5 ms·

> Also, prior to the pandemic Amazon was very clear that remote work was the exception and not the norm. Sure - but I don't support the RTO order for people hi

by gedy 2y ago

> Also, prior to the pandemic Amazon was very clear that remote work was the exception and not the norm. Sure - but I don't support the RTO order for people hired remote during pandemic without a totally unambiguous "this is just temporary" when hired. What was the situation for those hired 2020-2023?

anononaut 2y ago
In my mind, the long term WFH for everybody at every company was temporary. To me that seems obvious. It was implicitly unambiguous.
- digging 2y ago
  Is "implicitly unambiguous" anything but an oxymoron? Do you think all humans have access to your mental model of the world?
  - anononaut 2y ago
    I think if we work one way for centuries until something happens to disrupt that, we can assume an eventual return to the average rather than "new normal" nonsense.
    - asynchronous 2y ago
      Except tech has allowed WFH for almost 4 decades now? Teleworking has been a thing since the 60s, it’s us that are just now catching up to not needing an office.
- mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
  I don't think that was obvious. There were lots of executives praising lots of teams for keeping things running perfectly fine while remote. There is no obvious reason to RTO when everything was working fine with remote workers.
- ben0x539 2y ago
  In my mind, it was to be temporary until the risk of infection at the office was back to pre-pandemic levels. I understand that at this point it's more likely that we'll define the problem away and normalize shifting that much more of a health risk onto employees, but going by the original "implicit" agreement we're still in that temporary period. Of course it's not serious to threat it as temporary because companies and people have made permanent adjustments that won't be rolled back. My (Amazon subsidiary!) employer at no point made anyone(†) go back to the office. I happily returned when vaccines were widely rolled out, but quickly realized people were still getting infected left and right and decided to minimize office visists while strictly masking. A good half of the team moved out of state and never came back, future hires were fully remote as often as not. I got hit by layoffs eventually but as far as I have heard the remaining team has not gotten any less distributed. I don't think it's reasonable to describe a forced move to full office attendance as an inevitable "return to normal", even if we back in March 2020 would have expected it to have happened by now. But now in 2024, the world has changed and it's an explicit employment policy decision that as a purpose-of-a-system-is-what-it-does thing aims to continue layoffs while paying less severance etc. († naturally from atop my ivory throne of tech-wrought hubris, I am discounting actual office staff like facilities and security as well as some portion of IT etc)
chipdart 2y ago
> Sure - but I don't support the RTO order for people hired remote during pandemic without a totally unambiguous "this is just temporary" when hired. There was a totally unambiguous "this is just temporary" when hired that is as explicit as it gets: the contract.

by gedy 2y ago

anononaut 2y ago

In my mind, the long term WFH for everybody at every company was temporary. To me that seems obvious. It was implicitly unambiguous.

digging 2y ago
Is "implicitly unambiguous" anything but an oxymoron? Do you think all humans have access to your mental model of the world?
- anononaut 2y ago
  I think if we work one way for centuries until something happens to disrupt that, we can assume an eventual return to the average rather than "new normal" nonsense.
  - asynchronous 2y ago
    Except tech has allowed WFH for almost 4 decades now? Teleworking has been a thing since the 60s, it’s us that are just now catching up to not needing an office.
mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
I don't think that was obvious. There were lots of executives praising lots of teams for keeping things running perfectly fine while remote. There is no obvious reason to RTO when everything was working fine with remote workers.
ben0x539 2y ago
In my mind, it was to be temporary until the risk of infection at the office was back to pre-pandemic levels. I understand that at this point it's more likely that we'll define the problem away and normalize shifting that much more of a health risk onto employees, but going by the original "implicit" agreement we're still in that temporary period. Of course it's not serious to threat it as temporary because companies and people have made permanent adjustments that won't be rolled back. My (Amazon subsidiary!) employer at no point made anyone(†) go back to the office. I happily returned when vaccines were widely rolled out, but quickly realized people were still getting infected left and right and decided to minimize office visists while strictly masking. A good half of the team moved out of state and never came back, future hires were fully remote as often as not. I got hit by layoffs eventually but as far as I have heard the remaining team has not gotten any less distributed. I don't think it's reasonable to describe a forced move to full office attendance as an inevitable "return to normal", even if we back in March 2020 would have expected it to have happened by now. But now in 2024, the world has changed and it's an explicit employment policy decision that as a purpose-of-a-system-is-what-it-does thing aims to continue layoffs while paying less severance etc. († naturally from atop my ivory throne of tech-wrought hubris, I am discounting actual office staff like facilities and security as well as some portion of IT etc)

chipdart 2y ago

> Sure - but I don't support the RTO order for people hired remote during pandemic without a totally unambiguous "this is just temporary" when hired. There was a totally unambiguous "this is just temporary" when hired that is as explicit as it gets: the contract.