Employees often have a pretty inflated understanding of how much value they truly provide an organization. Your only slightly more valuable than your replacement sitting in the wings, and only then it’s for a relatively short period of time.
Employees need to be providing the compelling reason to the company about why WFH is better.
Despite what you think, a happy worker is a productive worker. Also people tend to look for meaning and purpose in their day to day job.
Naturally they're going to be upset, when they're asked to do something that does not help them do the job, inconveniences their lives outside work and contradictorily goes against a fundamental principle of working, being productive.
The problem tech workers have in the the whole WFH vs RTO debate is that the worker is not arguing from a position of strength. There is a long history behind productive in office work for tech and a short history behind remote work for tech. Whatever productivity gains the worker perceives WFH gives them are either not measurable, not large enough to be noticed by the employer, or not worth other considerations and challenges the employer has to contend with.
For example, if some positions within the organization cannot be performed remotely—as an employer, do I still single out one class of worker to provide a perceived benefit for what may or may not amount to a minor productivity perception gain generally only noticed by the employee? Sure that group is marginally happier, but given time and distance between the WFH and RTO, will the employees just return to the new normal? Usually. However, if I give in and allow WFH do I create a morale problem among other workers who do not have access to that benefit just to kowtow to a group of employees that may (or more likely may not) leave but could be replaced quite easily by equivalent people who do not make that demand?
If you want to make the case that workers have no power, and they’re always a replaceable cog, then certainly the only course of action is for them to pursue obtaining power under the protection of the federal government and the NLRB.
Wxactly where did I say that they had no power? I was speaking about an individuals perception of their value being greater than it actually is, especially if the point of contention is not a point of contention for other waiting candidates that can do their job.
However, to your point—even a union has convince an employer why WFH is in the employer’s best interest to get the benefit.
Employees need to be providing the compelling reason to the company about why WFH is better.