Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
1–10 of 190 posts
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#2Good
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#3My feelings on significant WFH have gone around from thinking it's a no brainer to accepting that it's not really doable for large companies (large headcount wise at least).
It sucks, but I've found that the number of people who work as well (or even better!) from the home is not zero, but the number of people who claim there's no difference and then end up doing significantly worse work, become a massive pain to get a hold of, become less motivated, etc. is way way higher.
And I suspect the larger the organization, the more the ratio skews towards the wrong side of that: since part of what makes WFH work is having people care deeply enough about the mission to stay motivated and operate in a way that aligns with the goals of the org, even under reduced oversight.
And this excerpt...
> Oracle, for example, has hired away more than 600 Amazon employees in the past 2 years because Amazon's strict RTO policy has made poaching easier, Bloomberg reported recently.
If you're losing them to Oracle of all places, I'm not sure the losses paint the story the headline is selling.
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#4I don't think it's just that.
- Amazon's back-loaded vesting costs them top talent.
- Amazon's pip culture is notorious. When Amazon managers get hired at other companies people immediately consider it a turning point for the company turning to crap.
- Commuting is a killer for a lot of people. You either live somewhere expensive and have a short commute, or live somewhere less desirable but have a longer commute.
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#5How does their "hub" thing work? Is your whole team in one place, or do you just report to some random cubicle farm?
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#65 days a week RTO is just beyond the pale. 3 days, sure. 4 days, maybe. But 5 days in office is harsh. Top talent sees this as rude, lack of trust, unnecessary babysitting and middle managing. 3-4 days sure, good for networking, collaboration, etc. But give people 1 day a week flex at least to be trusted adults who can responsibly wfh.
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#7My feelings on significant WFH have gone around from thinking it's a no brainer to accepting that it's not really doable for large companies (large headcount wise at least). It sucks, but I've found that the number of people who work as well (or even better!) from the home is not zero, but the number of people who claim there's no difference and then end up doing significantly worse work, become a massive pain to get…
Amazon isn’t that great and Oracle especially OCI isn’t that bad.
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#8Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#9do they even need top talent? arguably they are in a commodity business. doesn't take a genius to build a DC and sell compute slices.
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#105 days a week RTO is just beyond the pale. 3 days, sure. 4 days, maybe. But 5 days in office is harsh. Top talent sees this as rude, lack of trust, unnecessary babysitting and middle managing. 3-4 days sure, good for networking, collaboration, etc. But give people 1 day a week flex at least to be trusted adults who can responsibly wfh.
[flagged]