Amazon exec says it’s time for workers to ‘disagree and commit’ to office return — “I don’t have data to back it up, but I know it’s better.”::“We’re here, we’re back. It’s working,” an Amazon Studios head said in a meeting, before acknowledging a lack of evidence.

  • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    366
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You should also pay everyone 2 million dollars a year. The company will do great and your employees will be happy. I don’t have the data to back it up, but I know it’s better!

    • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      133
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know for a fact that motherfucker thinks eating lunch at a Michelin rated restaurant and headed back to the office to pressure his secretary to fuck him is “work”

  • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    ·
    1 year ago

    Amazon monitors and logs and analyzes everything. As a company they are all about data. If they find something that will get the package out the door one half second faster, they’ll spend millions rolling it out everywhere.

    If he doesn’t have the data, there is zero chance that means the data doesn’t exist. That means the data paints a very different picture and he has chosen to ignore it.

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would put money on this.

      Business owners and business leaders are all about efficiency, unless it inhibits their ability to keep you under their boot.

    • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The data does exist and shows one thing: the death of commercial property and long term leases accruing cost without creating value.

      This is incompatible with capitalism and so it’s working hard to eliminate the incongruence.

      • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The funny thing is, it’s compatible with capitalism, just people are either afraid of change or invested in the old ways.

        Amazon would love a 1% increase in employee productivity, unless it means $500MM worth of lease breaking fees and shareholders grilling them for why they signed those leases in the first place. Or worse they bought the building, and now have to sell it at a big discount.

        Everyone’s invested in commercial real estate because it was a cash cow. Now the party’s over, and rather than acknowledge that lots of people (and cities) have a financial incentive to try and keep the party going.

        Of course the shitty thing is the big losers in all this are the individual people. The workers in a city lose when property values (and cost of living as a result) are so high they can’t afford rent. The workers in a company lose when they have to waste time and money commuting. But nobody seems to give a shit about the little guy…

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You realize this is a self defeating point, right? If they knew the workers were more efficient at home they would commit to total WFH.

      The logical conclusion from your claims is not that the data contradicts what he wants to be true, but that the data confirms that return to office is better, but for some reason he can’t share that information.

      • hglman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, it does not. It means that they think it’s more profitable for shareholders.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          So the logical conclusion is that it’s better for the share holders for the employees to be less productive?

          • Christer Enfors@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not that simple. There’s also the issue of paying rent for offices which also feeds into shareholder (although possibly different shareholders) profits, etc. I’m no expert, but I have a feeling this is all very complicated.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I can’t come up with a care where making their employees less productivity is better for the shareholders simply because they are paying for space somewhere. you’ll have to explain this.

              • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Okay I can do that.

                Pre-pandemic- Amazon says offices are important. Signs 25 year leases for lots of office space.
                Pandemic hits. Everyone goes WFH. Data shows people work just as well from home. Company publicly announces that they are running at full productivity. Shareholders love it.
                Now we’re here. Employees are WFH and loving it. Middle management is chafing because they like being able to manage their employees by walking to desks. Upper management is unhappy because they like having a big corner office at the top of the building humming with workers. Workers are happier than ever.
                Upper management says ‘if we embrace WFH, we’ll have way too much office space and leases that will cost a fortune to break. If we do that and take the hit, the shareholders will ask why we didn’t have the vision to do that in the first place, before we signed for this expensive office. The managers we listen to all hate WFH too. So we’ll push RTO.’ And in the grand scheme of things, a few % employee productivity doesn’t mean that much…

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Thats plausible, but pretty complicated. I would absolutely invoke Occam’s razor here tho

      • Tkpro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty sure Amazon gets kickbacks from the city of Seattle to keep the offices filled with ppl

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

          Amazon is massive. Much of their overhead goes to workers, and if the workers were more efficient at home, the city would have to offer a ton of money to make up for the most productivity. So unless you have some convincing evidence otherwise, this is hard to believe.

      • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” --Anais Nin

        A manager who thinks physical access to employees makes him an effective manager is going to push for that, even if the data says otherwise. We see this in every industry. During pandemic the headline was ‘productivity is flat or increasing with WFH’, now it’s ‘time for RTO’.

        It’s also not just about management, it’s about real estate. Companies including Amazon have paid billions for office space, including long term leases that will be very costly to break. So if they say WFH is the future, they’ll have to explain to their shareholders why they signed for (apparently unnecessary) office space that’s hurting the bottom line.

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

          You’re contradicting the top level commenters point that they relentlessly pursue efficiency. Now it’s that the pursue shareholder happiness. I wonder why you didn’t correct them, but me.

          It’s almost like we’re throwing explanations against the wall looking for something to stick.

          But the simple counter is the simple explanation: we didn’t know a pandemic was coming and couldn’t foresee what no one was able to foresee: a rapid shift to WFH. We held the offices as we didn’t know that WFH could be a long term solution. Now that we are pretty confident our workforce is more productive at home, we’ve decided to cut our office space losses.

          No one would bat an eye at this.

  • StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wish these assholes would just come out and tell the truth: they need you in the office to justify their multi-decade office leases that they can’t get out of.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh, that’s interesting, because lots of people have the data. It says the exact opposite of that, though.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “I don’t know how to micro-manage people unless I can see them sitting in an open floorplan.”

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      1 year ago

      AKA, he is so out of the loop he has no idea what his subordinates actually do, so he has no way of assessing their productivity. Thus his only recourse is to fall back on his gut feelings on whether people “look busy” and other nebulous bullshit .

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Once again, someone in authority misuses their power by dictating what they want reality to be as truth, rather than finding impartial data and serving stakeholders, they ignore their duty and serve their own ego.

    Evidence that top-down capitalism sucks ass even at what it is allegedly supposed to do. It’s autocratic feudalism with extra steps, and should be confronted accordingly.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    1 year ago

    It really sounds like he thinks workers are refusing to return to work purely out of a sincere belief that wfh is better for the company and not “go fuck yourselves this is really nice and I’m able to do my job just as well from my home”

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m able to do my job (and life) better with work from home.

      I don’t crave the social interaction as much as others. Social situations wear me out, and the ability to schedule my work fairly freely means that I can work around my debilitating neurological condition. Work from home has given me the opportunity to function mostly like a normal member of society, and I really value that.

      Honestly don’t think I’d last long if a return to office was made mandatory. If I don’t burn out I’ll jump off a bridge or something.

      • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I love socially interacting with my co-workers. I can just as easily do that over teams. Better honestly, as if I’m focused heavily on a task, I can take a moment to stop at a convenient spot before checking my messages. As opposed to having people literally walk up to me or just start talking to me while I’m busy doing something. The face to face conversation was nice, but the pros far outweigh the cons in my opinion.

        I personally will never go back. I have adhd and being able to stay home and thusly have 0 commute time has been an absolute wonder for my well-being.

      • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        When wfh was implemented company wide at the start of Corona communication actually got better because now everyone was forced to use a chat app with video calling. That way every colleague was just one click away. The shyer ones typed out their quick requests and those who needed to see a face called with the webcam enabled. Before that it was just too much hassle for some people to write an email, use the telephone or walk through the large building to the colleague. Even quick meetings with people from four different departments were now much easier and quicker to organise.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep. My last job was a hybrid schedule and I was always far more productive at home than at the office. Because I was comfortable at home and had no distractions.

        • III@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          They give people adjustable chairs at work, so the concept that every worker isn’t an identical and replaceable cog exists somewhere in their brains. Sadly it is behind the intense desire for money and will likely never be given the space to grow.

  • kescusay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    1 year ago

    How about… No?

    I’m one of the folks who actually likes to go in to the office every once in a while, but I’m never making it a daily commute. Never again.

    Hell, I’m on an international team now. Over the course of the pandemic, we built ourselves up with folks from multiple states and multiple countries. There is exactly one person on my team I could see regularly if we went back to the office. Literally everyone else is hundreds of miles away at a minimum. Many would need passports.

    And that one person? He’s got an immune-compromised family member, so he’s never going back to the office and risking his loved one’s life.

    Fortunately, my employer knows it would make zero sense to require all of us to go back to the office. My boss doesn’t even live in the same state as me.

    • silverbax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I’m never commuting again, either.

      For companies, your laziest employees are the ones who want to be in the office, because they know that’s the only metric the company is measuring, so they go in and fuck around doing nothing all day.

      Companies who don’t get with the remote work program are dinosaurs and will die off over time.

      • Magister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Same, winter is coming, with snow a commute could be 2h forth and 2h back, to do ~20 miles ; never again.

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same. All the meetings I attend comprise of people from different parts of the world. If I go in to the office, all my meetings will be on zoom anyway, so what’s the point of being physically present? I only come in from time to time as well and the primary purpose is socialization, where the only other person on my team in the same location as me plan to meet up in the office, which is once every few weeks.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There was not a single thing at my last job that I needed to do in the office that I couldn’t accomplish at home. Not one. I know, because it was a hybrid schedule and I did the exact same thing both places. They didn’t even need to get me equipment to do my work at home. I just did it on my computer I already had. Everything was either done directly on the company’s website or was Google cloud-based and all of our meetings were via Zoom.

      And yet, I had to come in half the week. It wasn’t even a saving money on real estate thing because it was an office that was part of a big warehouse/factory, so they would not only need the space regardless, they could actually put more production lines in if they could take out the office space.

      It made absolutely no sense.

  • sapient [they/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Say you’re a control freak without saying you’re a control freak 🤣

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The speaker owns a company.

      IMO, that’s easily one of the best ways to determine if someone is controlling.

  • Magister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Since March 2020 I work from home. 2 years for a company ~20 miles from me, I went there 1 time to take a PC and 1 time to bring the PC back at the end of my contract. Then a year in a company ~100 miles from me (did 4 trips to bring HW), and for next year I should have a 2+ years contract for a company ~375 miles away.

    Never ever I will RTO commuting useless hours. If the job is 5 minutes from me I may, but else, never.