You have it backwards. Completely.
- I have no intentions of bringing my work home, work is a job, it has no place in my home impacting my family.
- I will not lose a part of my home to my jobs business. Its not their property, it is my home.i would rather the office be a bedroom so my children dont have to share a room.
- We evolved without video conferencing, it is natural and easier to meet with someone in person to convey emotion and understand people we meet with. It is too easy to dismiss someone over a screen, empathy is too easily lost. It is also harder to be ignored in person.
- I can see when my ataff are struggling off meeting or when talking to others and help them. This is a bit micro-managey however I value the insight especially for staff that struggle to communicate.
The only thing I loath about working in another building is: the commute and distractions. The commute is expensive and a huge waste of time. I try and minimise the time waste with audio books but its forced waste of money. The distractions can be minimised with headphones.
The realestate claim is just plain backwards. It does depend on the person, but making the claim that people in general are happy to donate part of their home to their employer and impact their families with work from home is just wrong. Emails instead of meetings should be common sense for status meetings and has no impact on the choice to work from home. Meetings that have agendas should be in person, especially if its on sensitive topics. All reasons I have listed above.
Some people sure do benefit working from home. I liked no commute, it saved a lot of money and wasted time but it made home worse.
We work to live. Work should have no place in our home.