way because it’s simply cheaper and the hiring pool is bigger, but that’s not important in this discussion)
It just happens to benefit those whose prefer to stay at home.
In the US, this is only a benefit to bigger businesses or businesses with a presence in multiple states already (or those willing to take on quite a bit of new administrative work).
I work for a 15-person remote company based in a single state and the additional overhead required to understand taxation, labor laws, and other issues in even neighboring states is higher than you might think. We're putting it off and just hiring locally for now.
I’m in Portland, OR and pre-pandemic, we’d have no issue hiring someone in Vancouver, WA, because they’d drive 15 minutes to our Portland office. Now, we choose to turn them away because of the bureaucracy and worry that we’re going to do something wrong. One day we’ll have to cross that (metaphorical/physical) bridge, but we’re not there quite yet.
It’s really easy for big businesses that have big HR departments and/or already have a physical presence in another state. But for 15 people, one doing HR part-time, it’s just not worth it right now.
Also there are probably a number of firms that specialize in dealing with that kind of situation so you can get outside help affordably.
There's a difference between "just let me work the way I want" and "just make them work the way I want".
Ideally, those who want to work from an office could, while others on the same team could work from home, and everyone would be considerate enough to make it work. This is working well enough at my current company.
Again, this is putting the personal preferences of one group above those of another group. What you describe is only ideal if the office people don't mind working with the at-home people and vice versa. You don't have to be considerate of someone else's preferences if you're willing to leave for another job.
Personally, the next job I have will be office only with 0 off-site employees. It's my preference and hopefully I'll find a company whose preference aligns with my own.
Every decision a company makes treats people differently. The goal should be treating everyone fairly. If a person disagrees that they are being treated fairly, they can make their case and try to get something to change or they can get a new job.
The teams are going to be companies, in my opinion. There are going to be 'remote' companies and 'in person' companies. That's the only way this type of self-sorting will work, people won't join a company not knowing for sure whether they're committing to an in-person or remote working experience.
Thinking about it more, I guess you're right. There will always be sectors within organisations where it's considered that face-to-face meetings and working physically in the presence of other team members is necessary to make effective progress.