• GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Just as planned - Amazon Execs who aren’t planning to rehire them anyway.

    They do this shit to cull you.

    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 hours ago

      It’s sort of a strange approach, because this will leave you with the workers who can’t find employment elsewhere.

        • skeezix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Most companies are satisfied with adequate workers rather than diligent and empowered workers. The latter cost too much. This is a convenient way for Amazon to cull the crew without incurring bad PR. This is why it’s often a shitshow in offices and warehouses; because the workers with self esteem and motivation either get fed up and leave or are forced out. This is just a facet of Big Capitalism.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 hours ago

    I know some tech workers who really want to return to office full time along with everyone else. They miss the old way. It’s not everyone, and it’s definitely not me, but it’s a legitimate position. I guess now they know where they can go.

    • ccunix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      My company announced RTO the same day Amazon did. The Union is up in arms, but honestly the powers that be are handling it pretty well. My boss is happily going to the office for a couple of days a week. She’s a million miles from enforcing it on us though. Exceptions are already in place for people like me (3 hour TGV ride from the nearest office) and even a few people who just said “I really don’t want to”.

      I’m sure a few people will leave and not be replaced, but perhaps they were just dead weight anyway. I couple that I know about definitely are.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I love going to the office. I started renting a place nearby to do just that.

      But I don’t want my coworkers to be forced to show up. That’s silly.

    • socsa@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I legitimately do not understand how people can spend that much time at home and not go stir crazy. That doesn’t mean I want to force people into a situation because of my preferences, but gaddamn, having no context switch between work and home feels way more dystopian to me.

    • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      I honestly don’t see an issue with the people going back to the office because they want to work from there. I just want others to stop trying to force me to do the same.

      This sort of thing seems to have always been a plague with a set of the extroverted sort. They seem to feel the whole world should for whatever reason cater to what makes them happy and us introverted types that do not like the social activities that they do should be made to partake anyway. For our own good. Yet the world is ending those those same extroverted people have to spend a large chunk of time alone or simply being quiet.

      The older I get the less patience I have for those sorts of games. Which could become an issue for me professionally I suppose.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Exactly, which is why I really like my current setup, which is 2x in office, 3x WFH. I think being in-person has advantages, but I also feel much more productive when I WFH because I don’t have all of the little interactions at the office (i.e. coworker wanting to get coffee together, quick question from a team member about something irrelevant, etc). I get into better flow at home, but being available is also important for others on the team.

        Honestly, I would hesitate to take a full-remote position, but I am definitely not interested in full-on-prem either. I need at least 1-2 days at home to get actual work done, ideally 3.

    • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I personally prefer to work in the office, but when there’s no-one else on it. When offices started opening up again, going to the office and having the floor to myself was fantastic. It’s felt like in my college years studying late in the library. I had all the resources I needed and there were no chit-chat in the background or people coming in to talk to me.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I can focus a lot better when I’m at the office. I guess part of it is that I’m surrounded by people who are also working. There’s too many distractions at home.

      Having said that, my employer only requires us to go into the office three days per week, which I think is a good compromise.

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I know some people like this too.

      To be fair, a nontrivial number of them are middle/upper management, but it’s not the entirety of the people I know who want this.

      The answer isn’t work-from-home, nor is it return-to-office. The answer is: give people a choice.

      If you want to work from home, cool, we don’t need to maintain your cubicle, and/or, we can hire more people without needing more office space. If you want to return to office, cool, your space is waiting for you.

      A few will retain the ability to switch back and forth, but the majority of people I’ve talked to about it, either want office or home exclusively. Very few want hybrid.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Here’s the problem though. When everybody is allowed to choose what they want, people who prefer remote get remote. And people who prefer the office get a ghost town. So by definition, personal choice precludes one group from having access to the thing they would choose.

        People who want to work in the office want to work with other people. It’s not just about having a desk in a high rise. People learn from other people and are energized by being around them. There are efficiencies to being able to talk without zoom lag and all. Someone else characterized this as extroverted people and their annoying needs. But I think it’s more than that. Working with others in person certainly has real benefits.

        Remote work means no one gets those, ever.

        I’m a remote guy myself and hope never to go back. But I can see another side to it.

        • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Fair enough. All the business owners I’ve met have said something to the effect of “my way or the highway” about it. So I personally just aligned myself with a job where the bosses “my way” is the way I prefer.

          In my case, work from home.

          My current job doesn’t even have a physical office. We’re all work from home. I like it.

          • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I’m a bit more pro hybrid but only because I feel new people need a steady mentor and training at the start of thier careers at the company. How do you training works for new people on full remote?

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I’m one that prefers being in the office. My productivity goes to shit when I’m at home because there’s too much other stuff I can do. I also like talking to my coworkers face to face just in general because people are usually more empathetic in person. That being said I don’t think it should be forced on anyone if it’s not necessary to work in the office. The rest of my team works from home without issue as far as I can tell. We are fortunate in that our employer does not have an issue with WFH.

        • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 hours ago

          That’s the only pinch as far as I can tell. Some of the people who prefer face-to-face communication, are the bosses. So they force everyone into return to office for their own comfort/convenience/preference…

          Those that prefer WFH be damned I guess.

          The problem is, you can’t really say no to the boss, you either comply, or find a new job. Not everyone is in a position where they can quickly/easily find a new job that suits them better.

          In my experience, the highly skilled long-tenured staff tend to lean towards WFH, but it’s not an absolute. Plenty of skilled people who prefer in-office work… My point is that a disproportionate number of long-tenured workers are finding new jobs when RTO policies are put in place. There’s a lot of highly skilled workers in the market looking for WFH positions. Easy pickings for anyone wanting to hire for remote jobs.

          Obviously a lot of the people who prefer in-office aren’t really looking for anything right now, so the job market is kind of crazy. WFH jobs are snapped up and in-office jobs are posted for weeks or months… Simply by allowing people to WFH, a company can pick up some highly skilled talent pretty easily.

          As an aside, WFH has saved me upwards of $5k/yr on gas, parking, wasted time on the road, maintenance on my vehicle… It’s quite remarkable.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I was a boss for a couple years. I didn’t force anyone to come in but I did find that I got along better with the couple of people who worked out of the office just because it’s easier to see someone as a person when you can sit near each other and BS all day as opposed to the ones who worked from home and I really only talked to when we were in meetings about work shit. I tried not to play favorites but that aspect did probably bleed into things a bit. We had a team chat going but only a few people used it (or they had one that I wasn’t part of so they could talk without the boss looking over their shoulder, which is fine but it’s hard to get comfortable with people you rarely interact with). I’m now on the other side of it with a boss who always works from home while I’m in the office and I’m struggling with that a little too because I have a hard time gauging if they’re upset with me or if doing well when we only talk on the phone a few times a week.

    • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Hey I can relate. I miss the office too. I was far more productive there and the cooperation and mental space was better there too. But this is a new world we live in, and if you want me to drive to an office, you had better be ready to pay me a fair salary for it.

      Oh, you won’t? Guess I’ll go elsewhere.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Amazon tech workers are well paid. What I find is the real cost of in-office is the commute time. I’m almost an hour away door-to-door and while I always enjoy seeing people in person, and our office is quite nice, I just can’t convince myself that it’s worth two hours a day of wasted time, plus the costs. I pay $12 in train tickets any day I go in.

  • sjh@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Hey there! It’s definitely understandable why folks might be hesitant about return-to-office mandates, especially after getting a taste of remote work’s flexibility. Many studies suggest remote work can boost productivity and work-life balance—two big wins! Plus, it’s always tough to shift gears once you’ve settled into a new routine. On a personal note, I know a friend who left their job for the same reason and found a fantastic remote gig that fits their lifestyle perfectly. Change can be scary, but it often opens doors to opportunities we never knew existed. If anything, it’s a reminder of the ever-changing landscape in tech and the power of choosing what’s best for ourselves.

    • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Sure, but workplaces that force return-to-office can go fuck themselves. Let people choose whether or not to pay the cost of commute.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 hours ago

      If Amazon don’t think that remote work is productive, then they don’t think they’re losing anything. I don’t even know how “stealth” this is at all. They must believe that those individuals could be productive, because they are trying to keep them working in office. I’m not sure why anyone thinks a company like Amazon would try to be “stealth” about a layoff anyway. They don’t need to.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 hours ago

          And returning to the office probably doesn’t count as an unreasonable change to the agreement, so you probably won’t win if you sue, and the unemployment office probably won’t help.

          So yeah, sucks all around.

      • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I am pretty sure working from home has proven to be more productive, so I think other factors are at play here. I worry that returning to the office might be the only way to keep the capitalists from trying to send our jobs over to poorer nations. If the tapeworms think the job needs to be done face to face then it is much hardet to send those jobs to India or S. America.

        • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          They’ve already tried to send all the jobs they can to India or South America. It ultimately didn’t work. They can send some, but the language and cultural barriers, plus the difficulty of assessing quality candidates just doesn’t make it viable at scale. They’ve already tried that game and it failed. Everything that can be outsourced to India already has been outsourced to India.

      • zbyte64@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 hours ago

        So they don’t have to pay severance or other state penalties for doing an actual layoff. They aren’t thinking of talent with this move.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          Yeah, I think they want to reduce headcount, and this is the cheapest way to do it. I’m guessing they’re getting some flack for investing so much in AI w/o enough return to justify it, so they’re culling a lot of the workforce to juice the numbers a bit until that investment starts to make sense. They’ll probably just reshuffle people around as needed within the org to fill the gaps.

    • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Like many companies, they overhired in the last 4 years. Some of these people are due years of severance (my offer listed 2months for every year after 1 year), not to mention the vested stocks and other bonuses granted during this insane hot hire period.

      So how do you remove people not loyal to the company? The most hated mandate ever. Amazon is a company that doesn’t need people in the office. This is nothing more than screwing people over.

      • aaron@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 hours ago

        So they’re not paying severance to employees they fire?

        • Jrockwar@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Yes, but they’re making people quit instead. They don’t need to pay severance to employees who quit because of RTO.

        • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 hours ago

          They are getting severance when terminated, unless for cause. My comment was, this is how they avoid it by forcing people to quit.

      • foofy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 hours ago

        No rank and file US-based employees at Amazon are getting years of severance. They don’t do that.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 hours ago

      It’s like reverse stack ranking. They’ll be left with the people that couldn’t find another job.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yep this has been the modus operandi for businesses who want to reduce workforce without having to pay for layoffs.

    • normalexit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      These tech workers are not Bezos. They are just developers and technical people that thought they had a good job with competitive salaries. It sucks they have to uproot their lives because management is being shitty.

      They may work for a company without ethics, but that’s kind of the corporate landscape these days.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I’m not a big fan of overpaid tech workers either. Upper middle class SDE tech bros are not as bad as upper upper class tech CEOs, but that doesn’t mean they’re good.

      • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Let me reword what I wrote since I think I wasn’t clear.

        When I said I am glad this is happening, I mean I am glad that the workers are standing up to Amazon by quitting and heading to a different company. And by ‘fuck em’’ I was referring to Amazon and other employers who want undue influence on the lives of their employees.

        I am 100% on the side of the workers here. Always have and always will be.

        • r0ertel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          23 hours ago

          With all the employees back in the office, they’ll have plenty of time to hang around the water cooler and discuss all the ways to unionize. Leaving the company is great as an individual, it sends a message. Unionizing helps to restore the balance of power vs rights and is exactly what Amazon doesn’t want. This (IMHO) is how you “F them hard”. Additionally, it’d send a message to the other companies who want to flex on the people who make the company work.

          • zbyte64@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            20 hours ago

            What makes you think they aren’t listening to gathering training data from their employees? Next Amazon initiative: an Alexa at every water cooler and break area.

  • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    If it’s anything like my work and their RTO a few things.

    1. hR is well aware of attrition rates and I bet they’re through the roof
    2. Any new hires are probably not the best or brightest they could expect to hire

    So expect quality at Amazon to decline. It may not be outwardly visible but mark my words for those that are still there it will devolve into a chaotic shit show of overworked employees that are left backfilling work for those who left and the incompetence that came in.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 hours ago

      expect quality at Amazon to decline.

      They’ll have to dig a new basement for it to get any lower.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I canceled my Prime membership earlier this year because of that decline in quality. I wish everyone could, but thanks to the loss of retail throughout the country many can’t afford not to have it.

      • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Yeah. The rise of a monopoly until it starts to enshitify is interesting to watch eh? Reminds me of Walmart in the physical space. All the local options got pushed out and everyone’s quality was forced to drop due to their economic strong arming.

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Prime is not a money saver. It’s a money waster that tricks you into buying more stuff just because “the shipping is free” but you can often get free shipping without Prime or Amazon. Just wait until you need enough stuff to meet the store’s free shipping threshold to make an order.

        • Laser@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          21 hours ago

          At this point, Prime doesn’t make sense if you want to save on shipping. It made sense because it included a lot of good stuff (video before ads, some music, shipping, games) but just for shipping, there were better options.

          I basically overpaid but didn’t care out of convenience - partner sometimes watched prime, I ordered occasionally, played some included games. But the changes to video were so shady that I cancelled it.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        My relatively poor experience with Prime I attribute to deliberate bad choices rather than lack of workers. It probably doesn’t help to be sure, but even with the most awesome staff, I think Prime was going to suck no matter what. The whole economy is particularly “screw the customers over, get us money now, no need to attract or retain customers now”

      • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        I have a feeling the big impact is going to be in other services, namely AWS. Makes me wonder if some new global outages are coming, which are always fun to deal with.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Yeah, my entire project lives on AWS. Fortunately, it’s not my problem to keep things going, so I guess we’ll just roll with whatever punches come.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          24 hours ago

          Yeah, there’s going to be hilariously bad outages at AWS within like a year.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            24 hours ago

            Why? Amazon seems to have built an amazing system with AWS, but does it need the same amount of staff time to maintain it that it needed to develop it?

            If Amazon acknowledges that it isn’t going to be developing new products to the scale it did for the past decade, it probably doesn’t need the headcount it had before.

            • AliasVortex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              17 hours ago

              Enh, the tech space is very much innovate or die. So yeah, they could probably throw everything in maintenance mode and make a reduced headcount work, but if AWS goes stagnant it’s entirely likely that Amazon goes the way of IBM and Motorol. Especially when someone (likely, Microsoft or Google) comes to take a slice of the AWS market share.

          • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            24 hours ago

            Yeah… I didn’t choose it, but some of the services from my employer run there. May be a good time to make some moves, we’ll see.

            Not really going to be an issue I can fix obviously, but I’ll be making even more backups than normal…

            • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              22 hours ago

              good time to make some moves

              To where? Google? Azure? There’s a reason we call them Frugal and Unsure at my side job. If AWS sucks in the next year, that’ll barely bring it down to their level. Hell, if AWS sucks ALL NEXT YEAR with a clown-car style outage every week, then maybe.

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    I really do wonder if Amazon will run out of people willing to work for them someday. Their approach assumes there is an infinite supply of workers to burn through. Given everything I’ve witnessed from the company, I’d never work there. Do they at some point poison the labor pool against them?

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I never understood why anyone works for them at all. And I’m not even talking about warehouse workers. I’m talking about the tech staff. Amazon is known as a cutthroat workplace that drives people like a hammer drives nails. I would never choose to go there.

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        FAANG looks good on the resume so people go there with intention to eventually leave for another company willing to pay for FAANG experience. unless you work in a very focused team (e. g Occulus) youre better off jumping companies for higher pay.

        if you go to tech career fairs, especially in the silicon valley, the biggest example of this is working for Cisco. they have huge turnover and youre only going to work there to have Cisco on your resume because of how ubiquitous they are at networking for companies.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 hours ago

          It’s pretty hard to beat FAANG pay though. Probably there are other factors involved as well. Like maybe they can command 90% of the pay but have 2x better work-life balance or something. But people do stay at these companies for long periods. I’m sure some are there to stamp their passport but not all.

      • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        Agreed and they have an average tenure of like 1.2 years, but their stock vesting schedule gives you 5% in year one, then 15%, 40%, and 40%. So you’re pretty likely to never get whatever carrot they dangle in front of you.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          Their strange stock vesting schedule makes me think that they’re aware that people won’t actually want to stay for four years. A back-loaded vesting schedule never benefits the employee, only the employer.

          Other companies usually have an even schedule, for example Meta vests 25% per year (actually it vests quarterly instead of yearly). Google is an outlier too, but they do the opposite of what Amazon does - 33% in year one, then 33%, 22% and 12%. I suspect Google do this so they can list a higher total compensation (since total comp is salary, stock, and benefits for one year), but getting more of your stock sooner is a good thing.

    • EnderMB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      When I joined Amazon, I was told that for some roles in the US Amazon received more applications than corporate employees worldwide - so I assume 1M+.

      That number has probably reduced significantly, given we’ve now had two rounds of RTO. I know some recruiters are really struggling to find external candidates to join, and rightly so, but I don’t doubt that Amazon can find someone to fill these roles, or can find someone outside of North America or Europe to take that role.

      The FAANG acronym was the worst thing to happen to tech, because people will flock to Amazon to say “I worked for FAANG”. Prestige is a powerful thing to some, and they’ll deal with some insane shit for the clout that comes from being here.

      (FWIW, I’ve been at Amazon as a software engineer for close to four years now, and I’ve noticed zero improvement in opportunities afforded to me)

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 hours ago

        “FAANG” is interesting because it was initially only used to represent high-growth stocks that were leaders in their respective fields. It was originally just “FANG” - Apple was added later.

        At some point, it changed to mean the best tech companies to work at. I’m not sure I agree with the list, though. I’d swap Netflix for Microsoft (TC is lower but it’s a more prestigious company and work-life balance is better), and I’d swap Amazon for another company. Not sure. TSMC, Nvidia, or AMD maybe?

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        The FAANG acronym was the worst thing to happen to tech, because people will flock to Amazon to say “I worked for FAANG”. Prestige is a powerful thing to some, and they’ll deal with some insane shit for the clout that comes from being here.

        The problem is that the clout boost is real. I never worked for a FAANG/MANGA company, but just having one relatively well-known company on my resume opened up options I never would have had. All my interviewers would mention it, even though it was almost 20 years ago.

        • EnderMB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          17 hours ago

          It might have been a few years ago, but having Amazon on my CV has offered almost nothing. If anything, I get fewer legitimate interview offers than I did before.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          18 hours ago

          MANGA

          MAANA. If you’re going to swap Facebook for Meta, you also need to swap Google for Alphabet.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          24 hours ago

          It’s real and it can suck.

          Any time someone has one of the ‘big names’ on their resume, they get to skip the line and call the shots. Problem is in many of these cases, they got fired from those big companies for very blatantly obvious reasons once you work with them. They will tank their new projects, and executives will just say “this can’t be right, Google is such a success” yeah, because they fired that guy…

        • roofuskit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah, I’ve gotten multiple jobs in my industry based on a company I worked for like 15 years ago. Just because they’re a major player who is well respected.

    • Curious Canid@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I saw an article a year or two back that talked about this very thing. It was actually management people at Amazon saying that they predicted they would be “out of employees” before the end of this decade.

      • bassomitron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Iirc, didn’t the article say that was one of many hypothetical scenarios they try to plan accordingly for? Like you said, it’s been awhile since it came out, so I could easily be wrong. I imagine it won’t be a problem any time soon, though. There are always desperate people, and simply changing policy to allow rehiring people that had previously been fired/quit would open eligible candidate pools back up.

        Or, y’know, they could just make working there not be miserable.

    • daddy32@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      You could also think this applies to all corporations in some degree. But no, there’s a fresh batch of bright eyed optimistic people out of school every year.

      • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Another company I had contact with did a few layoffs. Afterwards the recruitment department had a lot more issues finding people. Experienced people would ask a premium because of that company’s reputation in the industry and the experienced people would usually stay a short time and leave. The other option was hiring fresh graduates and put effort in training them.

      • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        You could also think this applies to all corporations in some degree. But no, there’s a fresh batch of bright eyed optimistic people out of school people desperate to not be homeless or starve every year.

  • spicystraw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Common theory l, that I have heard is that if business owns their office space then it’s value is inherently tied to profit margins. If office goes unused, value will drop, which affect bottom line, which affects boards willingness to pay out large CEO bonuses. So getting employees back into the office becomes vital for the leadership.

    • EnderMB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      IMO it’s worse than this. It’s likely to do with Seattle real estate only, because Amazon has their HQ in Seattle, most of the STeam is in Seattle, and it’s where most of the big decisions are focused. There is an acronym that has existed at Amazon for decades, NEWS (Not Everyone Works in Seattle). Sadly, like many Amazonian things, they’re not really a thing any more…

      • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Seems right. I have a friend who works for Amazon and lives in Portland, OR. They’re asking them to relocate to Seattle to RTO. Now they’re debating if they even want to stay at the company. Supposedly they have until EOY to decide.

        • EnderMB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          23 hours ago

          That’s a shame, and sadly it’s all too uncommon. Given Amazon’s history with layoffs, and the countless stories of people that moved from NYC to Seattle, only to be laid off days/weeks later, there’s no way I’d move for Amazon.

          The funny thing is that many people in our Seattle team constantly complain about not being able to park at the office - and that’s without everyone at the office and more to come.

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Even if they don’t own it, there is cost associated with downsizing an office. Selling off furniture is impossible at the moment. Leases are down. Subletting is much harder. But there places are, paying plant, hvac and cleaning, maintenance on virtually unused office space.

      Most places just need a conference room, some temp offices and a bathroom.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah but bringing people back is still more expensive because it means more maintenance, more cleaning, and in the case of Amazon paying more for the office perks.

        I’m sure at some point, somewhere, someone forced people to rto because it was better for their real estate investment…but I just have not been able to make sense of the claims that this is driving factor.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Amazing.

    They order people to work in different offices than before, far away from before, or in offices that did not even exist before. They order people to work in offices who have only worked at home before.

    And they call it “return”, and everybody seems to accept the audacity.

    Nobody laughs out loud into their faces and calls them the dirty liars that they are.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Now this is a good point. During the time of remote work, everything became organized around it. In fact my employer just closed the local office I belong to, because everyone is remote and it just isn’t getting used. If they suddenly decided on RTO and asked me to work at an office 60 miles away that would not be a “return” nor practical in any way. I’m sure Amazon know this but are just saying “oh well,” because really they can’t do kick to solve it. It’s going to be a painful transition but I guess they’ve decided they are ready.

    • sleepmode@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Yeah this attrition is expected by Amazon. IBM and others did this earlier. If enough people choose to RTO they will do “real” layoffs and get a pat on the back in the news for not letting as many people go as they would have had to before. Optics I guess. IIRC this is the second round for Amazon.

      Some are saying companies are doing this to keep their property values up but I think that’s only one facet. What I don’t see being called out often is companies doing this are hiring replacements overseas in tax havens and/or where they can pay less for talent. Real kicker is, those hires wind up being remote anyway to the anchor offices.

    • reddig33@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      The problem being that the ones moving on to other jobs are the actual talent. Unlike a targeted layoff, this leaves Amazon with the employees no one else wanted.

      • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        That’s assuming the real talent wasn’t secretly given exception to this. And in any case, what’s important isn’t having the best talent, it’s making the numbers look better for end of year. Amazon has become too big to fail, they don’t need top talent to deliver a superior customer experience. Anyone reliant on cloud offerings is stuck. Employees get laid off, prices go up, product gets worse, who cares. People are paying. Thats the stage of capitalism they’re in.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          This is pessimistic nonsense.

          No, Amazon is still very dependent on their software engineers, and no, it’s actually quite easy to move cloud offerings and they face stiff competition from both Azure and GCP amongst others.

          Virtually every single internal piece of HR, management, customer service, DevOps, random internal tool to do X, is written by other software teams at Amazon. You fundamentally do not understand how big tech companies operate if you think they can afford to hemmorage engineering talent without impacting their bottom line in a multitude of ways.

          • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            You fundamentally do not understand how big tech companies operate if you think they can afford to hemmorage engineering talent without impacting their bottom line in a multitude of ways.

            Evidently Amazon doesn’t either then since, you know, they’re literally doing it. I guess you know something Amazon doesn’t.

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              23 hours ago

              So your opinion is that Amazon’s leadership decisions are always perfect and they have perfect insight into their company and foresight? That leadership of a tech company has never before undervalued the importance of their engineering staff, or how willing they were to quit in the face of an RTO mandate?

              • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                22 hours ago

                I think they absolutely know how willing their employees are to quit. It’s been demonstrated over and over again in the tech industry for the last couple years. It is far more likely that they’re counting on it, than are somehow all being blindsided by it. Suggesting that the latter is the case would be a… wild and practically unbelievable assertion to make.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          Anyone reliant on cloud offerings is stuck.

          There are multiple public clouds. AWS is not the default choice a company uses for a public cloud offering anymore.

          • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 day ago

            Realistically there’s AWS and Azure, and with Azure being run by Microsoft it’s not like it’s going to be better in anyone’s minds. Google’s is a VERY distant third with no real shot to take over, and everything else is a rounding error.

          • elvith@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 day ago

            Heck, I’ve heard the argument “We’re in retail [or insert other fittig market segments here] and Amazon is a direct competitor. Why the heck should we give them any money or any data*?” several times from several companies.

            (*Where data not necessarily only meant giving them “company data” but e.g. also metadata about usage, etc. which cannot be avoided and which might give Amazon some insights)