> “Everyone do whatever you want” as a WFH/WFO policy is kinda like “everyone do whatever you want” as a “no peeing in the swimming pool” policy. Kind of, but

> “Everyone do whatever you want” as a WFH/WFO policy is kinda like “everyone do whatever you want” as a “no peeing in the swimming pool” policy. Kind of, but I dont really think the analogy works because if you flip it around its just as bad. "Everyone has to swim in the piss pool because I want to piss in the pool, but also want people to swim with". That doesn't sound agreeable either. "Nobodies allowed to piss in the pool" sounds good, but then circling back to it being an analogy, there needs to be a common consensus on which one is the piss-pool and which one is the clean pool, and there clearly isn't one. > On the contrary, as my preference is for hybrid flexibility it often seems like the most vocal WFH proponents would like to strong-arm every business to be full-WFH Depends on your definition of hybrid. To some it means you have some days in the office, some days from home, and for a lot of WFH folks (myself included), this is just as bad as WFO. If you mean people are kicking off because your allowed to work from an office but don't have to, I'll admit thats bad but its not something I've ever seen myself. I can't see the logic to it. > The full WFH folks can look for companies that do that; the WFO folks can look for that; and the hybrid folks can look for that Seems absolutely fair to me, though obviously for that to work, if people leave/don't take a job because it doesn't match their WHX preference, that shouldn't be an issue.