There have been countless articles being spoon fed into media about return to the office. Most feel like they are a public reaction gauge by big corporations to evaluate what they can push.
We've seen countless 3/2 work split articles. We've seen tons of articles about return to office mandates and people leaving as a result. We've seen several on mandatory return or else stories.
Now we are starting to see a trend of remote at less pay.
They seem to be tests of people reactions. With some clearly bating social media responses to fish on particular subtopics. It's also quite common to see responses blatantly plug and industry or region to illicit responses on those filters.
Some forums just seem to be full bot. Slashdot has a solid core of real human responders. But you can often see suspicious responses that are very targeted.
On this topic of reduced pay. We specifically see precise numbers like 15%. An obvious gauging number. This puts a line in the sand. How many people will stand on each side of 15%? How vocal will they be? How deep will the threads of opinion be on each side etc.?
We also see responses stating very specific regions and industries in the article and the threads that spawn. Most I believe are honest people.
The shear number of articles in circulation on remote work leads me to think that enterprises are trying to push this return to office agenda and failing. Using social media coercion as a tool of this agenda. You know how when you see an Movie advertising blitz that is so intense, trying to get people in the theatre and you all know the movie is a bomb without anyone seeing it. So the companies doubles down, once, twice, three more times with the blitz trying to save it. Only to have it bomb even faster. This is the impression I'm left with when I see all these articles on return to the office.
Now none of what I have put here is scientific of course. It's just an observation tied very loosely to a theory. Others and myself of course could cherry pick articles and responses to fortify and break down this "theory" of mine. Which is why I specifically avoided precise article/response references. Thus avoiding getting mired in the minutia of a specific piece of text. I'm more looking at this from a removed position and possibly falsely seeing a pattern to it.
( PS don't bother picking at my spelling or grammar skills. I know I'm horrible at both. :) )