I'm not downvoting you - I'm just saying that my work needed me to do something which was make a product, which I did. I'm more than happy to even present that product. But at this event, in its entirely arbitrary location, if I didn't happen to be on the voluminous presentation list I doubt my attendance would even be noticed.

Yeah, I get that. It's just part of life sometimes though. You can take things positively or negatively. One is healthier than the other. And I never give people ammunition to shoot me with until I have a solid way to make it count in my favour.

Expecting somebody to undertake a long journey on business at their own expense is never reasonable. If I go to my normal office, it's at my expense. Anywhere else, and it's going on an expense claim.

@SimonB fair enough. I was answering the question as a whole. I'd probably take receipts or something to claim the money back with as well. But not outright refuse to go when I'm already under scrutiny. Depends on the amount.

At least as far as costs go, I'm with Kilisi on this one. The company HQ is 3.5 hours away (not some offsite meeting location), many companies who have half-heartedly agreed to let employees WFH for now are not willing to pay travel expenses if said home happens to be far away from their nominal place of work. That doesn't sound overly unreasonable to me - sure, if you are working from home you might as well do it at your GFs place, but then you can't claim expenses if you do need to come in now and then.

This answer seems like "an attempt to rationalise" employers being able to force their employees to whatever they want. And yes, "Realistically most of these reasons are weak ones" in this answer. Catching Covid is a serious risk, regardless of how people refuse to believe it. And WFH is a necessary tool to fight against spreading Covid, regardless of how people refuse to believe it. Employers aren't slave owners.

I work from home and if I travel to the office its on expenses, no question and any company that suggested different would not see me for dust.

Sorry, this is very disappointing to read from a moderator - not that you feel this way, of course you're welcome to, but that you'd post this. It's not quite not nice, but it seems like it's almost entirely a rant criticizing the OP (in particular, in how it's constructed with line by line responses) rather than providing useful advice in a positive, constructive way.

@IanTurton and then you would be unemployed not working from home? Everyone is under stress, I have to go work or I can't feed my dependents properly. I wouldn't let a bit of pride stand in the way of that.

I'd rather moderators weren't little worms, and gave tough answers when they are necessary, but that's just me.

@computercarguy Regardless whether you are right about the current state of covid, the prevailing opinion for at least the last several months is that it is no longer a valid excuse to demand wfh. Being "right" about this won't prevent him from losing his job.

@134121, covid was never a requirement for WFH, it was just the catalyst that showed just how many jobs could not only be done from home, but often done better from home. Just because a pandemic is on the downslide, again (and probably going back up after precautions are lifted, again), why the sudden need for people in an office? If it could be done from home at one point, why can't it still be done from home now? Covid was never an excuse for WFH, it just showed how employers could make WFH happen, yet simply didn't want to. If "didn't want to" isn't an excuse, then IDK what is.

@134121, also, the pandemic getting better is the excuse for employers wanting to micromanage their people again, as well as making them spend time and money commuting when it's been proven they don't need to.

@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE Respectfully, if you have an issue with someone's moderator status comments aren't the place for it, if you have an issue I recommend that you reach out to the Community Team via the Contact page.