I am definitely very sympathetic to the points you make here, and do recognize that this may vary substantially from one team to the next as far as how well remote has been working out.

Tbh I really do personally like hybrid as a sort of "best of both worlds" thing - my wife works for an NGO that I think has a really reasonable approach to it, which is that they have one day a week where all hands are expected to be in office, then it is up to different department heads to determine if and how much they want their teams to be in person. For my wife's team that she leads, she has picked one additional day per week where her people come in which helps with some of the stuff you identified, but still leaves a lot more flexibility in people's lives. In our case, it means that we were able to move further out from the core of DC to somewhere that we can actually afford to buy a house which means that although the commute is longer, because she generally only has to go in twice per week means she spends less total time commuting and has that flexibility to be home with pets, go to appointments, etc. And, in our case, means that we are able to think about having a kid since we know that our jobs now give us the flexibility in our home lives to be able to handle that.

In general though I tend to land on the side that we shouldn't be forcing people who never had to come in person for their jobs to start doing so - I think that represents a bit of an unreasonable modification to working rules which is exactly the thing that unions are supposed to defend against.