Sick of all the complaining about RTO as though it's somehow outrageous for a company to ask employees to work the way they were originally hired to work.
Companies are generally entitled to make reasonable changes to how work is performed. They can reasonably change your responsibilities, raise performance expectations, require compliance with workplace policies, and require employees to work from the office if that's what they believe is best for the business.
You don't have to agree with that philosophy, and it's perfectly reasonable to prefer remote work. But framing every RTO decision as the product of greedy executives or some malicious agenda ignores the fact that businesses make these decisions for a variety of reasons. Most companies would rather adopt policies that are popular with employees. When they see that a particular arrangement isn't delivering the results they expected -or isn't worth the cost- they change course.
In MN's case, employees are relatively expensive compared with many other locations. One of the main reasons those roles were based in MN was proximity to the company's headquarters and leadership. If employees are rarely in the office, that advantage is essentially gone. At that point, it's fair to ask why the company should continue paying MN labor costs instead of hiring elsewhere.
You may disagree with the decision, but it's not irrational. It's a business judgment about cost, collaboration, and the purpose of maintaining a headquarters workforce.
If in-office work is a condition of employment, your choices are to accept it, negotiate, or find another job. You'll be happier than complaining on here constantly.
That's not cruelty-it's how employment works.