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

Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 190 posts

Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document

#11

Post by api »

randycupertino wrote: post #6

5 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.

Any days defeats much of the purpose IMHO, which is to allow people to escape the real estate cost trap cities and actually build wealth.

If a company said I had to move back to a high cost city, I’d demand like double the salary. Not like I’d be keeping any of it. They should just skip the middleman and cut checks directly to existing homeowners and property speculators.

It helps on both sides too. If a bunch of devs can now vacate the high cost cities, it might make those cities less expensive for the people who actually need to be there or have family ties there.

Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document

#12

Post by mikert89 »

Amazon is in keeping the lights on mode in large swaths of the company. They are far beyond looking for top talent, most of the company is engineers keeping the computer systems running

Majority of the teams have very little room for innovation, it’s discouraged

Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document

#13

Post by tkiolp4 »

BoorishBears wrote: post #3

My 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…

As a worker, I don’t care about squeezing the last drop of productivity that’s in me. I care about wasting time commuting, paying insane rents for tiny small apartments in the city, not having lunch with my loved ones.

I understand the topic of productivity if it’s brought up by some ceo, founder or investor (for them, we workers are less than working ants. They only care about how much money can they extract from us). So, either you are one of them, or you don’t have the priorities of life clear.

Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document

#14

Post by ajkjk »

mikert89 wrote: post #12

Amazon is in keeping the lights on mode in large swaths of the company. They are far beyond looking for top talent, most of the company is engineers keeping the computer systems running Majority of the teams have very little room for innovation, it’s discouraged

is this, like, true? or gut feeling? or made up?

Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document

#15

Post by xboxnolifes »

sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #10
randycupertino wrote: post #6

5 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]

Only if they can't find a job.

Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document

#16

Post by mikert89 »

ajkjk wrote: post #14
mikert89 wrote: post #12

Amazon is in keeping the lights on mode in large swaths of the company. They are far beyond looking for top talent, most of the company is engineers keeping the computer systems running Majority of the teams have very little room for innovation, it’s discouraged

is this, like, true? or gut feeling? or made up?

I worked there for a long time. It’s 100% true. They mostly need low level workers to keep the systems going.

Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document

#17

Post by exploringfalse »

silenced_trope wrote: post #4

I 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.

This is definitely a big part. Some of that was listed in the article, but it's a big barrier when you look at COL in places like SLU Seattle. Then you have the terrible vesting schedule. Now this. It's no wonder people are looking for work elsewhere, and really I think this is just the final straw for many.

Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document

#18

Post by sugarpimpdorsey »

tkiolp4 wrote: post #13
BoorishBears wrote: post #3

My 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…

As a worker, I don’t care about squeezing the last drop of productivity that’s in me. I care about wasting time commuting, paying insane rents for tiny small apartments in the city, not having lunch with my loved ones. I understand the topic of productivity if it’s brought up by some ceo, founder or investor (for them, we workers are less than working ants. They only care about how much money can they extract from us…

> I care about wasting time commuting, paying insane rents for tiny small apartments in the city

Easily solvable by not locating your company HQ in overpriced trendy coastal cities. This is usually met with "but people WANT to live there!" If this was true, walking to work wouldn't be an issue.

Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document

#19

Post by gertlex »

api wrote: post #11
randycupertino wrote: post #6

5 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.

Any days defeats much of the purpose IMHO, which is to allow people to escape the real estate cost trap cities and actually build wealth. If a company said I had to move back to a high cost city, I’d demand like double the salary. Not like I’d be keeping any of it. They should just skip the middleman and cut checks directly to existing homeowners and property speculators. It helps on both sides too. If a bunch of dev…

I wonder what the relative fraction of those doing software development that also have to touch hardware is.

Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document

#20

Post by themafia »

BoorishBears wrote: post #3

My 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…

I think companies see WFH as a huge employee benefit and expect that they'll reduce their wage expectations accordingly.

I think most employees see WFH as the only logical solution in a society with high speed internet readily available.

It's a bummer these corporations spent so lavishly on their campuses in the 2010s. Now they want to throw good money after bad trying to save face on this strategic blunder.

It's similar how Bill Gates wrote a book in 1996 and barely mentions or foresees the massive changes about to happen because of the Internet. It took him a decade to admit the mistake and his company a further decade to rectify it.

Post reply on HN