4 ms·
It would be one thing if companies have had (1) zero turnover since the COVID WFH started, and (2) could clearly show that WFH hurt their productivity; in that
by mikece 3y ago
It would be one thing if companies have had (1) zero turnover since the COVID WFH started, and (2) could clearly show that WFH hurt their productivity; in that case a "y'all come back to the office now" makes sense.
The company I was working for when WFH started was concerned about a drop in productivity but instead saw an INCREASE in productivity, so much so they never mandated RTO after that.
- garciasn 3y agoAmazon’s CEO admits there’s no data driving the RTO policy decision. It’s simply his opinion and the opinion of unnamed other CEOs that employees must return. That’s my issue with it all. Companies are supposedly data-driven and Amazon is known for heavily relying on data and KPIs to measure efficiency, productivity, and thus success or no success. They’re openly admitting those are not in play here. In this case, they’re simply being assholes to their employees.
- birdyrooster 3y agoLet’s be more specific about the obvious conflicts of interest at play. These managers, directors, and VPs are the same who have the most to lose if real estate loses its value. Their portfolios are diversified and they have commercial and residential real estate positions they don’t want to lose on, even if it means fucking over their employees.
- garciasn 3y agoWe can speculate for sure and their real estate investments are a likely reason but I was trying to only use their historical behaviors and known information about the decision to make the point.
- smabie 3y agoThis is insane speculation? You're saying these executives are invested in some REIT so they push RTO to pump their own bags? Maybe, just maybe, they think RTO is better for the company?
- birdyrooster 3y agoI think they can't tell if RTO is better for the company, so they think, "why tank my REITs, directly owned properties, or other real estate investment plays if I am not sure?"