This whole issue makes me wonder whether the real problem is Amazon’s high cost structure rather than RTO policies alone. If employees are forced back into expensive offices just to justify those huge campus investments, maybe the better fix is shedding real estate, not tweaking attendance rules.
Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
41–50 of 190 posts
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#425 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]
I was referring to the article, which specifies Amazon is now requiring 5 days RTO.
> Many firms are tightening RTO, but Amazon stands out. It demands 5 days in-office and ties compliance to promotions and performance reviews. Those who refuse to relocate to "hubs" are considered by Amazon to have voluntarily resigned.
> "We continue to believe that teams produce the best results when they're collaborating and inventing in person, and we've observed that to be true now that we've had most people back in the office each day for some time," the Amazon spokesperson said.
List some companies that allow 4 10 hour days? Other than healthcare I haven't heard many tech companies allowing this.
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#43My 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…
> 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 For me the reverse thought always comes into mind: "The amount of tangible work achieved when in the office is close to zero". Countless chats,…
I should have realized that my comment relies on too much nuance for the average person who's crying themselves sick over RTO to engage with in any reasonable semblance of what it actually says.
If you want to try reading it again with a clear head and not engage with the strawman you're building, you'll notice it doesn't make any claims to the effect of:
- why offices work
- that offices work for everyone (it claims the opposite)
- that no one does better at home (it claims the opposite)
- that no org can make WFH work (it claims the opposite)
- that performance issues shouldn't be dealt with
All it says it that empirically (and of course, limited to my experience and experiences shared with me), a lot of people, specifically in large companies, perform worse with significant WFH.
"WFH" makes this special because it's organization wide, in massive orgs: like I specifically mentioned "significant WFH" and "large headcount" in the same sentence, can I really spoon feed this any harder?
I think WFH can work for some people, but when it's significant amounts in large headcount companies, it starts to fall apart.
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#44I truly believe that most mainstream companies don't really want "top talent" so much as they want to control their talent, hence why we don't have any option to work under 40 hours a week.
Well you don’t run a company of 100+ employees on “top talent” you need maybe 1 top talent guy per 50 worker bees.
But to get worker bees you have to lie that you hire only the best, make them jump through the hoops and the hoops or 2+ hours grilling is justified because you hire only the best. Just to select most obedient ones that will put up with your shenanigans.
So you run the company on the processes not on people as they are replaceable cogs.
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#455 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 in office just to spend most of it on zoom calls is too many.
[deleted]
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#46My 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.
Amazon isn't great and Oracle is typically worse. For AI, I'd go to IBM before Oracle.
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#47How does their "hub" thing work? Is your whole team in one place, or do you just report to some random cubicle farm?
:::: How does their "hub" thing work? Is your whole team in one place, or do you just report to some random cubicle farm? Basically, you show up to random cubicle or sound-proof photo booth and "collaborate" via Chime (now Teams) with other workers around the world also sitting in random booths/cubicles. Unlike Google/Facebook you do not even get free lunch.
Oh.
No wonder people are leaving.
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You can do a significant majority of hardware work remotely. Throwing boards in the mail was pretty straightforward until recently and even egregiously wasteful overnighting is a hell of a lot cheaper than a single desk's worth of commercial real estate.
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The company I work for was “coerced” into forcing more people back into the office due to pressure from the city and the local chamber of commerce. I say coerce, because there are absolutely people in middle and upper management who feel the need to preside over their little fiefdoms and were more than happy to relay this info as a convenient way to deflect criticism. “Don’t blame us, the city would start making thin…
that doesn't sound coerced.
That just sounds like people who dont want to pay their fair share of taxes.
"Oh no, we now need to fund services we don't get downtown by taxing the people who make money off our civilization."
Re: Amazon RTO policy is costing it top tech talent, according to internal document
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked there for a long time. It’s 100% true. They mostly need low level workers to keep the systems going.
I’ve only been at AWS for seven years, but it’s a completely different company than it was in 2018.
So much technology is basically a public utility masquerading as a public growth company. It's time to start moving them into public ownership.
It's either that or tax the fuck out of their profit centers.