I'm an embedded systems designer, I work with real things, in fact I have a pile of them sat on the desk next to me gathering diagnostics data as I sit here in my small home office area having a late lunch break...
I get the intent of your comment here - clearly there are *some* jobs that genuinely cannot be done from home, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find many pro-WFH'ers who claim otherwise - but it's a gross simplification to presume that a "desk jockey" can WFH (e.g. if they're dealing with certain types of data then WFH may be a no-no due to security requirements) whilst a "real things worker" has to attend a workplace to do their job successfully.
Our argument isn't that people MUST work from home, because that's clearly every bit as stupid as insisting that people MUST head into the workplace to work. Our argument is that, if a job can be done successfully from home (as many of us have now proven is the case), then it should be for the individual employee to choose for themselves whether they want to work from home or head into the workplace, rather than leaving it to the goodness of our employers to come up with WFH policies that do anything more than just paying lip service to the idea of WFH as being something more than an annoyance that they've had to put up with because lockdown legislation said they had to
Indeed, the lockdown legislation seems like a reasonable place to start when drafting a WFH law - we've just spent the past year and a bit living and working under rules that said we should WFH where possible, but that (provided our workplaces were still open) we were able to attend the workplace if necessary.
So rather than stating that people should WFH where possible, we'd just need it to say that people CAN WFH where possible, which then places the onus on the employer to justify why an employee can't be allowed to WFH, rather than giving them carte blanche to simply refuse to allow WFH without any justification being needed.
Whilst any such law could still be abused by dodgy employers making up spurious justifications, we'd at least then have a legal framework within which employees could bring claims against their employer if they believed the justifications for refusing WFH weren't genuine. It'd also help focus the minds of employers on the point that WFH shouldn't be seen as a luxury, a bonus, an optional extra to be dished out only to the favoured few, but instead to be treated as an integral part of modern working that deserves proper consideration and handling.