Well, yeah. Isn't the whole point of these foolish office mandates to get people to quit? That way they can reduce their workforce without the cost and negative press of another round of layoffs.
Layoffs are not bad press. Not to the shareholders, the only ones who matter to these types. I used to think "oh, layoffs mean the company isn't doing so good," but shareholders see "they reduced cost but lost no customers, thus increasing value of the company should it be sold."
I’ve been trying to lose weight, so I chopped off my leg just below the knee. I’m several pounds down, and I didn’t have to stop eating even a calorie. It’s amazing.
The only issue is that now I don’t have a leg and exercise may be difficult….
This is true, and it’s weird because these same companies used to hire like crazy because only growth mattered. Finally real financial discipline is being applied. The tech company I work for is open about the fact that revenue-per-employee is something like half of FAANG companies and they want that to change.
You forgot the most important one: deliver just enough to not get fired, but way less than you did before RTO. Then point to the stats and show the massive productivity drop after RTO.
And they are smart enough to put us at the very bottom of the management ladder, even though we're not actually management. That way we can't legally unionize. In the U.S. at least.
I have been laid off from every job (5 in total) since the pandemic. We are a subhuman commodity. Companies that are hiring now are exploiting the market by offering lower salaries.
Meta and Amazon are in their hiring season and they'll start their layoffs again next spring or summer. And somehow, everyone forgets this fucked up cycle keeps happening in perpetuum.
We need to stop being afraid of mentioning the U word. We need better protection and rights as employees.
At Amazon literally every employee is dispensable. They have a firing quota.
Edit: to be clear I'm talking about the Amazon divisions outside the warehouse. They make managers fire a certain percentage of people on a regular basis.
Depending on your country, that is the norm. Engineers here have at least 2 national unions to choose from, finance have a couple of unions, same with teachers, admin staff, etc. etc.
As usual, this is probably just US being victim of 'merican exceptionlism.
There are jobs that take weeks to learn, jobs that take years to learn, and there are even jobs that take a decade+ to learn. You ain’t putting the three-week old newbie in the latter two roles.
Do the absolute fucking minimum you can, or even less so you piss off management, until they have to fire you, which they can't outright as after a certain number of years they have to give warnings and trainings first.
Split the difference, spend as much of your time on the clock job hunting and doing the bare minimum. Then quit without notice mid shift for the new job.
which they can't outright as after a certain number of years they have to give warnings and trainings first.
I mean, says who? There’s currently only one state in the union that requires cause before you can fire someone. The real issue with firing people is that without a documented cause, that person can collect state unemployment, and the number of people who go on state unemployment from a single company has a financial impact on that company.
I don't work for Amazon, but when my employer announced mandatory RTO I simply included travel time in my day. At home I could do 8 hours of pure work. RTO days were about 6 hours of work and 2 hours of commute.
I’m 47. I’m not a boomer (although I’m probably hella-old compared to most here) and I’d just like to say: What a bloody bunch of boomer-bosses.
“Have you tried disagreeing on a call! It’s hard!”
Grow up man, use the hand up feature and state your case. I work in a fully remote business and we have better meetings here than any office based meeting I’ve ever been in. Calendars are public, confluence is prevalent, slack is the lifeline (thankfully very little email) for everything; with a bunch of “banter”, hobby channels etc. We start every large meeting with a “one personal and one professional highlight” before we commence. I know the people here better than I’ve ever done my office based colleagues.
They are going to regret this. I do not know any developer who would prefer 5 days in the office. None. It’s not like Amazon’s compensation was that high. I really genuinely don’t understand how they expect to recruit.
I think you might be surprised. There’s literally dozens of us gen-x’ers on here. (I’m 53).
Luckily I work for a university and the hybrid thing is still going strong. Honestly I tend to get more done when I’m at home because the social aspect of being at work is very distracting for someone with ADHD like me.
And I hope they do regret it. The only managers I’ve seen that push for the RTO thing are the micromanagers who think they are necessary for productivity. News flash, they aren’t. The best managers set expectations, shield their employees from the bullshit above them, give them the appropriate tools and work environments to be successful, and trust them to do what is necessary.
And yes I’d never work for a Google or an Amazon. You’re a cog, a disposable piece of machinery.
I really hope they do. But now is a good time to put the squeeze on devs. Lots of people are having a hard time finding a software job and they'll be extra reluctant to do a mass exodus.
Yeah and for that minority, they could still go into the office 5 days a week.
My previous boss that found family members too distracting at home so he came in 5 days. But he was cool and told us "yeah don't worry about coming in the days HR is telling you to, I come in every day and hardly anybody is here any way. " Oddly enough, most of the time we actually did come in on the days HR said because we didn't want to get him into trouble for it.
It's almost like if the bosses aren't complete assholes, people will actually want to come into the office more.
Yup. We recently had a complaint that a collaborative meeting was difficult for people on call, so our solution was to make it 100% remote. The meeting is still collaborative, but now everyone has an equal opportunity to participate.
We do 2x in office, 3x WFH, and it's the perfect ratio IMO. Value of in-person time:
questions get answered quickly - easy to tell if someone is available for a quick question, and faster response than Slack
in-person collaboration - screen sharing works, but actually being able to point and type has a ton of value
casual discussions - chat about upcoming projects over lunch or a coffee break long before they're actually important, which can make future meetings smoother
All of that can be done remotely, and we certainly do a fair amount of that, but it's nice to have a little in-person time. That said, my WFH days are sacred because that's when I actually get work done.
Yep the 2 in 3 out is what we do. We do have one day where we all try to be in (Tuesday) to just get the face to face time. Seems to working for us. Plus since most of the conversations are on slack, I can go back and verify what I thought was said. That’s SO convenient.
A company doesn't remember, and the people who are actually responsible don't have regrets cuz the other option was to hand over control to someone else (hopefully more qualified).
Myeah I know what you mean, but the people that get associated with a bad decision at the highest level will usually end up being told by the board before they’re let go. It’s all in private, but in my experience those discussions are reasonably frank.
Ironically I've found it's harder for people to run away in remote, people don't disappear from their desks and you don't have to chase them down. If they don't message back and it's urgent, you call and if they don't pick up a call and haven't marked themselves as such something's up. People are extremely dilligent about making sure they use status' due to the knowledge that people will assume that way.
An office is also a great place to hide away as “busy”; shuffling around, a bit of time at desk, join a meeting and say nothing, coffee, lunch, shuffling, another meeting with low contribution and you’re gone. Doing nothing is just as easy, and less assailable, in an office.
Yeah I'm way more available when working from home, since I can get my nicotine fix at my desk and I can't do that in the office. I need to get up and walk around to get the blood flowing, in the office I think it would be weird to walk a few laps around the cubicle to do this, so I end up being further from my desk more. At home I'm basically always close enough to hear my computer make a ding when I get a message. And if there's an urgent issues that requires attention off hours... sorry not much I can do to help you when I'm on a bus transiting to and from work.
Absolutely right. But the thing is that many so-called leaders will no longer have a raison d'être if there are no more unnecessary meetings and all that fuss. Many of them do nothing all day but sit in meetings, achieve nothing and still feel very important. That's the misery of the world of work: it's not usually the best who get into management positions, it's not the most qualified and certainly not the ones who work the hardest. It's the most unscrupulous, those who pass off the work of others as their own, people who would never achieve anything on their own or in a small company that can't afford to waste salaries on froth-mongers. LinkedIn makes it clear how this all works, I think: there, too, it is not the competent people who really understand their work who have the most success, it is the busybodies, the networkers and narcissists. If the competent people set the tone, there would be no discussion about office duties in an IT company. It's only held on to so that managers can live out their fantasies of omnipotence and post nonsense on LinkedIn.
These people aren't interested in hearing dissenting opinions. I'm sure they've already heard arguments for it. They just don't care. They'd rather cut costs by doing something many people won't tolerate so that they leave and then figuring it out after the fact.
“Have you tried disagreeing on a call! It’s hard!”
When it's an online meeting, they're worried about it potentially being recorded. So what they're really saying is that they can't verbally abuse employees without there potentially being evidence of it.
Yet another thinly veiled stealth lay-off by a technology company. Amazon’s cloud boss Matt "The Prat" Garman will indeed see some departures, as intended and desired. However, that first wave will be of their most talented, who feel confident they will land on their feet elsewhere, leaving those that simply cannot leave (yet) or those that will cozily under perform. When Amazon applies the inevitable followup reductions (subjectively based on their internal review process) to remove the latter, and the former buckle under the load or also leave, Amazon will be left with lower-middle talent at best.
The more I see of business "strategy" among this layer of "leadership", the more I'm convinced it is just a game of Jenga with talent, resources, infrastructure, security, quality, etc; pulling out as many pieces as possible in the drive for short term/sighted gains until a company collapses under its own dysfunctional "efficiency" and "success".
This is absolutely it. The C-suite and senior management are made up of sharp people. They absolutely know this will trigger an exodus and a large bag of fire-able workers. They don't care that they're likely to lose a bunch of talented, hardworking staff. Its all been accounted for. At worst the results of a mass exodus will only impact their bottom line in a few years. They just need this years numbers to look good and line to go up.
At the all-hands meeting, Garman said he’s been speaking with employees and “nine out of 10 people are actually quite excited by this change.”
Just imagine the conversation between the CEO of AWS and some random employee.
„What do you think about the return-to-office policy I propose, Cog #18574?“
„Great idea Mr. Garman sir, really smart move from your team. Incredible thinking and leadership from you Mr. Garman.“
continues to tell people that 9/10 employees he talks to are excited to return to office.
He has to be straight up lying. There’s no way 9/10 are excited to be ordered back into the office. If that were the case, they’d have been in the office already.
That’s a very good point that I’ve never really thought of. It’s not like anybody was keeping them from going back into the office. If they wanted five days a week, they would already have been there five days a week.
Do not give Bezos ideas about uploading brains to the cloud. He would make AWS CloudEmployee, an employee-as-a-service product that lets you scale your business up or down, without expensive layoffs and bad PR.
He totally would. Tech bros reinventing the concept of a temp agency. How revolutionary and disruptive! /s I worked at a company once that would hire temps to work alongside the regular employees when attrition was too bad to meet headcount. We direct employees were getting $10-15/hr for a $25-35/hr job (higher for some roles) and the temps were getting even less, usually because they were desperate or unemployable in the mainstream for whatever reason. I more than doubled my salary when I left there.
I lean more and more towards us all being guilty for every time we've put up with this shit as employees, tolerated other employees being treated poorly, or done business with a company that mistreats its employees. Exploiting your employees should elicit the same response as a fraud scandal. We watched them build these prisons and took money to put our smiling faces at the face of their customer experience. We all tell ourselves we can't do anything alone but we are so disconnected socially that only the already unionized few can truly demand their employers compliance.
You're not wrong. Best case would be finding a labor-friendly judge and that would likely get appealed to the USSC, comprised of conservatives and neoliberals, would almost inevitably rule that labor protections only apply to those whose net with is in the top 5%.
That's what I don't get though, these people seem to be delusional in that they think that they're a hard worker and looooove in person, so therefore every hard worker loves in person and the chaff will quit. Then they act shocked when their high performers largely leave to pursue remote or hybrid options. It's such a glaring inability to see people different from them as having any value.
I asked our CTO at a town hall if there were plans to improve the office my team got moved to because they moved us from the nice office to the city and the back to the previous area but a crappy office. Nope.
Friend, you have no idea how nervous I was during that exchange lol. I think I'm reasonably comfortable with public speaking in smaller crowds but this was a huge group of people and a bunch over Zoom too. I'm so conflict adverse. I typically just ignore problems. I'm rarely even passive aggressive. All that to say, I'm worried I sounded like that guy while I was talking lol.
or they could fuck up key services with delayed code breaks before leaving. Programmers working for amazon should consider adding bullshit in the software and saying it was chatgpt
But that's something I don't actually understand, since real estate would fall under the sunk cost fallacy. Ie, if you've invested in real estate, the cost is spent already, right?
Whether someone comes in that building is irrelevant.
The costs spent to maintain, heat, clean, power the buildings, on the other hand...
It's just not really obvious to me. Seems like fewer people would cost cheaper, no?
Funniest to me in this kind of debate is having my N+1 manage us from across the country, having two team members in another town, and somehow, my ass being at home 15km from the office makes any difference at all to the daily life of the team?
It doesn't. My actual manager, the dude giving us our marching orders, doesn't care. Shit, our N+1 doesn't care either, since he's almost always remote himself!
Only people I've seen actually care seem to be HR, for whatever reason.
I don't even get how any company with several sites has anything to stand on. Makes no fucking sense.
HR only cares because they're told to make a policy and it's their job to enforce it.
I don’t even get how any company with several sites has anything to stand on. Makes no fucking sense.
Companies like Amazon got major tax breaks and free land from governments to build these office sites. Governments gave these incentives with the expectation that it would generate economic activity around those sites. But if everyone is working from home those offices aren't delivering on the promised economic activity.
And also they spent a lot of money on those offices and so want them to be used. It's hard for whoever decided to build that office and the government officials that gave all the tax incentives towards it to admit that conditions have changes and all of that was for no significant benefit. It sucks to realize something you put in a lot of work into had no real benefit. Most people just have to accept that. But if you're in a position of power you can make people do things that will make your project look like it had a successful outcome.
aren’t delivering on the promised economic activity
There doesn't exist a company that gives a flying turd fuck about a government's revenue. Particularly not if they took tax breaks to reduce that revenue in the first place.
I'm a manager at a large aerospace and defense company. We had a hybrid arrangement where most people (who didn't have to touch hardware) could work from home a couple days a week. Most people seemed to think it was pretty reasonable. There really are benefits to in person collaboration, so some on site days seemed to make sense.
We recently moved to fully RTO, and I find it frustrating. It's not a big deal personally - I live close and I'm older - but it pisses off a lot of the employees, who see no good reason for it. I don't see any notable productivity increase moving from three to five days on site, it just makes my management job harder.
He pointed to Amazon’s principle of “disagree and commit,” which is the idea that employees should debate and push back on each others ideas respectfully
That’s all fine and dandy for ending debate about a stupid roadmap feature, but “disagree and commit” is a different story when you’re asking people to spend 3 hours unpaid in a car everyday.
It's not much but I charge all my battery electronics at work and fill my water growlers too they have a pretty great filter here. I have a bunch of camping electronics. Couple flashlights/magnet lights, couple battery packs, portable rechargeable air pump. I'm thinking of getting one of those big Boi anker power bricks for when I travel.
Consequences aside, he has a totally valid point. They own the business, they are the boss, and they can decide. People might not like it, but in the end, it is their problem and people are free to change their job. People got a bit to comfortable lately and every single employee expects the company to be run just as they prefer. Even when you work fully remote, there are still people who find it really hard and stupid as they never get to see their collegues and spend the entire day just staring at the monitor. You will never make everyone happy, so why bother complaining. The decision has been made, take it or leave it.
Nobody is saying what they are doing is illegal. And complaining is what people do to vent, you don't have to read it.
It's seems par the course for Amazon to just treat employees as disposable, and they've burned so many regions' working populations' proverbial bridges that I recall LTT highlighting an article saying Amazon can't find people to employ because they've already cycled through everyone.
Anecdotally, I'm suddenly getting recruiters from AWS asking to interview me, and it all makes sense now. They want to replace the remote workers with new people who don't complain. Fuck that, and fuck them if they think people should be apathetic to this strategy.
The capitalist sits and laughs on their piles of gold while enjoying their immense power, one day in a not so distant future they will hold no power and their wealth will not save them from the righteous anger of the workers they once oppressed
What immense power? You can hand in your resignation and all that power, money and piles of gold suddenly mean nothing when you don't have the basic component that makes the gears turn. Workers are also not oppressed, because workers can quit if it's not fitting for them. Staying there by free will to take the shit in is not oppression... We already have very mobile workforce that basically does job jumping every 2 years, and people are having less and less issue with simply quitting. So what is exactly the problem for the worker, expect that they want to work in a company, but on THEIR terms, and not the company terms?
Not defending Amazon in any way, but I think the playing field is quite level right now between the employer and employees. Both are free to make decisions, both are free to work together or part ways. So I am not seeing an issue other than the worker wanting to control how the company is run.