[drawkbox]

Looks like they have until January to change to fully on-site. That isn't much time to make life changes that allow using 2+ hours extra per day that was typically remote.

> The decision marks a significant shift from Amazon’s earlier return-to-work stance, which required corporate workers to be in the office at least three days a week. Now, the company is giving employees until Jan. 2 to start adhering to the new policy.

So on top of all the hustle of end of year, everyone will need to frantically prepare for return to office one day into the new year. Just seems a bit heartless.

Remote jobs just allow a team to be more robust and dynamic to life changes. I just don't understand the need to force RTO so drastically.

[realmike33]

Take this with a grain of salt but I read on a similar Reddit post the return to office is mainly due to the tax incentives the city/county/state provided Amazon for having their offices located there. The Reddit user made a claim which Amazon could only receive those tax benefits if their workers actually worked in person at the location. ---

I can see this being a valid argument for return to office for a lot of corporations, if its actually true. The tax benefits are too good to pass up and in office has been the status quo forever.

[burnte]

> I can see this being a valid argument for return to office for a lot of corporations, if its actually true. The tax benefits are too good to pass up and in office has been the status quo forever.

Holding on to what is now an outdated view of worker utilization might help them for a couple years with these tax incentives, but they're going to get a lower quality of worker, and incur a lot of retraining costs as people quit. They're going to have to pivot to having less commercial real estate eventually.

[shagie]

It's a very reasonable argument. And even if it isn't something now (where Amazon gives Seattle the bird... wait, that's San Francisco that got the bird from the bird), it is something that would impact their ability in the future to negotiate tax breaks with cities.

There's also the question of even if remote work was more productive on the whole (and I believe this to be true) and that these productivity gains come from the more senior workers who are able to identify tasks that they need to complete and effectively shut the door on the office and focus ... while also being able to handle other things at home (being more productive because you can put a load of laundry in at noon or being able to get something to eat without having to go all the way to the break room)...

So, grant that on the whole productivity is higher with WFH for mid level and senior level individual contributors ... junior ICs may be suffering quietly without more direct mentorship, the listening in on ad-hoc hallway meetings, managers being able to pick up on work stress more easily.

It would be very easy to imagine a conversation at some director level (where I'm making up the numbers)... "From 2020 to 2024, we've seen the number of junior ICs advance to mid level drop from 20% to 16% compared to 2016 to 2020. This is a declining trend and when looked at year over year 2020 to 2021 had 8% advancement while 2023 to 2024 only showed 4% advancement. Furthermore, the senior ICs are comfortable in their role and the number of them moving up to management has dropped from 5% to 3% in the 2020 to 2024 time frame. If this continues, we may be looking at a lot of unsatisfied junior developers who are not progressing and a lot of satisfied senior developers and leads who would traditionally shift to the management track... well, not take that step in their career progression."

Yes, that's a just-so story. I find it to be a believable one.

So even if everything is great with remote work currently for productivity, some trends may be showing a problem years down the road where people are not improving and the company as a whole is stagnating (even more).

----

(edit / addition) - from last year, that tax revenue thing with some numbers: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/community/amazon-return-to-...

[Olreich]

Usually the tax incentives are relatively minor and are long term as well. The more important thing with the real-estate strategy is that there's a lot of capital and personal clout wrapped up in these massive building projects and investments. Amazon recently had 2 shiny new buildings built in Arlington, VA. They have a bunch of buildings that were built in Seattle. There's definitely tax incentives involved, but those tax incentives are tiny compared to the billions of capital poured into the buildings.

[shusaku]

There’s no shortage of conspiracy theories online trying to explain return to office policies, when the simplest explanation “managers like being in the same room as employees” has sufficient explanatory power.

[ipaddr]

They wouldn't need the tax breaks if they didn't have the big office. Chicken and egg.

[hackernewds]

Not to mention, Amazon has vested real estate that is massively depreciating along with the entire corporate real estate market

[Aurornis]

> The Reddit user made a claim

Did they provide any links or evidence at all? Reddit is a hotbed of misinformation and claims like this proliferate and grow on Reddit with little basis in reality all the time. Unless someone can find compelling evidence that this is both true and a substantial tax credit, I would assume it’s just another product of the Reddit misinformation machine.

Even if it is true, the majority of the RTO is a transition from hybrid to 5 days onsite. I doubt they would have allowed hybrid to begin with if it impacted some hypothetical giant tax breaks.

[raverbashing]

I doubt it, and actually, with NYC it's the exact opposite

[FuckButtons]

“Just seems a bit heartless” which, from everything I’ve read about Amazon as an employer, sounds completely on brand.

[blackeyeblitzar]

Yep. The plan to enforce this in January, after Q4 when people are busy at work (with Amazon’s Q4 peak retail sales period) and with the holidays, makes it clear that Andy Jassy intends to make this an impossible change. He just wants to force people out - maybe to do a layoff without paying severance. Or maybe it is a way to select for young people that live in downtown cores near Amazon offices, and get rid of older people or people with families. You know, people that live away from city centers, have commutes, and cannot deal with an abusive RTO policy. I hope they face lawsuits and also that talent flees.

The only reason Andy Jassy and Amazon can get away with this is because they have enough market power that they don’t have to care about consequences. In other words, they are too big to fail, and immune to the negative effects of this that may result from real competition. It’s time for them to also face anti trust regulation. As a customer, I’m going to cancel Prime and stop shopping there entirely. I don’t like rewarding companies that set illogical trends across the entire industry.

[insane_dreamer]

Some companies used this to reduce their headcount without having to fire people. Maybe Amazon is doing the same thing.

[jtriangle]

It's a great way to create layoffs without having to spook investors by laying people off.

[squigglydonut]

This is what I believe as well. It's an assuming narrative that allows them to say that it wasn't them it was the employee choice.

[wnc3141]

I think this is a backdoor layoff that doesn't spook investors.

[greenthrow]

Investors love layoffs right now. It's actually to avoid paying severance.

[mikro2nd]

It's a way to get rid of people without looking like you're laying off.

Sadly it's the most competent that leave first and fastest.

[iLoveOncall]

I think you got the messaging here wrong. He's not saying that you have 3 months to move houses, he's saying you have 3 months to move jobs.

Productivity has cratered since he implemented RTO, so to believe that this is anything but a way to get rid of employees without severance package is extremely naive.

[jogu]

For what it’s worth the change isn’t from full remote to 5 days a week. It’s from 3 days in office to 5 so it shouldn’t be as drastic of a shift.

[hackernewds]

Not to mention, employees have bought home and shifted to other cities and neighborhoods

[manvillej]

just 2 days after they release their Q4 results. there will be a grace period and then they'll start firing.

They're expecting subpar Q4 results.

[bagels]

Where do you get 2 hours from?

[akira2501]

> Just seems a bit heartless.

The writing has been on the wall for a while. Aside from that, Amazon decided to convert their workforce to work from home rather quickly, and shelled out the money and the effort in order to actually achieve that.

> Remote jobs just allow a team to be more robust and dynamic to life changes.

If you weren't hired into a remote job then you don't have much a right to expect or demand this.

[hansvm]

> If you weren't hired into a remote job then you don't have much a right to expect or demand this.

This is being mandated for a number of employees who were hired remote as well.

Separately, why not? I generally have an expectation that I won't have to move across the country from one office to another. Especially not without some good reason. Especially not without literally any reason. Especially not if I'm going to have to foot the bill for switching houses, either disrupt my spouse's career or spend time apart, switch kids' schools in the middle of the year, .... Employers are (often) within their rights to do so, but the knowledge that Amazon does this sort of thing frequently is precisely why I work elsewhere.

[makeitdouble]

> If you weren't hired into a remote job then you don't have much a right to expect or demand this.

To put it another way: "Look for a remote position elsewhere and quit"

That has been the return to office dynamic since the COVID emergency stopped.

[rconti]

If you WERE hired into a remote job, then you also don't have any rights to expect or demand to stay remote. At least, in an at-will state.