Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon CEO reportedly told remote employees: It’s probably not going to work out

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 403 posts

Re: Amazon CEO reportedly told remote employees: It’s probably not going to work out

#161

Post by ChildOfChaos »

notatoad wrote: post #152
DaveFr wrote: post #126

Per the NYPost article on this, > During the meeting, which is known in internal Amazon lingo as a “fishbowl” meeting, Jassy declined to share data that motivated his decision to require employees to return to the office. The CEO told his charges it was a “judgment” call. Could some brave soul please leak whatever data these guys are seeing? Reports, statistics, even just emails where they whine about empty offices?…

>The CEO told his charges it was a “judgment” call. is it really an untethered conspiracy theory when the CEO is straight-up saying his decision is based on vibes?

Trust me bro...

Re: Amazon CEO reportedly told remote employees: It’s probably not going to work out

#162

Post by boringg »

cr__ wrote: post #125
catiopatio wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking salaried employees to spend three days in the office isn’t exploitative, and it’s certainly not equivalent to mass layoffs or termination without cause.

Changing the conditions of employment unilaterally is exploitative, especially within a system in which employment is required to maintain access to health care.

No it does not qualify as exploitative - is it a tough adjustment? Probably yes, exploitative? No.

Your health care example has little weight unless you are in a one employer town as you can always find other employers if you don't like one as much as that process isn't great.

Re: Amazon CEO reportedly told remote employees: It’s probably not going to work out

#164

Post by electriclove »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #128

I find the push for "back to the office" one of the most astonishing things to come out of corporate America. We've basically been moving to a model where people can work from home for a few decades. We're reached a point where it's not only feasible, but it's senseless to do otherwise for many positions. And then, suddenly and out of the blue, a lot of CEOs and upper management started demanding that employees go ba…

I think at some of these large corporations and definitely in the public sector, there are tons of people who do not perform well especially now that they are remote. I think this is a way to get rid of those people.

Re: Amazon CEO reportedly told remote employees: It’s probably not going to work out

#165

Post by JackFr »

lapcat wrote: post #121

Jassy said the quiet part out loud and admitted what I've always suspected, that most CEOs don't have original thoughts, instead governing by groupthink: > Other company CEOs helped Jassy make up his mind too. Jassy spoke to "60 to 80 CEOs of other companies over the last 18 months," and "virtually all of them" preferred in-office work, he said. I bet that none of those individual CEOs could empirically prove that re…

And yet they are CEOs and you and I are posting comments Hacker News.

Re: Amazon CEO reportedly told remote employees: It’s probably not going to work out

#166

Post by jupp0r »

RomanPushkin wrote: post #111

Corporations will do whatever they want to until we have unions in this country. Mass layoffs, termination with no reason, dictating how they want the workforce to be exploited. If this generation cannot see that, I hope younger folks or our kids will make this country a better place to live and work.

Sorry to break it to you, but a shortage of software engineers is what brought all these perks in the first place, not unions.

Re: Amazon CEO reportedly told remote employees: It’s probably not going to work out

#168

Post by siftrics »

xt00 wrote: post #160

Seems most of these top down driven mandates could be explained by some simple logic—if you don’t like your job very much as CEO, then you are thinking “man I wish I didn’t have to be here”.. and then it starts resentment toward people who also aren’t suffering along with you.. basically these mandates seem likely to be driven by stress at the top of the management, not based upon actual data. If you are asking for d…

While I agree with your reasoning, it's pretty ironic to blame top management for making changes "not based upon actual data" in the middle of a speculative claim that, itself, is not based upon actual data.

Re: Amazon CEO reportedly told remote employees: It’s probably not going to work out

#169

Post by mdgrech23 »

dfxm12 wrote: post #155
DaveFr wrote: post #126

Per the NYPost article on this, > During the meeting, which is known in internal Amazon lingo as a “fishbowl” meeting, Jassy declined to share data that motivated his decision to require employees to return to the office. The CEO told his charges it was a “judgment” call. Could some brave soul please leak whatever data these guys are seeing? Reports, statistics, even just emails where they whine about empty offices?…

The data probably suggests they should lay off a bunch of people & that this might be best way for them to do so, in terms of not legally needing to offer severance, legal issues, PR, stock prices, etc.

100% this. Employers know they can turn up the heat so to speak by making the workplace less enjoyable and more people will leave b/c of that. That saves them from having to lay off people. I think it's important to note layoffs tend to push stock prices down and that's what these folks specifically care about b/c that's what's good for their pocket book.

Re: Amazon CEO reportedly told remote employees: It’s probably not going to work out

#170

Post by geodel »

garciasn wrote: post #153
catiopatio wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking salaried employees to spend three days in the office isn’t exploitative, and it’s certainly not equivalent to mass layoffs or termination without cause.

On top of the promise of remote work for the last several years and then changing the terms of employment w/o any tangible reason, asking salaried employees to pay for incremental childcare, transit cost, potential COL increase, and personal time cost w/o any compensation is definitely exploitive. Sure, you want me to go back on two years of financial gains? Pay me the difference I've gained in that time and I might…

Its simple really. Just go and ask your employer to pay difference. If they say no don't move.
Post reply on HN