Amazon Warns Employees Who Don't Go to the Office Enough (cnn.com) 144
Amazon has sent emails "to those it believes are not complying with its return-to-office policies," reports CNN:
The message highlights Amazon's determination to enforce its rules amid an employee backlash to the policy, which requires workers to report to an office at least three days a week, and in the face of a broader push by companies to scale back on remote work.
Screenshots of the email circulating on social media show that Amazon told some employees they were "not currently meeting our expectation of joining your colleagues in the office at least three days a week, even though your assigned building is ready... We expect you to start coming into the office three or more days a week now," the email continued.
It added that since the policy went into effect in May, many Amazon employees have complied, "and you can feel the surge in energy and collaboration happening among Amazonians and across teams."
Amazon told employees that the email "was sent to employees who have badged in fewer than 3 days a week for 5 or more of the past 8 weeks, have not badged in 3 days a week for 3 or more of the past 4 weeks, and their building has been ready for 8 weeks or more."
CNN adds that a followup email "acknowledged that some may have received the notice in error and urged those individuals to contact their managers to correct the mistake."
Screenshots of the email circulating on social media show that Amazon told some employees they were "not currently meeting our expectation of joining your colleagues in the office at least three days a week, even though your assigned building is ready... We expect you to start coming into the office three or more days a week now," the email continued.
It added that since the policy went into effect in May, many Amazon employees have complied, "and you can feel the surge in energy and collaboration happening among Amazonians and across teams."
Amazon told employees that the email "was sent to employees who have badged in fewer than 3 days a week for 5 or more of the past 8 weeks, have not badged in 3 days a week for 3 or more of the past 4 weeks, and their building has been ready for 8 weeks or more."
CNN adds that a followup email "acknowledged that some may have received the notice in error and urged those individuals to contact their managers to correct the mistake."
Amazon? Irrelevant (Score:4, Informative)
I used to work with a guy who was Amazon HR for many years.
He said the average Amazon employee lasts 11 months.
He also said he kept a box of Kleenex on his desk at all times for employees who came in to talk with him about whatever their issues were.
If a bunch of those stay at home folks leave it would just be business as usual for Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
I've known perhaps a dozen people who have spent time there and ran screaming. It's a pretty awful place to work no matter who you are and what you will do.
Unless you enjoy playing high-stakes politics, then apparently it's "fun".
Re: (Score:3)
I've known 3. 1 engineer friend got fired around 6 months. The HR guy I mentioned who must've fit right in because he was a real pos. And a friend who is now in management running an internally facing development team has just hit his 1 year mark. The engineer was totally non political and therefore doomed. To this day he doesn't understand what went wrong. The HR guy was super political and there for many years. The last guy remains to be seen how it works out for him. He joined while Covid weirdne
...but why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:...but why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: ...but why? (Score:5, Informative)
A full building is a needed building. If all the buildings are full, then available space is rare and therefore more expensive. If your building is empty, you don't need it and might be desperate to unload it even at a loss.
Keeping your building full absolutely increases the perceived value of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Most companies lease their offices rather than own them.
So the space is a cost, not an investment.
Claiming that companies want employees in the office to raise the price of real estate makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. For companies that lease how about this:
"We're stuck with this lease for [x] years and we're damn well going to get our money's worth. Plus I think the employees are all goofing off if management is not there to watch them."
Re: (Score:2)
"We're stuck with this lease for [x] years and we're damn well going to get our money's worth.
Sunk cost fallacy.
Plus I think the employees are all goofing off if management is not there to watch them."
That's a more reasonable rationale, along with missing opportunities for collaboration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most CxO are extroverts though. As are the managers they hire. They need/want people around, otherwise they don't feel good.
Also, it really helps getting their next job if they can show on their resume that they wasted, sorry I mean spent, millions/billions on real estate because they were "so successful".
Re:...but why? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) I was one of those executives you're talking about. I am an introverted engineer. I _hated_ having remote reports because it was so hard to engage with them, track project progress, make sure the right things were going on or in some unfortunate cases see if they were doing anything at all. We paid a lot of money to fly remotes in at least 1-2 times a year and put them up in nice hotels so we could make that _necessary_ personal connection.
2) CEOs do not fluff their resumes by spending money on offices. Their entire resume is based on how much the grew their company. Real estate expenditures are a negative to the bottom line and therefore their resume. Outside the real estate and adjacent industries there is absolutely no positive value in acquiring buildings to house staff. It's a huge negative. I've been involved in office hunting and negotiations several times. Every CEO wants the cheapest place possible that has enough extra room to account for expected 3-5 year staff growth. That's it.
Re: ...but why? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for 1, I would argue that you are a poor executive. There are multiple real-world practical
solutions for engaging with remote employees. Did you know that Slack has a feature whereby you can âoepingâ an employee to ask them a question and let them know that you wish to communicate with them?
Did you also know that you can make an expectation of your direct reports that they respond promptly to your âoepingsâ during business hours, especially if they work remotely, and doubly especially if they have a phone that you have required them to install Slack on⦠so that thereâ(TM)s essentially no excuses?
Did you know that multiple communication apps have tools like this to facilitate remote work, and that tools like this are adding functionality to make remote communication better all the time?
If you did not know these things, or are unable to make use of them, or were unable to set remote communication expectations, then yes, you were a piss poor executive.
Furthermore, itâ(TM)s even worse, because CEOs are always on about the importance of returning to work when they did not or will not avail themselves of the technologies available to make remote work WORK. Itâ(TM)s you folks that are the problem, not remote workers.
Re: (Score:2)
I would tend to disagree, especially if you are an introvert engineer managing other introvert engineers. "How is the project progress?" "Fine." It is painful.
Most [especially young] engineers are not good at asking for help from supervisors. They are [slightly] better at asking peers, Being 100% remote stunts their professional development. A couple events per year is really the minimum to create a broader team. Personally I needed monthly personal interactions as both an engineer and a supervisor to be e
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using Agile (or even if you're not), the introverted engineers should have weekly targets, with clear, measurable deliverables.
If they're not completing their work on time, then "fine" is not an acceptable answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I know how to use the tools. And yes some people are completely happy being totally isolated from all human contact and happy with a twinkling icon in the corner. And some people lack communications skills. The same ones who are so adverse to normal communication they need a flashing icon rather than actually have a conversation with someone.
I suppose if you think desiring to communicate with other humans as humans have since we walked on two legs makes me a bad person then so be it. But I'm not the one who prefer never seeing a face or hearing a voice. I feel bad for you.
It is an awkward situation. I do understand part of the issue. I'm one of those who needs to recharge my batteries on the weekend, so I tend to take a drive to the wilderness areas north of me where the bars all drop from the phone. Come back home all relaxed and ready to take on the week.
Perhaps it is the troubleshooting I'm known for, but towards Saturday evening, It's like mental white noise getting in the way.
But these guys damn, they gotta be a real pain in the ass to be around. I guess the good p
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
They can talk to each other... remotely.
Did you know that even on large teams there's this thing on Slack called a "huddle" whereby you can get a bunch of people together by just pinging them, and then you have a call and everyone can hear each other's voices... and it's called, get this: TALKING to each other. Over a computer. Isn't that nuts?
"Leaving a twinkling spinning icon in the corner of your screen is not a form of communication that will typically result in successful on time project completion.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Straw man fallacy. Nobody said that your desire to communicate face-to-face makes you a bad person. Using your authority to force others to appease your desire is what makes you a bad person. And a bad leader.
People who like working from the office should be free to do so. Same for people whose jobs naturally require it. People who can work remotely, should have the option to do so. Doing so makes their lives tremendously better. The friction here is that you insist on denying them that, for silly re
Re: (Score:2)
I've managed teams across 3 time zones on different continents.
I didn't say I couldn't. I said it sucks.
Would you like to try again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: ...but why? (Score:3, Insightful)
It sucks because you are not good at it. You were incompetent at being a remote work leader.
Your preference for in person teams is based on your inability to professionally manage teams well remotely. Thatâ(TM)s the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Communicating over Slack is still communicating.
Look, communication is WORK, no matter how you do it. Whether it's in person or on Slack, it takes effort. If you're not willing to put in the effort, it won't work. Simple.
I get more done and I'm more tightly integrated with my team now than I ever have been, now that I work 100% from home and so do they. We set up times to talk and share knowledge--my programmer sync is my favourite meeting of the week. Not only do we share really practical knowledge, it's f
Re: (Score:2)
That's great. Communications is work. And the guy I'm responding to said he wants a digital note left for him. That's not communication.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, you're also the guy that said this:
1) I was one of those executives you're talking about. I am an introverted engineer. I _hated_ having remote reports because it was so hard to engage with them, track project progress, make sure the right things were going on or in some unfortunate cases see if they were doing anything at all. We paid a lot of money to fly remotes in at least 1-2 times a year and put them up in nice hotels so we could make that _necessary_ personal connection.
Either you or your remote reports didn't do their job vis a vis communication. Or both, which is more likely. If you're the manager, it's part of your job to build the communication channels so you don't have to hate engaging with them. After all that, if they still don't, you fire them. Ideally, you should filter for this at the beginning of the interview process.
Your hiring and work pipeline were failures. That is not a problem with remote work per se, just your im
Re: ...but why? (Score:2)
No sir, I said I expect executives to be competent at using remote tools built for remote work well, before complaining about how remote work sucks.
If your report, John, has a spinning icon on his screen when you expect him to answer, you should be able to call John directly on his phone during business hours⦠just as in the old days you could call his desk phone with the expectation he would answer.
Did you make this expectation clear to John? If not, you are the problem, not John.
Re: ...but why? (Score:5, Insightful)
So I think here is the crux of the problem... You have taken your preference for "normal" communication, and like many executives, have projected that into what it takes for a modern company to be successful, when I'm pointing out to you that it is your own failings at being adept at other forms of communication which are responsible for the very things you complain about.
This is important.
You say, "I _hated_ having remote reports because it was so hard to engage with them, track project progress, make sure the right things were going on or in some unfortunate cases see if they were doing anything at all."
It was "hard" to engage with them because you were not good at or preferred not to use Slack. But that is *your* preference. You can't track project progress or make sure the right things were going on? This sounds like you need a tutorial on how to use Jira or Asana or Confluence or pretty much anything available by Atlassian which solves many of those issues remotely or internally.
And because you preferred not to use these things, and apparently would rather mange things like this in person, indicates that you were (or are; I'm not sure of your current C-level status, and I don't particularly care) are poor C-level executive. You were, and I'm going to say something here shocking... unprofessional.
Unprofessional! You weren't a bad person for desiring personal communication and then complaining when you are not able to solve relatively simple personnel issues in person when there exist a host of digital tools that allow you to do this. You were worse...unprofessional.
Folks, if you wonder about the gap in expectations and experiences between the average remote worker and the average executive who wants you back in the office, this exchange is EXACLTY why you need to resist.
Re: (Score:2)
When my office went all remote, we experienced exactly zero problems on the group-bonding front. People worked fine together, as a team, using Zoom and Slack.
You toss around accusations of misanthropy like candy, but that is a strawman fallacy. People who like remote work don't so much hate people as love peace and quiet! That was always my biggest issue working in an office myself...it was too damn loud! It didn't matter how I felt about the people around me, the damn noise they all made grated on my n
Re: (Score:2)
"Your premise is interesting - and your penchant for insulting tells me you better be a CEO with a bulletproof resume - if you lit into someone like you just did at the places I run, you'd be looking for new work after being escorted out of the building by security."
Which is exactly why I lit into you *here* (not you specifically, you as in a c-level executive) rather than at your office as an employee. Because C-level execs are notoriously thin-skinned about their own failures, *especially* when it comes
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense.
The problem with remote work is that you're still trying to do "in office" bullshit that wastes the employee's time, that they can do more productively without being interrupted by co-workers and managers to do things off the clock.
Meanwhile employees who get to have a perfect work-life balance by staying home, being able to play with their cat/dog or take them for a walk when they need a break, instead of clocking a break and then keep working.
When you work in the office, management and co-workers
Re:...but why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing like listening to misanthropes ^W sociopaths to tell us how to deal with other humans.
A may see B as a misanthrope; when looked in reverse direction B may appear to A as an overbearing (and often passively aggressive bullying) manipulator.
An anecdote from a while back:
At my employer's we had a group of us who "bonded" in that we'd very occasionally go out for a drink that we organised ourselves.
The management style was "use them up, get hours of unpaid work from them in the name of 'engagement', burn them out, then replace them" - and our group's manager was particularly egregious. This approach could work (not that I'm recommending it) with fungible office drones - it didn't go down well with experienced engineers and led to a high turnover [including me -- I organised a planned transfer to another division in a few weeks time in order to escape].
Then the senior mangers noticed the 'churn' and went out for a jolly (or offsite workshop as it was properly called) with external management consultants.
The following week our manager became unusually chatty (up to then words like "good morning" or "how are you?" had never passed her lips) and suddenly started to want to talk about our families, hobbies, life outside work.
It was so transparently false and hypocritical that it had an interesting effect of "what has that to do with the project progress?" type reactions along with thoughts of "what will you do with this information?". As a motivator, it just had the effect of increasing distrust and suspicion with a corresponding drop in morale and engagement.
Many of us wanted to keep a separation of work and external life - "you pay me for X hours, expect X+Y, what I do outside is my business - you don't have a need to know; just as you don't want me to talk about company activities, plans etc to all and sundry - confidentiality cuts both ways". In a very transactional atmosphere, "you're my boss - not my buddy" was the general response (not necessarily expressed in those terms).
Then came enforced jollity sessions (always booked out of hours, never in company time) which were very poorly attended (the 'usual brown nosing suspects' turned up, but most of the rest of us had 'prior obligations').
Several of the middle managers moved out, bemused by the apparent rejection. I guess they applied their hypocrisy and dissembling elsewhere. From their viewpoint, we were misanthropes (and I wouldn't deny that being partially true); from ours they were fake would-be friends, trying to find more to use as leverage.
The lesson learnt:
Effective collaboration, team working and 'bonding' develop organically; trying to enforce them is counterproductive and likely to backfire.
Re: (Score:2)
I always hated enforced social interaction at work. Artificial, stupid, a waste of time and often insulting.
I've had teams where everyone but 1 person _wanted_ to go to lunch as a team every day. The 1 person would go sometimes but if they didn't want to, no big deal. I've had other teams where no one wanted to go out as a team. Fine by me. Less paperwork for me filling out expense reports and freed me to have lunch with friends from other companies.
But, I've _never_ forced anyone to socially engage at
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing like listening to misanthropes ^W sociopaths to tell us how to deal with other humans.
A may see B as a misanthrope; when looked in reverse direction B may appear to A as an overbearing (and often passively aggressive bullying) manipulator.
A misanthrope would likely have that impression.
An anecdote from a while back:
At my employer's we had a group of us who "bonded" in that we'd very occasionally go out for a drink that we organised ourselves.
Good start.
Quote>
The management style was "use them up, get hours of unpaid work from them in the name of 'engagement', burn them out, then replace them" - and our group's manager was particularly egregious. This approach could work (not that I'm recommending it) with fungible office drones - it didn't go down well with experienced engineers and led to a high turnover [including me -- I organised a planned transfer to another division in a few weeks tim
Re: (Score:2)
Re: ...but why? (Score:2)
But, I've _never_ forced anyone to socially engage at work. It's ridiculous.
Heh. Except you described doing exactly that earlier in this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you aren't fooling anyone. Nobody ever tired you to manage anyone.
If you post some attributes, we'll be able to tell who you are replying to.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing like unprofessional c-level execs telling us how work should be done.
Here is why I'm saying you (and the other c-level exec) are unprofessional:
Do you have internal data that "bonding" increases your effectivity as an organization? I sincerely doubt it. Did you know that mentioning that you notice "bonding" that happens in group meetings in person is what is called confirmation bias? That is, you are around to see the bonding and interpersonal communication that happens in your office (much of whi
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing like unprofessional c-level execs telling us how work should be done.
Here is why I'm saying you (and the other c-level exec) are unprofessional:
Do you have internal data that "bonding" increases your effectivity as an organization? I sincerely doubt it.
I have experience in observing the effects of a lack of connection between employees. I have experience in observing the effects of employees that have a connection or camaraderie with each other.
It is called Social cohesion, or in the military Unit cohesion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Did you know that mentioning that you notice "bonding" that happens in group meetings in person is what is called confirmation bias?
I notice that the concept of social cohesiveness is pretty well confirmed. As to whether you want to call it bias or not, that's a you problem.
There are many different people in this world, with many different o
Re: (Score:2)
But it would kill the CEO and board member's side investments in real estate.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Jesus... no such thing is going on. Let it go. Tech CEOs are not making their careers or lining their pockets with rent money from their office space corporate rental losses. Corporate office space is a bottom line loser. This doesn't even make enough sense to be a conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was no conflicted interest, surely CEOs, seeing studies showing little to no loss of productivity would happily give the huge expense the heave ho.
Re: ...but why? (Score:2)
Or they might look at studies that point to drops in productivity. Results vary.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some such studies, but they are a minority.
Re: (Score:2)
If this was about filling cubes but had no productivity gains then they'd sell the offices.
To WHOM?
That specific market is fucked.
Re: (Score:3)
You're forgetting conflicts of interest. For example, the executive that got a 'bargain' on rent but locked the company into a 10 year deal either looks like a genius or an idiot depending on current need for that space. Guess which one they want to look like?
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting conflicts of interest. For example, the executive that got a 'bargain' on rent but locked the company into a 10 year deal either looks like a genius or an idiot depending on current need for that space. Guess which one they want to look like?
That's a pretty specific use case. I wonder how many cases that has happened?
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine there are many minor variations on that theme. Otherwise, after the whole pandemic thing, businesses could have pushed rent WAY down, at least if they were any good at business and negotiations.
But it seems they can't wait to give away that huge bargaining chip cheap.
Re:...but why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"the surge in energy and collaboration". I don't know may be they really have metrics showing more productivity. Personally, I know I have more productivity at home and 0 impact on the team at the office but it's my personal experience.
Sure - and it depends on what you are doing.
Just about half my work is done from home. It involves a lot of calculations and assignments. That could be done on site, but it's more efficiently done without the constant interruptions on site.
The other part has to be done on site. A lot of people to assign and control.
But to no surprise, the on site work is much more important. Aside from the activity I'm controlling, the interactions with other people is critical. Networking is important. Group bondi
Re:...but why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The reasons are as follows:
1. The property value of the offices has dropped significantly. That's lost net asset value. Employers want that back up. That means everyone must go to the office. It creates a very natural unspoken conspiracy among them: they are all in this same boat and they all know it, and they all know they all need everyone back at the office to fix it, so they are all on board without having to overtly scheme with each other.
2. Most employers believe that people are more productive from the office. The existing evidence doesn't matter. AT ALL. They have always trusted their gut more than evidence, and now is no exception. They want you in the office because they believe they get more out of you, and they will never relent on this belief.
3. Most employers are extroverts, as are most of their hired managers, and they like socially interacting with everybody at the office. It is something they look forward to about their job. They have a very hard time understanding why or how much others might dislike this. They convince themselves that they are doing you a favor, helping you to come out of your shell and be a better and happier person, by forcing you to come to the office. They are old and set in their ways, and this mental filter is so deeply entrenched in their world view that they simply cannot grasp that many people are wired differently.
If we want to keep the privilege of working from home, we are going to have to fight for it. Eternal Vigilance, or we are going to be forced back into the office one by one. The employers of the world are already united against us on this front, uniting and resisting together is the only way we can keep this option.
#resist
Re: (Score:2)
Most employers are extroverts, as are most of their hired managers, and they like socially interacting with everybody at the office. It is something they look forward to
Managers should stop trying to force their socializing into unrelated activities as it detracts from work objectives - time spent chitchatting about employees' personal lives, etc, is time that work is not getting done, either. Better to just schedule a weekly social gathering (Also known as a "weekly Meeting") Per building for the worker
Re:...but why? (Score:5, Insightful)
None of those arguments matter. Their truth-value is completely irrelevant. What matters is the gut-feel of executives.
You will never convince an executive that allowing permanent work-from-home is a good idea with these arguments. Well, not most executives anyway. There are some people who get it, and they are winning in the talent bidding war right now. But for most of them, the only language they will understand (in this domain) is force.
The time for convincing is done. If you want to work from home, simply insist on it. If you don't get it, job-hop. THAT is a language that everyone can understand.
Re: (Score:2)
None of those arguments matter. Their truth-value is completely irrelevant. What matters is the gut-feel of executives.
You will never convince an executive that allowing permanent work-from-home is a good idea with these arguments. Well, not most executives anyway. There are some people who get it, and they are winning in the talent bidding war right now. But for most of them, the only language they will understand (in this domain) is force.
The time for convincing is done. If you want to work from home, simply insist on it. If you don't get it, job-hop. THAT is a language that everyone can understand.
What is your standard employee? Seems a lot of Slashdotters believe there are only executives and programmers, no dana, only zuul.
Otherwise, your argument makes no sense. Anyhow, how about those citations how the very best programmers only work from home. Hell, if I was a poor programmer, I'd agitate like hell to never be present anywhere but home.
Re: (Score:2)
Most employers are extroverts, as are most of their hired managers, and they like socially interacting with everybody at the office. It is something they look forward to
Managers should stop trying to force their socializing into unrelated activities as it detracts from work objectives - time spent chitchatting about employees' personal lives, etc, is time that work is not getting done, either.
That's not even wrong. Having your employees know you have an interest in tham as a person, not just a productivity tool that you otherwise don't care if they live or die, is one of the ways to get more productivity.
It is nothing short of breathtaking your misanthropy and lack of understanding of humans.
The guy who brings in a box of donuts, the lady who brings in crack bacon. They say hello and chat for a bit. My own bit is treating the worker bees like humans. I check the various people I'm directin
Re: (Score:2)
My own bit is treating the worker bees like humans.
That's all I need to know about your rant. It's not that we're "misanthropic," it's that we're smart enough to detect your fake bonhomie for what it is; a cynical approach to squeezing more work out of us.
Genuine camaraderie is organic. The fake friendliness you and your ilk have learned in some management class is a waste of our time, and does nothing for morale.
Re: (Score:2)
3. Most employers are extroverts, as are most of their hired managers, and they like socially interacting with everybody at the office. It is something they look forward to about their job. They have a very hard time understanding why or how much others might dislike this. They convince themselves that they are doing you a favor, helping you to come out of your shell and be a better and happier person, by forcing you to come to the office. They are old and set in their ways, and this mental filter is so deeply entrenched in their world view that they simply cannot grasp that many people are wired differently.
Eh, I can assure you that this mindset is also very alive and well in the young and hip. Especially "creative" types.
But yeah, age aside, you are quite right; in general, you don't get into management by being an introvert. You, the manager, are a "people person", and it's hard to intuitively grasp how others are not (in the same way as you).
Re:...but why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: ...but why? (Score:2)
Re: ...but why? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's generally bad for everyone.
Some staff seem to think they are magically immune if they're the only one with special knowledge. Not so. The company will work around it or figure it out if you're gone.
It is bad for the company for obvious reasons as well; having only one person who knows a critical function is just dumb and the fault of management.
If you find yourself in that position, train someone else. Management will feel better, there will be your junior assistant to tell management how great you are at review time and no one will feel the need to rewrite or work around your entire reason for having a job. Win for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry you had to take time for such a serious illness. I have too, it's horrible.
I've also been "the guy" before for some critical code bit. I tried very hard before I left to get someone, anyone, to sit down with me so I could explain it. Fail. On my last day vendor calls me which I redirected to my about to be former boss to tell us something we were doing was fucking up their infrastructure and was going to cause total collapse.
I tried to help manager guy out but he totally ghosted me and had my repl
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I did end up leaving due to illness and it had serious consequences.
I wouldn't be surprised if the two are related: stress weakens your immune system. I quit my last job after it got too stressful and unpleasant over a prolonged period. I got sick right after leaving. Moderately serious depending on how you count these things.
Re: (Score:2)
The company will work around it or figure it out if you're gone.
Famous last words that have ended more businesses than any other single reason.
Re:...but why? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I think the main reason is a psychological one. You (the CEO, the manager, the owner) like to feel like an important man (or woman), and that's easier if you can go outside your office and look at thousands of laboring minions. Also important is the ability to storm out to some department and dress down the department's head in front of all their subordinates. It's just not the same feeling to make a videocall, and it would be certainly strange to invite all the subordinates to that call.
Very likely there are some functions that will be better served in psysically connected teams, like training, some creative task, whatever. But I don't see any kind of analysis of that, just an "everybody must come back" mantra, with vague slogans as motive. I really think that the managers have been feeling empty since covid, and want their support toys back, bad.
Re: (Score:3)
I erased my original reply. Going with this instead:
I honestly feel bad for you that your career has apparently been dominated by psychotic management.
I've worked for some really truly horribly shitty sub-human people but I didn't come away thinking all management was like that.
If your current management is like that perhaps you should seriously consider a new job and take a role based on how sane the management seems instead of the salary level. Shittier places tend to pay better. Because they have to.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, every resume defunct (Score:2)
[ ] I manage an office whether they are there or not.
[ ] Yeah I can't say that anymore.
I know which one is the more likely candidate. Anyways, go easy on the guy, he might be Peter or nepo or "next-in-line" or "none-better" but he's learning, his comment went from +3 to buried by lessons in reality. He should definitely start a club, get people to join right in. Might scratch that "people" itch that I personally prefer to be a little more transactional and al
Re: (Score:2)
For general coding work, work from home is fine. Management is easy because its easy to evaluate an employee's work. For cutting edge R&D the situation is different, you need a lot more discussions and evaluating an employee's performance is more difficult: "Have you completed the warp drive yet"? "Nope, still working on i
Re: (Score:2)
You must mortify the flesh through self flagellation if you are to be purged of your sins..
Or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Along with everything else already said, a lot of tech companies make their office culture, perks, swag, and the like a bit part of the reason to work there. I've worked for a couple smaller tech companies with a lot of the stereotypical things like video games, pool tables, free beer on tap, free sodas and snacks, catered lunches every day, etc etc and a lot of people were drawn to working for the company specifically because of perks like that.
Without that, a lot of companies lose their differentiator tha
Pay Me (Score:2)
I don't know what working conditions are like at Amazon's offices these days but if it's got any kind of open office plan (or similar modern form of torture) then I'm even less
Re: (Score:3)
(snip)then pay for it. (snip) If treating employees like cattle is worth more to a company, then pay up.
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but two things: (1) not everyone works "extra" because they don't commute to work, but that is a kind idea - I happen to work during my brief commute because phone calls are easily done at that time, and (2) how does a giant corporation determine how to pay you for your commute? The irony is that a shorter commute will result in less pay but a higher rent/mortgage. Choices that employees make, like where to live, should have little to do with compensation decisions tha
Re: (Score:2)
There's also obviously no reason why a company should pay for anyone's commute, but paying higher wages to allow employees to live closer to where they work would increase willingnes
Re: (Score:2)
Choices that employees make, like where to live, should have little to do with compensation decisions that should be negotiated before being hired
Ideally they should not. Employers should be paying for employees' results Not for employees' effort - If the output of my work earns you $1 Million or makes you spend $1 Million less than you would have without me, then where I live exactly, or How many hours per week I am actually working should be none of your business.
In reality... the problem is Employ
Re: (Score:2)
Choices that employees make, like where to live, should have little to do with compensation decisions that should be negotiated before being hired
Ideally they should not. Employers should be paying for employees' results Not for employees' effort - If the output of my work earns you $1 Million or makes you spend $1 Million less than you would have without me, then where I live exactly, or How many hours per week I am actually working should be none of your business.
Ironically, the government forces me to make my employees' work hours my business, especially if they are non-exempt. I trust that you've write your congresscritters to get these pesky labor laws changed.
In reality... the problem is Employers are exploitative and wish to minimize the amount paid per employee, no matter how valuable the employee's work is to them. Consequently from what I see companies have a deliberate strategy to pay people less in lower Cost of Living areas, and they'll even pay more for the exact same work and job, whether remote or not - just bc the employee lives in an area where Rent and food, groceries, etc, have higher costs.
Exploitative... Perhaps by some, but if you're really a $million difference-maker, you could work for yourself and cut out the employer so that the hours worked all remains solely your business. And, since you won't have an exploitative employer to take any risks and pay any of the costs they cover on your
Re: (Score:2)
If having employees in the office is worth that much more to a company, then pay for it.
The companies/employers believe they are already fully paying employees not only for that, But they actually paid people extra to come to the office for a couple years when they couldn't due to temporary closures at no fault of the employee (this is a benefit the employees were not owed - pay rates could have been adjusted down in conjunction with the move to remote work, but most choose not too due to it being tempor
Re: (Score:2)
I was already retired when the pandemic swept through, but if I'd still been working and offered that, I'd consider it a fair deal. That's because I lived and worked in Los Angeles, and I'd consider that extra 20% to be compensation for the time and expenses of the daily commute.
Re: (Score:2)
They are. That's what a job is. They're offering to pay you you to be there. You can mentally choose to unbundle it yourself and spread your salary across a number of hours that includes your travel, and decide if the rate on offer is good enough. But if somebody demanded I pay them travel time, I'd laugh them out of the building unless it was a situation where I was specifically trying to recruit them. It would never be policy.
But be careful demanding "to the minute" accuracy in your pay. You might get it.
Another perspective (Score:2)
"We didn't notice any productivity issues or you'd have been hearing about that... we just want you in the office because we're morons stuck on the idea of making the lower ranks commute even as we let management work from wherever the hell they want to".
Re: (Score:2)
"We management already own paid-off homes in this vastly overvalued city, so we don't care if you're unnecessarily stuck wasting well over half your income for a one-bedroom dump to be within commuting distance, instead of investing in an owned home somewhere distant but affordable."
and you can feel the surge in energy (Score:2)
An old saying comes to mind (Score:5, Funny)
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Re: (Score:2)
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Indeed, isn't it odd that an employee would keep working somewhere that they hate... perhaps they hate themselves too much to notice the beatings?
Nobody to carry weaker team members (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Employers like these have no loyalty to their employees, so their employees should now return the favour.
Isn't that taking it a bit far? Loyalty is a two-way street... some don't want to come into the office at all while the office wants you to come in less than they used to.
You're spot on, employees are welcome to move on - and the good ones may have no trouble finding the WFH job of their dreams.
Re: (Score:3)
I've NEVER seen corporate loyalty beyond the scale of small business, and even then you'll find you're definitely 2nd class if there's family involved.
Give what you get, no more. If you give your loyalty to a company and expect to be rewarded instead of simply used, you're exactly the fool they think you are.
I'm not saying, 'screw the corporations', but you've made a deal - you work in return for money. When you start talking about intangibles like 'loyalty' that cannot be trusted until after the fact? Y
Re: (Score:2)
Suit yourself. I promote those who go "over an above" because I know who the motivated ones are. I do this because that is how it worked for me. Anecdotal, sure.. and I don't work for corps the size of Amazon... but then again, nobody _has_ to work for Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
There is truth in that; management often wants to believe the company is effective because of its processes rather than exceptional individuals. The reason is that (identifying and) recruiting exceptional people is hard. The math on how that pans out over time is hard.
I know at least two engineers that would have washed out if they were not given continuous direct and personal mentoring and training, rather than becoming the exceptional employees they are today. I know an equal number that always would have
Good luck with that (Score:2)
There's always a shortage of Linux people, good luck with that.
I'm casually looking for a new job at the moment. Got approached by an amazon recruiter recently, declined them because of that no 100% remote working.
I've made it a point that if the recruiter doesn't offer remote work only then I decline to even interview with them.
The market favours us, why the feck should we accept the misery of travelling and all the times and costs that incurs?
3 Days/Week at Dell (Score:2)
Dell has also asked employees to come back three days a week, but at least they're not checking badge data or anything like that. Some managers are pushing it, some aren't. If you're more than an hour away from the office, you're exempt.
Among the list of reasons, the one best one I've heard is that newer hires need the interaction to develop the relationships that pre-COVID hires already have. My team has several members in our India office, and I'll admit that I don't really know them, so there's certai
Half-assed justification. (Score:2)
At least 3 days a week, eh?
So, instead of pulling the entire justification to sustain an overpriced corporate building out of some overpriced middle-earth cube farmers ass, you're going to instead half-ass the justification for keeping that overpriced building and all related expenses on the books?
Wonder how long it will take for executives to realize their bonus could be considerably larger without that half-assed business expense....
Not rooting for either side. (Score:2)
Amazon risks losing some people that they'd rather keep, but might get to cut some folks they consider neutral or negative. The workers risk losing their job, but might get their way (if they are in the "rather keep" bucket) or they might get a better job elsewhere. Both sides are weighing their options and throwing the dice.
Amazon does not owe the workers this new paradigm. The job terms on offer are not new. I don't see the desire to reinstate the pre-pandemic work world as unreasonable. It's out of step
Performance WFH ? (Score:2)
Surely if an individuals performance working from home is exemplary - that they are achieving goals or over achieving - why would you force them into the office?
There's two reasons why performance may be subpar:
1. Management sucks
2. Management hired the wrong people
No amount of working from the office is going to change those facts.
Also, if you have force people back to the office, surely that means the environment there sucks?
Yes, you can blame a good portion of reluctance to go to the office on commute ti
Re: (Score:2)
There's a few bogus reasons that working from the office is better.
One of the bigger ones is along the lines of "chance meetings" or "watercooler moments", where you interact with someone outside your team and end up having some sort of eureka moment, some sort of epiphany - you've networked and come up with an incredible idea!
Spare me that kind of horseshit.
Text or video chat is infinitely better for that kind of discovery.
You have your computer right at your fingertips and have a record of the conversatio
Shudder (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's like other companies that re forcing RTO, people are showing up, eating lunch and leaving. The cafeteria is feeling the "surge", nobody wants to be there and managers don't give two shits as long as you get your work done. It's a stupid system.
Amazon isn't alone (Score:2)
I assume it is a strategy to reduce staffing.
Re: (Score:3)
God damn it, did I miss my invite to the last 1%er meeting where we all conspired to destroy the economy again?
I need to adjust my spam filters because I seem to miss a lot of these 1%er meetings. Can you forward me a copy of your next invite so I don't miss the next recession planning?
Thanks bro!
Re: (Score:2)
The one (and only) thing I will say in Powell's defense is that Biden refuses to do his part. One of the primary contributing factors of inflation is government deficit spending. The more the government spends in excess of taxes collected, the more the value of the dollar drops. But Biden will not reign in government spending and is still fixated on finding ways to give away even more free money!
So, Powell has been given the responsibility to fix inflation, but not the authority to do so. Or rather, onl
No. (Score:2)
*I* don't want to see higher unemployment, Jerome Powell does. Understanding my post requires familiarity with a few relevant topics, including the actions that Powell has taken and the statements that he and his associates have made about the strategy and its progress. (And for clarity, there is no secret conspiracy here, absolutely all of this is happening right out in the open).
Inflation is caused by a money supply that is too big. THAT is the root cause, and this is a well-known phenomenon in economi
Re: (Score:2)
Argh, after posting I realized that I forgot to mention a fourth major cause of inflation: a broken supply chain. We had to deal with that too after the pandemic, with many productive businesses going broke and shutting down worldwide, creating supply deficits and hence pushing prices up.
That problem has been pretty much resolved, though. The supply chain is not perfect but is at a point where the other causes I listed are the primary ones that are still driving inflation up.
Its also commonly objected tha