The pandemic did not create remote work, it only ended the argument against it

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that the capability for distributed work was assembled long before anyone was obliged to use it. Fast domestic internet, laptops, video calling, shared document storage and messaging platforms were all in place and in daily use, and a sizeable number of people already worked from home some or all of the time. What was missing, they argue, was not technology but permission, because managers doubted that work done out of sight was work done at all. Proponents argue that the pandemic settled that doubt by running the experiment at a scale no firm would have chosen. Entire organisations worked remotely, and their output was observed rather than speculated about. Some kinds of work turned out to suffer, particularly anything depending on improvisation among people who did not already know each other, while a great deal of ordinary professional work turned out to be unaffected. On this account the lasting change is not a habit acquired under restriction but a question answered, and an answer does not expire when the circumstances that prompted it do. They add that the knowledge now runs in both directions and cannot be unlearned. Employers have seen what they can get done without everyone present, and employees have seen what their commute was costing them in time, money and the hours of their lives. Proponents argue that neither party will simply forget, and that the result is a settlement in which attendance has to be justified by what it achieves rather than assumed. The argument concludes that because the pandemic removed the objection to distributed work rather than supplying the reason for it, hybrid work is the way of the future.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that what was observed was not ordinary remote work but remote work by teams whose relationships, habits and shared knowledge had been built in person, so the experiment measured how long that accumulated stock lasts rather than whether distributed work is sustainable. They add that output is the easiest thing to see and the least informative, since the costs of dispersal fall on training, informal learning and the loyalty of new staff, and show up years later. Critics also note that an answer about what is possible is not an answer about what is preferable, and that employers who hold the stronger hand in a weaker labour market have shown they will require attendance again.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That the tools existed does not show the arrangement was viable, since the same tools had been available for years without firms adopting them, which suggests the obstacle was practical rather than merely attitudinal. [Rejecting P2] What was observed was remote work by teams whose relationships and shared knowledge had been built in person, so the experiment measured how long that stock lasts rather than whether dispersal is sustainable. [Rejecting P3] An answer about what is possible is not an answer about what is preferable, and employers holding the stronger hand in a weaker labour market have required attendance again. [Rejecting C] At most it follows that distributed work can be made to function, not that it is the arrangement the future will settle on.