Some rules are not allowed.

Not allowing remote work is still allowed, but I don’t think it’s far away from being socially unacceptable. Being legally unacceptable is just one step beyond that.

Getting paid doesn't change the fact that the employees are the ones actually making Twitter work. If Twitter were a car, it would have an owner.

So what do you suggest? Them have the pay, and also set the rules? What else do you suggest? Work on the things they want, and not on what they are told?

Whatever you tell about the fact that it is employees are actually the ones who make twitter work, they aren't there the only ones on the planet who can do this job. If current employees don't want to work from office, then, maybe, some others might be willing.

> Them have the pay, and also set the rules?

Yes that's how it often works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union

Like all monopolies and cartels, they do far more harm than good. If Twitter workers unionized, I'd suggest firing them all and hired new ones. Maybe in a country where unions are prohibited.

> Like all monopolies and cartels

Unions aren't monopolies they are collective bargaining. The monopoly on power you are advocating is for a single owner of a company to set all the rules.

So you do view Twitter as a car, which can have an owner. What are the employees then in your scenario?

Musk offers no value to Twitter having purchased it, the value lies in the people working on it.

While true, I don't think that's pertinent.

This is more of a "if you don't like it, buy the company" situation.

No need to buy the company, anyone can always start a new one, it's very affordable, just a few hundred bucks. Then you can set whatever rules you want for yourself and your employees.