Some Amazon Workers Asked to Relocate to Other Cities in Return-to-Office Effort (apnews.com) 81
Amazon has already cut 27,000 jobs in the past few months. Now the Associated Press reports that Amazon "is asking some corporate workers to relocate to other cities as part of its return-to-office policy, which mandates workers to be in the office three days a week."
An Amazon spokesperson confirmed on Friday that relocations are happening but would not comment on reports by several news outlets that the tech giant was requiring some workers in smaller offices to move to main offices located in bigger cities. Amazon didn't provide details on the number of employees that will be required to relocate. Amazon spokesperson Brad Glasser said the company will provide "relocations benefits" to workers who are asked to move and consider requests for exceptions on a case-by-case basis...
Citing internal messages, Business Insider reported earlier Amazon employees who refuse to relocate near main offices of their teams are being told they either have to find a new job internally or leave the company through a "voluntary resignation."
"There's more energy, collaboration, and connections happening since we've been working together at least three days per week," an Amazon spokesperson told the Associated Press, adding "we've heard this from lots of employees and the businesses that surround our offices."
Citing internal messages, Business Insider reported earlier Amazon employees who refuse to relocate near main offices of their teams are being told they either have to find a new job internally or leave the company through a "voluntary resignation."
"There's more energy, collaboration, and connections happening since we've been working together at least three days per week," an Amazon spokesperson told the Associated Press, adding "we've heard this from lots of employees and the businesses that surround our offices."
A low key RIF (Score:5, Interesting)
This is how you do a RIF without telling wall street you're doing a RIF. Sounds like they're also hoping to avoid paying out severances too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Its a military term.
I would hardly call Amazon a Force.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A low key RIF (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also a way to shed older, more expensive workers without being explicit policies of age discrimination. After all who's more likely to accept relocation: the early 20's newgrad who's single and got barely any roots put down, or the mid-40's senior engineer who doesn't want to give up their mostly paid off house and go through the stress of their kids changing schools?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly, they want to get rid of women, older people and minorities. RTO is all about this in general. The CEO's keep talking about how they want to RTO to go back to how they 'worked in the old days', well it's a thinly veiled racism and sexism dog whistle. If they have any females working for the company they want them young and control their every move.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly, they want to get rid of women, older people and minorities. RTO is all about this in general. The CEO's keep talking about how they want to RTO to go back to how they 'worked in the old days', well it's a thinly veiled racism and sexism dog whistle. If they have any females working for the company they want them young and control their every move.
This is 1/3rd right, and 2/3rds WTF?
Older workers? Yes, they want to shed those. But "women and minorities"? "Racism"? What? Amazon, like every other major company, is desperate to hire more women and minorities. The biggest "dog whistle" here is your post.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, ignore every report out there that makes it clear that minorities and women have a lot more difficulty returning to office due to commitments and transportation issues.
Re: (Score:1)
well then explain dianne abbott
Re: (Score:1)
Nah. Amazon loves diversity, it's a policy they came up with to ensure workers don't unionize.
Source:
https://archive.fo/1khJw [archive.fo]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. This is part of why SV companies require on-prem.
> "There's more energy, collaboration, and connections happening since we've been working together at least three days per week," an Amazon spokesperson told the Associated Press, adding "we've heard this from lots of employees and the businesses that surround our offices."
Bullshit. This is like the interview I had where a director said that an unprofessional work environment was okay because "We have an Indian woman and she's comfortable". What sh
Re: (Score:2)
This is how you do a RIF without telling wall street you're doing a RIF. Sounds like they're also hoping to avoid paying out severances too.
^ THIS ^
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why you're so certain. For example, every time Oracle lays people off, its stock price goes up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is how you do a RIF without telling wall street you're doing a RIF. Sounds like they're also hoping to avoid paying out severances too.
It would depend on what's in the employment contract. If the contract specifies a particular job location, then they'd have a right so some form of severance or compensation for moving expenses. Most workers probably don't think of these things when signing an employment contract.
Unions (Score:5, Insightful)
leave the company through a "voluntary resignation."
This is why we need unions, if you are told to move, you should not have to quit, but get a years severance with medical.
And I bet the people who will move, will not get more pay even if that big city's living expenses are 3x what it is were they live now.
Re: (Score:1)
You just say no i'm not resigning you have to fire me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Almost all Americans live in what you euphemistically call "at will employment" states, so if Amazon decide they want these people gone they don't need a reason to fire them.
That doesn't allow them to fire people illegally, such as discrimination against protected classes. You can still file dnd win termination lawsuits for things like age discrimination. Also, just because you are in an at-will state does not mean that you have no employment contract with the company. And those contracts might be breached, or they might have illegal terms in them, etc.
Corporations do that all the time, though, mostly because the employees don't realize they can do anything; and those who do un
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if Amazon decide they want these people gone they don't need a reason to fire them.
Yes, and if Amazon fires them, they can get unemployment payments. If they quit, they cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You just say no i'm not resigning you have to fire me
"It would be a shame if on your next performance review you are rated as an extremely low performer...."
That is exactly what would happen.
Re: (Score:2)
You just say no i'm not resigning you have to fire me
"It would be a shame if on your next performance review you are rated as an extremely low performer...."
That is exactly what would happen.
This is why you document every single fucking thing during your employment. Which basically nobody even thinks about bothering with until it's too late. I've watched this show many times over the decades.
HAVE to⦠voluntarily resign (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Nah, the problem overall is that Amazon got away with paying slave wages for so long that "demanding people come to the office" is only to justify paying for the office space. There is no reason since the advent of the home computer in the 80's for anyone to work in an office. We knew this was an inevitable, and just like we stopped printing emails, we can stop going to a physical office to do the same thing we can do at home. Collaborative tools exist for remote work too. These people who want people to co
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason since the advent of the home computer in the 80's for anyone to work in an office.
That's just objectively not true, largely because your statement deals with absolutes. In reality depending on the nature of your work there are definitely reasons to have teams co-located in a common space while working. And even if there wasn't, the idea that the office was rendered obsolete any time prior to say 2018 (to say nothing of the absurd notion of your "80s" comment) is truly laughable. I get some people view the past with rose coloured glasses but man you only need to look back a few years to s
Re:Unions (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But i'm sure those chemists would be quite happy to see all the office workers who sit at a desk all day working from home. Then the chemists could enjoy congestion free travel to their workplaces, and more affordable housing within easy travelling distance of their workplaces etc. I'm sure they would also enjoy reduced fuel prices from reduced demand and reduced air pollution too. They would probably also be quite happy about the fact that in the event of an accident at work, the ambulance gets them to hos
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unions (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
leave the company through a "voluntary resignation."
This is why we need unions, if you are told to move, you should not have to quit, but get a years severance with medical.
And I bet the people who will move, will not get more pay even if that big city's living expenses are 3x what it is were they live now.
It shouldn't be a union, it should be labour laws.
If your job description required you to regularly relocation, and that was clear at the time you were hired, fine.
But telling someone they have to move communities or "resign" then that isn't a resignation, you're being laid off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
why we despise unions and the American working class?
actually honest republican
Re: Unions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unions are anti immigration.
They used to be. But they caved to the Democratic Party on that issue, told they needed to be a Team Player for the coalition, etc. They've already started their pivot. Since Hispanics are now 78% of net new workers in the US [dol.gov], unions are heavily recruiting them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you voluntarily resign you do not get unemployment benefits. Force them to formally fire you.
Or at least get in writing that you are required to move in order to keep your job. If the move is too far (depends on the state) then it counts as a firing, and you get unemployment.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Amazon explicitly uses diversity hiring to prevent unions. Racially homogenous warehouses were flagged for a high risk of unionization, so those warehouses were targeted to hire "more diverse" people to reduce unionization risk.
Source:
https://archive.fo/1khJw [archive.fo]
Worse than that (Score:2)
They're not being asked to relocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you are correct. Large companies offering "relocate or voluntarily exit" are generally offering packages to them. Of course my sample size is just 4 companies large... but if you think that by "voluntary resignation" you think they mean, "Fine. Quit. Here's nothing.", I think you'll find that's not the case.
Re: (Score:1)
When it comes to post-employment benefits like severance or medical insurance, the absence of it being mentioned can generally be understood to mean it isn’t being offered. If companies are offering it, they say so because it’s a good look.
Re: (Score:3)
No... because you aren't seeing what Amazon actually offered. You are being given a third party's summary. Their wording of the situation in no way forces any circumstance on Amazon. What they do not say means very little.
Re: (Score:2)
You might have assumed some things here.
First, I didn't see anywhere in the article there would be no severance, did I miss this? They are paying moving expenses, which is usually good amount of cash.
If an employee chose not to move, then they would have to fire them and this would not be a voluntary separation. They would could get unemployment. That isn't an option. Laws cover you there.
Also, if you're running a company, such as Yahoo, you get to make the rules, and break them. It's good to be on top,
Re: (Score:2)
But
Re: (Score:3)
They don't relocate they're quitting.
No, a company can't unilaterally declare the employee as "resigning" if the employee is willing to continue employment. That would be a huge loophole for employers to get out of termination obligations. They can say "your employment will be terminated if you do not comply", but they can't declare that you have opted to resign. If the employee's current conditions for working are no longer considered acceptable by the employer, that's the employer's choice, not the employee's choice.
Now they could say it's
Sure they can (Score:1)
Folks don't really understand how heavily labor law has tilted to favor the employer since Reagan, especially in red states. Right to Work laws and At Will employment coupled with a law passed by our national legislature to enforce arbitration contracts mean you don't have much to stand on.
You can shoot for
Re:They're not being asked to relocate (Score:4, Informative)
They're being laid off without severance and unemployment.
Citation Needed. Amazon is offering relocation packages. 100% of companies who I have heard of (and it's been a lot) who have offered relocation packages have also offered severance packages (not sure what you mean by "unemployment").
And you should know that among companies that I know offer severance payment as part of "voluntary redundancy" is ... Amazon, who in their last round paid out 22weeks salary as part of voluntary redundancy.
So please, do tell us your source that this is suddenly different.
Okay, but (Score:5, Insightful)
"There's more energy, collaboration, and connections happening since we've been working together at least three days per week," an Amazon spokesperson told the Associated Press, adding "we've heard this from lots of employees and the businesses that surround our offices."
1) Where any of the "lots of employees" who said this non-managers?
2) How do the "businesses that surround our offices" know about the "energy, colloborations, and connections happening" in your offices? This whole spiel sounds like boilerplate manager-speak some senior VP pulled out of his nether-regions.
Regardless - while this will probably be difficult in the short-term for those people who leave Amazon over this, I'm betting in the long-term they'll look back and say "getting away from Amazon one of the best things that ever happened to me".
Political Stunt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this strategy is that you "fire" the movers and shakers and retain the duds. Anyone who can show that they get shit done will easily find a new job and flip you off on the way out. What you're stuck with is the duds that have to grin and bear it because they can't find anything else.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't work for crap companies (Score:3)
At tis time, any reasonably competent IT person can chose where they want to work. Use that choice.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And why do you think they need to pay that much? Because if they were not treating people like crap, they would not have to. But sure, you can make a lot of money whoring yourself out. That does not mean it is a good idea to do so.
Constructive Dismissal? (Score:2)
Doesn't that constitute constructive dismissal, and action of doing it on a mass scale create WARN issues? Saying they need to "voluntarily" resign if they don't find another internal job or move seems like an exercise for the stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If the affected worker was only looking for unemployment benefits, sure it may be a wash as they found a new job and started so quickly as to not have gotten any benefit anyway.
However, some folks may likely have six-figure severance packages at stake, so they'd likely want and be able to secure a lawyer on contingency if the company tried to weasel out of it.
Either way, it can't be normalized for a company to ever threaten employees with declaring them as having "resigned" instead of firing/laying them off
Fire me or leave me alone (Score:3)
or leave the company through a "voluntary resignation."
Changing the jobs location does not isolate them from labor laws. Especially California labor laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Changing the jobs location does not isolate them from labor laws. Especially California labor laws.
Be careful what you wish for. Being fired will likely not net you the same severance package as a voluntary redundancy.
Re: (Score:2)
I kind of made the assumption that a "voluntary resignation" implied you weren't getting much and you lost your unemployment protections. But I guess if they're giving me something like 3 months severance then I'd gladly leave.
It's the vocal socializers who are saying that (Score:2)
Beware Amazonites (Score:3)
What a weird bet (Score:3)
Amazon seems to be betting that people would rather move to keep their job, because it is apparently so awesome to have, than take a severance and find something else more local. I'm not surprised they're trying this flex, but I am really curious as to why they feel it is suddenly so necessary. Many stats have already indicated that IT workers working from home are generally more productive than they ever were in the office, so why the sudden fervor to put butts back into office chairs?
I suspect something else is at work here, most probably a stock price issue for VPs. Office real estate took a huge value hit when IT workers switched to work from home and showed great desire to never return to the office -- even most middle management has agreed that WFH has been overall better. There could be unpublished incentives at work here, VPs trying to push workers back into the offices in order to recover the falling book value of their offices.
What I don't actually grok is why they actually care. Most of the big FAANG-like companies have their offices built-to-lease, so they don't actually own the property they consigned for construction. The whole purpose of that is to hedge against unexpected cliff-drops in real estate value, since they are publicly traded and generally want to reduce the impact of non-line-of-business events.
So, really, what gives here? What is the actual pressure to make this move? Is it just that Amazon made some shit real estate deals and didn't hedge correctly, or is there another unspoken pressure point being leveraged?
Good stuff (Score:1)
I have all recruiters from Amazon marked as spam in my email rules.
I look forward to laughing at your offer to interview.
Commitment should go both ways (Score:3)
There should be an equal commitment from the company that they will employ you at or above your current paygrade plus cost of living adjustment for at least 3-5 years if you relocate at their request.
Might reduce some of these activities if the company will have an on-book liability for each relocation.
Fire me. (Score:2)
What happens if they say, "I'm not moving and I'm not resigning"?
Seems that the attempt to get "voluntary resignations" is an attempt to avoid paying unemployment. If they don't resign and don't move, it seems the same as the "voluntary" resignation, but they get unemployment as well.
Go where the need is. (Score:1)
Hey you want to live in that old steel town after all the steel factories have closed? That's
"We heard this" (Score:1)
You heard it from businesses around your offices? So you're either incredibly incompetent and getting insight into your operation from "businesses that surround your offices", or the actual data shows something else, and you're just making
Re: (Score:1)
listen, we're going back to the office buddy, or next theyll be complaing about have to do the actual work!
Workers are expendable (Score:1)