• SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 days ago

      That and executive ass covering, a way to avoid admitting to shareholders that they wasted their money on useless commercial real estate.

      It’s also shooting themselves in the foot. The first people to leave aren’t going to be the clock punchers, it will be the best and brightest who can easily find other jobs.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s a feature, not a bug.

        The best and brightest will challenge leadership. The shitty barely competent value engineer will say yes until they fuck up so bad they get promoted.

      • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Idk about the whole talk of having an excuse to shareholders, I don’t think shareholders look into hey these offices are sitting unused I demand an explanation I think they care how much profit the company making and what are future predictions of profit.

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

          No, but it will bring into question the process by which they were acquired to begin with. Somebody will ask, why did you spend x billion on real estate when it was obvious that remote work was the future? Or if they are locked into a long-term lease, eventually the question will come up why are we spending all this money for office space we aren’t using? Shouldn’t we have thought of this earlier? Not having workers in the office makes it obvious that real estate was a bad investment, and many of these companies are pretty heavily invested in real estate. Easier to screw the workers with what can be explained away as a management strategy than admit a wasted a whole bunch of money buying and building and renovating space you don’t need.

      • AAA@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        The first people to leave aren’t going to be the clock punchers, it will be the best and brightest who can easily find other jobs.

        Yes. But some of them are also the most expensive ones, so when they leave costs go down. And we all know “numbers must go up” (=cost must go down).

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

          So you’re left with departments full of clock punchers who don’t have vision or leadership. If you want to kill your Golden Goose, that’s a good way to do it. The remaining departments full of drone followers aren’t going to be making you the exciting groundbreaking products that make you money.

          Of course then again I personally see value in employees, maybe business leadership does not or thinks they are all generic replaceable.

          • AAA@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            In my experience: the higher up the management chain, the higher the chance that they are just in for the bonuses - not for the company / industry. And those bonuses are always bound to these numbers which need to go up. When the numbers go down, these people are long gone.

  • EndOfLine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    I hope a significant number of them get new jobs and quiet quit to get that double paycheck for as long as they can.

    • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      I hope so too. Although the IT job market isn’t great right now, so I doubt the departures will reach a critical mass.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      98
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

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

        • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          3 days ago

          That’s literally what we all do in office. Just sit ans chat. It’s country club. Productivity went up during covid.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            3 days ago

            Yup, I waste way more time in the office than at home, and I waste plenty of time at home. Also, the time I don’t waste is more productive at home than in the office.

            I still value going to the office, but doing it everyday would just kill my soul. I need some time to myself to get stuff done.

            • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 days ago

              I love being able to fold laundry or go on elliptical during calls. Plus the extra sleep and no commute means im waaay friendlier in calls. Everyone wins.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      3 days ago

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

    • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days 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.

        • Jrockwar@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 days 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
          7
          ·
          3 days 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
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

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

        • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yeah, that was a typo and my experience is limited towards the AWS side which is also facing this issue. But the numbers are there, some people have been at Amazon for a decade, so 20 months (if they had MY package of 2mos per year). Amazon was throwing everything at new hires, because they were making bank on their work.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      3 days 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
          2
          ·
          3 days 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.

          • BalooWasWahoo@links.hackliberty.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            It definitely counts as an unreasonable change. If you quietly accept it, or quit due to it, you won’t get the help. If you set things up in your favor by replying to the mandate with language along the lines of ‘such a significant change to working conditions requires a renegotiation of my contract’ then you’re placing yourself in a good position to say that you were constructively dismissed, not that you quit.

            A change from working wherever you are (which could be hours away if you were full remote) to the office is just as significant as being moved from one metropolis to another.

            • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              If you were hired as remote you have a pretty strong case for constructive dismissal.

              I think you’re going to have an uphill battle if you were hired to work in a building and they allowed work from home due to a pandemic. I don’t think being slow getting back to the office is going to win you your case.

              • nexas_XIII@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                I feel like being remote for 4 years is no longer about the pandemic. It’s become a new standard and by showing financial harm by coming into the office I feel you might have a better case. Example being car insurance. My insurance went down as my car is now a “personal vehicle” vs a “commuter car”

                • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  The pandemic was very clearly the initiator.

                  Being conservative about forcing people back (because most have wanted people back long before now) doesn’t change anything legally. You were hired for an in person job, they were forced to have you work from home by actual government orders, and they moved slowly on forcing you back because it was an extended period of time where there was an actual meaningful health risk to a big enough portion of employees.

      • zbyte64@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 days 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
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days 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.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I find that unconvincing. That they will give up all control in order to save what is ultimately a small amount of money. Paying severance to cut people is already a way to save and reduce budgets. To say they will give up control and take real risks with who they lose just to avoid a piddling 2 months salary per head… it doesn’t add up.

            • scarabic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              They’re giving up control over exactly who leaves. When you do a layoff you can choose to cut your lowest performers or most overpaid employees or everyone in a small office which you can then close.

              These hypothesized “soft layoffs” where they supposedly encourage people to leave give them no real control over how many people leave, which ones leave, etc. And it’s the top employees generally who have the best options elsewhere. So you’re really inviting a brain drain by putting broad pressure on everyone to quit.

              It’s just not a smart move. I think we have a lot of armchair CEOs here who think a company would just suck up all these downside to save on a little severance and that doesn’t add up for me.

      • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days 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
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days 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.

  • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    3 days 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
      73
      ·
      3 days ago

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

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        Executives do not see workers as people with skillsets. They’re numbers on a spreadsheet. And having ten highly paid workers quit “voluntarily” makes the numbers do good things.

        Actually, they’re not even numbers on a spreadsheet. They’re data points in a graph. Executives don’t have time to understand numbers, let alone people.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Executives do not see workers as people with skillsets.

          Ain’t that the truth. My company is thinking about replacing all of their technical staff with AI. That’s going to be utterly hilarious to watch from the sidelines.

      • exanime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        2 days ago

        By the time that negative effect kicks in, the execs already cashed in their bonuses and are on their way out of the sinking ship

        • skeezix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          3 days 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.

      • DrDickHandler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        People exaggerate this claim. Amazon already accounted for some talent leaving and the benefits obviously outweighs the con. There is nothing strange.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          This implies a level of intelligence they’ve never previously demonstrated.

          Can you cite the source?

  • omarfw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    309
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    Now they can replace them without paying unemployment and pay the new workers a lower wage. This is what they wanted to happen. Mega corporations are a problem we need to solve as a society.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      125
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Quality programmers are a finite resource. Amazon chewed through the entire unskilled labor market with their warehouses and then struggled to find employees to meet their labor needs. If they try the same stunt with skilled labor they’re in for a very rude awakening. They’ll be able to find people, but only for well above market rates. They’re highly likely to find in the long run it would have been much cheaper to hang onto the people they already had.

      • omarfw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        96
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        The whole problem with companies like Amazon is that hardly anyone in charge of them seems to care about long term sustainability. They all just invest enough effort to squeeze out some short term profits, earn their bonuses and then leave for another company to do it all again. Nobody is interested in sustainability because there is no incentive to. They’re playing hot potato with the collapse of the company.

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          40
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Now expand that to the entire planetary economy. Unsustainable short term gains is the entire industrial revolution.

          We’re only 300 years in and most life and ecosystems on Earth have been destroyed and homogenized to service humanity. We’re essentially a parasite. It’s not surprising that the most successful corporations are the most successful parasites. It’s just parasites, doing parasitic things, because they’re parasites… from the top down.

          • Wanderer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            There has been efficiency gains throughout. Capitalism is amazing for that, far better than other systems.

            The problem is too many people. If standard of living is to increase then the resource requirement is due to massive unsustainable population growth.

            That and the fact the public hate externalities and don’t want them used at all never mind aggressively.

            • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              The problem is too many people. If standard of living is to increase then the resource requirement is due to massive unsustainable population growth.

              They’re both important. And crucially, people in developed countries use a lot more resources than those in undeveloped countries. Just look at the resource utilization of our richest people. We have billionaires operating private rocket companies! If somehow, say due to really really good automation, orbital rockets could be made cheap enough for the average person to afford, we would have average middle class people regularly launching rockets into space and taking private trips to the Moon. Just staggering levels of resource use. If we could build and maintain homes very cheaply due to advanced robotics, the average person would live in a private skyscraper if they could afford it. Imagine the average suburban lot, except with a tower built on it 100 stories tall. If it was cheap enough to build and maintain that sort of thing, that absolutely would become the norm.

              • Wanderer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                The only billionaire I know of that is launching rockets is Elon Musk.

                That’s just evidence that capitalism is efficient. Because SpaceX has revolutionised space travel making the only reusable rocket doing something all the government agencies said was impossible. NASAs new unbuilt rocket is using tech from the 1970 that they are going to throe away into the ocean on every launch.

                The rest you say is meaningless. How you expect this robotic skyscrapers to be built? Some MIT masters project or some capitalist experiment?

                • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Bezos also has a rocket company. Plus there’s Richard Branson. And others.. And then you have private jet travel, massive mega yachts, and countless other extravagances. For a certain class of billionaire, having a private rocket company is a vanity project. These rocket companies are vanity projects by rich sci fi nerds. Yes, they’ve done some really good technical work, but they’re only possible because their founders were willing to sink billions into them even without any proof they’ll make a profit.

                  What you are missing is that as people’s wealth increases, their resource use just keeps going up and up and up. To the point where when people are wealthy enough, they’re using orders of magnitude more energy and resources than the average citizen of even developed countries. Billionaires have enough wealth that they can fly rockets just because they think they’re cool, even if they have no real path to profitability.

                  And no, the hypothetical of the robot skyscrapers is not “meaningless.” You just have a poor imagination. To have that type of world we only need one thing - a robot that can build a copy of itself from raw materials, or a series of robots that can collectively reproduce themselves from raw materials gathered in the environment. Once you have self-replicating robots, it becomes very easy to scale up to that kind of consumption on a broad scale. If you have self-replicating robots, the only real limit to the total number you can have on the planet is the total amount of sunlight available to power all of them.

                  The real point isn’t the specific examples I gave. The point, which you are missing entirely, is that total resource use is a function of wealth and technological capability. Raw population has very little impact on it. If our automation gets a lot better, or something else makes us much wealthier, we would see vast increases in total resource use even if our population was cut in half.

        • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 days ago

          They all just invest enough effort to squeeze out some short term profits, earn their bonuses and then leave for another company to do it all again.

          Amazon is not at all alone in this. Much of 2024 capitalism, at least within the tech space, works like this pretty much everywhere.

      • greenskye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        3 days ago

        That’s the next executive’s problem. These executives will jump ship with their golden parachutes before any of that affects them.

        • Jrockwar@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          3 days ago

          Well then bring it on. If feels too big to fail, but if (hypothetically) Amazon were to go under, the world would be a better place.

        • Kalysta@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          They may not want them, but with how many people are switching to things like AWS, they may find they need them.

          And it will ultimately cost them more to find new people when they realize that they’re pissing off their customers with their poor new hires.

          I will be happy to watch them squirm when they come to this realization. Karma is a bitch, Amazon.

      • Sinuhe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        An awakening would mean they would analyze and understand the situation. They won’t. Amazon has and probably always had a bullish “my way or the highway” attitude - ask people what they think, pretend you care, then ignore everything they might say. Upper managers make decisions uniquely based off costs and short term vision, and are never held accountable for the consequences. I worked there for years and you really can’t imagine how bad the work culture is there, whatever you have in mind is worse in reality

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        Problem is for a company like Amazon, even if the brain drain will result in obviously inferior customer experience, it could take years before that happens and for it to be recognized and for the business results suffer for it. In the meantime, bigger margins and restricted stock matures and they can get their money now.

        Particularly with business clients, like AWS customers, it will take a huge amount of obvious screwups before those clients are willing to undertake the active effort of leaving.