News Rockstar requiring employees to work at the office for 5 days a week to finish GTAVI and employees are not happy

[darthdiablo]

If anything working from home can perpetuate the idea of always being on the clock. If your office is right there, you can always get something done! Right?


For some, I'm sure this is true, but let's not pretend a home is necessarily free from distractions.

I don't know how you got "home is free from distractions" from my other comment either.

Time spent commuting is outside of work hours.
"tons of distractions" like people you need to collaborate and work with being right there in the same room instead of on the end of e-mail or a chat window?

Nintendo/Japanese devs were quite open during the pandemic about working from home being disastrous for their productivity. I get that Western studios might be set up for it better, but let's not pretend that WFH is unequivocally "better".

Just as a FYI, I have had a 20+ year career (software engineer), first half working in offices in various corporate headquarters and the 2nd half (since 2014) working from home.

It's not as cut simple as you think it is. Yes, you would think time spent commuting is outside work hours.

But as someone who actually WFHs, I've found myself working into time that would have been used for commuting time (thus, increased productivity). And often beyond the time that would have been used as commuting as well.

Also, don't forget some factors such as not wanting to open up work laptop for those who commute while at home, while those who WFH often have setup that makes it much easier to continue work (compared to those who bring laptops home and going "bleh, I don't want to take it out of laptop bag and open it up". Not to mention other employees might not be given laptops (only have a desktop), which they cannot take home with them.

"tons of distractions" like people you need to collaborate and work with being right there in the same room instead of on the end of e-mail or a chat window?

Uh, no. Those would not be "distractions", I don't know why you would term those as such. I'm referring to things like entering a cubicle area, chatting with your coworkers, discussing where to go out for lunch together, and then chatting at lunch. Those happen almost daily, those factor can really add up over a year whereas in WFH settings, I can go to my kitchen, fix myself a sandwich, then just return to work immediately.

My chat sessions with coworkers in WFH setting is asynchronous. I can send a message "Have you checked out Balatro? Great roguelite card playing game!" - the coworker doesn't have to respond to me right away on Slack, if s/he is busy at the moment. I then get response a hour or two later, then our conversation continues, we are not "disrupted" by those conversations like we would be in office settings if we were focused on something at the moment.

I know there's pros/cons to both WFH and office settings, but in my experience, as someone who have actually spent 10 years working in office setting, and then 10 years WFH, I would never apply for another job in office setting again, chiefly for productivity reasons alone.

Fortunately, in my experience, companies who hires a high number of software engineers have been catching on to those observations as well. Part of my benefits packages is unlimited PTO as well (and they even strongly encourage you to have 2 weeks off minimum per year). Those type of companies are smarter, they strive to make employees happier while in the exchange also seeing higher productivity overall across company (not just from software engineers but from product, sales, support, etc teams).

 

[Aether]

IME any benefits from in-place discussions rather than Teams with screen sharing pale into insignificance compared with the huge benefits in concentration and productivity in a comfortable, silent environment with less interruptions plus no commute.

My colleague is way clearer in person, has more patience to. I get rather fatigued sitting at low Res teams streams and listening over a headset, way faster then in person.

If a task is more developing and less discussing/planing/designing or if the team is really well in tune, im with you. But if some members are also on other projects, and if you have fresher members, or if you want to ask other teams, there is a benefit in office work.

The elons and so forth only want total control, but personally I would never want 100% WFH, not only for communication, but also connecting with colleagues on a personal note (harder for mi over teams) and for personal health (just sitting in home office would be bad for my mental health, but the commute every day is also annoying and draining.

It's a highly individual question if one, the other or a mix is best, depending on the team and oneself.

That's why I'm ambiguous for them wanting the people in, we don't know the structure, reasoning, technical limitations, legal implications, etc

I am in mainland Europe though and from what I understand, American working culture is quite different.

Yeah that to. Feels like there you need to fight every step to not loose benefits.

 

[PixelKnight]

I'm mixed. WFH is a huge win for many people, and companies try to revert it back, we need to work against that.

At the same time: it's a luxury that other professions don't have, and in critical times (pre release) where a lot of minute details need to be communicated, individual works need to be in the final assembly, communication loops need to be shorter...yeah, software projects definitely benefit from it. In my own experience.

No, not everything can work just as fast over teams. No, not everybody can stream huge amounts of data over his network, while offices can. No, it's not as easy to get a hold of another department as if you just move 3 rooms, and if there is a problem with your tools, it's easier and faster to fix it in person then online, and if it's a hardware issue it's not even fixable.

WFH should be here to stay, but release time is one where I'm understanding the call for office hours... Or at least a reduction for WFH.

BUT: there needs to be som leniency for people that can't (kids, health...) And it can't be for to long (2-3 months I get, 6 is pushing it hard and needs a proper explanation)

Seriously, 6 months of crunch is basically trying to do a years work in half the time to hit an unrealistic target. It’s either a failure of project management or unforeseen difficulties, either of which the workforce shouldn’t be punished for.

 

[shoptroll]

Considering the massive leak they had a couple years back I get the security concern.

But the rest of this? Yea, no. Just another set of out of touch managers chasing the current RTO push trend. Get out of here with that noise.

 

[Brofield]

I'd be pissed, too.

C-suite executives trying to justify paying the property taxes on an office building that's been sitting 40% vacant and they're taking it out on their employees. The game will be delayed to 2026 regardless, I don't know who they're fooling.

 

[Mer.Saloon]

I feel the conclusion from these conversations is that while both work from home and in the office have their pros and cons, the option for either is healthier than either being mandatory.

 

[Hocot8]

I'm not being ignorant, I'm just also not being hysterical. It's presumably a temporary measure now that they're at the end of the development, they want all their staff in one place to be more efficient. I'm amazed they were allowed to work from home so much prior to this tbh. There's plenty of awful practises in the gaming industry, this is not one of them.

Yeah I mean you're just talking by me completely not understanding the points and obvious concerns being made.

 

[Wiencek]

If it’s an illusion of choice then why say you chose to go in? And then again you mention flexibility here which is seemingly not given to those at rockstar with this mandate. So did you choose of your own accord to go back but have flexibility to still work from home (not the situation here) or were you forced back like just said with this illusion of choice?

Anyway sounds like you a victim just like the Rockstar employees. Why must timelines always be frantic and high priority, especially for non essentials like video games and cars, unsustainable and unconducive to good work when everyone’s under high stress.

Also do not misread and misinterpret what I said, I did not say WFH avoids crunch I said they should be able to work from and also not be subjected to crunch.


If you never stop and think of ways in which the world can be a better place you grow complacent in the mediocrity we live in, things don’t need to remain stagnant in collective suffering.


This is obviously nefarious tactics from a greedy evil corporate entity that has little care or respect for their workers as humans and not profit maximizing tools, like please come on people.

For misinterpretation I am sorry, I conflated those two things because one of the main arguments against full office at Rockstar is that it will allow crunch which is not entirely true. I am aware of psychological ways to make people think that they should stay in office for longer by virtue of them comparing their work time to others in office but it is not the only way. And like others said, WFH can also easily make people keen to clock additional hours.

Coming back, the choice is an illusion because if we wouldn't chose that it would bite us sooner or later, we want to avoid that (we have our own set of leasons learned). We also have flexibility just because we are relatively small and mostly experienced set of people but even then we are formally allowed to work in hybrid 2 days office 3 days WFH. Full WFH is possible only if justified (kids, medical problems, car problems etc.).

Also please do not try to make me a victim of anything. I'm a grown adult and before my current situation I was working full WFH for 2 years. At the beginning it was like a breath of fresh air but with time it started to be demotivating. I don't argue to be stagnant, I fully believe that incorporating WFH is the correct way but it has it's own set of disadvantages to consider. Main one being that 100% WFH is not a perfect solution for everybody and for every type of work. Less experienced people also sometimes need additional handholding for which office work is also preferred.

As for why everything is frantic. It's just how it goes saddly. Even with all the experience myself or anybody else has we can't predict every problem that can arise because every project is different. And those problems like to show up at least convinient times. I can try to use my experience to avoid them but they always find us and in those moments quick decision making and flow of information allowed by office work allows us to deal with them quicker with less time for stress to build up.

My main conclusion is that what might be preffered by some is not the best way to do everything all the time by everyone. I would prefer for everybody to have options but I also know that some options can be easily exploited.
How will this decision work out for Rockstar remains to be seen. Hopefully it will not lead to more layoffs, crunch or just making morale so low that it will be counter productive for them.

 

[ohlawd]

whatever I'm never ok with losing time of my day to commuting for work. that shit is unpaid too it's normalized robbery. why is communication being worse between coworkers during my work any of my problem tho

 

[PixelKnight]

I feel the conclusion from these conversations is that while both work from home and in the office have their pros and cons, the option for either is healthier than either being mandatory.

Absolutely. Choice is best. Some people prefer to work in offices, and sometimes it’s the fairest thing to do, particularly when new members of staff join and they are likely to need a lot of help for the first few weeks, do some networking or don’t have suitable space to work at home. But forcing people into the office as a blanket rule when they don’t need to be there to put in 8 hours in front of a computer with the odd meeting is just outdated.

While I prefer to work from home, if people prefer to head into the office I have zero problem with that. But the other way around often seems to involve jealousy, presenteeism and unfounded accusations that people working at home aren’t working as hard, which is the same shit that always gets thrown at people who job share, have childcare arrangements with the office or otherwise don’t do a 9-5, Monday-to-Friday-in-the-workplace work pattern. Having flexibility in work patterns to allow people to decide for themselves what’s healthier and more sustainable in terms of productivity, creativity and work/life balance is the way forward when the cost of living requires even families to have two working adults and manage childcare/school arrangements on top of commuting, let alone those living alone who could often do without adding commuting costs on top of their housing expenses.

 

[Lucifer]

whatever I'm never ok with losing time of my day to commuting for work. that shit is unpaid too it's normalized robbery. why is communication being worse between coworkers during my work any of my problem tho

I've always said that commute should be part of your work hours lol. Shit is so skewed. Pre covid I used to be so tired because of the commute and I lived for the weekends.

 

[Mer.Saloon]

Absolutely. Choice is best. Some people prefer to work in offices, and sometimes it’s the fairest thing to do, particularly when new members of staff join and they are likely to need a lot of help for the first few weeks, do some networking or don’t have suitable space to work at home. But forcing people into the office as a blanket rule when they don’t need to be there to put in 8 hours in front of a computer with the odd meeting is just outdated. While I prefer to work from home, if people prefer to head into in the office I have zero problem with that. But the other way around often seems to involve jealousy, presenteeism and unfounded accusations that people working at home aren’t working as hard, which is the same shit that always gets thrown at people who job share, have childcare arrangements with the office or otherwise don’t do a 9-5, Monday-to-Friday-in-the-workplace work pattern. Having flexibility in work patterns to allow people to decide for themselves what’s healthier and more sustainable in terms of productivity, creativity and work/life balance is the way forward when the cost of living requires even families to have two working adults, let alone those living alone who could often do without adding commuting costs on top of their housing expenses.

I do feel we're going to start seeing WFH being mandatory for a long of employees who may not want that if office space starts getting shut to combat rent and other factors. Because humanity never knows how to keep things balanced for long. But hey, I'm a negative nancy.

 

[Hailinel]

I joined my current employer during lockdown in 2020 and have WFH the entire time I've been with them. The company used to have a local office, but has transitioned to almost entirely remote work save for the HQ office in another state. In fact, if the local office were still open and I was mandated to be there, I'm not sure what I'd have done because the commute would have been potentially the worst I'd have ever endured.

The transition to WFH has not harmed the business at all. I know that can't be done for all industries, but it's been unquestionably beneficial to many people that are able to get quality work done without being on-site.

Rockstar making this mandate now feels almost certainly like a "We want you on site so we can crunch you to death and ship GTA6 to meet fiscal targets" tactic.

 

[PixelKnight]

I do feel we're going to start seeing WFH being mandatory for a long of employees who may not want that if office space starts getting shut to combat rent and other factors. Because humanity never knows how to keep things balanced for long. But hey, I'm a negative nancy.

I think that’s something that the market has already solved conceptually by having less massive office space rented out for years, and more smaller spaces. That’s what my company does- it rents a floor of a building that rents out space to lots of medium-sized companies. We have enough desk space for around a third of the company to be in on any given day, with desks and meeting rooms all bookable up to two weeks in advance on a mobile app so you always know exactly which desk you’ll be at and can book in around people you want to collaborate with. Usually the space is around 3/4 full whenever I’m in. Our floor is secure to our company only (and likewise for others in the building) but there’s a shared cafe and library space where we get to meet staff from other companies which is really cool, it’s like a small professional community. If the whole company meets (which is only every few months and usually known for weeks in advance) we just rent more space for the day.

Other friends of mine that don’t have space to work at home or prefer not to clubbed together to rent a few desks at a similar, smaller-scale setup. Again, that flexibility of professional office space at various sizes to meet various needs rather than massive corporate HQs with their intrinsic costs that has management thinking the answer to empty space is to fill it by requiring staff to travel for hours. Rather than look at whether all that space is really necessary for the staff who are just quietly working away at a screen for most of their workday.

 

[Dark Cloud]

So they have to work 5 days a week at work? I mean I get people would rather be at home, but it is what it is. Especially communication in this industry and being side by side when working

 

[Hailinel]

So they have to work 5 days a week at work? I mean I get people would rather be at home, but it is what it is. Especially communication in this industry and being side by side when working

The five days a week part isn't the problem people have.

 

[Shoulder]

Remote/hybrid really needs to become an actual right by law.

Don't really see how that could work, let alone be enforced since it's all dependent on what industry you're referring to. Sounds great in theory, but in practice, it won't work for all scenarios. I presume you're referring to video game development specifically, in which case I could see it mostly being the case.

As far as Rockstar's position goes, my first thought came down to security, and potential leaks, which potentially are more likely to occur if everyone is WFH IMO.

I work in an industry that cannot primarily WFH, though there are SOME exceptions. So requiring Remote/hybrid work in some industries, but not others doesn't bode well in terms of being consistent across the different work industries that are out there.

Just my 2 cents, but happy to discuss more if the topic relates.

 

[Yzz]

I really hoped Rockstar was serious in solving its crunch problem, but it seems that either management didn't care or that prestige "AAAA" games cannot be developed ethically. Unionization seems like the only hope for this people, because we all know that the press and the gaming community will turn their backs to them when GTAVI gets a 98 in Metacritic and videos about "the attention to detail" start floating around. Fuck this industry.

 

[Marce-chan]

We all know Rockstar's record and how Red Dead Redemption was crunched to death to be delivered in time. It's naive to think that they're not gonna do the same thing once again and that getting people back to the office all 5 days will be with that intent.

 

[Aether]

Seriously, 6 months of crunch is basically trying to do a years work in half the time to hit an unrealistic target. It’s either a failure of project management or unforeseen difficulties, either of which the workforce shouldn’t be punished for.

Oh crunch and office work are different.
If it's 6 months of crunch that's plain Missmanagement.

I was more on the "let's move to in office so we pick up the pace and don't need to crunch".
If it's in office And crunch (for more then say 1-2 months) then it's just bad.

(The 1-2 months I just assume are inevitable with the knowledge that developers will always crunch in the end even if it gets pushed back, since there's always the ditch to add more or polish more , but that should come from the Devs, not the publisher/management)

 

[Linkstrikesback]

We all know Rockstar's record and how Red Dead Redemption was crunched to death to be delivered in time. It's naive to think that they're not gonna do the same thing once again and that getting people back to the office all 5 days will be with that intent.

Yep.

And given rockstars history, it'll be more than 5 days soon enough too. In principle I don't think it's wrong for a company to want workers specifically in an office if it matches their company requirements, but Rockstar absolutely has ulterior motives here to work them to the bone in a way that nobody would agree to remotely.

 

[Hocot8]

So they have to work 5 days a week at work? I mean I get people would rather be at home, but it is what it is. Especially communication in this industry and being side by side when working

idk how you people keep thinking it's about the 5 day work week lmao.

It just comes off as bad faith at this point.

 

[Aether]

Yep.

And given rockstars history, it'll be more than 5 days soon enough too. In principle I don't think it's wrong for a company to want workers specifically in an office if it matches their company requirements, but Rockstar absolutely has ulterior motives here to work them to the bone in a way that nobody would agree to remotely.

Strong unions are the answer.
If rockstar tries to pull something a strong union (or a hand full, I guess the jobs in game Dev would be to diverse for just one) an union could work wonders.
What would be better, the game being pushed back 6 months because it needs more time, or it being 6 months late because nobody is working cause of strikes?

 

[PixelKnight]

Oh crunch and office work are different.
If it's 6 months of crunch that's plain Missmanagement.

I was more on the "let's move to in office so we pick up the pace and don't need to crunch".
If it's in office And crunch (for more then say 1-2 months) then it's just bad.

(The 1-2 months I just assume are inevitable with the knowledge that developers will always crunch in the end even if it gets pushed back, since there's always the ditch to add more or polish more , but that should come from the Devs, not the publisher/management)

Yeah that’s fair

 

[Shoulder]

Strong unions are the answer.
If rockstar tries to pull something a strong union (or a hand full, I guess the jobs in game Dev would be to diverse for just one) an union could work wonders.
What would be better, the game being pushed back 6 months because it needs more time, or it being 6 months late because nobody is working cause of strikes?

Unions will help for sure, but they won’t solve crunches, or long hours necessarily, though some of that could be determined how the union contract is presented, and agreed upon.

To your question, I’ll always take the delay to make sure the job is done correctly, but unfortunately that also cannot always be guaranteed either.

Things such as better paying wages, benefits, PTO, Maternity leave, maybe a pension plan if the union is large enough would be awesome of course.

 

[Djehuty]

Either way, it's just a job and there is a million of them, so if they don't like it, with Rockstar on their resume I'm sure they will be fine.

this year I really doubt that.

 

[Djehuty]

anyway this thread is getting funky.

some situations work for some people and some work for others.

the same goes for rockstars, its very clealrly done for more control of the workforce as well and taking away that option is a net negative.

for as many iIhave kids and I cant do anything at home
there are people with 3 hour commutes who don't exist outside for work if they cant work from home.

no matter what your opinion on it (all of which are correct because you each have your own situation) taking away the option to choose whether or not they can is a bad thing.)

ideally it should be left up to the employee or have a hybrid system in place as more accommodation to a workers environment will mean more productivity.
this just isnt good in any way, and idk how some people can see it as such. what matter is the lack of options that puts s0ome people in a place where they cannot continue to work at rockstar for example.

 

[Aether]

Unions will help for sure, but they won’t solve crunches, or long hours necessarily, though some of that could be determined how the union contract is presented, and agreed upon.

To your question, I’ll always take the delay to make sure the job is done correctly, but unfortunately that also cannot always be guaranteed either.

Things such as better paying wages, benefits, PTO, Maternity leave, maybe a pension plan if the union is large enough would be awesome of course.

Oh unions are not the be all and end all, I see it here in mainland Europe, some fields have strung ones, others...seem almost like a joke or a front for cooperations.

But it (and a ton of game Dev falls under that) should manage to pull a lot of punches.

My question was more on the rhetorical side for rockstar. In both cases the game would be late, but with one they would have bad PR, in other words:
Unions that strike when they overdo it could alleviate crunch.

 

[Angel Whispers]

It isn’t about the 5-day work week, and I’m rather tired of it being framed as such on social media. “Oh, you mean they aren’t too happy about having to go to work 5 days a week, like the “real world” and so-called “normal” people?” - Please FUCK THE FUCK OFF WITH THAT. Seen these kind of responses on the socials, and it’s sickening. Also, Just because it’s become something most full-time workers are used to, it doesn’t mean everyone is fine with it, or that it works for most people, or that it can’t be changed for the betterment of the collective. “Conventional” isn’t for everybody, and too much of what’s considered as such has escaped critical reassessment and reform. This is, in fact, a disability rights issue, an accessibility issue, and “the law” hasn’t yet caught up with that fact. So, it requires more people to fight for, and continue to present that case. BTW, this is against the backdrop of GTA5 having made about $7.7-8bn as of December 2023, and being the second best selling game of all-time to Minecraft, at around 190 million copies. Perhaps R* could hire some of the laid-off staff across the industry, if they’re so worried about productivity… Or own their own gross mismanagement and delay. I know that the PS2 had 3 GTAs, and GTA5 has had 3 PlayStations, but GTA5 still remains one of the most played and most popular titles on the latest PS hardware. “The Gamers” will be fine, and so will R*, I promise. They can afford it, and in case some don’t see it, this is a straight-up “quiet” firing practice.

It took a whole pandemic for meaningful changes to happen, and we ought to advocate for the wins that some are trying to work back. WFH is a good thing. It’s better for mental health and wellbeing, better for productivity, better for the environment, and it forces us all to rethink planning in towns and cities, so that spaces can better serve their respective societies. Also, All those Zoom Conferences and Skype calls, WFH, etc. were things that disabled people advocated for for YEARS, but were denied and gaslit and told these accommodations weren’t possible. WFH presents an opportunity, not only in the gaming industry, but to rethink the job market and workplaces around the world. R* shouldn’t be taking that away from their staff, especially not on the back of the crunch culture stories around Red Dead Redemption 2 - The great thing about accessibility is that it’s for everybody!! But the tragedy here is that too many don’t care as long as they get their shiny new game first, even if that means accessibility continues to be treated as a mere convenience for able people.

 

[Razgriz]

WFH is a good thing. It’s better for mental health and wellbeing, better for productivity,

I say this in the nicest way possible, but this is not in the slightest way accurate with everyone else's reality.

WFH can be a good thing... if you're married/have kids/someone to regularly talk with, a senior in your field and have regular activities besides work. Only in those circumstances do these things apply. (This has been researched.)

If you're freshly entering any industry, WFH is awful. It causes you to never properly meet your coworkers beyond "faces on a Zoom call" (taking a wrecking ball to just y'know, getting to learn who the people you'll be working with are), you'll experience difficulties asking/getting questions answered in a timely manner and in general you miss out on picking up a lot of the passive experience of just... getting to do your job and seeing what the difference is between reality and education because you'll be working from your desk at home rather than seeing the actual environment.

I know the voice-du-jour is that WFH is awesome but as someone who did internships during the COVID period, I almost always went back to hybrid work the moment the opportunity itself arose (would've gone full RTO but wasn't practically possible due to govt guidelines, which, ok, that's fair) simply because it was an unguided clusterfuck of bad coordination, poor supervision and often times having to deal with outright depression because of the lack of a real schedule.

Friends of mine doing internships in the same period have had supervisors leave an entire company and they'd only find out 2 weeks after they handed in their notice and the supervising was awkwardly punted over to the CEO (who to be frank, already was practically their supervisor due to being the only one consistently in the office), that kinda thing.

So no, RTO is not a bad thing imo.

 

[PixelKnight]

I say this in the nicest way possible, but this is not in the slightest way accurate with everyone else's reality.

WFH can be a good thing... if you're married/have kids/someone to regularly talk with, a senior in your field and have regular activities besides work. Only in those circumstances do these things apply. (This has been researched.)

If you're freshly entering any industry, WFH is awful. It causes you to never properly meet your coworkers beyond "faces on a Zoom call" (taking a wrecking ball to just y'know, getting to learn who the people you'll be working with are), you'll experience difficulties asking/getting questions answered in a timely manner and in general you miss out on picking up a lot of the passive experience of just... getting to do your job and seeing what the difference is between reality and education because you'll be working from your desk at home rather than seeing the actual environment.

I know the voice-du-jour is that WFH is awesome but as someone who did internships during the COVID period, I almost always went back to hybrid work the moment the opportunity itself arose (would've gone full RTO but wasn't practically possible due to govt guidelines, which, ok, that's fair) simply because it was an unguided clusterfuck of bad coordination, poor supervision and often times having to deal with outright depression because of the lack of a real schedule.

Friends of mine doing internships in the same period have had supervisors leave an entire company and they'd only find out 2 weeks after they handed in their notice and the supervising was awkwardly punted over to the CEO (who to be frank, already was practically their supervisor due to being the only one consistently in the office), that kinda thing.

So no, RTO is not a bad thing imo.

I mentioned the onboarding of new staff upthread, but I don’t think it’s a case of either needing to minimise the other as ‘only in those cases does this apply’. The nature of a workforce of millions of people is that WFH works for a lot of people, not just senior staff and those married with kids, including various accessibility and MH issues too. Meanwhile, office work works for a lot of people too (as you say) and the raw flexibility of hybrid works for a lot of people as a reasonable compromise in a lot of situations too.

I guess I’m hybrid in that I choose to go in one day a week (mostly as my team goes in and we all do the general social upkeep then), and the company is largely happy in that it’s down to the worker’s choice whether they go in, when, and who to work with/collaborate with, as long as work gets done. I would put making sure new staff settle in as an essential team management task that needs to happen and thus the duty of care overrides that manager’s individual preference. When I’m onboarding new staff, I can be in more often, if I’m busy and want to work without distraction, or the commute is unnecessary (which it is most of the time for me) I don’t need to be in at all. If I want to collaborate with x department for a couple of days in the office, I can do that too.

Ultimately personal choice is good, but the problem is that people who want the social contact in the office then override the choice of people who would be better off not going in. However, I would say that onboarding new staff is something that comes down to manager duties- that manager has the responsibility to make sure new staff get the contacts and inclusion they need, even if that’s managing other largely WFH staff and saying ‘look everyone needs to be in a couple days for the next few weeks to help x new staffer settle in’. It’s not a permanent thing, it’s a managing the team thing, so not quite the same as permanent contracts around working patterns.