Business execs just said the quiet part out loud on RTO mandates — A quarter admit forcing staff back into the office was meant to make them quit

It only works once....so what's their plan now?

Corporate execs these days are not exactly known for their long term thinking. Doesn't matter if the doors are flying off your airplanes tomorrow as long as the stock price goes up today.
Ease on the rto rules until people are comfy and yank the chain again. Rinse and repeat every 5 years and you can continuously flush out the seniors for freshly graduated blood.
- I’d be hesitant to work for a company that has a reputation of calling remote employees to RTO. At least, I’d factor that in when deciding to take the job and need a much higher salary for the reduced job security.
Only has to work once, you pocket the savings on severance packages one time and then go back to regular layoffs.

Dystopian as all hell, but such is the corporate world.
Just had to work once, next time they'll cook up some other thing
A 12 o clock punch in the nuts daily

That's dumb. You get the capable people to quit first that way.

Yes, but those are the ones that get paid more. So you get rid of a big financial drain, and then you can hire cheaper people and dump more work onto them.

It works great, unfortunately.

Remember, the C-Suites of today don’t give two fucks about the company they’re ‘running’. They want line to go up so their pay goes up, and so they can use line-go-up to golden parachute to the next company where they repeat the process.
- 100%
  
  The people least loyal to the company are at the top.
Right, but you are under the impression that companies want to keep those. My personal experience is that they just don't give a fuck. At. All.
- Yea this is definitely the case cause companies still make money even while enshittifying

My company asked us to return to the office. We have like 4 developers, with a minimum experience of 15 years. We work in an unpopular language, in a niche market, in a technologically dead area of the country. And the pay is shit.

I pointed this out in detail. We were no longer asked to return to the office.

If execs want to reduce workforce size they should offer voluntary layoffs. Ya know, unless they're scared of too many people leaving or something

If they lay off employees, they have to pay severance and/or unemployment. If the employees quit due to unreasonable mandates, they can be fired with "cause".
- They've been mass laying off people regardless. May as well give people the chance to leave on good terms.
Voluntary layoffs - probably the best form of layoffs if you ask me - still come with severance packages that have to be paid. Very few people will be interested in quitting just because you ask them, but a good many will do it if you sweeten the deal.

Basically we have 3 variants here:

Regular layoffs - have to pay severance + can select who leaves RTO stealth layoffs - don't have to pay severance + can't select who leaves Voluntary layoffs - have to pay severance + can't select who leaves

Any morally bankrupt business would of course want a fourth variant where they get to select who leaves and don't have to pay severance, but thankfully this option is generally not available to them.

Anyway, voluntary layoffs are the best out of a selection of bad choices for the workers, but come with the most downsides for the morally bankrupt business.
They also want to get rid of long-time, well paid staff to hire replacements for way less.

My friend works as a corporate "efficiency expert," and yes, we joke about Office Space with him all the time. According to him, one of the latest tools for cutting labor costs is the inflated perception of WFH positions. Many people are willing to accept lower pay for a remote role, making it a highly effective tool for companies to leverage against workers. The strategy described in the article is precisely what he and others are advising corporate clients to use. As a result, you’ll likely see more companies adopt this approach in workplaces that mix WFH and RTO policies.

This explains why RTO mandates are becoming more common. The increased push for RTO makes fully remote jobs rarer, which in turn heightens competition for these positions. RTO also serves as a cheap and easy tactic for downsizing—companies can issue an RTO mandate, see a voluntary exodus, and then re-advertise those same roles as remote positions with reduced pay. Often, they hire fewer people overall. With such fierce demand for WFH, businesses can reduce their workforce cost-effectively, attract top talent, and drive down wages.

At this point, WFH is largely a tool for managing labor costs. Many workers will leave a job over an RTO mandate, swearing off office work for good, only to find that the market is flooded with people making the same choice. If they’re lucky, they’ll find a new WFH job, but often it comes with less pay or stability—just delaying the next inevitable RTO push. Sure, some find a better fit, but for most, this cycle of WFH, RTO, pay cuts, and re-shuffled roles is only going to intensify.

The underlying issue here is intense competition for WFH roles. Many workers overestimate their irreplaceability, yet most can be easily swapped out. More often than not, these replacements are higher-skilled individuals willing to accept lower pay. There’s no shortage of people vying for remote roles. And notably, in the article, the complaints about losing “high-skill employees” come from the employees themselves—not the companies.

This type of policy has absolutely created the quiet quitters generation lol.

Not smart medium-long term strategy.
- Yeah but look how much we reduced costs this quarter!
The underlying issue is really just that these companies are banking on desperate workers always being available, and that productive workers will continue to expand the company's capabilities. And that is not the case, in the long run.

Within the next 1-2 years we will see the pendulum swing back as more Boomers exit the workforce, and more young workers find their apathetic reactions to Corporate behavior normalized.

In other words, Management makes these decisions because they, themselves, usually have plans to move on to the next parasitic host within 1-2 years, leaving behind the mess of their decisions.
- Perhaps. Good to remember that the Boomers aren't the largest generation. Millennials are. And Gen Z is only slightly smaller. There's a workforce-entry delay usually related to training/education, but workforce participation is likely to go up. You're assuming that position growth will continue to pace workforce entry. But, as I noted, many companies are finding ways to decrease their workforce and maintain productivity levels. And they're doing it successfully, so I don't know if there will magically be less desperate workers in two years.
  
  You're correct if you're talking about skilled trades and medicine. Those are and will continue to be high-demand jobs. But that's largely because young people typically choose not to learn a trade. Most college students think they're going to/want to work in: tech and data science, business and management, environmental, and media and creative. Just like everyone else. There's not going to be a sudden dearth of workers in those fields. If anything, it seems likely to become more competitive.
  
  Were I you, I wouldn't be so confident that things are going to just happen to work out in precisely the way you'd like. But, I'm not, so carry on -- and good luck.
Time to negotiate a high severance in your job offer if they change their minds and make you return to office or quit.
- Yes for sure. Be prepared for a "no," or even to have the offer withdrawn if competition is particularly robust, but getting as much as you can into pre-hire contract language is absolutely a good idea.
Many people are willing to accept lower pay for a remote role, making it a highly effective tool for companies to leverage against workers.

Interesting way to look at things. You could then look at it like this: Allowing people to work from home was essentially a raise. And now they are rescinding it.
- Sure, you can frame it however you want, but the reality is that companies are using people’s attachment to WFH as a tool to cut costs and churn out employees more cheaply. By pushing return-to-office mandates, they’re nudging people to leave without having to call it a pay cut or layoff—it’s a workaround that makes it easier for them to replace folks with new hires who’ll take the conditions they’re setting.
  
  Whether you want to call it a "rescinded raise" or not doesn’t change the fact that this tactic is all about control and cutting down labor costs. And unlike an actual rescinded raise, there aren't as many laws and rules about notification, etc. So it's fine to think of it that way as long as you don't convince yourself RTO has the same provisions required of a pay cut, which is why it's being used in the ways I described previously.

Is it different if they fire you for not returning to work?

If they wanted to shed a chunk of workforce they'd be on the hook for a period of notice as well as some compensation, and the employees would be able to file for unemployment insurance once let go. If the employee quits because they refuse to come back to the office then the company is free of those obligations.
- Depends on the individual curcumstances.
  
  Not a lawyer, but have had way to many trainings on unemployment law over the years.
  
  Circumstance 1: An employee moved further away from the office and can no longer feesibly make the commute to the office. Back to office mandates would be a change in the primary work location. The employee would qualify unemployment even if they "quit". This is the same for people who started remotely.
  
  Circumstance 2: The employee became the primary caregiver of children or a relative due to the flexibility allowed in working from home. A back to the office mandate would not allow them to continue this. The employee can argue for unemployment due to a change in the required work schedule (my wife successfully did this back in 2010).
  
  Circumstance 3: This one is a bit harder. The employee has performed their job superbly from home. They clearly and openly (preferably in writing) have stated they will not work in the office. The company has a back to the office mandate and then fires the employee for not showing up. The employee can argue this was a creative firing and the employer is on the hook for unemployment. The employee must have evidence that managers were aware of their unwillingness to work from the office prior to the mandate.

I figured it was strictly about the control aspect of things, but this makes sense too. suppose it could always just be about both as well.

Umm, doest that fall into the realm of constructive dismissal?

Yes, but that's not specifically illegal in the US.
- It just means you could claim EI.
  
  Edit: and maybe be eligible for the mandatory minimum severance pay if your state has laws on that.