Employers are using language to muddy this debate and justify returning to offices. They love calling it a perk (unlimited snacks in the break room, foosball table, etc). Why? Because perks can be removed at any point with little to no consequence. The most you'll get is someone being bummed about the snacks or missing playing foosball, for whatever ungodly reason, at lunch time.
Removing or altering a benefit, however, is an uglier affair fraught with risk to both retention and attraction. If you've ever been part of a company when they introduced a new and improved (cheaper with a higher deductible) health insurance plan, or suspended 401k matching, or any other alteration to existing benefits, it doesn't go well. Ever.
If remote/telecommute/WFH is treated as a first-class benefit, then its removal makes the employer less competitive. We need to make this a standard talking point when negotiating new employment. Anecdotally, based on how recruiters have responded when I referred to WFH as a benefit in the same class as health insurance or a company-sponsored IRA, we aren't doing this enough. I spoke with one this morning who said, “I've never heard of it referred to that way but at this point it is a benefit now that I think about it.”
We need more of this. We need more recruiters who will – hopefully – push this messaging up the chain. And we absolutely need to reject employers who believe it is a perk or who have decided they no longer want to offer this benefit. Let them lose the talent war.