> It is not more productive than being in an office, after all<p>One might argue that prior "in-office productivity" metrics were already too rosy since they did not include bazillions of man-hours of usually-uncompensated commuting.<p>To see why the issue contaminates measures of worker productivity, try a thought-experiment: For some supernatural reason, all office-buildings (but not homes) are periodically flooded with magic stupefying-gas, causing everyone inside to be stuck mindless and motionless for an hour per day.<p>Does it seem right to ignore that aspect of "office efficiency" versus "home efficiency", <i>just</i> because employers have a negotiating position that allows them to push the costs of that wasted hour entirely onto workers?
I guess not all work is suited for WFH.<p>Also, home has its own set of distractions, not more and not less then the home office does, but just different ones.<p>But now that we have all smelled (or even, God forbid, tasted) freedom, the true question for companies becomes: how badly do I want to retain this high-quality worker and how many days WFH will it “cost” me?