The problem is that WFH decreases the workforce’s participation in commercial real estate.
Regarding tax breaks, I never saw any, but that was pre-pandemic. That makes more sense to me, but leases requiring minimum attendance counts seems like it could be an oft-repeated myth.
The lease is locked in. From the company's perspective, the building is now free, except for marginal costs per employee that shows up. So the only remaining math for the company to consider is, are the benefits that the company gains from an onsite employee greater than the $2/day it costs to provide coffee and toilet paper? Remember, the company is happy to outsource the cost of commuting to employees, and only cares about the value of the building if they own it. And they have great institutional difficulty in weighing intangible employee satisfaction against other perceived gains for the company.
Under this logic, I think it's easy to see why management, acting in the company's best interest, is pushing RTO so hard. If it costs employees $10/day but makes the company $3, that's free money.
The mental gymnastics folks go through to support one side or the other in this debate is just mind boggling to me, especially since their are much simpler and more likely pros/cons for both WFH and RTO.
1. Company leases expensive office
2. Realizes that no one has to work from the office anymore so they're wasting money on this office
3. Inconveniences everyone by making everyone return to the office
4. Profit?
The lease is a sunk cost. They can try to sublease it out or pay some penalty to get out of it. Even if they owned it, why would they force people to come into the office and not just sell it? If it's worthless to them, then again what they paid for it is a sunk cost and they may as well just sell it. And why wouldn't they try to greatly expand their application pool to non-local workers if WFH is just as good. It's insane.
I've never heard a reasonable explanation as to why managers are so invested in commercial real estate prices that they'll collectively organize and forsake their interests to keep up the mirage.
The more reasonable explanation is that a lot of people work bullshit jobs or can skate by doing very little. These people are harder to control and less visibility by WFH makes it very obvious and managers don't feel good about it.
The RTO/WFH debate can be so infuriating because there is so much dishonesty on both sides. Yes, WFH has huge benefits in terms of flexibility, reduced commuting, better supporting those with disabilities, etc., but it also has downsides in terms of less in-person motivation/support, loss of in-person mentorship for younger/newer employees, worries about building knowledge networks, loss of serendipitous interactions, and more difficulty managing performance for remote workers. Simultaneously, while I can understand the corporate desire for RTO, the reality of the work world has changed, so I see these stories of these execs pushing for RTO, then everyone gets to the office and is on Zoom 80% of the time because their colleagues are spread all over the place.
Just wish there could be more of an honest debate about the pros/cons of BOTH WFH and RTO, and to see how some/either/combo may work better for different employees/companies, without resorting to silliness like "business execs are feeling a ton of pressure to save the corp real estate market".