this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
280 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37604 readers
140 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy recently told employees that those who do not want to return to the office at least three days a week should consider finding employment elsewhere. According to a recording obtained by Insider, Jassy stated "It's past the time to disagree and commit," adding that if employees cannot commit to the new hybrid work model, "it's probably not going to work out for you at Amazon." He characterized the decision to have employees return to the office part-time as a "judgment call." Notably, Jassy said employees are free to leave if they do not want to comply with the hybrid work requirement. This makes clear that Amazon has not changed its stance on returning to office work despite some employees preferring full remote arrangements.

all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dark_stang@beehaw.org 123 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

When COVID hit and the company I was with at the time went 100% remote, upper management discovered our productivity went up. That same company started forcing people back into the office as soon as they could. Watching a team of executives intentionally harm their company and try to justify it was wild. It wasn't about being profitable, it was about control for controls sake.

[–] renard_roux@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It probably wouldn't work, but I've been wondering whether it would be possible to use the shareholders of publicly traded companies against them in these situations.

I've seen people mention that companies are obligated to maximize profits for their shareholders (might not be true everywhere, and my knowledge on the subject is extremely limited).

If there was data available for a given company that showed that profits were increased during a period where a substantial part (or all) of the employees worked from home, and then the company starts forcing the employees back to the office, could the board not be called upon to force the company to keep people in work-from-home-mode? Would the company not be obliged to do that, to maximize the profits? It seems to me that this would be in the best interest of the shareholders.

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nope, because the biggest shareholders in the vast majority of companies are financial institutions like Blackrock, that coincidentally have large commercial real estate portfolios as well.

Individual shareholders are a drop in the ocean next to that immense amount of centralized wealth. When you think of shareholders, it's not even the 1%, it's a couple hundred people who own everything.

[–] renard_roux@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Thanks, that makes perfect sense, and gels perfectly with my knowledge on the subject being ridiculously limited 😅

Are there any really big companies that don't have shareholders? Just curious if it's even possible to get really big without selling stock. Guess it's probably a thing that even if there are any that don't, they probably still have investors. Would be fun to know if there are companies out there that managed everything just on their product, growing organically I guess.

edit: to partially answer my own question, here is Wikipedia's list of the largest private non-governmental companies by revenue.

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago

You can get reasonably big, but in most Western markets public companies who are owned by the same few institutions have a controlling anticompetitive share.

[–] Sharpiemarker@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago

And real estate. Don't forget real estate.

[–] Juvyn00b@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 year ago

A company I worked for went full on into a corporate workspace refresh to open concept during COVID. Writing was on the wall and they tried to recall people 3 months into COVID-which failed spectacularly. I found a remote job shortly after and while I do go in from time to time on my own account, I don't really miss traffic or open office plans.

[–] Overzeetop@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

productivity went up

I suspect this is partially a result of change, not that work from home was implemented. Shaking up a work environment (for something more desirable to the employee) is always a morale and productivity boost. Move everyone from a bull pen to offices, or move to a new facility where there are fewer distractions and new equipment, or simply change the work schedule to a 9x9 or 4x10 and you'll see short term gains. .

Regardless of the cause of the productivity boost, full time WFH will come at the expense of training young (or new to the field) employees. Ironically, part of the cost of training new employees comes out of the billable hours of the experienced ones. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 20%-25% reduction in output of an employee who is given an intern or new hire to mentor. That won't happen when you're remote because the new hire can't constantly bug you for simple requests, ask for more work, or require active review and monitoring of their work process. But in a couple of years, you'll have two people at 100% (nominal) output in return for the loss in productivity of the mentor.

It's said that it takes 150% of the annual salary in costs to a company to replace someone. Having mentored young engineers, most cost me far more in the first year than I billed, and it took close to 3 years to break even - and that's at a relatively low salary. To have mentored someone remotely for the first year would have likely taken even longer to get them up to speed and profitable. In the short term, moving your office of independently competent individuals remote should absolutely produce a boost in productivity.

Anyway, it's this long view that is the actual, actionably logic behind the return to the office. That isn't to excuse the micromanagers who's only job was to walk around and remind people to put covers on their TPS reports - they are no more than overpaid hall monitors and a relic that should die. It also doesn't excuse the upper managers who never understood the concept of sunk cost in college and feel that they need to fill the seats in the building where they have another 8 years on their lease.

Easy layoffs without having to pay severance, can just claim they refused to move.

Amazon built up half the property in south lake union and Bellevue and now they're trying to justify why they did that. God knows they could have saved a ton of money if they hadn't.

[–] thebardingreen@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz 63 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's amazing how for a culture that fetishizes "freedom" we're willing to accept a reality where you have to give it up for half your waking life just to live and provide for your family.

I wish we would stop.

[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What really amazes me as a european is that while I still think we have to work too much for our modern times we only do a fraction of your average work hours and that cases no issues whatsoever.

[–] EddoWagt@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago

It's almost as if working more is not necessarily more productive

[–] ConstableJelly@beehaw.org 63 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If I were predisposed toward conspiracies I would definitely be convinced by now that every medium-to-large business owner in the country was part of a secret cabal who made a pact to demand return to office for whatever terrible reason sounded good to them.

My own workplace is mandating a hybrid model for any employees within 30 miles of an office after "much research, discussion, and debate with employees." They've typically been very reasonable and generous to their workforce, and I just don't understand what they're thinking, honestly.

[–] Skwerls@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hilariously, the data don't back them up, my wife does research on this very topic for a company. The dollar signs do though, they have to justify the property expenditures.

[–] prole@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hilariously, the data don't back them up, my wife does research on this very topic for a company. The dollar signs do though, they have to justify the property expenditures.

No. That's sunk cost fallacy.

If they've already bought and paid for the buildings, they are not losing more money by not using them.

In fact, they probably save money on things like maintenance, overhead, security on physical sites when they're not being used. They could also be renting those spaces out, or straight up selling.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Smart company would be selling the property before the prices crash

[–] dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 year ago

Don't most companies have Blackrock on their board, who had been buying real estate for the better part of the last 5 years.

[–] Boozilla@beehaw.org 40 points 1 year ago

"Disagree and commit" = do what I say or quit. Worker exploitation has many douchey buzz phrases.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 40 points 1 year ago

Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in action in the land of the free

[–] slowbyrne@beehaw.org 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is your friendly reminder to not use Amazon. Give up a small convenience so that you can vote with your wallet.

[–] Sina@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

There is a lot to criticize Amazon for, but this wouldn't be anywhere near my top pick.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The mentality of these people are exactly like slave owners.

[–] diskmaster23@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

Time for unionized office work

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe it's time to consider alternative cloud providers at work. AWS is pretty good but they're going to alienate a ton of talented engineers by doing this.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is an important point. What cloud providers are flexible on engineer working conditions? I’d imagine they’d all be smaller scale providers?

[–] AttackPanda@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

I know from a friend that works for GCP that they are up his ass to get back into the office and have been for a while. Not sure on Azure but I think you’re right that it’s probably going to be small cap places.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago

Brain drain is terminal for a technology product (most of the time). In the short term I'll focus on making our products portable (migrating ec2 init scripts to docker, using frameworks for server less instead of using direct apis etc...). And when the time comes switch to whatever is best.

[–] astraeus@programming.dev 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hilarious that the company that pioneered cloud solutions and made working from home for a ton of people ridiculously easier decides that their employees don’t deserve to work from home. Something something corporate office real estate crisis.

[–] bl4kers@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] astraeus@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

Tbf this is the same guy that absolutely raked his own company’s flagship software over the coals while telling them it’s time to come back to the office

[–] Eryn6844@beehaw.org 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

guys come work for my company we have embraced the work remote life style.

[–] bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Alright I'm in. What do we do for the world?

[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Honestly as long as it's not "Accrue money for bezos so he can shoot his phallic rockets into space" it's probably better for the world.

[–] snowbell@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 11 points 1 year ago

"You're coming into the office too, right?"

. . .

"You'll be in the office too?"

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Startups wringing their hands in anticipation

[–] ndguardian@lemmy.studio 1 points 1 year ago

I’m lucky in that my employer went the opposite direction. Downsizing our local office and just letting us all be 100% remote. We’re a geographically distributed group so it doesn’t make sense to enforce office requirements.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summaryThousands of workers signed a petition against the mandate and staged a walkout in response.

In a recording of the meeting obtained by Insider, Jassy told workers, “It’s past the time to disagree and commit,” adding that “if you can’t disagree and commit... it’s probably not going to work out for you at Amazon because we are going back to the office at least three days a week.”

The Verge reached out to Amazon with a request for comment but didn’t immediately hear back.

On top of ongoing layoffs, Amazon has been cracking down on employees who refuse to return to the office.

In July, leaked messages seen by Insider suggested that Amazon would force a “voluntary resignation” on employees who don’t relocate to the in-person hubs where their teams work while others just began quitting on their own.

The company has also started sending warnings to workers about their in-person attendance, according to Insider.


Saved 46% of original text.