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

71–80 of 190 posts

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

#71

Post by nixosbestos »

BoorishBears wrote: post #43
koyote wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 claim…

> who's crying themselves sick over RTO to engage with in any reasonable semblance

Wow, please let me go ahead and double down on thinking your stance is some middle managers hand-wavey (almost surely unjustified) smug attitude towards IC devs.

> think WFH can work for some people, but when it's significant amounts in large headcount companies, it starts to fall apart.

And I think you're a blowhard with your head up your quester and I'm going to justify it the same way you justified your conclusion: (space left intentionally blank).

No seriously, have you even ever worked at a big and or small companies? (I've worked at, well, the biggest, and the damn near the smallest possible, and your conclusion is 1000% just you handwaving and asserting an assumption)

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

#72

Post by illusive4080 »

programmertote wrote: post #21

I left Amazon due to RTO. They hired me as a fully remote employee (I was told that the VP of Prime US was one of those who signed off on my remote arrangement). Anyway, a year later, they asked me to move to Seattle or Virginia (wherever their second office is) or Chicago (there's only like one or two directors from my team located there; most of the team are located in Seattle or Virginia). I started looking for a…

Below 200? And here I thought I’d at least make a pretty penny if I left my comfortable job for a tech company

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

#73

Post by AlotOfReading »

fwip wrote: post #69
const_cast wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Easily solvable by not locating your company HQ in overpriced trendy coastal cities. The trouble is that if you require in-person work, you're already artificially limiting your talent pool by 1000x. You just can't risk adding on another 1000x limiter onto that. Ultimately yes, you could HQ in Ponder, Texas and pay people 100K and say that's the same as san fran. But then you're gathering talent in Ponder, Texas. G…

If you reinvest the money you save on office buildings into employee salary, you might find that people are willing to move to Ponder for the combination of low-CoL and high salary. Probably not enough to entirely offset the fewer local workers, but it's not nothing.

The problem is that the venn diagram of executives willing to cut office costs and executives willing to stomach paying "above market rate" is two completely distinct circles. There's many ways companies could make it work, but the number of ways they're willing to consider is dramatically smaller.

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

#74

Post by raincom »

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

If that's the case, why they PIP a certain percentage of people every year? Same applies to Meta, too.

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

#75

Post by jedberg »

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?

The way budgeting works at Amazon, every team contributes items to lines in a spreadsheet. Those get rolled up at every level all the way to the CEO, who then approves or denies, and then it all rolls back down.

There is a special section called KTLO (keep the lights on). That one usually gets priority (because it's pro-customer, since customers want the existing stuff to keep working).

I've seen departmental budgets that dedicate 75% of their headcount to KTLO.

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

#76

Post by jedberg »

illusive4080 wrote: post #72
programmertote wrote: post #21

I left Amazon due to RTO. They hired me as a fully remote employee (I was told that the VP of Prime US was one of those who signed off on my remote arrangement). Anyway, a year later, they asked me to move to Seattle or Virginia (wherever their second office is) or Chicago (there's only like one or two directors from my team located there; most of the team are located in Seattle or Virginia). I started looking for a…

Below 200? And here I thought I’d at least make a pretty penny if I left my comfortable job for a tech company

Amazon is odd that way. Everyone has a base that low, even VPs. All of the comp is in RSUs and hiring bonus for the first two years. Even someone with a total comp of $1M a year will have a base salary of $250K, and a hiring bonus of $700K a year, and then RSUs that in theory make up the rest, as long as AMZN goes up at least 15% per year.

When the stock was on a tear, some people would make 2x or 3x their expected total comp. But on down stock years, you could end up at 80% of the promised comp.

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

#77

Post by technion »

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.

I have no idea how i used to manage with five days in office.

I am currently using myunch hour to see a doctor. A few weeks back I needed to see a plumber, and before that an electrician. Its five seconds out of the work day let them in and send them on their way but I guess we're looking at burning annual leave if I was stuck in office.

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

#78

Post by mikert89 »

raincom wrote: post #74
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

If that's the case, why they PIP a certain percentage of people every year? Same applies to Meta, too.

need to crack the whip even for boring work

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

#79

Post by coredog64 »

jedberg wrote: post #76
illusive4080 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Below 200? And here I thought I’d at least make a pretty penny if I left my comfortable job for a tech company

Amazon is odd that way. Everyone has a base that low, even VPs. All of the comp is in RSUs and hiring bonus for the first two years. Even someone with a total comp of $1M a year will have a base salary of $250K, and a hiring bonus of $700K a year, and then RSUs that in theory make up the rest, as long as AMZN goes up at least 15% per year. When the stock was on a tear, some people would make 2x or 3x their expected t…

Until circa 2022 (IIRC), the absolute maximum cash comp even for someone like Jassy was $180K. They lifted that and then the next year made the RSU comp even worse (e.g. limiting your upside on annual grants by focusing on out year 1)

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

#80

Post by BoorishBears »

nixosbestos wrote: post #71
BoorishBears wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 claim…

> who's crying themselves sick over RTO to engage with in any reasonable semblance Wow, please let me go ahead and double down on thinking your stance is some middle managers hand-wavey (almost surely unjustified) smug attitude towards IC devs. > think WFH can work for some people, but when it's significant amounts in large headcount companies, it starts to fall apart. And I think you're a blowhard with your head up…

Immigrant who started programming in middle school, self-taught without a degree and started at a Made it to FAANG within a decade of that, and worked at companies the entire range of between those two sizes across the 14? 15? years since I first got paid to code?

I left my most recent role specifically because I was getting increasing amounts of pressure to play manager vs focus on mixed TL+IC priorities (and I had already communicated I was joining on primarily as an IC vs a TL to start).

tl;dr: another swing and a miss

-

It's funny that this is the 2nd comment to imply I'm not an IC because I'm bluntly stating not all ICs can handle WFH.

It's like some people can't fathom you'd be invested in how well your team or larger organization executes unless you're a manager.

Maybe I can't relate because I wouldn't have learned anything or gotten anywhere with that mentality coming from the start I had.

And frankly if others around me at the start of my career had that mentality, it would have been lethal to my own opportunity: so I certainly won't ever adopt it.

-

People act like working hard at things only gets your boss a bigger boat... and for most of the population it's true.

But we're knowledge workers in one of the highest paid industries with the closest thing to a meritocracy as society/capitalism will allow: you're plain doing it wrong if you can't convert hard work into any sort of personal enrichment.

Post reply on HN