RTO: WTAF

Article Tone and Reception

• Several readers dismiss the piece as a rant with a “petulant” or flippant tone and stop reading.
• Others say they enjoy the humor and agree with the core anti‑RTO arguments, even if the style is abrasive.

Perceived Futility and Costs of RTO

• Many argue RTO often changes nothing but the location of video calls, especially for geographically distributed teams.
• Hybrid policies are frequently described as the “worst of both worlds”: empty offices, remote-heavy meetings from bad hardware, and long commutes for no added value.
• Objections include: wasted time, higher personal costs (commute, childcare, pet care), more fatigue, environmental harm, and strain on transport infrastructure.
• Some note egalitarian reasons: fewer commuters benefit those who must be on-site by reducing congestion.

Speculated Motives for RTO

• Common theories:
  • Inducing voluntary attrition to avoid severance or complex layoffs.
  • Using commute burden to suppress effective wages and weaken employee bargaining power.
  • Ego/status needs of senior leaders who want to be seen in person.
  • Sunk costs in real estate and image concerns about downsizing offices.
  • Pressure from cities that depend economically on office workers.
  • “Doing something” visible to show leadership is acting.
• Some contend it’s mainly about control and predictability rather than cost optimization. Others push back, saying layoffs could be done more directly, so motives are unclear.

Collaboration, Mentoring, and Culture

• Pro‑RTO side:
  • Claims colocated teams (when truly in the same office) collaborate and brainstorm better and that junior staff especially need in‑person mentoring and “learning by osmosis.”
  • Argues office presence builds internal networks, culture, and long-term careers.
• Anti‑RTO side:
  • Counters that mixed remote/on‑site setups erase most in‑person benefits and that many orgs were never designed for good remote or good hybrid.
  • Notes devs and other “nerds” have long collaborated effectively online; office politics and distractions often outweigh any gains.
  • Emphasizes that friendships and culture can be built remotely and are harmed more by forced interaction than by distance.

Childcare and Personal Life Impacts

• Remote work is described as especially valuable for parents of school-age children, allowing flexible schedules and avoiding before/after‑school care.
• Some say caring for very young children while working is unrealistic and was abused by some, but most agree RTO reinstates real childcare costs and logistical stress, especially for single parents.

Remote Work, Careers, and Global Labor

• One view: physical location is a key asset for US tech workers; going remote exposes them to cheaper global competition and erodes salary premiums.
• Others respond that:
  • Many US “remote” jobs still don’t hire abroad due to legal, tax, and timezone issues.
  • Offshoring has mixed results and isn’t simply a matter of intelligence but of communication, culture, and coordination.
  • If pure cost-cutting were the driver, firms would fully embrace global remote and drastically cut salaries, which they largely have not.
• A minority argues office presence is crucial for building a “career” vs just having a job; others reject this as unproven and ideological.

Measurement, Evidence, and Uncertainty

• Some participants actively seek hard evidence for corporate RTO rationales (layoffs, real estate, control) and find mostly speculation.
• Others point out that:
  • Proper long-term studies on remote vs office productivity, mentoring, and career outcomes are still in progress.
  • Companies have little incentive to disclose true motives, especially if they are unflattering or legally sensitive.
• One commenter stresses that remote can work very well, but doing it well requires deliberate processes; many firms find it easier to revert to office norms than to fix bad remote practices.