5 ms·

Backlash over Amazon's return to office comes as workers demand higher wages

74 points by rntn 2y ago

catdeblack 2y ago
I hope the folks driving these harcore RTO initiatives understand the big backlash that is coming their way, in terms of talent drain, loss of customer trust and reputation, and increased competition from smaller, more independent firms. This is not the 1980s and corporatocracies are no longer as influential as they once were due to the changing market, demographic, and rise of AI.
golemiprague 2y ago
The advantage of working from home was that you could take care of kids and do all the housework, this worth thousands of dollars per months. For years companies didn't adjust salaries in accordance to inflation and the cost of outsourcing kids care and house care, all that while keeping interest rate low and bailing rich bankers with printing of money. This caused funneling of wealth from the workers to asset holders which increased house and stock prices rather than creating new actual wealth or GDP per capita while destroying almost every class of society except the 1 percenters who became richer. It is about time the system will balance itself otherwise the western world will go back to de facto feudalism.
- Spivak 2y ago
  Yep, working from home is easily 25%+ of my compensation and it doesn't cost the company a dime. I'm shocked executives aren't over the moon that there's a zero dollar perk they can give that's worth significant amounts of money to people.
  - varispeed 2y ago
    Many major employers also hold investments in commercial property. Empty offices lose value. Someone somewhere got in their excel that loss of productivity from RTO is lower than potential loss of the property investments.
    - snapcaster 2y ago
      This keeps being repeated but there is no evidence provided. Can you point to a single example of a company where this calculation would be made/true?
      - ghaff 2y ago
        The company I used to work for was aggressively not renewing leases that they no longer needed given lower office occupancy. I have no doubt that companies trying to force people back into offices have some pretty silly reasons for doing so (including pressure from local governments) but the idea it's all about execs propping up commercial real estate seriously makes no sense even if it satisfies some conspiracy theory impulse.
      - varispeed 2y ago
        https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/construction/real-estate-breidge/working-home-and-office-real-estate-apocalypse https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/construction/real-estate-brei... https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/reits-to-capitalize-on-return-to-office-trend https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/reits-to-capital... Whilst these are not direct examples, they show the commercial estate market is in deep trouble if people are not going to return.
        snapcaster 2y ago
        Right, but the reason this theory doesn't make sense is because why would the executives of another company give a shit? How would they induce a bunch of tenants to RTO on their behalf?
    - dylan604 2y ago
      If someone is paying for rent in a building, then the value does not lower just because nobody is actually using the space. The landlord has a tenant that continues to pay rent at market rate. That's the end of the story as far as the property value goes down. At least for the companies that rent their space. For companies that own their land and buildings, that's another thing, but again, the value is not set based on how many people are working there. Not sure where this idea came from
  - thfuran 2y ago
    Surely it's negative cost unless they're still maintaining an empty but fully furnished office building large enough for all employees to work from full time.
- varispeed 2y ago
  > The advantage of working from home was that you could take care of kids and do all the housework, this worth thousands of dollars per months You are also not using the office, not commute and pollute. Companies also put workers through the stress of working in inadequate workplaces - open plane offices to cram as many workers per square feet, like caged hens. System will not balance itself, as people are just few missing pay checks from being homeless, so nobody is going to risk going against their master, sorry employer. It will also not come from the government as these are as corrupt as they get. The system will simply collapse at some point. Most likely the rich will be "hanged" and the cycle will start over.
- nicpottier 2y ago
  We are talking about Amazon engineers here. They are in the top 3% of earners, I don't think we need to cry too many tears about them going back to the office.
  - harwoodjp 2y ago
    An injury to one is an injury to all.
    - diggan 2y ago
      If people had some sort of class solidarity, then yes. But instead everyone is fighting against everyone to get to the top of the "earners" curve, even if it means a less equal society as a whole, and people seem fine with it. It's a cultural issue that has persisted in the country for a very long time.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - varispeed 2y ago
    Wage earners are working class. You are using "top 3%" as an excuse to c*p on them. This is the crabs in the bucket mentality that the rich want to cultivate amongst working class, so they pull each other down and help maximise profits.
    - windowshopping 2y ago
      What is c*p? "Crap"? Is that really offensive enough to censor?
    - crazyeights 2y ago
      [dead]
- dingnuts 2y ago
  where did this meme come from that you can do house work and child care while working remote? It's not remotely true. Child care is a full time job. You might be able to move laundry around while tests run but that's about it. If people are neglecting their jobs enough to take care of kids then they're giving ammo to the management class to argue that they can't trust us.
  - panarky 2y ago
    It's about flexibility. I can get up early and work an hour, then get the kids ready for school, then work five hours, then take them to my sister's place after school, then work two hours, then have dinner and read them stories before bed, then work another hour. Can't do that from an office with an hour commute each way.
  - meowfly 2y ago
    I haven't figured this out. Ideally we should should hold employees to the work they produce but I still cringe a little when someone calls into a meeting because they had to run an errand. I want management to believe wfh isn't being abused. It's exclusively about the optics. The lack of interruptions is a net positive. If we miss a deadline, it makes it easy for management to start blaming people not being at their desk. We shouldn't be giving them ammo
  - jhwhite 2y ago
    Depends on the age of the child. A 10 year old is old enough to be at the house without direct supervision but not be left alone. They would need to go to a daycare if someone were in an office.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  Isn't this kind of proving the point of RTO from the company's point of view? If you're taking care of your child and doing housework instead of working?
  - Borg3 2y ago
    Who cares if you do the job? I have much higher efficency at home compared to office. No distractions, no wasted time communiting. I can organize myself better too. If I need to take a break, I do it and then I do job later, still keeping 8h of work, just splited. The problem is how you are accounted for doing work. By tasks or by time spent in office... I saw people in office doing nothing, just talks on kitchen or answering emails.. When asked about tasks.. Im working hard sir.. heh. Its a bit complicated matter, because when you are more efficient, boss usually will attach new tasks so you have to work harder or be even more efficient. And those who are less efficient dont get new tasks.. Not smart..
    - Jcampuzano2 2y ago
      Thats the idealistic point of view, but management will always wrangle themselves out of it. "Why aren't you efficient at the office? We've optimized it for efficiency" or "Okay well we'll budget in making you more efficient in office so that you're even more productive here". Another could be the argument that you need to be highly available during core hours, you shouldn't potentially not be available during the core 8 hour work day of your location, and the best way to force that is you being visible in office by management. The root of the issue is we value our time, and commuting is basically a loss of time and is not compensated. If we don't make enough money when commuting to make up for how much we value that time, we're losing. Most of us are comparing our salaries to what we used to make before this was the norm, and its not that different from before. So when going back to the "norm" we are losing part of what we consider our compensation packate -> more free time.
  - ipsento606 2y ago
    I guess it depends on the kind of work. But are there people who really spend all their time in the office continually doing work? I spend some time pottering about and doing chores during the workday when I wfh. But I also spend lots of time goofing off while at the office. The difference is that while at the office, I have to be constantly vigilant about how I'm perceived by others, so time spend goofing off isn't nearly as rejuvenating and reinvigorating as it would have been at home. Isn't it pretty normal to only have a few hours of real-work capability per day?
- Jcampuzano2 2y ago
  The easy argument to this by management is that you shouldn't be taking care of your kids and doing housework while working in the first place. Another argument could be that it punishes those who don't have kids yet or don't want them unfairly working more than those who do. You can't use the argument of "being able to do things other than work" as an argument because its easily trumped. The best arguments are those having to do with lost time and increased stress due to commuting. Being able to more quickly transition to housework and looking after kids, or just being closer to them in general during your breaks/lunches, etc. You are losing time which is in itself compensation by being forced go to an office for a job that shouldn't necessitate it. Another is health benefits: more easy access to preparing food at home. Less stress as mentioned. Easier to go to a gym or workout at home. etc.
  - golemiprague 2y ago
    [dead]
jmward01 2y ago
I wonder what drives these decisions? Is there that much solid evidence that they get more value out of people in the office rather than home? Or are there other reasons like tax incentives that encourage in-person work over remote? Is this just a control thing or or there a compelling argument that I am missing?
- nightfly 2y ago
  It's a sneaky way of doing layoffs, everyone who won't comply has to "quit"
  - letitgo12345 2y ago
    It's an excellent way of getting your best people who have options to quit while the worst ones who don't are forced to stick around
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - kimixa 2y ago
      Those "best people" may also be some of the higher paid - so if you only care about short term results that may be more of a feature than a bug.
    - nothercastle 2y ago
      Does Amazon do anything that requires best people anymore? They could probably survive on decidedly mediocre
  - kasey_junk 2y ago
    Why would Amazon prefer that to layoffs or more aggressive performance standards?
    - dboreham 2y ago
      Money, and being welcome at the country club.
flerchin 2y ago
RTO seems to have nothing to do with the warehouse workers asking for a piddly $25/hour and health and safety guarantees. It's flabberghasting that the union votes keep failing.
- tech_ken 2y ago
  Union-busting campaigns are extremely effective, and honestly labor unions have gotten very lazy about building new units. "Hot shop" focused organizing plus a "we'll fire you if you sign the card (not really :) ) (yes really >:) )" poster in every breakroom and it's a big uphill battle for the workers.
  - Mountain_Skies 2y ago
    Just one person's experience but when I was younger, I worked for several years at both a non-union grocery store and a unionized store in different cities. Working union was much better but part of that was the quality of co-workers was better. At the non-union store, I can see why unionization on the surface would be unappealing since there were lots of low quality employees. If you're someone who does their assigned work and see other slacking off constantly and constantly screwing things up, hearing the typical union messages of solidarity isn't going to be appealing. You have to be able to view things in the context of unionization of the company also making the jobs more appealing to a better quality worker. In my n=1 opinion, the non-union chain lost lots of money through poor quality labor and might have been better off with high labor costs that would be offset by higher quality labor but I have no way of actually being able to quantify that to determine if it would be true. At both the union and non-union stores there was a perception that union dues were used by union officials more for their own enrichment than for the benefit of members. Having worked at the non-unionized store first, the better wages and benefits easily outweighed the cost of union dues, but some of that could also have been due to the location in a more affluent area.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  Amazon seems extremely likely to pull a walmart and immediately close any warehouse that unionizes.
cut3 2y ago
Amazon tech workers should unionize.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  It's a thought, but ceteris paribus, software engineers seem to have a particular scorn for unions beyond the calculus of economics. In other words, there is a personality/sub-cultural disdain for unions. I see it as an extension of a distaste for bureaucracy or perhaps, social structures in general, but I'm open to other perspectives.
  - Apocryphon 2y ago
    Temporarily embarrassed 10x engineers
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - neilv 2y ago
    Guesses, for the last decade or two: 1. Software developers have been paid very good money, and have seen little else to complain about. 2. Software developers have been paid excessive flattery, and think they merit and achieve more individually than a union could get them. 3. Software developers have been hopping jobs so fast, never anywhere long enough to think they need a union.
  - lurkshark 2y ago
    Sometimes I wonder if you framed it differently would it be more appealing to tech workers. Like if there was a startup that negotiates on behalf of employees for salary, benefits, remote vs in-office, etc. using collective influence as more people from a particular company used it. Or to put it another way, how much of the distaste for unions is wrapped up in the term “union”?
    - glial 2y ago
      > if there was a startup that negotiates on behalf of employees for salary, benefits, remote vs in-office, etc. using collective influence as more people from a particular company used it. I...love this idea. And end-users could pay them dues, excuse me, fees for the service.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Related: Amazon ordered a return to the office – but research says they'll backtrack https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41580488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41580488 Amazon employees: 'I'd rather go back to school than work in an office again' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41570981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41570981 Amazon tells employees to return to office five days a week https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41558554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41558554
forgotacc240419 2y ago
Are they doing anything like letting on call staff work from home to make up for the added work of commuting in and still not getting to log off in the evening?
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
This article seems to be more about warehouse workers than corporate workers. The warehouse workers have no choice but to come to the office. I do think they deserve more pay and benefits though. Amazon is pointing at what they’re providing as being competitive or industry leading, but that hides the reality of working at a grueling warehouse where everyone is pushed to physical limits and measured in brutal ways. That type of work takes a toll. And I don’t mean just the people who have experienced injuries and filed lawsuits, but everyone. They will probably all have some lasting health impact. They should be compensated much more for how Amazon runs those warehouses. As for the return to office aspect: if employees - especially those with families that live in homes that are only affordable or available further away - have to lose 1-2 hours commuting each way, then yes they do deserve additional compensation to make up for the RTO policy. I’m sure Andy Jassy won’t recognize that or offer it up though. He and Jeff Bezos share a view that work life balance is “debilitating” (https://www.savvydime.com/jeff-bezos-believes-work-life-balance-is-a-debilitating-phrase-that-gen-z-has-latched-onto/ https://www.savvydime.com/jeff-bezos-believes-work-life-bala...) and Bezos has used code phrases before that suggest he favors young workers - which may be why this policy will hurt older workers and those with children the most.
rybosworld 2y ago
It doesn't seem like a coincidence that Amazon's RTO is being paired with a middle manager haircut. With less middle managers, the executives are probably thinking they'll need individual contributors physically present in order to monitor them effectively. I still can't imagine why anyone agrees to work at a place that treats it's employees like children.
- nothercastle 2y ago
  Money
kkfx 2y ago
Hum... For those eligible to WFH, there is no higher salary, simply state WFH or you will not find any workers interesting in working for you. IT workers united means no IT company can survive against them.
urda 2y ago
Jassy needs to go. Either kick him back down to AWS or kick him to the curb.
JSDevOps 2y ago
Unions in the UK are nothing short of a broken promise, collecting fees from workers while offering little in return. It’s infuriating to see how they portray themselves as champions of the working class, yet when push comes to shove, they’re nowhere to be found. They’ll happily take your hard-earned money month after month, selling you the idea that they’ll fight for your rights. But when you actually need them—when management is pulling the rug out from under you—their usual response is something along the lines of, "Well, there’s not much we can do when management has already made a decision." Really? That's what we pay for? The truth is, they’re masters of taking credit when it benefits their public image. When a company backtracks on an unpopular decision, it’s often due to public outrage or fear of bad PR, but the unions will still swoop in and claim victory. They act like they’ve led the charge, when in reality, they were sitting on the sidelines, waiting for someone else to force management’s hand. It’s a performance, and a poor one at that, designed to justify their existence. And let’s not even start on how little they’re actually doing to protect workers in an increasingly precarious job market. They’re loud when they want to be heard but silent when it truly counts. The whole thing is a farce, and it's time we stopped pretending unions are still the powerful advocates they once were. They're not. They're out of touch, ineffective, and quite frankly, taking advantage of the very people they’re supposed to be defending.

74 points by rntn 2y ago

I hope the folks driving these harcore RTO initiatives understand the big backlash that is coming their way, in terms of talent drain, loss of customer trust and reputation, and increased competition from smaller, more independent firms. This is not the 1980s and corporatocracies are no longer as influential as they once were due to the changing market, demographic, and rise of AI.

golemiprague 2y ago

The advantage of working from home was that you could take care of kids and do all the housework, this worth thousands of dollars per months. For years companies didn't adjust salaries in accordance to inflation and the cost of outsourcing kids care and house care, all that while keeping interest rate low and bailing rich bankers with printing of money. This caused funneling of wealth from the workers to asset holders which increased house and stock prices rather than creating new actual wealth or GDP per capita while destroying almost every class of society except the 1 percenters who became richer. It is about time the system will balance itself otherwise the western world will go back to de facto feudalism.

Spivak 2y ago
Yep, working from home is easily 25%+ of my compensation and it doesn't cost the company a dime. I'm shocked executives aren't over the moon that there's a zero dollar perk they can give that's worth significant amounts of money to people.
- varispeed 2y ago
  Many major employers also hold investments in commercial property. Empty offices lose value. Someone somewhere got in their excel that loss of productivity from RTO is lower than potential loss of the property investments.
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    This keeps being repeated but there is no evidence provided. Can you point to a single example of a company where this calculation would be made/true?
    - ghaff 2y ago
      The company I used to work for was aggressively not renewing leases that they no longer needed given lower office occupancy. I have no doubt that companies trying to force people back into offices have some pretty silly reasons for doing so (including pressure from local governments) but the idea it's all about execs propping up commercial real estate seriously makes no sense even if it satisfies some conspiracy theory impulse.
    - varispeed 2y ago
      https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/construction/real-estate-breidge/working-home-and-office-real-estate-apocalypse https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/construction/real-estate-brei... https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/reits-to-capitalize-on-return-to-office-trend https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/reits-to-capital... Whilst these are not direct examples, they show the commercial estate market is in deep trouble if people are not going to return.
      - snapcaster 2y ago
        Right, but the reason this theory doesn't make sense is because why would the executives of another company give a shit? How would they induce a bunch of tenants to RTO on their behalf?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    If someone is paying for rent in a building, then the value does not lower just because nobody is actually using the space. The landlord has a tenant that continues to pay rent at market rate. That's the end of the story as far as the property value goes down. At least for the companies that rent their space. For companies that own their land and buildings, that's another thing, but again, the value is not set based on how many people are working there. Not sure where this idea came from
- thfuran 2y ago
  Surely it's negative cost unless they're still maintaining an empty but fully furnished office building large enough for all employees to work from full time.
varispeed 2y ago
> The advantage of working from home was that you could take care of kids and do all the housework, this worth thousands of dollars per months You are also not using the office, not commute and pollute. Companies also put workers through the stress of working in inadequate workplaces - open plane offices to cram as many workers per square feet, like caged hens. System will not balance itself, as people are just few missing pay checks from being homeless, so nobody is going to risk going against their master, sorry employer. It will also not come from the government as these are as corrupt as they get. The system will simply collapse at some point. Most likely the rich will be "hanged" and the cycle will start over.
nicpottier 2y ago
We are talking about Amazon engineers here. They are in the top 3% of earners, I don't think we need to cry too many tears about them going back to the office.
- harwoodjp 2y ago
  An injury to one is an injury to all.
  - diggan 2y ago
    If people had some sort of class solidarity, then yes. But instead everyone is fighting against everyone to get to the top of the "earners" curve, even if it means a less equal society as a whole, and people seem fine with it. It's a cultural issue that has persisted in the country for a very long time.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- varispeed 2y ago
  Wage earners are working class. You are using "top 3%" as an excuse to c*p on them. This is the crabs in the bucket mentality that the rich want to cultivate amongst working class, so they pull each other down and help maximise profits.
  - windowshopping 2y ago
    What is c*p? "Crap"? Is that really offensive enough to censor?
  - crazyeights 2y ago
    [dead]
dingnuts 2y ago
where did this meme come from that you can do house work and child care while working remote? It's not remotely true. Child care is a full time job. You might be able to move laundry around while tests run but that's about it. If people are neglecting their jobs enough to take care of kids then they're giving ammo to the management class to argue that they can't trust us.
- panarky 2y ago
  It's about flexibility. I can get up early and work an hour, then get the kids ready for school, then work five hours, then take them to my sister's place after school, then work two hours, then have dinner and read them stories before bed, then work another hour. Can't do that from an office with an hour commute each way.
- meowfly 2y ago
  I haven't figured this out. Ideally we should should hold employees to the work they produce but I still cringe a little when someone calls into a meeting because they had to run an errand. I want management to believe wfh isn't being abused. It's exclusively about the optics. The lack of interruptions is a net positive. If we miss a deadline, it makes it easy for management to start blaming people not being at their desk. We shouldn't be giving them ammo
- jhwhite 2y ago
  Depends on the age of the child. A 10 year old is old enough to be at the house without direct supervision but not be left alone. They would need to go to a daycare if someone were in an office.
snapcaster 2y ago
Isn't this kind of proving the point of RTO from the company's point of view? If you're taking care of your child and doing housework instead of working?
- Borg3 2y ago
  Who cares if you do the job? I have much higher efficency at home compared to office. No distractions, no wasted time communiting. I can organize myself better too. If I need to take a break, I do it and then I do job later, still keeping 8h of work, just splited. The problem is how you are accounted for doing work. By tasks or by time spent in office... I saw people in office doing nothing, just talks on kitchen or answering emails.. When asked about tasks.. Im working hard sir.. heh. Its a bit complicated matter, because when you are more efficient, boss usually will attach new tasks so you have to work harder or be even more efficient. And those who are less efficient dont get new tasks.. Not smart..
  - Jcampuzano2 2y ago
    Thats the idealistic point of view, but management will always wrangle themselves out of it. "Why aren't you efficient at the office? We've optimized it for efficiency" or "Okay well we'll budget in making you more efficient in office so that you're even more productive here". Another could be the argument that you need to be highly available during core hours, you shouldn't potentially not be available during the core 8 hour work day of your location, and the best way to force that is you being visible in office by management. The root of the issue is we value our time, and commuting is basically a loss of time and is not compensated. If we don't make enough money when commuting to make up for how much we value that time, we're losing. Most of us are comparing our salaries to what we used to make before this was the norm, and its not that different from before. So when going back to the "norm" we are losing part of what we consider our compensation packate -> more free time.
- ipsento606 2y ago
  I guess it depends on the kind of work. But are there people who really spend all their time in the office continually doing work? I spend some time pottering about and doing chores during the workday when I wfh. But I also spend lots of time goofing off while at the office. The difference is that while at the office, I have to be constantly vigilant about how I'm perceived by others, so time spend goofing off isn't nearly as rejuvenating and reinvigorating as it would have been at home. Isn't it pretty normal to only have a few hours of real-work capability per day?
Jcampuzano2 2y ago
The easy argument to this by management is that you shouldn't be taking care of your kids and doing housework while working in the first place. Another argument could be that it punishes those who don't have kids yet or don't want them unfairly working more than those who do. You can't use the argument of "being able to do things other than work" as an argument because its easily trumped. The best arguments are those having to do with lost time and increased stress due to commuting. Being able to more quickly transition to housework and looking after kids, or just being closer to them in general during your breaks/lunches, etc. You are losing time which is in itself compensation by being forced go to an office for a job that shouldn't necessitate it. Another is health benefits: more easy access to preparing food at home. Less stress as mentioned. Easier to go to a gym or workout at home. etc.
- golemiprague 2y ago
  [dead]

jmward01 2y ago

I wonder what drives these decisions? Is there that much solid evidence that they get more value out of people in the office rather than home? Or are there other reasons like tax incentives that encourage in-person work over remote? Is this just a control thing or or there a compelling argument that I am missing?

nightfly 2y ago
It's a sneaky way of doing layoffs, everyone who won't comply has to "quit"
- letitgo12345 2y ago
  It's an excellent way of getting your best people who have options to quit while the worst ones who don't are forced to stick around
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - kimixa 2y ago
    Those "best people" may also be some of the higher paid - so if you only care about short term results that may be more of a feature than a bug.
  - nothercastle 2y ago
    Does Amazon do anything that requires best people anymore? They could probably survive on decidedly mediocre
- kasey_junk 2y ago
  Why would Amazon prefer that to layoffs or more aggressive performance standards?
  - dboreham 2y ago
    Money, and being welcome at the country club.

flerchin 2y ago

RTO seems to have nothing to do with the warehouse workers asking for a piddly $25/hour and health and safety guarantees. It's flabberghasting that the union votes keep failing.

tech_ken 2y ago
Union-busting campaigns are extremely effective, and honestly labor unions have gotten very lazy about building new units. "Hot shop" focused organizing plus a "we'll fire you if you sign the card (not really :) ) (yes really >:) )" poster in every breakroom and it's a big uphill battle for the workers.
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  Just one person's experience but when I was younger, I worked for several years at both a non-union grocery store and a unionized store in different cities. Working union was much better but part of that was the quality of co-workers was better. At the non-union store, I can see why unionization on the surface would be unappealing since there were lots of low quality employees. If you're someone who does their assigned work and see other slacking off constantly and constantly screwing things up, hearing the typical union messages of solidarity isn't going to be appealing. You have to be able to view things in the context of unionization of the company also making the jobs more appealing to a better quality worker. In my n=1 opinion, the non-union chain lost lots of money through poor quality labor and might have been better off with high labor costs that would be offset by higher quality labor but I have no way of actually being able to quantify that to determine if it would be true. At both the union and non-union stores there was a perception that union dues were used by union officials more for their own enrichment than for the benefit of members. Having worked at the non-unionized store first, the better wages and benefits easily outweighed the cost of union dues, but some of that could also have been due to the location in a more affluent area.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
Amazon seems extremely likely to pull a walmart and immediately close any warehouse that unionizes.

cut3 2y ago

Amazon tech workers should unionize.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
It's a thought, but ceteris paribus, software engineers seem to have a particular scorn for unions beyond the calculus of economics. In other words, there is a personality/sub-cultural disdain for unions. I see it as an extension of a distaste for bureaucracy or perhaps, social structures in general, but I'm open to other perspectives.
- Apocryphon 2y ago
  Temporarily embarrassed 10x engineers
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- neilv 2y ago
  Guesses, for the last decade or two: 1. Software developers have been paid very good money, and have seen little else to complain about. 2. Software developers have been paid excessive flattery, and think they merit and achieve more individually than a union could get them. 3. Software developers have been hopping jobs so fast, never anywhere long enough to think they need a union.
- lurkshark 2y ago
  Sometimes I wonder if you framed it differently would it be more appealing to tech workers. Like if there was a startup that negotiates on behalf of employees for salary, benefits, remote vs in-office, etc. using collective influence as more people from a particular company used it. Or to put it another way, how much of the distaste for unions is wrapped up in the term “union”?
  - glial 2y ago
    > if there was a startup that negotiates on behalf of employees for salary, benefits, remote vs in-office, etc. using collective influence as more people from a particular company used it. I...love this idea. And end-users could pay them dues, excuse me, fees for the service.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Related: Amazon ordered a return to the office – but research says they'll backtrack https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41580488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41580488 Amazon employees: 'I'd rather go back to school than work in an office again' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41570981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41570981 Amazon tells employees to return to office five days a week https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41558554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41558554

forgotacc240419 2y ago

Are they doing anything like letting on call staff work from home to make up for the added work of commuting in and still not getting to log off in the evening?

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

This article seems to be more about warehouse workers than corporate workers. The warehouse workers have no choice but to come to the office. I do think they deserve more pay and benefits though. Amazon is pointing at what they’re providing as being competitive or industry leading, but that hides the reality of working at a grueling warehouse where everyone is pushed to physical limits and measured in brutal ways. That type of work takes a toll. And I don’t mean just the people who have experienced injuries and filed lawsuits, but everyone. They will probably all have some lasting health impact. They should be compensated much more for how Amazon runs those warehouses. As for the return to office aspect: if employees - especially those with families that live in homes that are only affordable or available further away - have to lose 1-2 hours commuting each way, then yes they do deserve additional compensation to make up for the RTO policy. I’m sure Andy Jassy won’t recognize that or offer it up though. He and Jeff Bezos share a view that work life balance is “debilitating” (https://www.savvydime.com/jeff-bezos-believes-work-life-balance-is-a-debilitating-phrase-that-gen-z-has-latched-onto/ https://www.savvydime.com/jeff-bezos-believes-work-life-bala...) and Bezos has used code phrases before that suggest he favors young workers - which may be why this policy will hurt older workers and those with children the most.

rybosworld 2y ago

It doesn't seem like a coincidence that Amazon's RTO is being paired with a middle manager haircut. With less middle managers, the executives are probably thinking they'll need individual contributors physically present in order to monitor them effectively. I still can't imagine why anyone agrees to work at a place that treats it's employees like children.

nothercastle 2y ago
Money

kkfx 2y ago

Hum... For those eligible to WFH, there is no higher salary, simply state WFH or you will not find any workers interesting in working for you. IT workers united means no IT company can survive against them.

urda 2y ago

Jassy needs to go. Either kick him back down to AWS or kick him to the curb.

JSDevOps 2y ago

Unions in the UK are nothing short of a broken promise, collecting fees from workers while offering little in return. It’s infuriating to see how they portray themselves as champions of the working class, yet when push comes to shove, they’re nowhere to be found. They’ll happily take your hard-earned money month after month, selling you the idea that they’ll fight for your rights. But when you actually need them—when management is pulling the rug out from under you—their usual response is something along the lines of, "Well, there’s not much we can do when management has already made a decision." Really? That's what we pay for? The truth is, they’re masters of taking credit when it benefits their public image. When a company backtracks on an unpopular decision, it’s often due to public outrage or fear of bad PR, but the unions will still swoop in and claim victory. They act like they’ve led the charge, when in reality, they were sitting on the sidelines, waiting for someone else to force management’s hand. It’s a performance, and a poor one at that, designed to justify their existence. And let’s not even start on how little they’re actually doing to protect workers in an increasingly precarious job market. They’re loud when they want to be heard but silent when it truly counts. The whole thing is a farce, and it's time we stopped pretending unions are still the powerful advocates they once were. They're not. They're out of touch, ineffective, and quite frankly, taking advantage of the very people they’re supposed to be defending.