I think these flexible work arrangements will only bring more confusion. Who agrees?
Personally, I would agree to a smaller paycheck just to not have to come to the office, because there is no need for that at all. Working at home for a few days, then coming to the office once or twice is ridiculous and will only cause a mess.
The discussion always starts with the concept that WFH is a "perk" and that's a false premise. Why should you accept a smaller paycheck? It doesn't cost companies anything additionally, as connectivity capacity is already in place - it's a sunk cost. The cost of office space can be drastically reduced as leases run out or property sold. Many studies show that employee productivity increases.
You want to really set it off? Flip the script. Demand a larger paycheck for WFH, saying you want your part of the savings on real estate down the line. In other words, argue from the position that not only is WFH not a perk, it saves the company money.
There shouldn't be any confusion. But internal communication is so poor not everyone knows the official policy.
I left here and got a 50% pay raise as well as being fully remote. Never sabotage your own self worth.
"Personally, I would agree to a smaller paycheck just to not have to come to the office, because there is no need for that at all."
I agree that there's no need for coming into the office, but I would not be willing to accept a smaller paycheck to not have to come into the office. If you want to work remotely and are willing to change jobs, you can actually probably make more money by changing to a remote job.
Speak for yourself