Nah. Remote. Full stop. Don't negotiate down. You're ceding power in a move that benefits no one except real estate investors. We've absolutely proven it sh

Nah. Remote. Full stop. Don't negotiate down. You're ceding power in a move that benefits no one except real estate investors. We've absolutely proven it should be optional and people can be extremely effective fully remote, but it makes downtown real estate investments falter so workers must lower their quality of life and savings to help the poor magnates and gov officials. Optional full remote is better for the environment, better for decentralisation of cities (sustainability), better for quality of life and money and time saved. Whoever doesn't like it can still go to an office. It also easily allows for cross region teams which happen anyway, even with return to the office mandates, where the move is so clearly arbitrary that people must go to join remote calls alone in the office and have no one from their own team with them. Don't just fold, is my advice. Corporations will just save costs and peddle BS HR like propaganda. If the office is so good that it's better than home then people will naturally go, if not, then so be it. Mandates show that it's not about employees or productivity but about real estate. Manager types also might prefer it due to their own situations and ease of going to the office but notice that higher levels will often be exempt from mandates. Again, get full remote jobs if you have a bit of leeway and slowly change the course. It's akin to game theory. The more people do it, the more common it'll be.