Does anyone else feel like “hybrid flexibility” mostly benefits management?

I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I’m wondering if others have noticed the same thing.

At my workplace, it seems like managers and directors have a level of flexibility that simply doesn’t exist for employees with in-person responsibilities. If they want an extra remote day, need to work from home because they’re feeling under the weather, or just want more flexibility, it’s often something they can ask for because of their role or tenure.

Meanwhile, I don’t feel like I have that option.

My job has legitimate in-person responsibilities, and I’m aware that I can’t simply opt out of them. If I need to be on-site, I need to be on-site. That’s part of the position, and I understand that.

What frustrates me is that hybrid work has evolved into a workplace benefit that isn’t just based on job duties—it’s also influenced by seniority and organizational level. The higher up someone is, the more autonomy they seem to have over where they work. For those of us with operational or customer-facing responsibilities, that autonomy doesn’t really exist.

It’s especially noticeable when someone who can work remotely avoids using PTO because they can just work from home while sick, while employees who must be physically present often don’t have an equivalent option.

I’m not saying everyone should be remote, and I recognize that some work genuinely has to be done in person. I just wish organizations acknowledged that flexibility has become a meaningful benefit, and that employees who can’t access it are giving up something of real value.

Has anyone else’s workplace found ways to balance this, or is this just the reality of hybrid work now?