WFH was instituted as an emergency response to COVID-19, thus it can't really be stated that employers forced WFH upon employees capriciously.
Enlightened employers can and have seen the value of hybrid policies that take employee preferences into account: those who prefer at-office can choose to come in, and those who prefer remote can choose WFH.
The disagreement is when an employer is unwilling to work with the employee to reach an understanding that benefits both mutually.
Taken from the other perspective, were a company to become entirely remote, then it could be seen to ruin the relationship for employees who had wanted to come into the office.
That is the case here: what is ruined is that no attempt has been made to reach a middle ground, whereby those who wish to remain at the office can do so, and those who prefer WFH can do so.
It is this reluctance to appreciate the learnings from our collective covid experience: that WFH is a significant boon to a large percentage of employees, and indeed is a competitive advantage, that has ruined an otherwise wonderful working relationship with an employer.
And thus, the only response is to look for employers who appreciate WFH as the competitive advantage it is.