This seems odd in context. For example, the 'cost' of dedicating 20 sqft of your home to work is trivial compared to the time cost of commuting, which can easil

This seems odd in context. For example, the 'cost' of dedicating 20 sqft of your home to work is trivial compared to the time cost of commuting, which can easily amount to 5 hours per week, or a 12% premium on top of the standard 40 hour week. Why does it make sense to force employers to compensate WFH workers for the 'use' of floorspace when they don't compensate on-site workers for 250 hours per year of commute time?