I wonder what the impact of quiet quitting, loud quitting, and other highlighted extremes that dont reflect the vast majority of enployers had on some of these decisions.
I had several teams abused remote work. From not doing much of anything to working multiple jobs. We still have remote work at Stream, but it's reserved for teams where recruiting is very hard and performance is excellent. I think almost all companies are cutting back heavily on remote work.
That sounds like a problem to do with employees rather than remote work. With a group of bad employees, bringing them back into the office means you have to babysit them with an adult, costing you money. IMO between deliverables, code metrics and the like you should just identify and fire these people regardless of where they work.
Yes it absolutely is and it spoils it for everyone, but it's super hard to filter that out. One can be a super performer with a great resume and still just not work at all when it's from home.
Why does it spoil it for everyone? Is there some reason they can work in an office and be more performance without having to hire someone to sit on them? Aren't they just bad employees wfh or wfo? I think the solution is just be a good manager.