Two random notes: > A hybrid solution is probably best IMVHO definitively not because of some practical aspects: a company needs offices to host workers, and

Two random notes: > A hybrid solution is probably best IMVHO definitively not because of some practical aspects: a company needs offices to host workers, and using them less they are paid and less used, also people need gears, witch means or moving stuff around or have two set of anything. Surely, offices can be rent, can be smaller etc but I see exactly no reason to even try hybrid setup. It's like at war having two generals with opposite ideas and decide to put themselves in the middle, witch means something that does not work in BOTH cases... Not counting the fact that for hybrid setups remote workers still need to be at a reasonable distance to reach the office as needed cutting some economic and life options for many... > Some people do take advantage of WFH and work less. Some people who cannot WFH feel it is unfair. Normally we should be paid for the value we gives to the company, not for how hard we work... If with much less effort I do more there is nothing wrong from the company POV, at maximum I might feel overqualified or being happy with the load. The complexity lay IMVHO in the fact that there is very little experience in WFH on scale, witch scare many, there is incertitude for the future so many do not want to invest in something new until the society stabilize etc unfortunately like for ANY "new" thing we can't have "young and experienced workers". We can progress taking risks and eventually profiting from results or remain as we are giving up progress, research, development. Both can work a bit, until something break things again. Since we have only one life and no undo for it I prefer exploring instead of remaining locked. With care, surely, taking time to live and breath but still evolving.