And the risk of the move is that the "slackers" aren't the only ones who will quit. The productive work-from-home employees might quit, too. After all, they're the ones who are most likely to resent the change in policy. If you were slacking you could easily be unhappy about the change, but you're unlikely to feel it is "unfair". The productive employees might even be more likely to quit - especially if they're the ones most confident of their ability to find another job.

It could go either way. Time will tell, I suppose.

No, a brilliant move would be to fire people who didn't do their jobs, and to fire the managers who let that happen.

You really think the people who suck at their jobs are going to quit? Maybe some of them, others will move to the office and slack off. You know who will quit for sure? People who are getting a lot done at home, and realize they can work at another company that pays better and/or lets them work at home.

My wife was just asking me tonight to summarize the whole issue for her and the first question that came to her mind was "well, are the remotes being offered relocation expenses?"

Haven't seen one lick of a mention about this. I'm guessing the answer is a hearty NO?

In my experience slackers rarely quit, they keep clinging to their jobs like their life depended on it, doing just the bare minimum to avoid getting fired. While your point might have been Yahoos intention, they might get the reverse result. The deadwood piling into HQ and much of the top talent leaving because they have better options.