One of the things about this is that ... I don't trust my fellow employees much more than the CEO to make good choices.
The typical firebrand employees I've worked with, I want nothing to do with as far as their overall initiatives go. I might agree with them on one thing but not what to do about it and etc.
First, not everyone wants to work remotely. Some people live in situations where there are too many distractions or annoyances at home. This is especially true if they have children.
Second, For those who want to work remotely, this is a coordination problem. Nobody wants to be the first to give such an ultimatum to their manager, as they'd almost certainly be fired. Even if employees could all coordinate through some back channel, the reward for defecting is quite high. If half of your coworkers quit, you are suddenly a much more valuable member of the team. Anyone who stuck around would receive very high compensation.
> Some people live in situations where there are too many distractions or annoyances at home. This is especially true if they have children.
I would prefer to rent a WeWork like space for myself in my own town (about $200 USD a month) if I needed a "distraction free work place" rather than moving all the way to California to spend 50% of my paycheck in cost-of-living.
Well then it's a good thing it's not aimed at you. This is aimed at people that were already working on-site before the pandemic. If anything, it sounds like Apple is realizing that there is benefit to being able to work from home while also realizing that their entire history is based on people collaborating in-person. If you were worth it to them, you'd get one of those exemptions mentioned in the article.
If everyone refused to work from office tomorrow, that tim cook guy would bend in an instant. And they should refuse.