As a 100% remote worker for twenty years, from 2004 until I retired the middle of last year, I feel qualified to comment on remote work.
When I started, the large regional bank I worked for had two or maybe three "telecommuters", as we were then known. The systems existed for me to work remotely simply because people doing my job (IT admin/engineering) needed to be able to do so remotely since we ran 24/7. When I finally stoped working full time, the much smaller, UK-based international bank I worked for was nearly 100% remote. Most of us didn't have an office to go to even if we'd have wanted to. In between, I saw things go from, "Telecommuter? What's that mean?", to, "Oh, nice, wish I could work from home", to remote work being the norm.
At first it seemed like I had a lot of sack time. Even my wife was worried that I'd get canned because it seemed like half the time I wasn't working. I realized that slack time was what would have, had I been in an office, still been "slack time" taken up by breaks, lunch, drop-in conversations with coworkers, and the dozens of other little distractions of daily office life. I think I worked as much, or more, at home as I would have in an office.
On the plus side, yes, quality of life was generally better. I got up anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes before I needed to be working, not 2 hours. I spent a lot less time driving and a lot less on gas and clothes. When in a meeting, I can wander around the house, get coffee, and so on without missing anything or disrupting the meeting. If I felt like it or needed to, working flexible hours was easy. I had a lot of 18, 24, and even a couple of 36 hour or longer incidents where I was working nonstop, but still had access to food, coffee, etc. instead of being trapped in the office. So that was nice. The down side was learning to not let the job take over every waking hour.
On the other hand... no face to face interaction with ANYONE at work eventually got really old. I'd have killed for the opportunity to go in to the office a couple days a week just to get the hell out of the house. I worked with people -- hell, people I hired worked for me -- that I never did actually meet in person. There was a certain amount of "out of sight, out of mind" with some managers. And as budgets got tighter (I worked for banks before and after 2008) training and career advancement opportunities fell by the wayside, in part I think because middle and senior management could see us on an org chart, but I don't think they actually had the visual impact of walking through an office and seeing the people there. Certainly they weren't getting people dropping by their office or seeing them in the hallway or cafeteria. That lack of spontaneous, face-to-face interaction with team members and colleagues also, I think, somewhat reduced the free exchange of ideas and experience that greatly benefits the company (and workers) in so many ways. I think retention suffered as well, since there were far fewer real personal connections with people you'd only heard on the phone and (later) seen on your computer screen.
My personal take on this, and it may be somewhat unpopular, is that yes, remote work is easier on the worker. It may not be best for either the worker or the organization in the long run. I have long held the opinion that a more effective model would be working in an office alongside peers and colleagues, but having the flexibility to work remotely when needed.
As for MOSAIC, I too hope that the process doesn't get held up for too long by new policies. If it becomes collateral damage in an attempt at reining in some Federal regulatory agencies, we may just have to live with it.
