Show me one example of this.
I think they want it because they fear productivity losses that mean lower profits, and ultimately lead to the threat of becoming uncompetitive.
If you agree with that, is your position that these fears are irrational (because in your view, no such productivity loss would occur)?
Both effects depend greatly on whether most other employers in the industry agree amongst themselves on whether to allow WFH: If everyone allows WFH, or everyone forbids it, there's no incentive to change employers, so these are stable equilibria, all other things being equal. Employers prefer the no-WFH equilibrium since (they believe) that leaves productivity highest.
Bosses want rto because they can’t stand paying rent for empty space.
So for those large companies, the sunken cost is larger.
There are benefits to in office work. I don’t consider them valuable enough to offset the cost of 10hrs of uncompensated time every week or doubling my mortgage cost. I hope tax codes will incentivize allowing remote work options given the reduced burden to transportation infrastructure.