1y ago

Amazon CEO tells staff ‘it’s probably not going to work out’ unless they visit office three days a week

www.theguardian.com Amazon CEO tells staff ‘it’s probably not going to work out’ unless they visit office three days a week

Almost 30,000 workers signed petition against return-to-office mandate in May

Amazon’s CEO has told workers “it’s probably not going to work out” for them at the tech company unless they are prepared to come into the office at least three days a week.

Andy Jassy made the statement in a meeting where he made clear his frustration that some employees were not coming in three days a week, despite that being Amazon’s official policy. The comments were first reported by Insider.

He said: “It’s past the time to disagree and commit. If you can’t disagree and commit … it’s probably not going to work out for you at Amazon because we are going back to the office at least three days a week.”

Technology @lemmy.world

L4sBot @lemmy.world

BOT

1y ago

Amazon CEO tells staff to work in office three days a week or look for another job

www.theguardian.com /technology/2023/aug/29/amazon-ceo-staff-work-in-office-job-workers

501 70

TechNews @radiation.party

irradiated @radiation.party

BOT

1y ago

Amazon CEO tells staff to work in office 3 days a week or look for another job

www.theguardian.com /technology/2023/aug/29/amazon-ceo-staff-work-in-office-job-workers

4 1

You're viewing a single thread.

17 comments

Justification of office size is becoming an issue for large corporations and the top leadership doesn't like it. They say seeing an empty office has a demoralizing effect on those whose jobs require them to be in the office while teleworkers get to be home. Additionally what's the point of having a big office if no one is there to see you in it. It's all about the top earners wanting to feel important.
- When COVID hits, I was in a software company, ~300 people, who were there daily for years, as everyone in this kind of company around the world... Then we worked from home, I went there after 2 or 3 weeks to take a computer/monitor, there was maybe 10 people in the building, max. And it was like this for 3 years, I then quit and went there to bring back the computer/monitor, still thousands sqft of office, empty. Now work for another company 100 miles from me, remote work for life it will be for me.
- So you are risking pissing off the people who CAN work from home in an attempt to not lose the people who can’t. Because… there is a reason that was my “old job”.
  "I didn't get a good deal so fuck the people who did" is misplacing the anger. If they can't retain staff because some people have to work on-site, maybe get people who want to do that. Those people exist.
  
  What a long winded way to disprove the entire point you're making. You're the little crab in the bucket pulling the other crabs down not the hero you see yourself as. If you're that unhappy with what happened did you ever bring this up to management? Put any effort into it at all? Because according to the info you've provided so far it sounds like all you did was silently seethe and now want to take all that pent up anger out on your coworkers for finding what works for them and the company as agreed upon by both parties. Do you have this same amount of energy for other people's salaries//benefits packages? Clearly with the attitude displayed no one should be making more than what YOU decide they should make regardless of any other agreements with the management and worker.
  
  Your solution is putting the onus on your coworkers to make your work life less "isolated", not on making your employer update your job description and pay to account for new responsibilities, hire someone for all the random crap that was getting saddled on you, or give you the freedom they had. They and people criticizing you for that aren't the crab in the bucket impeding worker solidarity.
  
  Having co-location and the ability to just grab Susie on the UX team because you vaguely recall she worked on something like this is incredibly valuable. Because yes, you can ping them on Teams, but you have no guarantee that they are sitting at their desk or that this is a good time to pull them into a quick meeting.
  How do you have any more guarantees that she's at her desk in the office and not busy with something else than you do by pinging her on Teams?
  This is probably the dumbest take of the entire thing. Let me just leave the conference room, go see if Susie is available, maybe wait for her to finish something, then go back to the conference room and have no clue what I missed. Vs, ping Susie on Teams while still listening in on the meeting. She then joins the meeting without having to get up or anything.
  
  Maybe it's because I'm in a UX team and you hit a nerve, but "pull them into a quick meeting" summarizes my contempt for office life. The lack of boundaries and constant distraction was relentless.
  I've met many Susies who, like me, dreaded the "Hey Suze, you got a minute?" because everyone vaguely recalls that we've worked on something related to their project. It was not as valuable or productive as you think. Pinging the person on Teams and not expecting an instant reply was the right thing to do, even back in the old days.
  
  You sound like someone who's stuck in 1985 IBM world. There are tons of companies out there that literally have no official in location and no office and have been around for decades... saying you're unable to do collaboration work is bullshit.
  
  Yeah no one likes assholes that show up to your office without pinging you, it's a dick move.
  I'm guessing you're middle management and are seeing your bullshit job disappearing. You sound like it and you sound like all you did was micro manage people as well.
  Remote work is cheaper on the company, has better morale for it's workers, collaboration is just as good if not better, and you don't have just local talent to pull from.

17 comments