Amazon Rejects Petition from 30,000 Workers Opposing Return-to-Office Mandate (nypost.com) 207
An anonymous reader shares this report from the New York Post:
Disgruntled Amazon corporate employees are reportedly devastated after a top human resources executive shot down an internal petition that asked the tech giant's leaders to nix its return-to-office plan. Approximately 30,000 workers had signed a petition begging CEO Andy Jassy to cancel his directive that most employees work on site at least three days per week. The return-to-office plan is slated to take effect on May 1.
Beth Galetti, Amazon's HR chief, shot down the petition in a message to organizers obtained by Insider and signaled that the return-to-office plan will move forward as scheduled. "Given the large size of our workforce and our wide range of businesses and customers, we recognize this transition may take time, but we are confident it will result in long-term benefits to increasing our ability to deliver for our customers, bolstering our culture, and growing and developing employees," Galetti said in the memo....
In the petition, which first surfaced last month, Amazon workers argued they are more productive and enjoy a better work-life balance in a remote work environment. The workers also asserted that the three-day-per-week requirement runs contrary to Amazon's stances on issues such as affordable housing, diversity and climate change.... Meanwhile, Jassy has argued that working more days on site will help build effective collaboration and "deliver for customers and the business."
Beth Galetti, Amazon's HR chief, shot down the petition in a message to organizers obtained by Insider and signaled that the return-to-office plan will move forward as scheduled. "Given the large size of our workforce and our wide range of businesses and customers, we recognize this transition may take time, but we are confident it will result in long-term benefits to increasing our ability to deliver for our customers, bolstering our culture, and growing and developing employees," Galetti said in the memo....
In the petition, which first surfaced last month, Amazon workers argued they are more productive and enjoy a better work-life balance in a remote work environment. The workers also asserted that the three-day-per-week requirement runs contrary to Amazon's stances on issues such as affordable housing, diversity and climate change.... Meanwhile, Jassy has argued that working more days on site will help build effective collaboration and "deliver for customers and the business."
Eat your own dogfood (Score:5, Insightful)
Jassy, I believe you the second you sit down in the middle of that open floor plan.
Re:Eat your own dogfood (Score:5, Insightful)
He literally has his own floor in the Seattle office that's blocked off by security. I know someone who accidentally ended up there when they were knew (big oops for security) and was basically interrogated for 2 hours by security over it. Nice welcome to the company.
The guy is an almighty hypocrite, he basically has his own high security penthouse on site.
The real driver for this is the mayor of Seattle has offered significant tax incentives for bringing people back to the office there to bring more business to Seattle town centre shops etc., so those workers in Seattle who are pissed off at the return mandate are refusing to use public transport, car pooling in and buying their dinner locally near their homes and bringing it in with them to make a point. Jassy's argument of "We need to help businesses local to the offices" falls flat when that necessarily means at the expense of businesses close to people's homes.
Amazon is going to have severe productivity issues; you don't piss off 1million workers to no effect. That's not how managing a company works.
He's trashing the company, Bezos for all his faults was a far more competent CEO. Amazon is really struggling under Jassy, but that's what you get when you make a literal mouth breather CEO of a company with 1.5million people in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully they vote that mayor out. Here in SF, Breed has only been quietly talking about tax incentives.
Re: (Score:2)
To continue the passive-aggressive protests, sit your ass at your desk but continue to do everything via Zoom, email and instant messenger. Never look at anyone's face in person. Continue to work "remote" and don't give them the chance to say that the in-person environment is better.
Re:Eat your own dogfood (Score:4, Funny)
It isn't better. It is worse. The only way open-floor is even bearable is by having noise canceling headphones. And depending on who is sitting next to you, a noseplug.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You don't even need to, staff are throwing their own policies back at him. A lot of people are in global roles, working with people across the world. Someone in Seattle might work with people in Australia in Europe. When they worked from home that might mean doing 4 hours work at 8am, having the day to yourself, then doing 4 hours work at say 6pm or however you want to work it - they could work flexibly.
Now they're doing 9 - 5 on Seattle time when in the office. That means no liaison with anyone outside the
Re: (Score:3)
That's a big issue too. We are dealing a lot with Japan, and as you can imagine, being in Europe, that means that the meetings tend to be VERY early or VERY late, it's local + 8 hours. Think sitting in the US and dealing with Europe. Your options are either to be available VERY early (read: 6+am) or VERY late (read: midnight).
Not an issue with home office. I actually did have meetings at 2am that impressed our Japanese customers how accommodating we were. You want me to do this in office? I can't even do it
I've known Amazon sysadmins and coders (Score:3)
From what they've told me about their jobs, it seems obvious work-life balance has never been a consideration for the execs... unless of course it's their own. Very long hours and frequent haranguing seem to be the norm. The money was very good, but the conditions sucked.
Don't work for Amazon if you have the means (Score:2)
If you have the financial means to do so or have something else lined up, then quit if you don't like it.
As an at-will employee, the the most powerful tool you have is to quit and go somewhere else or start something on your own.
Inertia keeps people at companies like this. They're betting on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Kudos to you. That is probably the hidden agenda item. I should have included that in the original post, but overlooked it.
As mentioned in a post above, the problem is the the employees with the means who don't like it are likely the ones that make an impact in the organizations will press the eject button first.
Re:Don't work for Amazon if you have the means (Score:4, Insightful)
This is insanely stupid. The ones leaving are the ones you should try to keep.
If you want to get rid of people, fire them. If you let people quit on their own, you lose the ones that actually do the work and get stuck with the ones that are even too lazy to quit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm old and materialist. You can easily buy me for a billion.
I have no idea how that would go for the younger generation, though.
Private companies do NOT care (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They don't have to, but they should at the very least ponder the implications. Those 30,000 are probably not exactly the warehouse drones that can easily be hired and fired. Every company has key personnel that you can't easily replace.
A company I happened to know very well thought that they could do with half their SAP department. So they fired half of the workers there. The rest noticed two things: 1, they are in VERY high demand everywhere and 2, they are now tasked with working twice as much for the sam
Re: Private companies do NOT care (Score:2)
You don't have to disclose that and most companies in the US won't risk the legal trouble to point it out.
Oh and if lack of WFH is what is making these employees quit then that's the perk they're going to be shopping for... the new boss will likely understand and probably smirk at Amazon's misfortune.
I wonder how this will fly.. (Score:3, Interesting)
..in other countries ?
For example, in Australia there are strong workplace relations laws and employees cannot be treated as slaves, subject to the bosses every whim.
The onus is on the employer to prove their case why employees need to return to the office if they've been working just fine from home for the past three years.
This has been tested in court and the employees have won.
My boss literally cannot force me back to the office. Now, obviously both parties must negotiate in good faith. I *might* be convinced to go back in maybe a day a fortnight for the right "sweetener", but if my boss said " four days a week or you're fired" there would be hell to pay and he'd lose.
Re: (Score:2)
in Australia there are strong workplace relations laws
Heh.... I grew up in AU and I vividly remember my Finance 101 class, in which the professor said (inter alia) - "Here in Australia, the law says that you can demand your employer pay you in cash, or with a paper cheque - they cannot force you to accept direct deposit. However, in your NEXT job, you may not want to assert that right".
Re: (Score:3)
The onus is on the employer to prove their case why employees need to return to the office if they've been working just fine from home for the past three years.
I suspect if the employer always, carefully, referred to the "work from home environment" as "temporary" because of a global health crisis, now that the crisis is over, the temporary accommodation can end. I don't think any major employer referred to "work from home" as either permanent or the new norm. Employees, on the other hand, just assumed it would go on forever, and are now finding out that isn't the case.
Re: I wonder how this will fly.. (Score:5, Interesting)
My employer went from three floors of a very expensive city skyscraper office building down to one floor, and I suspect the CFO and Board are very happy with the savings. Headcount has increased too, and staff retention.
Moral of the story, care more about your people, and less about your fancy offices.
Re: (Score:2)
The key problem for a lot of these huge megacorps is that they own the buildings, and suddenly their real estate value plummets into nothingness. So stuffing people into those buildings is a way to keep the company value up.
My company started to do something radical (and considering how conservative we are, that's close to a revolutionary move): They started converting some of the floors to apartments and rented them out to key personnel (let's not dance around the subject: Mainframe and key stakeholders) a
Re: I wonder how this will fly.. (Score:2)
I agree.
There was a lot of pressure here from the commercial building owners to get people back into the office.
"Won't somebody think of the billionaire commercial realestate job creators?"...
Didn't work.
The flipside is, more money being spent in the suburbs and where people live. So, less traffic into the city cafes but much more into your local area businesses.
Swings and roundabouts.
Personally, screw leaving my house at 7:30 am for a 1-1:15 hr commute through shitty traffic into the city, then parking and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Guess I know someone who will pick up my 40% office time, right? Any chance of having you transfer to my department?"
Re: (Score:3)
Amazingly, YOU chose the job/location and YOU chose to live over an hour away, but somehow it's the employer's problem?
Re: (Score:2)
The key problem for a lot of these huge megacorps is that they own the buildings, and suddenly their real estate value plummets into nothingness. So stuffing people into those buildings is a way to keep the company value up.
I'm missing a step here, or perhaps I'm looking at the back of the photograph instead of the front, because this doesn't make sense to me. If MegaCorp owns the building then the building has no cash value (to them) unless they sell it. In fact it's in their interest to minimize the assessed value of the building while they own it, so that their property taxes stay low (unless keeping those taxes high is part of some bigger tax finagle, which, sure, that's possible). As long as the workers who "work in" that
Re: (Score:2)
It's Austria, and it being a company flat and part of a salary is one of the few ways how you can actually get an eviction done in time, otherwise renter's protection is pretty much shitting on your as the owner of an apartment who is stupid enough to rent it out.
And frankly, I don't care whether some anonymous nobody believes it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, please tell me more about the renters rights people are giving up to tie themselves ever closer to their employer...
I hear housing prices in AU are a real problem, to the point that people are paying rent bi-weekly and appearing on news shows complaining about "unreasonable" rent increases which look to be legal from the few stories I've seen here in the US...
Re: (Score:2)
Altered due to external factors, not because the employers implemented it out of the kindness of their hearts.
I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle now. It's gong to be very hard to entice it back in unless there's a severe recession or depression, and the employee-employer relationship becomes even more asymmetrical.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with that?
Big corporations do that all the time to their employees because it helps their bottom line. If employees have the means and they don't like the new rules, they'll find someone else who is more accommodating.
Rules cannot be for thee and not for me. If Management does something stupid, they need to be held accountable. If an employee quits without the means to do so, that's equally stupid and they will learn a hard lesson from it.
Re: (Score:2)
WFH was never "the norm," it was an accommodation, and the accommodation is coming to an end. Unless the employees can point to an on-going global health crisis, I think their opinions on the matter will be duly noted, and summarily rejected.
So 30,000 employees signed a petition, presumably "demanding" that thigs stay the same "or else." This is the grown-up version of "they can't flunk the whole class" game struggling students play. I think Amazon predicted this reaction (3% of their workforce is unhappy?
Simple solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't like the policy, leave. 30,000 people leaving would be devastating, even for a company the size of Amazon. More particularly, these are the people who know how operations work. Their departure could, in theory, bring Amazon to a halt.
Re: (Score:2)
And that will happen. I don't know who those 30,000 are, but I would assume that they belong to two group (with quite some overlap), first, people who know that they can easily find a new job and second, people who don't care if they lose this one because they are fed up enough to quit anyway.
The young people (under 30) of today are not as money-focused as my generation was. They don't have mortgages, many don't really have some debt weighing them down aside of college woes and, hey, if you don't have anyth
Re: (Score:3)
Considering many big tech companies are in layoff mode, it sounds like these 30k think extremely highly of themselves if they intend to "walk" over this. They better have some pretty special skills that aren't readily available if they want to easily find their next job.
You sound like you have a lot of experience in the job world. I'd be willing to bet most of these 30k are under 30 and have barely been in the work force for 5 years. They likely don't have half your skills or experience, and hence are barga
Re: (Score:2)
Seattle city pressure (Score:5, Informative)
So they are managing 3 days a week too stave off tax hikes by this mandate. Lots of businesses are going to leave Seattle. Lots of good developers are going to leave companies with mandate.
It's good if Amazon dies. It's a large tees stunting the growth of lots of others. Let it die.
Doesn't the free market fix this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The free market never fixes anything. Mainly because it doesn't exist, but also because if it did it would be (and has always proved to be, when attempted) a great way to create problems, in efficiency and civil unrest. Adam Smith was an upper-class twit who knew nothing about how the world works outside of his tiny circle of rich friends. And if you actually read his work, he wasn't even very clear on that, either.
In IT and think the free market doesn't work? (Score:4, Insightful)
The competitive pressure to get hardware and software developed and priced competitively has given us the golden age of IT we're enjoying now. There is no way we'd have seen the amazing advances of the past 50 years without that dynamic.
More prosaically the UK grocery market has been transformed by the arrival of the German discounter Aldi and Lidl. They cut the prices we pay for basic food by a substantial margin and, note, that has benefitted the poor very directly. Yes, some industries in the USA have come to be dominated by monopolists - but at least there is the possibility of disruption by new entrants.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much what happens, yes. Our company isn't among the top paying ones, salary is quite competitive, but far from top. But our "work when and where you want, as long as the work's done nobody gives a fuck" stance seems to be quite attractive to some top level talent.
At some point, money just stops being a motivator. When you already earn more money than you really need, other things take precedence.
Re: (Score:2)
are layoffs part of the plan? (Score:2)
Are all the layoffs in tech just to scare everyone into going back to the office? To make people too scared of the axe to put up a fight?
Re: (Score:2)
Get prepared and don't fear the axe.
A scene from The Gambler explains this very well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJjKP8vYjpQ
Re: (Score:2)
That would work only if people didn't get 3 mails a day from headhunters asking "what the hell do I have to promise you to convince you to at least talk to me?".
Re: are layoffs part of the plan? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the Amazon petition-signers imagine they can take their incredible skill set and go get a job at their choice of big-tech firms, assuming the layoffs across the tech industry is just the tech industry's way of making room for all the soon to be former Amazon employees with their incredible skill set!
Is this the same Amazon that has so much employee (Score:2)
churn that they had an internal memo leaked [theguardian.com] saying they would run out of workers within 2 years - a year ago?
Even Amazonâ(TM)s founder, Jeff Bezos, is worried. Bezos originally welcomed high turnover, fearing long-term employees would slack off and cause a âoemarch to mediocrityâ. But in his final letter to shareholders as chief executive last year, Bezos said the company had to âoedo a better jobâ for its employees. Amazon will commit to being âoeearthâ(TM)s best employer and earthâ(TM)s safest place to workâ, he wrote.
In part, Bezosâ(TM)s change of heart is down to a wave of unionization efforts at the companyâ(TM)s warehouses. But Amazon also faces a problem of scale. As the USâ(TM)s second largest private employer, it is now struggling to replace all the workers it loses.
Bold added... Yea these are not corporate employees, but this was after their turnover started hitting 3% a week. I'm guessing it would get a lot more attention if those 30,000 people picketed.
American workers could learn a fuck of a lot from the French. [cnn.com]
What do you think would happen... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Laid-off workers from all those big tech firms each shedding tens of thousands of workers would line up to fill the vacancy... In other words, a small bump, little more than that.
Amazon only wants people who show up (Score:2)
Overstaffing problem solved!
decreased productivity (Score:2)
When they pulled it in my place. it cut 20% if time out of my day, since now I spend this time preparing for work, commuting to/from and then I do not feel like re-starting when I am back. This is a quiet leak nobody would notice on individual case but overall productivity will go down. Better for my mental health though as before I was always at work it seems. So be it then.
But ... think of the landlords!! (Score:2)
Doesn't work like that (Score:5, Insightful)
"Jassy has argued that working more days on site will help build effective collaboration and "deliver for customers and the business.""
Collaboration doesn't improve across a large corporation by putting people in rooms, because only a certain number of people can collaborate in one room at one time. You still have to break up communication, ask around on where to find people, schedule meetings, take notes, follow up with action items. Basically all of it requires the same work whether it's online or offline.
If they hired someone to actually *try to improve collaboration*, they would get better results. They don't give a shit about collaboration. They just want to be able to justify their offices.
"Gol dern it..." (Score:2)
Vote with your feet then! (Score:2)
If you're any good you can quit. If you're not you command no bargaining power as an individual and Amazon gives zero fucks anyway.
Techies lack the aggressiveness for collective bargaining (a place where so-called toxic masculinity is a considerable advantage) so that's not happening. Unions only work for blue collar types (ironworkers, welders, longshoremen) who won't hesitate to physically damage line crossers. Labor and management in the US are enemies and grownups are comfortable openly dealing with tha
Re:Good stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this attitude is that the first ones to leave are also exactly the ones you cannot lose: The ones that can snap their fingers and get snatched up by another company because they have a skill set that's in high demand.
And you'll be stuck with the duds that can't just do that and have to grin and bear it.
Re: Good stuff (Score:2)
Amazon's problem to deal with.
Re:Good stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazon doesn't have any good people. If they were good, they would have left already. The turnover rate is ridiculous, the conditions are terrible. The interview process alone filters out anyone who is in demand.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, then they might just get away with that. I know how it would end in my company, though. On the bright side, though, we have some of the best people in the business. And we can keep them only by catering to what they want.
Re: Good stuff (Score:2)
That is an excellent point.
I give potential employers two interviews to make their case on why I should work for them.
I don't care who you are, two interviews (one preferably) and you're done.
You hear these stories of people doing seven or something interviews to work at FAANG or similar...lol....fuck that !
Re: Good stuff (Score:4, Informative)
Two interviews. Two. Either I know what you can do afterwards or I never will.
First interview is getting to know you and you get to know the company. Who are you, what do you "feel" like, this is where you'll sit with me and a few goofballs from HR and similar idiots for the pesky "human" stuff. You know, money, corporate culture, do you fit in, do you like us, that shit. Believe it or not, yes, that should come FIRST. If you can't work with our style or if we don't "feel" like you fit in with the rest of the team and what we think how the whole shit should be going down, there's no need to waste the time of one of our expensive techs.
Second interview is the technical one. Do you know your shit? Two old pentesters will come down on you like hawks and put you through a third degree interrogation. What they don't tell you is that at this point, you already have that job if you want to, the question is only if you're going to be offered a junior or senior position.
Yes, we're already pretty desperate. But we're far from the only ones, it's practically impossible to hire seasoned pentesters at halfway decent rates now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ones who don't wantt to show up in offie are those who want to leave, and that's exactly what Amazon wants.
Re:How to drive away the best employees? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll find that the more successful companies are going to be those that cater to their prime assets, and that's gonna be good workers.
I don't know about you, but no matter who I talk to in my circle of friends, everyone is lamenting the lack of skilled workers. Everyone is hiring, everyone is searching, everyone is decrying that they have to hire unqualified people and get them up to speed because it's virtually impossible to even get anyone who knows his shit.
And it's never been easier than to attract good personnel than today. We're not the highest paying company in the field. Not by a longshot. But we offer an unparalleled work-life balance. Seriously, you name it, you'll get it. At this point it's pretty much "work whenever and wherever you want, what matters is your work gets done". There are of course some limitations, e.g. you should be present (or at least telepresent) for important meetings and certain tests can only be done on-site because they don't want to deliver a machine that costs a couple millions and should better not end up in the wrong hands to my garage, but that's the general situation. And the dress code is basically "it would be nice if at least the naughty parts are covered, if that's not asking too much". I remember when I started and asked for the dress code my boss (then boss-to-be) said "Uh... well, I'm wearing my Metallica t-shirt today, but if you don't have one that's fine".
And yes, that's a job perk younger generations want. We can be competitive without paying premium Euro, simply by having kick-ass social benefits and a very great attitude towards formality and work-life. Our higher-ups quickly realized "hey, it doesn't cost money and gives us top performer? Yeah, we want that!"
Re: How to drive away the best employees? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with some of the points, but not necessarily with the conclusion.
Yes, some employees value remote work, but not all and not always the best ones. In a lot of cases the remote work was an economic decision - get FAANG pay, work from a cheap location. No commute is definitely a big plus and considerably improves quality of life.
But there is also a downside to remote work - less learning, less creativity, less bonding and networking. It may not immediately become apparent, but over several years it does accumulate.
It is unclear what "the best" employees value - some may value remote work, but very likely they value more a creative and stimulating environment, where they brainstorm challenging problems with smart colleagues, and generally be surrounded by like-minded people.
People young in their career don't do every well remotely. But they also won't do very well in the office if all of the experienced people are remote. And nobody wants to waste time going to an office only to do Zoom meetings with remote people.
So we'll be back to on in-office or fully remote setup.
Unless of course it's a single-person or non-creative type of work, which is an entirely different organizational thing (an accountant can work the books from enywhere, for example).
Re: How to drive away the best employees? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
"We get the benefit of you working how you're most productive, we save money on office space, and you get a paycut! How's that sound?"
If you offer that "compromise", you're just going to make people even more likely to leave.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with some of the points, but not necessarily with the conclusion.
Yes, some employees value remote work, but not all and not always the best ones. In a lot of cases the remote work was an economic decision - get FAANG pay, work from a cheap location. No commute is definitely a big plus and considerably improves quality of life.
My experience has been the best workers are always the remote ones. They're talented enough that they've got the leverage to demand it. The workers lower on the chain can't get away with that and get forced into the office.
But there is also a downside to remote work - less learning, less creativity, less bonding and networking. It may not immediately become apparent, but over several years it does accumulate.
I'll agree with you that it can be harder for the entry level people to learn with a remote team. Less creativity is nonsense though. I'm a game developer. It's a pure creative industry. Most small to medium teams are remote nowadays. It's mostly the huge budget teams that are working in
Re: (Score:3)
As for networking, I guess that's dependent on the type of job you've got and the type of company. For me, going to industry events is the way to network, not showing up in an office.
Exactly this, work time is for work, if you actually want to get to know your colleagues then social time with them where there's no work pressure is much better. Companies will do much better organising occasional social get togethers, and it will cost a lot less than operating a permanent office.
Re: How to drive away the best employees? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with some of the points, but not necessarily with the conclusion.
Yes, some employees value remote work, but not all and not always the best ones. In a lot of cases the remote work was an economic decision - get FAANG pay, work from a cheap location. No commute is definitely a big plus and considerably improves quality of life.
Amazing that someone in here upvoted you.Usually anything other than the idea that employees who refuse to work onsite are the very top level performers, and can go anywhere they please - as long as they only work at home gets pounced upon quickly.
As a person who works half time at home, the other half on location, I figure that I might have some insights.
But there is also a downside to remote work - less learning, less creativity, less bonding and networking. It may not immediately become apparent, but over several years it does accumulate.
This is exactly true. But the answer from those people that really want to work from home is that they don't need to learn more, already have the creative skills they need, have no need for bonding and that networking is somehow bad.
It is unclear what "the best" employees value - some may value remote work, but very likely they value more a creative and stimulating environment, where they brainstorm challenging problems with smart colleagues, and generally be surrounded by like-minded people.
Exactly. The remote work I do is easily done in my home office. But giving up those other things is disastrous to my profession. The onsite work is enjoyable, challenging, and I have friends among my colleagues.
Here's my take on the whole disconnect. Will probably get me modded troll.
I need time away from people some times, but I'm not a misanthrope or a misanthropic introvert.
The plague really taught me a lot about the value of human interaction, and many introverts probably thought it was a great way to avoid being around other people.
We do have a lot of programmers or similar tech people in here, so I'm not surprised that they would prefer to not interact in person. It's been my experience that a lot of people in the computer end of tech are introverts.
Judging from some of the responses, there's a few misanthropes in the mix.
And for an agoraphobic, remote operations might be a way for them to earn a living while (hopefully) getting treatment.
The interesting thing - at least to me - is that a lot of these "I only work from home" people don't seem all that happy. And the idea that the top notch people are somehow always inclined to work at home, never in an office - I don't buy that. My hitting my stride was understanding the team concept. And boy howdy, does that seem limited in a lot of people.
I wish them good luck, because they limit their professional opportunities. A lot of work has no remote opportunities at all, and much requires a fair mix of in person interaction, as well as constant learning.
Re:Good stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
I, very unfortunately, HAVE first hand experience of exactly that. If you introduce an unfavorable atmosphere in a company, people will start to look for alternatives. I've seen this more than once. And the ones that are good at what they do, that have something to show for, that can demonstrate that they know their shit, they will find something else quickly. The duds who should be lucky that there was a company dumb enough to hire them won't.
Re:Good stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Many good employees understand the value of teamwork and knowledge transfer and realize that in-person, in-the-office environments are incredibly distracting and non very conductive to getting work done.
Also plenty of good employees want to work from home because they are not single and living in their mother's basement but instead want to be able to see their families instead of wasting their life commuting. Some of these employees also don't want to engage in the wasteful interactions with those teammates who insist on standing around talking so will pretty much ignore the office workers whenever they can.
Many good employees also are perceptive enough to know that the increased productivity from working at home will lead to gaining more responsibility, better promotions, more opportunities for interesting projects, etc.
Many of those that are screaming "I want to work from the office" want to do so to make it look like they are working very hard when they're not. These employees will find that they don't advance and when layoffs come (as many who thought "layoffs never happen" are now discovering do actually happen) will be at the top of the list.
Re:Good stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, in the end only the duds will be left.
Allow me to regale you with an anecdote of what happened in a company I used to know. Working conditions went from decent to worse, which led to people not only pondering to quit but actually doing it, because they could find other jobs. Now, of course not everyone who COULD find another job quit, because some didn't consider the changes that bad actually. It was not home office vs. return to office as it is here, but what those "worse" conditions were is irrelevant. Anything that can make good people quit would fit the bill.
Now suddenly, the remaining good people had to pick up the slack. Because as you might imagine, when there are more jobs offered than qualified people exist for those jobs, people who are qualified apply where the working conditions are more to their liking. Which meant that these people now had worse working conditions to deal with, because the workload increased, hours increased, salary did not. Guess what the next thing that happened was.
The problem is, if you have good people quit, it starts a landslide. Sure, the change that made those people quit didn't make all good people quit, but the workload increase that follows the exodus of these people will cause the rest of your staff to reconsider working for you.
Re: (Score:3)
And lemme guess, that dud of a CEO got a golden parachute out of it instead of the kick out the 32th floor window he deserved?
Re:Good stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, there is no "relationship" between employer and employee. I sell them my workforce. That's business, not a relationship. If I'm not satisfied with the compensation for my product, I take my business elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, there is no "relationship" between employer and employee.
Sure there is. You just refuse to acknowledge it like a psychopath. An employer / employee relationship is an inevitable result of long term (work) interaction. It's not the kind where you'll go decide to fuck one another, but it is a relationship none the less.
That's business, not a relationship.
"It's just good business." Is the common retort of a psychopath who believes money is more important than their actions. No matter how much you try to separate work / personal relationships in your mind, it remains just that: In your mind. Others w
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, someone is feeling insecure.
Literally every benefit that labor unions claim to offer, I've already done far better on my own.
LOL! No, you didn't.
I'm an ordinary worker
We know.
TEAM is an acronym (Score:2, Interesting)
At least in German. It means "Toll, ein anderer macht's" (great, someone else does it)
And while I enjoy the idea of having a great team session for pentesting, we notice that the real benefit is in putting our minds together, throwing ideas against the wall, bouncing off each other's inspirations, then shut everything out once we have a plan and dig into it.
And that's easiest accomplished in a WFH situation. We all have no family, so there is ZERO distraction at home. We can focus. We can come together twic
Re: Good stuff (Score:2)
Why isn't it okay for them to speak up?
Re: (Score:2)
The workers also asserted that the three-day-per-week requirement runs contrary to Amazon's stances on issues such as affordable housing, diversity and climate change....
How does the "three-day-per-week requirement" make housing less affordable? (Employees in expensive housing markets earn more than employees other markets.)
How does the requirement impact diversity? (Employees will be self-resigning by failing to comply with the requirements, the company is treating all employees equally.)
And climate Change? (Please, I can't begin to imagine the carbon footprint of all of Amazon's warehouses, delivery vehicles, planes and tractor-trailers - let alone their datacenters. Sixt
Depends on state unemployment law (Score:2)
I think they will find little compassion from those outside Amazon.
Depending on the laws of the specific state where the employee resides, affected employees may qualify for unemployment benefits. For example, see California's guidelines [ca.gov]:
I tried to follow the chain of stories on NYPost and CNBC and couldn't find which state the offices in question are in, other than that the com
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> If your skills are such that you can negotiate that into your contract then go for it.
It sounds like you weren't able to negotiate that. Self burn, hahahaha.
--
Tiffany Dover: 2 year hide and seek champion
Re: (Score:3)
Dear boss.
I found something new.
More of money
Less of YOU.
Re:bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Entitled workers, THEY wanted an office job but don't want to work in an office
They want to do their job for pay. Only dinosaurs want them to do it in an office.
The dinosaur is the one that should be laid off.
Re: (Score:2)
The work from home crybabies come out in force for every one of these types of articles. It's like a mob at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as what is being offered is uniform across the entire market. If the rules don't match what the market has to offer, then the one with the gold will have a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually the one with the money sets the rules, here it is the employer. If you don't like it work somewhere else.
The work from home crybabies come out in force for every one of these types of articles. It's like a mob at this point.
And the I don't understand the modern world crybabies always come out next; they're like a mob of pensioners at this point.
Re:bah (Score:4, Interesting)
Usually the one with the money sets the rules, here it is the employer. If you don't like it work somewhere else.
We do. But the reality is some people like their jobs and give their employers the option to change. I've been through this very thing personally, not on a work from home, but rather another non-monetary flexibility they offered as part of my employment.
They changed the rules.
I said I don't like it.
They took your view and said, tough, we're the law.
I sent them a conditional resignation letter, and suddenly they were more willing to negotiate.
A company that thinks the employer is some almighty god doesn't attract talent. The reality is if you're good at your job your employer doesn't want you to quit, despite the grandstanding they may do. Only an idiot who has never run a company thinks that workers are completely fungible and can be traded without cost.
And negotiate my employer did. Not only did I keep the additional flexibility I was used to, they played their hand and it was very weak, so I milked them for quite a substantial pay rise as well.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much what happens, especially in fields where the talent is few and far between, the salaries accordingly pretty high and people have better things to worry about than whether to earn a thousand bucks more or less.
You cater to my whim. You don't, I quit. Try to find someone to replace me.
Of course that's easier to do if you're in a market where there are about ten times the positions offered than there are qualified people able and willing to take them. There's a reason a lot of companies offe
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And I get it. Don't like it, try to find a replacement.
I'm a highly qualified person in a business where you need about ten times the personnel that is available. Consider yourself lucky that all I ask for is working from home and not that you triple my salary, because yes, I could get that, too, by moving to your competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
The Company can simply say if you don't show up we considered that you QUIT.
A significant change in working conditions, such as adding three hours of commute to each workday, is probably what unemployment law considers as just cause to quit a job and find another.
Re: (Score:2)
The employee took the job and chose to live over an hour away - why is the employer responsible for your housing choices?
I struggle to think there is a core of 30,000 key "unicorn" employees key to the organizations survival, yet the "unicorns" are oblivious to their leverage and decide to middle-finger their employer by signing an online petition?
Truly crucial employees know their worth, and arrive at a mutually-rewarding agreement with their employer... How many of these petition signers are in reality do
It's a relocation demand (Score:2)
The employee took the job and chose to live over an hour away - why is the employer responsible for your housing choices?
Is an employee also responsible if the employer closes the employer's office in a particular city and offers the employee an ultimatum to relocate to another city or be fired? Demanding that a remote worker relocate on short notice to within a reasonable commute distance of an office is the same as that.
Sadly unions have gone badly wrong (Score:2)
I grew up in 1970s Britain where major public sector strikes were a regular feature as the unions - often more following a hard line socialist agenda (some pro-Moscow) than the interests of the whole population. In the US unions have resulted in the massive unfunded pension liabilities which plague the balance sheets of most states. Yet by the mid 1990s when my public sector employer tried to impose a 'job evaluation' scheme with some massive pay cuts for some victims, I joined up and went on strike. Subseq
Re: (Score:3)
Pensions as a political solution (Score:2)
When faced with a strike demanding more pay, the employers - such as Detroit, which was, of course, made bankrupt by its unfunded pension liabilities - used enhancements to pensions to give the workers more without it actually appearing on the budget of the employer. It thus enabled a win-win for both politicians and union leaders - by deceiving the public. The deceit by the politicians involved is unambiguous. The deceit by the union leaders is less blatant (apart from their conspiring to blag the public w
Wages have been steadily falling since 1970 (Score:2)
Maybe you've got some survivor bias going on and you've made it through 50 years of market crashes every 10 years. For
Really? (Score:3)
Hmm - that's not what the data actually shows
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se... [stlouisfed.org]
though there is a debate about the validity of CPI as a measure of inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never understood what made people think that they can compete head-on with someone who has literally tens of thousands of dollars more wealth than them
Look upon my late-model mid-sized sedan, ye mighty, and despair!
Re: (Score:3)
I can tell you've never run a business before. Employees are not fungible. They are not all equal. And replacing them (assuming you can find a perfect match for someone is a complex disruptive and expensive process.
A bit element of running a business is not screwing over the people who *actually* run the business.