Back in the day in Europe, there was an air controller strike where the media tried to frame it as a bunch of entitled, overpaid assholes, ruining holidays for everybody. It was disheartening to see how many actually fell for that message, asking why someone should make over 100k euro a year, instead of questioning why they themselves were making so little.
All of these argument about WFH seem to assume a job's real requirements should be something different.
A good example is people talk about companies wanting in person work to drive their real-estate value, ect.
The obvious answer is "OK, so thats the job they are paying you for"
Jobs that must be done in person will still be done in person, jobs that can be done remotely may be empowered to be done remotely. Employment is a negotiation, not edict from nobility. Maybe you have to prove the job can't be done remotely as an employer. That is a reasonable requirement.
Unions makes total sense, but not regulation or law.
If a company wants to pay a worker to stand idle in a building to drive up realestate value, that should not be a question of law or regulation.
>Jobs that must be done in person will still be done in person, jobs that can be done remotely may be empowered to be done remotely.
This is already reverting to the assumtion that the "job" is something different than what the employer dictates. Part of the job can be to meet in person.
Having to prove the job cant be done remotely is already redifinging "the job" as something other than what the employer wants. Who exactly is running the company here?
I do however understand that some people think the role of the government is to just be a big labor union