I don’t disageee. I don’t see much value in 100% on-site work, but at the same time..100% WFH is not viable or feasible and employers would never and can never

I don’t disageee. I don’t see much value in 100% on-site work, but at the same time..100% WFH is not viable or feasible and employers would never and can never agree to giving the employees that kind of bargaining power. It is also an ‘American solution’ to an ‘American problem’ that is mostly a fantasy. It may work for a handful of tech industry trailblazers. But it is interesting to note that the segment of WFH supporting population are largely from the same family of employees that were coddled by the likes of Google and Facebook who infantalised their employees in the name of work perks to make their workplace ‘fun’. They just overworked the kids. It backfired. It became a golden cage. My point..I guess..is that neither extreme will work. Flexible models gives both employees and employers negotiating and bargaining power. There has to be some ‘give and play’ for both sides. There must be a middle ground somewhere. Hybrid/flexible is the only fair and rational solution. I would propose 20 flexible hour work weeks with maybe half of those hours on demand onsite work depending on the kind of work.