Layoffs by another name, local city government want their tax base back, Real estate companies (not mom and pop stuff, real holding companies with reits etc) want to keep real estate from "crashing", ny/ca/ma type states don't want their white collar workers moving to low tax states and working from there , middle managers want to be seen and "preside over their kindgom" etc.
The only group not benefitting from RTO are the actual workers.
I'd add that underlying all that / in addition to that is the fear that people aren't putting their jobs first. That's what drove all the "quiet quitting" bullshit.
The pandemic made people stop and take stock of their lives. A lot of people realized that they were putting work first and life is too fucking short to put everything else second to work.
The tech layoffs have further emphasized the futility of putting work first. You might have put your career first but your employer sure as shit wasn't putting you first. Why live far from the rest of your family in a high cost-of-living area to have your life dominated by work if BigCorp is just going to throw you overboard at the first sign of a dip in profits? Not even a cut to save the business, just a cut to ensure that activist shareholders and top-line execs preserve obscene profits, bonuses, and salaries.
RTO is there to remind you that they control your life, right down to where you live. Be thankful to have a job or they'll take it away from you and your health insurance, too.
I work at Amazon, so I have that bias, but I'm very very skeptical of that line of argument. Remote work has the potential to save companies truly enormous sums of money, both on real estate, and on reduced salaries. For many companies, being able to freely hire anywhere would absolutely reduce mean compensation, instead of paying massive tech hub salary premiums. The interests of city and state governments, real estate companies, hardly come into it.
I find it very easy to believe the straight-forward motive given; that leaders are concerned by the impacts of remote work on collaboration, innovation, mentorship and other kinds of productivity that come through group work. That's been my experience too.
At the same time, I think remote work can be very successful, maybe even more effective than traditional office work, but it almost certainly takes skills and practices that are attuned to that way of working. It's not unreasonable to believe that an entire workforce wouldn't simply adapt to that in the long term in just a 3 year time frame driven by a pandemic.
I think it is illuminating to consider how these debates would go very differently if employers where the ones whose budgets paid for all the hours/fuel spent in office commutes, and clearly showed that change with RTO.
There's no inherent reason commute costs are usually borne by employees, it's just tradition--and perhaps what is/isn't an appealing alternate-compensation expense under tax-code.
> The only group not benefitting from RTO are the actual workers.
That depends on the worker’s goals. If your goal is to have work/life balance or “personal” productivity then, yeah, I empathize. But there is more investment I put back into my team when I’m in person. It’s not just my code output. I find it very hard to mentor young engineers remotely.
Also, if you are a stockholder, like many engineers, and if teams do in fact have more “synergy” (bleh) then it’s also good for the workers via stock based comp.
> ny/ca/ma type states don't want their white collar workers moving to low tax states and working from there
NY doesn’t care where you live, they’ll gladly tax you and aggressively pursue said taxes no matter if you get any benefit from those tax dollars or not.
Companies have long-term leases on their offices. Office space is the single most expensive line-item on most companies financials. They want to maximize the use of these very expensive assets, and having workers in the offices accomplishes this.
From a more practical perspective, working from home is great for more senior workers who are already established in their careers and know what they're doing, but it's hugely detrimental to the career development of younger workers, who largely learn from working alongside their older/more senior counterparts. Communicating over email, slack, zoom, etc., just isn't the same, and you can see this across pretty much every white collar domain--even programming. This is why companies have pretty much settled on hybrid schedules; it allows for the in-person collaboration while still allowing workers greater freedom in where they work.
And while you're complaining about "the workers" consider that essentially all blue-collar jobs have been on-site full-time even through the pandemic.
I am not sure I find this explanation convincing. If a corporation thinks it could increase profits without RTO and after eating office real-estate losses, it'll do so. The real estate companies and the middle managers do not make decisions for these companies. If wasted office costs are $10M, but more happy, productive, and efficient remote employees make an additional $20M, there wouldn't be RTO.
Are certain cities (like NYC) taxing unoccupied office space? If so, how much? This information is much more convincing than a claim that companies are enforcing RTO to make middle managers feel like they are "presiding over their kingdom".
Do what ever you want CEO's but don't be surprised when you have to bend over backwards for talent in other ways while advanced economies populations get smaller every generation and the up and coming areas need to be remote.
But don't get it twisted, everyone sees through your HR cornballs pretending a food truck coming by once a week is worth a 2 hour commute everyday.
Looking around the world, all the up and coming areas are mega-metro areas from Tokyo to Bangalore and from Sao Paulo to Shanghai. Or are you generalizing from a tiny handful of Americans who may be going to midwest / rockies after Covid?
I think it's really interesting to watch how poor performing CEOs have been through this period. The work from home decisions, and the subsequent hiring of remote workers with no thought of the long term was a massive mistake. It's just a pure example of CEOs operating at a very low level of competence. No strategic plan for what the business looks like in 2 years time, no forward planning of how these decisions might bind your hands. No, the stock market was up because of stimulus so these companies all just threw money out the door.
Now we're on the other side of it and they've basically all admitted they just massively fucked up. So what's next? A thoughtful and long term strategic discussion about how we organise distributed teams (because let's face it, most of these teams are distributed geographically even if they're all office based), a serious discussion about how workers are willing to trade some level of flexibility for compensation and loyalty?
Nah, instead we're going to insultingly insist that all our workers are lazy assholes and tell them "Forget the deal we made, you can't trust our word. See you on monday".
Also, Bonus points as Andy Jassy to just whenever someone points out your doing something with absolutely no evidence it's correct just shout "Yeah well AWS!". Beyond parody.
If you're CEO of a company that's shitty to work for, you have to suspect that everyone except the middle managers and suckups is just phoning it in. Literally.
Edit: all you people taking issue with this are just preaching to the converted (each other). I'm talking about what CEOs think, not what actually is.
I worked at a huge company 30+ years ago (~300K employees). There was an engineer on our floor whose entire team, including his manager, had left the company in a short period of time. The company acted as if the entire team was gone, cancelling all their projects. He fell through the cracks.
Initially he sat at his desk all day reading newspapers and books, ready to do any work he was asked to do. Eventually he got bored and started up his own one-man business that he operated from the office. All the while he continued collecting a salary and benefits from the big company. This had been going on for two years when I left the company.
My manager and my skip level manager both seemed quite aware of what was happening. But this guy was in another division of the company, so they didn't think it was their problem to solve.
The lesson... for a big enough company, you can be just as invisible in the office as you are at home, but the office gives better plausible deniability.
You have never seen hours long discussions of Game of Thrones, Bachelor, sports, etc? Professional water cooler jockeys who transit from conversation to conversation to eat up the majority of work hours?
I once read a claim that all work is done by the square root of the total company head count. Honestly, that does not feel too far off from reality.
Walk around any office in Seattle or SF, and you'll see many people on Amazon, Reddit and YouTube as well... the only difference is they had to commute from Pleasanton/San Jose/Duval/Renton/etc. first.
Most of the people I know who shifted to WFH from in-office during COVID ended up buying places in cities outside of the "urban" radius, and now feel like they are randomly being forced back due to nth-order repercussions around overpaid pandemic hires and shortsightedness from executives who spent all of 2020-2021 remarking in memos how successful and wonderful WFH was for everyone.
In my opinion, it's not that people don't want to work in offices. It's that cities are hostile places for work, period. Companies can start by covering 100% of moving expenses, guaranteeing safety inside and around corporate offices, and offering in-office daycares/preschools for free just to start the conversation.
Forget about whether or not people are “working”. That’s just micromanagement.
There is either work not done, or work finished. If work isn’t being finished, then people aren’t working. If it is, then people are working. That’s all you need to know.
Have you consider alternative explanations such Yahoo! doing a stealth layoff by shaking off employees who want remote working or require it because they reside in a different metro area? IBM was infamous for shaking off headcount by requiring employees to move cities. Or management’s inability to measure performance so they resort to lowest common denominator methods like ending remote work instead of just correcting individual bad behaviors through discussions, PIPs, termination, etc.
When I worked at Yahoo during the mid-naughts, I had about 1 day of work a week, if that. Most of the other time my entire team spent playing video games, watching the stock market, getting food (food wasn't free at the time but I believe the smoothies were), etc. It was a bizarre environment and couldn't wait to leave.
I certainly admit the possibility, but if you have no way to catch that situation then you have bigger problems. Demanding RTO is a lazy and ineffective attempt to plaster over the gaps.
I'll admit it, some people don't work at home, or only work minutes a day. But I've known people that did the same in the office. What did Marissa Mayer do about them?
The most annoying part about all of this is how smug and proud some of these companies were about announcing that they were remote first and hiring all of these people on promises of being "all in" on a distributed remote workforce which they saw as the future. I get that everyone likes to be able to change their mind at any time, but commitments that affect people's lives need to be honored if there can ever be any sort of working trust.
I personally love working in the office and I hate working from home. I worked at a remote-only company during the pandemic and I never felt so unproductive, twiddling my thumbs waiting to hear back from my coworkers because I didn't know where they were, or they would be MIA for hours on end.
However, I don't understand why WFH isn't a discussion entirely between the manager and the employee. Why is this something that's being mandated from high above like the Ten Commandments. If someone wants to WFH and the manager is okay with it, and the employee can justify it with performance reviews, why does anyone care?
This should strictly be a performance issue, and if the employee is unproductive at home, then either force RTO on her, or fire her. It feels more like the higher-ups don't trust their own performance review system, but it seems like that's really the answer. If the manager is unproductive because of unproductive employees, then fire the manager as well. This is NOT a hard problem to solve, what it requires is accurate attention to performance on all levels. It shouldn't be a blanket edict because this is 2023 and we've already shown that WFH can definitely work for many people.
> When asked for data to support the move, Jassy lacked a good answer. He said that he spoke to “60 to 80 CEOs of other companies over the last 18 months,” and “virtually all of them” preferred in-office work.
Are they colluding to suppress wages/working conditions?
These tech companies already colluded in the past to suppress wages.
My company's CEO used words no other than "we believe collaboration is better in-person" to justify forcing everyone to work in the office three days a week. The usual "revitalize downtown" or "support local business" argument doesn't even apply in our case because company is on a highway. You know this decision is not based on any concrete data but purely on the investment in those useless buildings and wanting to force people out.
I'll chip my vote in for "stealth layoff". Phrasing research in terms of "why do you prefer hybrid work over 'fully remote'?" is misrepresenting what's under debate – mandatory RTO policies.
All the bragging about working multiple jobs or just clocking 20hours at most on so many forums like Blind, etc. is now coming to roost.
So yeah, many abused WFH and now the backlash is here. Amazon, Google, Apple, Meta, Zoom, Bloomberg ... all have the same conclusion: you can't trust people, at scale, to work full time from home.
These stories were posted here too! You think no exec reads HN?
> All the bragging about working multiple jobs or just clocking 20hours at most on so many forums like Blind, etc.
I don't follow these forums where people are saying this, but your comment struck me because neither of the two things you listed are wrong, as long as the person involved is doing acceptable work. This assumes there are no requirements to disclose other jobs, no enforceable non-compete agreements, etc. The consequences for doing unacceptable work—or not doing any work at all—are well-established from before covid, and would still apply in this case: that is, if they can't do the job, fire them. I agree that it's different and perhaps scary new world for executives, but what about it is wrong?
If the CEOs based their decision on these sort of posts I seriously have to question their leadership ability. I think the main reason why we see management in favor of RTO is because in my experience WFH exposed how little contribution comes from management.
In my experience many managers (at all levels) like to make the "informal rounds" where they go around the office and have chats with everyone to see what they are doing (instead of e.g. Looking at tickets or waiting for the weekly meeting). That mostly stopped with WFH, so suddenly many in management felt like they are not working anymore. The thing is this absence was often helping the engineers etc to be more productive.
And many CEOs run multiple companies and is part of several boards of other companies.
Why is it suddenly unethical for a mid level, much less paid employee to do so?
> So yeah, many abused WFH and now the backlash is here.
You can't "abuse" WFH. Either you're producing results that satisfy your manager or you are not. Also, any exec making decisions based on Blind posts should be fired.
Either way, they’re getting what they asked for: either folks back in the office with poor morale or resignations. Has reached a new level of low morale and distrust in leadership.
I'm convinced that the main reasoning behind this is that it implicitly keeps employee retention higher than with WFH, where employees are free to learn skills that are beneficial to THEM in their free time, and interview much more easily for new/better roles.
> A whopping 80% of bosses reported that they regret their initial return-to-office decisions, according to new research from Envoy, which interviewed more than 1,000 U.S. company executives and workplace managers who work in person at least one day per week.
But it's not clear if 80% of the executives...
(a) regretted reducing WFH at all, or
(b) regretted certain details of how they tweaked the policy, e.g. how they communicated it, the number of in-office days required, etc., or
(c) were unhappy about their data's availability, quality, or freshness.
Unfortunately the report from Envoy [0] isn't much clearer:
> 80% of executives say they would have approached their
company’s return-to-office strategy differently if
they had access to workplace data to inform their decision-making.
This is one case where seeing the original questionnaire would be helpful, but I'm not finding a link to it. So it's really hard to decide if Envoy's conclusions are justified.
"Return to office" is all about control. Companies want to control their workers' lives to squeeze every last ounce of work out of everyone. They'd demand employees live on premise if they could get away with it. Forcing employees to commute to the office and have their social circle consist of fellow employees increases company power over the employee.
Really what these companies should be doing if they want to lure the minions back into the cages is to entice them with things like benefits and compensation increases. Making ultimatums like this is just terrible for morale, and I imagine many talented employees will leave. I don't use AWS, and hearing this kind of thing makes me less likely to want to use AWS in the future, for the same reasons I prefer not buying clothes made in sweatshops
What is the sentiment of the investment community? Researchers covering Amazon and majority shareholders influence the decisions that Jassy is making. He's not taking a hard line just because he's a tough guy who doesn't care about employees. Focus on the situation.
[+] [-] Racing0461|2 years ago|reply
Layoffs by another name, local city government want their tax base back, Real estate companies (not mom and pop stuff, real holding companies with reits etc) want to keep real estate from "crashing", ny/ca/ma type states don't want their white collar workers moving to low tax states and working from there , middle managers want to be seen and "preside over their kindgom" etc.
The only group not benefitting from RTO are the actual workers.
[+] [-] jzb|2 years ago|reply
The pandemic made people stop and take stock of their lives. A lot of people realized that they were putting work first and life is too fucking short to put everything else second to work.
The tech layoffs have further emphasized the futility of putting work first. You might have put your career first but your employer sure as shit wasn't putting you first. Why live far from the rest of your family in a high cost-of-living area to have your life dominated by work if BigCorp is just going to throw you overboard at the first sign of a dip in profits? Not even a cut to save the business, just a cut to ensure that activist shareholders and top-line execs preserve obscene profits, bonuses, and salaries.
RTO is there to remind you that they control your life, right down to where you live. Be thankful to have a job or they'll take it away from you and your health insurance, too.
[+] [-] colmmacc|2 years ago|reply
I find it very easy to believe the straight-forward motive given; that leaders are concerned by the impacts of remote work on collaboration, innovation, mentorship and other kinds of productivity that come through group work. That's been my experience too.
At the same time, I think remote work can be very successful, maybe even more effective than traditional office work, but it almost certainly takes skills and practices that are attuned to that way of working. It's not unreasonable to believe that an entire workforce wouldn't simply adapt to that in the long term in just a 3 year time frame driven by a pandemic.
[+] [-] Terr_|2 years ago|reply
There's no inherent reason commute costs are usually borne by employees, it's just tradition--and perhaps what is/isn't an appealing alternate-compensation expense under tax-code.
[+] [-] devmunchies|2 years ago|reply
That depends on the worker’s goals. If your goal is to have work/life balance or “personal” productivity then, yeah, I empathize. But there is more investment I put back into my team when I’m in person. It’s not just my code output. I find it very hard to mentor young engineers remotely.
Also, if you are a stockholder, like many engineers, and if teams do in fact have more “synergy” (bleh) then it’s also good for the workers via stock based comp.
[+] [-] jsjohnst|2 years ago|reply
NY doesn’t care where you live, they’ll gladly tax you and aggressively pursue said taxes no matter if you get any benefit from those tax dollars or not.
[+] [-] gamblor956|2 years ago|reply
Companies have long-term leases on their offices. Office space is the single most expensive line-item on most companies financials. They want to maximize the use of these very expensive assets, and having workers in the offices accomplishes this.
From a more practical perspective, working from home is great for more senior workers who are already established in their careers and know what they're doing, but it's hugely detrimental to the career development of younger workers, who largely learn from working alongside their older/more senior counterparts. Communicating over email, slack, zoom, etc., just isn't the same, and you can see this across pretty much every white collar domain--even programming. This is why companies have pretty much settled on hybrid schedules; it allows for the in-person collaboration while still allowing workers greater freedom in where they work.
And while you're complaining about "the workers" consider that essentially all blue-collar jobs have been on-site full-time even through the pandemic.
[+] [-] oarabbus_|2 years ago|reply
Are certain cities (like NYC) taxing unoccupied office space? If so, how much? This information is much more convincing than a claim that companies are enforcing RTO to make middle managers feel like they are "presiding over their kingdom".
[+] [-] sharadov|2 years ago|reply
Cities like SFO with estimated 30% vacancy which primarily rely on corporate taxes will collapse!
[+] [-] slillibri|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] costanzaDynasty|2 years ago|reply
But don't get it twisted, everyone sees through your HR cornballs pretending a food truck coming by once a week is worth a 2 hour commute everyday.
[+] [-] RestlessMind|2 years ago|reply
Looking around the world, all the up and coming areas are mega-metro areas from Tokyo to Bangalore and from Sao Paulo to Shanghai. Or are you generalizing from a tiny handful of Americans who may be going to midwest / rockies after Covid?
[+] [-] SilverBirch|2 years ago|reply
Now we're on the other side of it and they've basically all admitted they just massively fucked up. So what's next? A thoughtful and long term strategic discussion about how we organise distributed teams (because let's face it, most of these teams are distributed geographically even if they're all office based), a serious discussion about how workers are willing to trade some level of flexibility for compensation and loyalty?
Nah, instead we're going to insultingly insist that all our workers are lazy assholes and tell them "Forget the deal we made, you can't trust our word. See you on monday".
Also, Bonus points as Andy Jassy to just whenever someone points out your doing something with absolutely no evidence it's correct just shout "Yeah well AWS!". Beyond parody.
[+] [-] AlbertCory|2 years ago|reply
Marissa Mayer ended WFH at Yahoo for exactly that reason:
https://money.cnn.com/2013/02/25/technology/yahoo-work-from-...
If you're CEO of a company that's shitty to work for, you have to suspect that everyone except the middle managers and suckups is just phoning it in. Literally.
Edit: all you people taking issue with this are just preaching to the converted (each other). I'm talking about what CEOs think, not what actually is.
[+] [-] rented_mule|2 years ago|reply
Initially he sat at his desk all day reading newspapers and books, ready to do any work he was asked to do. Eventually he got bored and started up his own one-man business that he operated from the office. All the while he continued collecting a salary and benefits from the big company. This had been going on for two years when I left the company.
My manager and my skip level manager both seemed quite aware of what was happening. But this guy was in another division of the company, so they didn't think it was their problem to solve.
The lesson... for a big enough company, you can be just as invisible in the office as you are at home, but the office gives better plausible deniability.
[+] [-] 0cf8612b2e1e|2 years ago|reply
I once read a claim that all work is done by the square root of the total company head count. Honestly, that does not feel too far off from reality.
[+] [-] jnwatson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] surgical_fire|2 years ago|reply
If you can get away with "not really working" remotely, you will also get away with "not really working" in the office.
[+] [-] hbosch|2 years ago|reply
Most of the people I know who shifted to WFH from in-office during COVID ended up buying places in cities outside of the "urban" radius, and now feel like they are randomly being forced back due to nth-order repercussions around overpaid pandemic hires and shortsightedness from executives who spent all of 2020-2021 remarking in memos how successful and wonderful WFH was for everyone.
In my opinion, it's not that people don't want to work in offices. It's that cities are hostile places for work, period. Companies can start by covering 100% of moving expenses, guaranteeing safety inside and around corporate offices, and offering in-office daycares/preschools for free just to start the conversation.
[+] [-] xwdv|2 years ago|reply
There is either work not done, or work finished. If work isn’t being finished, then people aren’t working. If it is, then people are working. That’s all you need to know.
[+] [-] baq|2 years ago|reply
Please.
[+] [-] supertrope|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] o1y32|2 years ago|reply
That's definitely worth your commute to the office and better than working from home, right?
[+] [-] purpleblue|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Abroszka|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] n4r9|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klyrs|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tracerbulletx|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] purpleblue|2 years ago|reply
However, I don't understand why WFH isn't a discussion entirely between the manager and the employee. Why is this something that's being mandated from high above like the Ten Commandments. If someone wants to WFH and the manager is okay with it, and the employee can justify it with performance reviews, why does anyone care?
This should strictly be a performance issue, and if the employee is unproductive at home, then either force RTO on her, or fire her. It feels more like the higher-ups don't trust their own performance review system, but it seems like that's really the answer. If the manager is unproductive because of unproductive employees, then fire the manager as well. This is NOT a hard problem to solve, what it requires is accurate attention to performance on all levels. It shouldn't be a blanket edict because this is 2023 and we've already shown that WFH can definitely work for many people.
[+] [-] gumby|2 years ago|reply
It's a foolish sunk cost fallacy.
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|2 years ago|reply
Are they colluding to suppress wages/working conditions?
These tech companies already colluded in the past to suppress wages.
[+] [-] o1y32|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nxobject|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoppersoft|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shadowtree|2 years ago|reply
So yeah, many abused WFH and now the backlash is here. Amazon, Google, Apple, Meta, Zoom, Bloomberg ... all have the same conclusion: you can't trust people, at scale, to work full time from home.
These stories were posted here too! You think no exec reads HN?
[+] [-] karaterobot|2 years ago|reply
I don't follow these forums where people are saying this, but your comment struck me because neither of the two things you listed are wrong, as long as the person involved is doing acceptable work. This assumes there are no requirements to disclose other jobs, no enforceable non-compete agreements, etc. The consequences for doing unacceptable work—or not doing any work at all—are well-established from before covid, and would still apply in this case: that is, if they can't do the job, fire them. I agree that it's different and perhaps scary new world for executives, but what about it is wrong?
[+] [-] cycomanic|2 years ago|reply
In my experience many managers (at all levels) like to make the "informal rounds" where they go around the office and have chats with everyone to see what they are doing (instead of e.g. Looking at tickets or waiting for the weekly meeting). That mostly stopped with WFH, so suddenly many in management felt like they are not working anymore. The thing is this absence was often helping the engineers etc to be more productive.
[+] [-] harshalizee|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluefishinit|2 years ago|reply
You can't "abuse" WFH. Either you're producing results that satisfy your manager or you are not. Also, any exec making decisions based on Blind posts should be fired.
[+] [-] hardware2win|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] captainkrtek|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foobarian|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a2xd94|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CoastalCoder|2 years ago|reply
From the Fortune article:
> A whopping 80% of bosses reported that they regret their initial return-to-office decisions, according to new research from Envoy, which interviewed more than 1,000 U.S. company executives and workplace managers who work in person at least one day per week.
But it's not clear if 80% of the executives...
(a) regretted reducing WFH at all, or
(b) regretted certain details of how they tweaked the policy, e.g. how they communicated it, the number of in-office days required, etc., or
(c) were unhappy about their data's availability, quality, or freshness.
Unfortunately the report from Envoy [0] isn't much clearer:
> 80% of executives say they would have approached their company’s return-to-office strategy differently if they had access to workplace data to inform their decision-making.
This is one case where seeing the original questionnaire would be helpful, but I'm not finding a link to it. So it's really hard to decide if Envoy's conclusions are justified.
[0] https://envoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Workplace_Data_...
[+] [-] eastbayjake|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JSavageOne|2 years ago|reply
Really what these companies should be doing if they want to lure the minions back into the cages is to entice them with things like benefits and compensation increases. Making ultimatums like this is just terrible for morale, and I imagine many talented employees will leave. I don't use AWS, and hearing this kind of thing makes me less likely to want to use AWS in the future, for the same reasons I prefer not buying clothes made in sweatshops
[+] [-] jatins|2 years ago|reply
Moats so strong that they could completely fuck over (as they have been doing for a while) their employees but will still end up okay as a business.
CEOs with moats as thin as a razor will see this as correlation though and burn their companies to ground forcing their employees to RTO.
[+] [-] say_it_as_it_is|2 years ago|reply