• omarfw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    222
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Now they can replace them without paying unemployment and pay the new workers a lower wage. This is what they wanted to happen. Mega corporations are a problem we need to solve as a society.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      86
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Quality programmers are a finite resource. Amazon chewed through the entire unskilled labor market with their warehouses and then struggled to find employees to meet their labor needs. If they try the same stunt with skilled labor they’re in for a very rude awakening. They’ll be able to find people, but only for well above market rates. They’re highly likely to find in the long run it would have been much cheaper to hang onto the people they already had.

      • omarfw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        72
        ·
        2 months ago

        The whole problem with companies like Amazon is that hardly anyone in charge of them seems to care about long term sustainability. They all just invest enough effort to squeeze out some short term profits, earn their bonuses and then leave for another company to do it all again. Nobody is interested in sustainability because there is no incentive to. They’re playing hot potato with the collapse of the company.

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Now expand that to the entire planetary economy. Unsustainable short term gains is the entire industrial revolution.

          We’re only 300 years in and most life and ecosystems on Earth have been destroyed and homogenized to service humanity. We’re essentially a parasite. It’s not surprising that the most successful corporations are the most successful parasites. It’s just parasites, doing parasitic things, because they’re parasites… from the top down.

          • Wanderer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            There has been efficiency gains throughout. Capitalism is amazing for that, far better than other systems.

            The problem is too many people. If standard of living is to increase then the resource requirement is due to massive unsustainable population growth.

            That and the fact the public hate externalities and don’t want them used at all never mind aggressively.

            • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              The problem is too many people. If standard of living is to increase then the resource requirement is due to massive unsustainable population growth.

              They’re both important. And crucially, people in developed countries use a lot more resources than those in undeveloped countries. Just look at the resource utilization of our richest people. We have billionaires operating private rocket companies! If somehow, say due to really really good automation, orbital rockets could be made cheap enough for the average person to afford, we would have average middle class people regularly launching rockets into space and taking private trips to the Moon. Just staggering levels of resource use. If we could build and maintain homes very cheaply due to advanced robotics, the average person would live in a private skyscraper if they could afford it. Imagine the average suburban lot, except with a tower built on it 100 stories tall. If it was cheap enough to build and maintain that sort of thing, that absolutely would become the norm.

              • Wanderer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                The only billionaire I know of that is launching rockets is Elon Musk.

                That’s just evidence that capitalism is efficient. Because SpaceX has revolutionised space travel making the only reusable rocket doing something all the government agencies said was impossible. NASAs new unbuilt rocket is using tech from the 1970 that they are going to throe away into the ocean on every launch.

                The rest you say is meaningless. How you expect this robotic skyscrapers to be built? Some MIT masters project or some capitalist experiment?

                • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Bezos also has a rocket company. Plus there’s Richard Branson. And others.. And then you have private jet travel, massive mega yachts, and countless other extravagances. For a certain class of billionaire, having a private rocket company is a vanity project. These rocket companies are vanity projects by rich sci fi nerds. Yes, they’ve done some really good technical work, but they’re only possible because their founders were willing to sink billions into them even without any proof they’ll make a profit.

                  What you are missing is that as people’s wealth increases, their resource use just keeps going up and up and up. To the point where when people are wealthy enough, they’re using orders of magnitude more energy and resources than the average citizen of even developed countries. Billionaires have enough wealth that they can fly rockets just because they think they’re cool, even if they have no real path to profitability.

                  And no, the hypothetical of the robot skyscrapers is not “meaningless.” You just have a poor imagination. To have that type of world we only need one thing - a robot that can build a copy of itself from raw materials, or a series of robots that can collectively reproduce themselves from raw materials gathered in the environment. Once you have self-replicating robots, it becomes very easy to scale up to that kind of consumption on a broad scale. If you have self-replicating robots, the only real limit to the total number you can have on the planet is the total amount of sunlight available to power all of them.

                  The real point isn’t the specific examples I gave. The point, which you are missing entirely, is that total resource use is a function of wealth and technological capability. Raw population has very little impact on it. If our automation gets a lot better, or something else makes us much wealthier, we would see vast increases in total resource use even if our population was cut in half.

      • greenskye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s the next executive’s problem. These executives will jump ship with their golden parachutes before any of that affects them.

        • Kalysta@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          They may not want them, but with how many people are switching to things like AWS, they may find they need them.

          And it will ultimately cost them more to find new people when they realize that they’re pissing off their customers with their poor new hires.

          I will be happy to watch them squirm when they come to this realization. Karma is a bitch, Amazon.

      • Sinuhe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        An awakening would mean they would analyze and understand the situation. They won’t. Amazon has and probably always had a bullish “my way or the highway” attitude - ask people what they think, pretend you care, then ignore everything they might say. Upper managers make decisions uniquely based off costs and short term vision, and are never held accountable for the consequences. I worked there for years and you really can’t imagine how bad the work culture is there, whatever you have in mind is worse in reality

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Problem is for a company like Amazon, even if the brain drain will result in obviously inferior customer experience, it could take years before that happens and for it to be recognized and for the business results suffer for it. In the meantime, bigger margins and restricted stock matures and they can get their money now.

        Particularly with business clients, like AWS customers, it will take a huge amount of obvious screwups before those clients are willing to undertake the active effort of leaving.

    • eee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      2 months ago

      yeah, the only problem is that this results in the best talent leaving, you’re stuck with people who have nowhere else to go. it’s one of those short-term profits kinda things, which is why Wall St loves it so much.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      And they want people off the vesting ramp as early as possible.

      Amazon does 5-15-40-40

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ve… never heard of such a vesting schedule. Doesn’t everyone else pretty much do 25%/year ?

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s precisely because their working standards are absolutely absurd and unsustainable, so a LOT of people bail before full vesting. AMZN HR intentionally structures the vesting schedule like this because they have numbers to prove it works out in the company’s favor.

    • blady_blah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      This isn’t what they want to happen. They know it will happen, but this isn’t the goal or objective.

      Amazon is a big boy company, if they want to cut staff, they’ll cut staff. The problem with cutting staff this way, is that they don’t get to decide who they’re cutting. They don’t want to cut talented employees at random, they want to pick the low performers and let them go. This is kind of the opposite of that.

      The higher skilled the employee is, the more likely they are to have been hired remote, and to feel they can find another job also. That means they’re effectively shooting themselves in the foot and getting rid of some of their talented employees for the benefit of bringing people into the office.

      There has been a swing in the business opinion that work from home isn’t as efficient. This is basically the higher-ups falling in line with that opinion.

    • Brewchin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      To add to what others have replied, Amazon have an institutional belief that everyone who makes it through the Loop is better than 50% of existing staff.

      It could be post-hoc rationalising of back-loaded share vesting, hire-to-fire, and their other many practices, but that’s the position. With that kind of thinking, it makes this behaviour, including it’s consequences, a no-brainer win:win to them.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yep this has been the modus operandi for businesses who want to reduce workforce without having to pay for layoffs.

    • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Like many companies, they overhired in the last 4 years. Some of these people are due years of severance (my offer listed 2months for every year after 1 year), not to mention the vested stocks and other bonuses granted during this insane hot hire period.

      So how do you remove people not loyal to the company? The most hated mandate ever. Amazon is a company that doesn’t need people in the office. This is nothing more than screwing people over.

      • foofy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        No rank and file US-based employees at Amazon are getting years of severance. They don’t do that.

        • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, that was a typo and my experience is limited towards the AWS side which is also facing this issue. But the numbers are there, some people have been at Amazon for a decade, so 20 months (if they had MY package of 2mos per year). Amazon was throwing everything at new hires, because they were making bank on their work.

      • aaron@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        So they’re not paying severance to employees they fire?

        • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          They are getting severance when terminated, unless for cause. My comment was, this is how they avoid it by forcing people to quit.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      If Amazon don’t think that remote work is productive, then they don’t think they’re losing anything. I don’t even know how “stealth” this is at all. They must believe that those individuals could be productive, because they are trying to keep them working in office. I’m not sure why anyone thinks a company like Amazon would try to be “stealth” about a layoff anyway. They don’t need to.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          And returning to the office probably doesn’t count as an unreasonable change to the agreement, so you probably won’t win if you sue, and the unemployment office probably won’t help.

          So yeah, sucks all around.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Amazing.

    They order people to work in different offices than before, far away from before, or in offices that did not even exist before. They order people to work in offices who have only worked at home before.

    And they call it “return”, and everybody seems to accept the audacity.

    Nobody laughs out loud into their faces and calls them the dirty liars that they are.

    • sleepmode@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah this attrition is expected by Amazon. IBM and others did this earlier. If enough people choose to RTO they will do “real” layoffs and get a pat on the back in the news for not letting as many people go as they would have had to before. Optics I guess. IIRC this is the second round for Amazon.

      Some are saying companies are doing this to keep their property values up but I think that’s only one facet. What I don’t see being called out often is companies doing this are hiring replacements overseas in tax havens and/or where they can pay less for talent. Real kicker is, those hires wind up being remote anyway to the anchor offices.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Now this is a good point. During the time of remote work, everything became organized around it. In fact my employer just closed the local office I belong to, because everyone is remote and it just isn’t getting used. If they suddenly decided on RTO and asked me to work at an office 60 miles away that would not be a “return” nor practical in any way. I’m sure Amazon know this but are just saying “oh well,” because really they can’t do kick to solve it. It’s going to be a painful transition but I guess they’ve decided they are ready.

  • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    2 months ago

    Just as planned - Amazon Execs who aren’t planning to rehire them anyway.

    They do this shit to cull you.

    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s sort of a strange approach, because this will leave you with the workers who can’t find employment elsewhere.

        • Skeezix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          2 months ago

          Most companies are satisfied with adequate workers rather than diligent and empowered workers. The latter cost too much. This is a convenient way for Amazon to cull the crew without incurring bad PR. This is why it’s often a shitshow in offices and warehouses; because the workers with self esteem and motivation either get fed up and leave or are forced out. This is just a facet of Big Capitalism.

      • exanime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 months ago

        By the time that negative effect kicks in, the execs already cashed in their bonuses and are on their way out of the sinking ship

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Executives do not see workers as people with skillsets. They’re numbers on a spreadsheet. And having ten highly paid workers quit “voluntarily” makes the numbers do good things.

        Actually, they’re not even numbers on a spreadsheet. They’re data points in a graph. Executives don’t have time to understand numbers, let alone people.

      • DrDickHandler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        People exaggerate this claim. Amazon already accounted for some talent leaving and the benefits obviously outweighs the con. There is nothing strange.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    That was probably the intent. It works as a soft layoff. Do something wildly unpopular, knowing that a bunch of employees will quit. The ones left will pick up the slack, because obviously if they had anywhere else to go they would’ve left with the first group.

        • jaybone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 months ago

          It costs them more in the long run but those metrics are more difficult to capture and convey, and nobody would care anyway.

          • Ænima@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            The wealthy in this world are just like my 4yo, they just want instant gratification. No amount of justification or considerations matter when your soul purpose is to get as much as possible while you can and fuck everyone else! The race to the bottom continues!

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Which is why everyone who thinks they’re clever to call this a “soft layoff” is not as clever as they think. Amazon isn’t shy about doing layoffs and dismissing low performers. An unpopular decision like this will frequently eject the most capable employees because they are the ones who can most easily find other work. Meanwhile the dead weight employees stick around because they know they can’t find other arrangements as good. It’s a dumb way to reduce staff, and Amazon aren’t dumb.

        No, I think we take Amazon at their word on this one. They are not just fucking around to try to shake 20% of their workforce loose. They genuinely don’t want to do remote anymore.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why do you think a company like them would do a soft layoff, instead of just picking the low performers they think they should lay off and just dismissing them? What do they gain by leaving it up to chance and the decisions of employees? It could be a lot more disruptive that way, with no control over who leaves or when. If you’re going to say it’s all to save a buck by not paying severance, I’m not convinced that the lack of control and having to deal with the random effects is remotely worth it.

      • paddirn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ve worked for companies that would leave it up to chance without a second thought. I’ve known people that worked there and Amazon doesn’t seem like it cares about its employees. Does it make sense? No, but there’s alot about corporate America that’s pretty dumb.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t suggest Amazon cares about its employees - just the results they produce. But they need their best people in order to produce those results. Culling your staff randomly doesn’t make sense, and I don’t believe that Amazon are simply dumb.

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    2 months ago

    I really do wonder if Amazon will run out of people willing to work for them someday. Their approach assumes there is an infinite supply of workers to burn through. Given everything I’ve witnessed from the company, I’d never work there. Do they at some point poison the labor pool against them?

    • daddy32@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      You could also think this applies to all corporations in some degree. But no, there’s a fresh batch of bright eyed optimistic people out of school every year.

      • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Another company I had contact with did a few layoffs. Afterwards the recruitment department had a lot more issues finding people. Experienced people would ask a premium because of that company’s reputation in the industry and the experienced people would usually stay a short time and leave. The other option was hiring fresh graduates and put effort in training them.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Also a sea of people looking to put in a respectable time at a recognizable employer to dress up their resume.

    • EnderMB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 months ago

      When I joined Amazon, I was told that for some roles in the US Amazon received more applications than corporate employees worldwide - so I assume 1M+.

      That number has probably reduced significantly, given we’ve now had two rounds of RTO. I know some recruiters are really struggling to find external candidates to join, and rightly so, but I don’t doubt that Amazon can find someone to fill these roles, or can find someone outside of North America or Europe to take that role.

      The FAANG acronym was the worst thing to happen to tech, because people will flock to Amazon to say “I worked for FAANG”. Prestige is a powerful thing to some, and they’ll deal with some insane shit for the clout that comes from being here.

      (FWIW, I’ve been at Amazon as a software engineer for close to four years now, and I’ve noticed zero improvement in opportunities afforded to me)

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The FAANG acronym was the worst thing to happen to tech, because people will flock to Amazon to say “I worked for FAANG”. Prestige is a powerful thing to some, and they’ll deal with some insane shit for the clout that comes from being here.

        The problem is that the clout boost is real. I never worked for a FAANG/MANGA company, but just having one relatively well-known company on my resume opened up options I never would have had. All my interviewers would mention it, even though it was almost 20 years ago.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s real and it can suck.

          Any time someone has one of the ‘big names’ on their resume, they get to skip the line and call the shots. Problem is in many of these cases, they got fired from those big companies for very blatantly obvious reasons once you work with them. They will tank their new projects, and executives will just say “this can’t be right, Google is such a success” yeah, because they fired that guy…

        • roofuskit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, I’ve gotten multiple jobs in my industry based on a company I worked for like 15 years ago. Just because they’re a major player who is well respected.

        • EnderMB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It might have been a few years ago, but having Amazon on my CV has offered almost nothing. If anything, I get fewer legitimate interview offers than I did before.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      I never understood why anyone works for them at all. And I’m not even talking about warehouse workers. I’m talking about the tech staff. Amazon is known as a cutthroat workplace that drives people like a hammer drives nails. I would never choose to go there.

      • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Agreed and they have an average tenure of like 1.2 years, but their stock vesting schedule gives you 5% in year one, then 15%, 40%, and 40%. So you’re pretty likely to never get whatever carrot they dangle in front of you.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I know some tech workers who really want to return to office full time along with everyone else. They miss the old way. It’s not everyone, and it’s definitely not me, but it’s a legitimate position. I guess now they know where they can go.

    • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I honestly don’t see an issue with the people going back to the office because they want to work from there. I just want others to stop trying to force me to do the same.

      This sort of thing seems to have always been a plague with a set of the extroverted sort. They seem to feel the whole world should for whatever reason cater to what makes them happy and us introverted types that do not like the social activities that they do should be made to partake anyway. For our own good. Yet the world is ending when those same extroverted people have to spend a large chunk of time alone or simply being quiet.

      The older I get the less patience I have for those sorts of games. Which could become an issue for me professionally I suppose.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Exactly, which is why I really like my current setup, which is 2x in office, 3x WFH. I think being in-person has advantages, but I also feel much more productive when I WFH because I don’t have all of the little interactions at the office (i.e. coworker wanting to get coffee together, quick question from a team member about something irrelevant, etc). I get into better flow at home, but being available is also important for others on the team.

        Honestly, I would hesitate to take a full-remote position, but I am definitely not interested in full-on-prem either. I need at least 1-2 days at home to get actual work done, ideally 3.

    • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hey I can relate. I miss the office too. I was far more productive there and the cooperation and mental space was better there too. But this is a new world we live in, and if you want me to drive to an office, you had better be ready to pay me a fair salary for it.

      Oh, you won’t? Guess I’ll go elsewhere.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Amazon tech workers are well paid. What I find is the real cost of in-office is the commute time. I’m almost an hour away door-to-door and while I always enjoy seeing people in person, and our office is quite nice, I just can’t convince myself that it’s worth two hours a day of wasted time, plus the costs. I pay $12 in train tickets any day I go in.

    • ccunix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      My company announced RTO the same day Amazon did. The Union is up in arms, but honestly the powers that be are handling it pretty well. My boss is happily going to the office for a couple of days a week. She’s a million miles from enforcing it on us though. Exceptions are already in place for people like me (3 hour TGV ride from the nearest office) and even a few people who just said “I really don’t want to”.

      I’m sure a few people will leave and not be replaced, but perhaps they were just dead weight anyway. I couple that I know about definitely are.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I love going to the office. I started renting a place nearby to do just that.

      But I don’t want my coworkers to be forced to show up. That’s silly.

    • Scolding7300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I would guess the principal reason here is to socialize, and there’s probably other solutions to this. I would also guess that for some the socializing during the day doesn’t havehave to be with the same company’s coworkers

  • sjh@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Wow, it seems like the return-to-office mandate is causing quite the shake-up! Totally get why folks are jumping ship - flexibility has become such a big deal, especially after getting used to working from home. I read that 65% of workers now say they’d consider quitting if they couldn’t work remotely! It’s all about finding that work-life balance in a job that respects our needs. Hang in there, tech friends—plenty of companies out there understand the power of flexibility and trust!

    • normalexit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      These tech workers are not Bezos. They are just developers and technical people that thought they had a good job with competitive salaries. It sucks they have to uproot their lives because management is being shitty.

      They may work for a company without ethics, but that’s kind of the corporate landscape these days.

      • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        2 months ago

        Let me reword what I wrote since I think I wasn’t clear.

        When I said I am glad this is happening, I mean I am glad that the workers are standing up to Amazon by quitting and heading to a different company. And by ‘fuck em’’ I was referring to Amazon and other employers who want undue influence on the lives of their employees.

        I am 100% on the side of the workers here. Always have and always will be.

        • r0ertel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          With all the employees back in the office, they’ll have plenty of time to hang around the water cooler and discuss all the ways to unionize. Leaving the company is great as an individual, it sends a message. Unionizing helps to restore the balance of power vs rights and is exactly what Amazon doesn’t want. This (IMHO) is how you “F them hard”. Additionally, it’d send a message to the other companies who want to flex on the people who make the company work.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m not a big fan of overpaid tech workers either. Upper middle class SDE tech bros are not as bad as upper upper class tech CEOs, but that doesn’t mean they’re good.

  • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    To literally no one’s surprise, least of all the leadership at Amazon. No unemployment when you quit.

    • reddig33@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      The problem being that the ones moving on to other jobs are the actual talent. Unlike a targeted layoff, this leaves Amazon with the employees no one else wanted.

      • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        That’s assuming the real talent wasn’t secretly given exception to this. And in any case, what’s important isn’t having the best talent, it’s making the numbers look better for end of year. Amazon has become too big to fail, they don’t need top talent to deliver a superior customer experience. Anyone reliant on cloud offerings is stuck. Employees get laid off, prices go up, product gets worse, who cares. People are paying. Thats the stage of capitalism they’re in.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Anyone reliant on cloud offerings is stuck.

          There are multiple public clouds. AWS is not the default choice a company uses for a public cloud offering anymore.

          • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Realistically there’s AWS and Azure, and with Azure being run by Microsoft it’s not like it’s going to be better in anyone’s minds. Google’s is a VERY distant third with no real shot to take over, and everything else is a rounding error.

  • spicystraw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Common theory l, that I have heard is that if business owns their office space then it’s value is inherently tied to profit margins. If office goes unused, value will drop, which affect bottom line, which affects boards willingness to pay out large CEO bonuses. So getting employees back into the office becomes vital for the leadership.

    • EnderMB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      IMO it’s worse than this. It’s likely to do with Seattle real estate only, because Amazon has their HQ in Seattle, most of the STeam is in Seattle, and it’s where most of the big decisions are focused. There is an acronym that has existed at Amazon for decades, NEWS (Not Everyone Works in Seattle). Sadly, like many Amazonian things, they’re not really a thing any more…

      • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Seems right. I have a friend who works for Amazon and lives in Portland, OR. They’re asking them to relocate to Seattle to RTO. Now they’re debating if they even want to stay at the company. Supposedly they have until EOY to decide.

        • EnderMB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          That’s a shame, and sadly it’s all too uncommon. Given Amazon’s history with layoffs, and the countless stories of people that moved from NYC to Seattle, only to be laid off days/weeks later, there’s no way I’d move for Amazon.

          The funny thing is that many people in our Seattle team constantly complain about not being able to park at the office - and that’s without everyone at the office and more to come.

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Even if they don’t own it, there is cost associated with downsizing an office. Selling off furniture is impossible at the moment. Leases are down. Subletting is much harder. But there places are, paying plant, hvac and cleaning, maintenance on virtually unused office space.

      Most places just need a conference room, some temp offices and a bathroom.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah but bringing people back is still more expensive because it means more maintenance, more cleaning, and in the case of Amazon paying more for the office perks.

        I’m sure at some point, somewhere, someone forced people to rto because it was better for their real estate investment…but I just have not been able to make sense of the claims that this is driving factor.

  • EndOfLine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    I hope a significant number of them get new jobs and quiet quit to get that double paycheck for as long as they can.

    • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I hope so too. Although the IT job market isn’t great right now, so I doubt the departures will reach a critical mass.