Machining as a general practice is quite well suited to working from home. Living in an agricultural community, which as an industry demands a fair amount of machining services, I have several neighbours who make their living as machinists working from home.
I think this part of the problem deserves a lot more attention. There is a social contract aspect to employment and that only works when all the players think things are fair.
It simply cannot be good for the health of the economy if lots of important jobs are undesirable because they can't be done remotely and, meanwhile, the remote workers are sitting on the beach.
I suppose the invisible hand can correct for this to some extent but I think WFH and work-life balance is probably more valuable to most than higher salary.
If roles were reversed, maybe a programmer would quit to go flip burgers in order to be at home, but would a burger flipper quit to program at home where they otherwise would not quit to program in an office?
I suspect if the burger flipper had an inclination towards programming, they would quit to become one either way. So the social contract may not be impacted all that much.
1) Most people want to work from home, enough that they would feel significant envy of those who do even if their own job is one that cannot logistically do that (eg, plumber).
2) The people working from home are doing so in such opulent luxury that it creates more envy on top of that. ("...sitting on the beach")
It's quite plain from this forum alone—a forum which is heavily skewed toward knowledge workers of various types, and especially computer programmers, a job which, in terms of its basic requirements, can unquestionably be done from home—that if #1 is true, it is not by a vast margin. Many people clearly like going into the office. Many people with jobs involving in-person manual labor clearly love their jobs.
I think that the kind of "fairness" you mention in your second line is, indeed, very important—but I think that it's more about "you could be letting me do XYZ, like they are, but you're preventing me for arbitrary or selfish reasons," not "they're doing XYZ, but due to something fundamental about my circumstances, that's impossible for me." That is to say, it's more important for everyone whose job can be reasonably made remote to have the option to do so, than for every job in the world to have that option, including the ones where it's physically impossible. People are generally pretty good at understanding the inherent tradeoffs in such things, especially when they come to them after the initial transition has taken place and make an informed choice (obviously there's going to be more friction in the transition time—I don't think that's avoidable).
In short, I don't think there's more to worry about here than the already-existing (and likely permanent, at least until we get true UBI or something) state of things, that some people who have fewer options in the career they can choose to go into feel resentful of those who have more such options.
Anecdotal, but whenever the topic of work comes up among my friends and neighbors, and I disclose to them that I work from home, 100% of them say things like "Wow, good for you!" and "You're so lucky!" and 0% of them so far have said "Sorry to hear that... you must really miss your commute and face to face meetings!"
If you, instead, told that you were locked in your bedroom from 9-5 and if you so much as stop moving your mouse you will be instantly fired, "I'm sorry" would assuredly follow. It is not the "from home" part that you are being congratulated on.
Human contact... at least some people miss that. No, Teams is not the same.
But I'm surprised to hear that you think "nobody misses face-to-face meetings". At least in my office that seems to be the only reason anyone shows up -- people pop by the office when they have discussions, presentations, collaborative design sessions, etc and WFH otherwise. In several cases someone has explicitly polled the group chat the day before to find out who is thinking about to coming in -- if enough attendees plan to join remotely then we typically switch the whole meeting to be a dial-in only so it doesn't end up being one person calling in from an empty conference room and everyone else at home.
They'd say things like "That's great for you—I would never want that," or "Man, I could never work from home—our place is too small," or one of the various other perfectly legitimate reasons people have for preferring in-office work (that I don't happen to share, but still understand).
Again: the problem is with people whose jobs could allow them to work from home, who want to work from home, but who are not permitted to work from home.
That's not a problem with the people who work from home, and the solution isn't mandating office work for everyone. That's a problem with the employers who won't permit it, and the solution is unions.
A union is only a solution where workers are trying to screw over each other to get a leg up. The classical example is where a worker accepts lesser pay to ensure that they get the job over the guy beside him who wants more money. A union sets up a 'brotherhood' where the workers mutually agree to not undercut each other like that, allowing them to maximize their benefit.
Unions are not effective where the company is driving the bus. Going back to the classical example, a company that has decided that the work is worth $x and not a penny more, no union is not going to eke out more than $x. If a company is hell bent on the office being strictly necessary, there is nothing a union can do to change that.
Only if a worker is trying to screw over another worker by dutifully showing up to the office, where the company would otherwise be lenient towards WFH if that were their only choice, might a union be effective. Granted, perhaps you misspoke and this is what you really meant?
But that questions how effective the 'brotherhood' is when people are isolated from each other. It is one thing to honour your promise to other workers when you have to see them every day and face their scorn if you break the promise and continue to be an asshole. It is quite another when you have no connection to the other 'brothers' whatsoever – where you have probably never met, and may not even know that they exist. Unions are usually quite protective to ensure that doesn't happen. There is good reason why a software developer isn't normally welcome into a teachers union, for example.
What successful WFH-focused unions that have stood the test of time can we look at?
The various farmer unions fit the bill, perhaps, but I'm not sure they have proven to be all that effective. Farmers are quite good at screwing each other over and there isn't much reprisal when they do. The farmer unions that are enshrined by government rule fare better, but no doubt only because of a third-party (the government) holding the 'brotherhood' together. That is not quite the same as a 'brotherhood' by first-party accord.
Then find an owner/employer who gives you what you want. However an owner/employer has the right to want their work force in the office. I guess the staff that want WFH are not a large enough body to have employers accommodate them or warrant a union. AI and an increasing skilled temp worker pool probably dilute it even further. From someone who has had both manual labor and tech jobs, I am hoping the manufacturing sector revitalizes in the US. We need real things being made and the people with the skills to make them, repair airplanes and the other stuff we depend uoon, buy or make, and a more balanced work force.
Just one more thing to make those people unfortunate enough to find themselves in certain ruts to feel defeated by.