3 ms·

Amazon CEO denies full in-office mandate is 'backdoor layoff'

12 points by bentocorp 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jiehong 2y ago
The article is a bit vague regarding the actual reason (strengthening the company’s culture). Not sure helps proving their case.
tfehring 2y ago
https://archive.ph/0QcOK https://archive.ph/0QcOK
JambalayaJimbo 2y ago
I don’t understand why many people are unwilling to believe that C-suite execs pushing for RTO genuinely believe in it. Regardless of your personal opinion about it! Asking for data is also equally baffling to me. What is Amazon supposed to measure? JIRA tickets completed? Velocity? It’s well accepted that these metrics are meaningless noise, and yet…
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  Because the net effect is that of a backdoor layoff. If the, historically benevolent and employee-friendly, management at Amazon says they believe it will be better for productivity, or whatever other excuse they have, then they should be able to back that up. Otherwise, there's no reason to believe their words versus the results we can objectively see.
- pohuing 2y ago
  So if there's no way to measure the advantage of in office vs remote is just entirely a vibes based decision? Sounds fairly reckless for a company of that scale. Companies have social responsibilities for their employees, and financial responsibilities against their owners. Surely you can't just say "I feel it's better to disrupt the life of a large chunk of our employees because that's what I feel like"
  - JambalayaJimbo 2y ago
    Sure it’s a vibes based decision. This is how companies are run and always be run. This is _why_ Amazon has a CEO and not a statistical model making decisions. Anyway your depiction of “disruption” is obviously biased- it’s also equivalent to say _not_ going back to the pre-Covid normal is disrupting the life of employees.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      > it’s also equivalent to say _not_ going back to the pre-Covid normal is disrupting the life of employees. But it actually is. The pre-covid normal was always pretty bad, and now people are more aware that it doesn't have to be that way.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > I don’t understand why many people are unwilling to believe that C-suite execs pushing for RTO genuinely believe in it. I struggle to believe them because their arguments make no sense to me. The economic arguments do make sense (from the companies' point of view), so I lean toward the more coherent arguments as being closer to the truth.
BadCookie 2y ago
I think it comes down to executives believing that they should offshore any role that is done remotely since it is cheaper to do so. Therefore, Americans are only (maybe?) worth the wage premium that they command if they go to a shared office. But local tax breaks are a compelling explanation also.
WheelsAtLarge 2y ago
It's pretty straight, he's getting rid of all the staff that won't follow his lead.

12 points by bentocorp 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

The article is a bit vague regarding the actual reason (strengthening the company’s culture). Not sure helps proving their case.

tfehring 2y ago

https://archive.ph/0QcOK https://archive.ph/0QcOK

JambalayaJimbo 2y ago

I don’t understand why many people are unwilling to believe that C-suite execs pushing for RTO genuinely believe in it. Regardless of your personal opinion about it! Asking for data is also equally baffling to me. What is Amazon supposed to measure? JIRA tickets completed? Velocity? It’s well accepted that these metrics are meaningless noise, and yet…

_aavaa_ 2y ago
Because the net effect is that of a backdoor layoff. If the, historically benevolent and employee-friendly, management at Amazon says they believe it will be better for productivity, or whatever other excuse they have, then they should be able to back that up. Otherwise, there's no reason to believe their words versus the results we can objectively see.
pohuing 2y ago
So if there's no way to measure the advantage of in office vs remote is just entirely a vibes based decision? Sounds fairly reckless for a company of that scale. Companies have social responsibilities for their employees, and financial responsibilities against their owners. Surely you can't just say "I feel it's better to disrupt the life of a large chunk of our employees because that's what I feel like"
- JambalayaJimbo 2y ago
  Sure it’s a vibes based decision. This is how companies are run and always be run. This is _why_ Amazon has a CEO and not a statistical model making decisions. Anyway your depiction of “disruption” is obviously biased- it’s also equivalent to say _not_ going back to the pre-Covid normal is disrupting the life of employees.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > it’s also equivalent to say _not_ going back to the pre-Covid normal is disrupting the life of employees. But it actually is. The pre-covid normal was always pretty bad, and now people are more aware that it doesn't have to be that way.
JohnFen 2y ago
> I don’t understand why many people are unwilling to believe that C-suite execs pushing for RTO genuinely believe in it. I struggle to believe them because their arguments make no sense to me. The economic arguments do make sense (from the companies' point of view), so I lean toward the more coherent arguments as being closer to the truth.

BadCookie 2y ago

I think it comes down to executives believing that they should offshore any role that is done remotely since it is cheaper to do so. Therefore, Americans are only (maybe?) worth the wage premium that they command if they go to a shared office. But local tax breaks are a compelling explanation also.

WheelsAtLarge 2y ago

It's pretty straight, he's getting rid of all the staff that won't follow his lead.