This is a mood difference, not just a verb tense difference.
of or relating to the verb form that is used to express suggestions, wishes, uncertainty, possibility, etc.
Your first sentence expresses a wish, a wish that someone does not go to work. This expression is achieved by switching the tense to the past.
The second sentence is more of a command because it remains in the present tense.
Examples:
I would rather we ate turkey for Thanksgiving.
vs
I would rather we eat turkey for Thanksgiving.
The first sentence is quite vulnerable, it's a suggestion, it's an opinion, it's a wish. While the second sentence is more asserting, demanding, obligatory.
If I had wings
If frogs ate zebras
If ants were people
These are all phrases that express a probability, possibility and doubt, and are therefore considered subjunctive phrases.
On the other hand,
If I have wings
If frogs eat zebras
If ants are people
All of these phrases are in the present tense so the doubt is gone.
If frogs eat zebras, they become giraffes.
Even though the above sentence doesn't describe something that is naturally possible, it is in the present tense, and it assumes the reader knows that frogs are capable of eating zebras.
Use the simple present to state facts which are true or regular occurrences.
- "I have a test tomorrow." (It is a truth)
- "I have tests on Mondays." (a regular occurrence)
Use the simple future to state a prediction, as a future imperative or to state a promise.
- "I haven't done the homework so I will have a test tomorrow for sure."
- "You will have broccoli." (you have no choice)
- "I will have homework." (you can rely on it)
Use the future progressive to describe a simultaneous event (especially as a prediction) or a simultaneous event that occurs regularly.
- "I will be having a test when they set off the fire alarm."
- "I will be having a test and I will completely forget everything."
Best Answer
This is fine. The present > future pattern is 'usual' only in conditional constructions:
In these the 'tense' forms aren't really time references. I will do isn't any more futurive than the does - it signifies subsequence or consequence relative to the if clause rather than an actual temporal relationship to the time of utterance.
In other contexts, the restrictions on using future constructions in consecutive clauses are logical and factual, not grammatical. All of these are OK:
As for the question TecBrat raises:
In your first sentence, the can is only 'present' tense in form; its reference is just as futurive as the will in your second sentence. The fact is, English doesn't have a 'present' form, despite the name. The two tenses in English verb forms are not past and present but past and non-past, and the 'present' form can be used with either present or future reference.
When you get right down to it, this is the only way to express future reference with can. Full modal verbs like can cannot be used with auxiliaries like will and be and have, because they are defective—they do not have the non-finite forms (infinitive and participles) which the auxiliaries require.