5 ms·

Every day at 5pm, I do three things: 1. I turn off my work computer and exit my home office. 2. I get a big hug from my 1 year old daughter. 3. I remind myse

• beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
  All employee surveys are corporate theater. They create the illusion that employees and owners/management are equal parties in a discussion. They aren't. Corporations are oligarchical in nature. The philosopher Elizabeth Anderson calls them "private governments" with powers over our lives that would make most political theorists squeal.
  • raspberry1337 4y ago
    [flagged]
  • cjrp 4y ago
    I think the surveys play a role. They help the employer see whether the new policy will be easy or slightly tricky to implement. Either way it’s happening.
    • nikau 4y ago
      Its providing the illusion of choice. Like on an airplane when they ask 'chicken or beef' - you ask for beef, "sorry we only have chicken left"
  • inglor_cz 4y ago
    People in tech are among the most advantaged when it comes to salary/job conditions negotiation, and the possibility of saving up a reasonable reserve cash fund "just in case". For the opposite, see shop clerks, phone marketers etc. Few people want to do such jobs unless in dire straits; there was a famous article from the Resident Contrarian about it.
  • Hermitian909 4y ago
    > All employee surveys are corporate theater. There's a theatrical aspect, but I assure you many companies take the surveys seriously; they just don't treat them like a "vote" in the way many people seem to expect. From management's perspective the surveys are trying to read the temperature of company and figure out: 1. Are there unexpected sources of pain? 2. Approximately how bad will the pain be for new policies? If some process intended (and thought) to be lightweight and cheap is called out as expensive and a major source of pain, management will probably take action. For something like ending remote work, the question is "Exactly how badly will enforcing this policy hurt us? Do we want to make that tradeoff" my guess is that if 99.9% of the company had sad Remote work was non-negotiable to them we wouldn't be reading this headline.
    • shanusmagnus 4y ago
      Good call out. A thing I've noticed is that sometimes the surveys are a response to conditions being super toxic and terrible. Even when they're undertaken for good reasons (e.g., to learn how to fix it) by then so much trust has been lost that the responses are worthless. The best time to plant a "tree" is when things aren't fucked. Maybe the second best time isn't now.
• simplotek 4y ago
  > The S-team had those numbers. Then they sent out an email saying "we know you all can't wait to be back in the office!". They simply don't care what you think or want. What baffles me is that forcing all full remote workers to return to the office with such short notice and in this time of the year is something that's impossible to do without huge monetary and human costs for the worker. After all, does Amazon expect their workers who have spouses and children to force them to abandon their job/school and move back to comutting distance to the office without any support?
  • WJW 4y ago
    Yes, or rather it doesn't really care. If you move together with your spouse and children with you or if you move to a new place on your own while seeing them only on weekends, it doesn't really matter to them as long as you are in the office during weekdays.
  • spandrew 4y ago
    This is how it was before you WFH, so the argument was that cost is assumed anyway. This little WFH break was just some bonus money you free'd up. I don't agree with WFO mandates — they're dumb. WFH or bust.
    • simplotek 4y ago
      Monetary cost is one thing, but no parent can simply pull their kids out of school right now and expect them to have a decent transition to another school. Rental contracts aren't typically reviewed each month, and in some places with high demand it's not possible to just find an apartment in a couple of weeks. As Amazon frames their return to office, it's impossible to be met by some people.
      • JohnFen 4y ago
        I suspect that's by design. My gut tells me that Amazon wants a bunch of people to quit, to try to avoid another embarrassing round of layoffs and so that they don't have to pay severance.
• RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
  My guess is that the fairly soon, the tech companies will be in a hiring phase again. Amazon has further damaged their reputation and will have to pay higher to attract talent.
• elforce002 4y ago
  Congrats man. Enjoy your time with your daughter. Time is the only currency that matters.
  • Clubber 4y ago
    >Time is the only currency that matters. I'm mid GenX and I wish I hadn't spent so much time working. I will never get that time back.
    • seadan83 4y ago
      Ditto, early 20s grinding at amazon instead of building a life.
      • midoridensha 4y ago
        I think it's fine to do that in your 20s for a while to build a resume and a big bank account. After that, though, you should probably prioritize other things in life. Don't live your whole adult life like that; it's not worth it.
        • seadan83 4y ago
          In hindsight, I'm not sure if it is ever worth it. Particularly when young. Early 20s imo should focus on balance and growing. I should have joined some sports leagues to develop a social circle. Nobody wants to be 25~27 and have no friends. Professionally, the resume build was good. The pay, 2.5 yes experience and made about 80k/yr all in. That was still a 50% raise, but not life changing or worth the 55-75hr work weeks (averaged about 60). Was too much sacrifice, not saying quitting was thd option, just could gave tried less hard and easily worked 5 to 10 hours less per week with the same result.
          • midoridensha 4y ago
            >just could gave tried less hard and easily worked 5 to 10 hours less per week with the same result. I think this is an important point. Too many people spend too much time at work thinking all those extra hours will somehow pay off for them. They almost never do: the slacker co-worker who leaves after his 8 hours are done might get a slightly lower raise, but after 10 years you won't see a significant difference between the two in savings or career trajectory, all other factors being equal. The slacker might not be as well-liked by management, but he'll quit after a couple of years anyway and go to another company and get paid more than the hard-working guy putting in 60 hours/week, then do the same after 2-3 years, etc. Loyalty is not rewarded.
• thegrim33 4y ago
  "Tech survey 2021 showed that most devs preferred remote at least half of the time or more" I'm sure the devs would also prefer a salary of a clean million a year. What the devs prefer doesn't equate to what a business should do.
  • dieselgate 4y ago
    Quite the straw man example there considering many Orgs didn’t have much of a choice in going remote during the worst of the pandemic
  • mabbo 4y ago
    That's fine, but don't turn around and tell me that I want something that you know I don't want. Don't pretend I said this would make me happy.