The title of the original story: "Fed-up managers declare WFH is over, as 77% say they’d fire you or cut your pay for not coming back to the office" And the r

The title of the original story: "Fed-up managers declare WFH is over, as 77% say they’d fire you or cut your pay for not coming back to the office" And the reasons the article describes are more along the lines of managers feeling that they cannot manage remotely, not worrying about their relevance. The underlying reason might of course be worries about relevance, but that is not the content of the article. I think it is worries about job-security. If everyone is remote every worker can be replaced by someone cheaper from some region with lower wages. As mangers are at the same location as their underlings, their relevance vanishes with local workers.