The technology exists to "just talk" in high-definition audio and video. If somebody isn't asking for help when they're stuck that's a people problem, not a remote work problem. There are several possible reasons for their avoidance; if multiple people are exhibiting the same behavior it could be cultural (specific to your workplace, not the person's upbringing). Using physical presence to force their hand is curing the symptom, not the underlying cause.

Especially these days where it's soooo easy to chat, video call, share screens, etc.

I'd like to think that you see "my 2 programmers" as "my team" but I've come to expect phrasing like "when we have our 2 programmers in office". That perspective emphasizes that we're all in this together, rather than serfs working for the benefit of the lord.

The "my programmers" phrasing plays into my prejudice that one reason you like having "your programmers" in office is the exhilaration you feel in seeing them at your beck and call.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/04/8110190...

I worked from home but a few times I needed to go to my parents house during what used to be rush hour. Less than 5% of normal traffic and fuel demand dropped so much that prices were lower.

My job went hybrid in 2022 and then return to office full time last year. Everyone hates it. It's a waste of time and resources.

Less pollution, less traffic means we don't need to use tax revenue to expand roads and less wear and tear means less repairs.

Take it one step further and give tax breaks to businesses that let employees work from home and close physical offices. Then this means less new office construction which can be used for housing to help the housing crisis. It's a win win for everyone except control freak managers.

Let me guess, you live in the West and don't need to worry about your family's basic needs being met?

Imagine if the world had aggressively invested in renewables at any time in the past ten years!

It does seem like a glaring contradiction, but it's actually not. In the West, at least, climate rhetoric is a tool primarily to discipline and control the masses through fear, with actual concern for the climate a distant secondary factor. This is why those elites can cry crocodile tears for the environment while also riding on private jets to private islands and staying mum about intentional environmental disasters caused in the ongoing wars (which they support, of course).

In the current fuel crisis, mandatory WFH is also an attempt to manage populations through controlled demand-destruction, which avoids more volatile forms of demand-destruction that result in unrest, like not being able to afford food.

From an (cynical) governance perspective, there is no contradiction here.

Truly the hero we deserve.

In fact, I've added two days working outside of home instead of one because of the benefits. I think 3 days home/2 days office is the sweet spot.

This claim might be true but it’s simply not showing up in the data which suggests that even if true, the effect is probably minor.

And for many people WFH has other problems - if you're a dual-WFH couple in a small home, lack of home office space is a very real problem. (Although if WFH was a permanent thing, many people could choose less expensive places to live, and have more space)

Still, anything to eliminate a miserable and environmentally wasteful commute.

Just observing, not saying it's a good or bad linguistic practice

I wonder what they call it in Iran?

Nobody is excusing war crimes.