Be honest, HBAs want to silence voices questioning the current policy because the status quo because it benefits them. They don’t want the firm to revisit its current policy of allowing HBA roles based solely on geographic location because it might mean a change that disrupts their ability to work with little to no accountability wherever and largely whenever they choose without incurring the costs of commuting. They don’t want ANY disruptions to their sweetheart deal and will shout down anyone that even tries to advocate for a change.
HBAs shouldn’t point the finger at the firm while selfishly praising and protecting both explicitly and implicitly a two-tiered, unfair system that unilaterally benefits only them. If HBAs actually cared about the negative impacts of RTO on hybrid associates they would push the firm for a policy that treats all associates fairly. Instead, to preserve their own interests in keeping the current policy in place they push narratives of “isolation” and raise fears of lack of career progression (as if there is any for hybrid workers) to the forefront so the firm focuses on those manufactured concerns instead of crafting an equitable solution for everyone.
To me and many others, HBAs’ silence, fake concerns, and hostility to change the real problem are as much to blame for the firm’s stance as the c-suite.
If they truly cared, HBAs would push for a policy that is equal for all workers even if that means hybrid are paid more to offset commuting costs or barring that embrace accountability metrics like the badge swiping and other surveillance hybrid associates have to endure. I’ve seen none of that.