312

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy recently told employees that those who do not want to return to the office at least three days a week should consider finding employment elsewhere. According to a recording obtained by Insider, Jassy stated "It's past the time to disagree and commit," adding that if employees cannot commit to the new hybrid work model, "it's probably not going to work out for you at Amazon." He characterized the decision to have employees return to the office part-time as a "judgment call." Notably, Jassy said employees are free to leave if they do not want to comply with the hybrid work requirement. This makes clear that Amazon has not changed its stance on returning to office work despite some employees preferring full remote arrangements.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ConstableJelly@beehaw.org 76 points 1 year ago

If I were predisposed toward conspiracies I would definitely be convinced by now that every medium-to-large business owner in the country was part of a secret cabal who made a pact to demand return to office for whatever terrible reason sounded good to them.

My own workplace is mandating a hybrid model for any employees within 30 miles of an office after "much research, discussion, and debate with employees." They've typically been very reasonable and generous to their workforce, and I just don't understand what they're thinking, honestly.

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 45 points 1 year ago

As to conspiracies, it's not really the businesses, it's the property.

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

My company leased their office & remote work has lead to a increase in production so we're getting a smaller office & staying remote.

[-] Skwerls@discuss.tchncs.de 35 points 1 year ago

Hilariously, the data don't back them up, my wife does research on this very topic for a company. The dollar signs do though, they have to justify the property expenditures.

[-] prole@beehaw.org 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hilariously, the data don't back them up, my wife does research on this very topic for a company. The dollar signs do though, they have to justify the property expenditures.

No. That's sunk cost fallacy.

If they've already bought and paid for the buildings, they are not losing more money by not using them.

In fact, they probably save money on things like maintenance, overhead, security on physical sites when they're not being used. They could also be renting those spaces out, or straight up selling.

[-] SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

It's hurting the commuting industry.

[-] lauha@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago

Smart company would be selling the property before the prices crash

[-] dingleberry@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 year ago

Don't most companies have Blackrock on their board, who had been buying real estate for the better part of the last 5 years.

[-] LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

whatever terrible reason sounded good to them

Commercial property values. They want the offices full so their investment retains value. Dassit.

[-] _s10e@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

I don't get this argument. Most business don't own any property. The office buildings are rented.

[-] HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

From my (very limited) understanding, the underlying reason is the health of the national economy.

A bunch of businesses giving up their office space would destroy the commercial real estate market, and that could trigger another economic recession/depression. It could take the economy years to recover, costing companies billions, and bankrupting some of them. Even fierce competitors will work together in order to prevent that from happening. (I’m not sure how realistic that fear is; I’m just explaining their reasoning.)

So, while an individual corporation would benefit in the short term by moving to a building that’s only one third as big, the long term risks to the economy scare them off. In fact, the only reason working from home is still being discussed is because there’s a shortage of skilled workers. Companies can’t dictate terms quite as strongly as they could a few years ago. Employees see working from home as a major perk, or even a necessity. Inflexible companies invariably lose some of their best people, so they have to allow at least a few work from home options.

Personally, I like seeing corporations forced to compromise.

[-] spidertrolled 1 points 1 year ago

The only theory i've heard thats somewhat plausible is that this is a way to "soft fire" employees in bulk to save on costs and dodge legal responsibilities. But even then that idea only makes sense if you assume they are idiots that dont know or care about massive amounts of institutional forgetting - as lost workers are not 1:1 replacible - and that they are worth firing in an entirely random matter.

this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
312 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37737 readers
372 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS