My point is that we (those of us who support WFH, because I am one of them) do not come to this debate from a position of strength. Our argument always seems t

My point is that we (those of us who support WFH, because I am one of them) do not come to this debate from a position of strength. Our argument always seems to rely on anecdotal evidence and trying to string together reasons like you did here which literally means nothing to senior leaders who want RTO. They hold all the cards and can choose any reason they want to justify it and you are bound to their whims of where your place of work is located if you want to continue receiving a paycheck from them. The uphill battle is ours. Office layout studies do not get us there because organizations will redesign if they perceive that the office layout is a problem. Sick building studies do not help because they already have legal obligations to provide good environmental quality in their workspaces and most comply. Frankly even your active shooter and security concerns do not help because I bet there are plenty of statistics that can be gathered that will show that a person is much more likely to encounter violence within their homes than at the office. Sunk cost fallacy is only real if the only reason they want RTO is because of RE investments. Some companies might lose good people, but my suspicion is that this will even out over time. As more companies RTO the remote jobs openings will slow down a bit and soon you could find a that remote gigs become less and less available and harder to find, you will see people that quit because of RTO softening their stance on in office if it becomes difficult to find well paying remote gigs. To be in a position of real strength on this issue, we need real reputable studies that show a measurable and significant increases in productivity to the organization if workers are remote. That is literally the only reason that has a hope of convincing an organization hell bent on RTO to change. It has to be a significant increase—-eye opening levels. Tiny net improvements don’t matter, because most leadership will convince themselves that they can manage up small levels of net productivity differences. Until that day we are going to be fighting an uphill battle against a more powerful enemy with an insufficient arsenal.