←back to thread

Amazon Makes It Harder for Disabled Employees to Work from Home

(www.bloomberg.com)
283 points belter | 9 comments | 13 Nov 24 21:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.843s | source | bottom
Show context
no_wizard ◴[13 Nov 24 21:45 UTC] No.42130354[source]▶
For a company that is supposedly data driven like Amazon likes to tout, they have zero data that RTO would provide the benefits they claim[0]. They even admitted as much[1].

I wouldn't be shocked if one day some leaked memos or emails come to light that prove it was all about control and/or backdoor layoffs, despite their PR spin that it isn't (what competent company leader would openly admit this?)

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/over-500-amazon-...

[1]: https://fortune.com/2023/09/05/amazon-andy-jassy-return-to-o...

replies(16): >>42130377 #>>42130698 #>>42130723 #>>42130821 #>>42130967 #>>42131021 #>>42131355 #>>42131509 #>>42131862 #>>42132003 #>>42132082 #>>42132201 #>>42132360 #>>42132636 #>>42132789 #>>42133171 #
tpurves ◴[13 Nov 24 22:23 UTC] No.42130821[source]▶
They'll have plenty of data to support the primary motivation: that enforcing arbitrary RTO policies will absolutely aid in generating staff turnover and voluntary attrition without having to payout severance costs. The policy gives them less direct control over who they lose, but I'm sure the data also points to any critical replacement employees being willing to work for less on average. That's the data they are looking at.
replies(3): >>42130938 #>>42131024 #>>42132339 #
regularfry ◴[13 Nov 24 22:33 UTC] No.42130938[source]▶
I wouldn't be surprised if it's even more straightforward than that. They've got some very expensive office space that's extremely under-utilised, and they're probably at risk of the rent getting raised on a lot of it unless they can increase footfall.
replies(9): >>42131029 #>>42131055 #>>42131137 #>>42131147 #>>42131265 #>>42131846 #>>42132726 #>>42132814 #>>42132911 #
1. ghaff ◴[13 Nov 24 22:43 UTC] No.42131029[source]▶
If you have way-underutilized office space that you can sell or not renew leases on, you can shed it like a former employer was doing when I left. Otherwise, there's basically no value in how many or few people are filling the space unless they're actually delivering some business value to the entity paying for the lease. (Unless, maybe, it relates to promises made to some local jurisdiction that gave you tax breaks.)
replies(3): >>42131314 #>>42131858 #>>42134854 #
2. regularfry ◴[13 Nov 24 23:19 UTC] No.42131314[source]▶
A lot might depend on how long a lease was signed, and what penalties there might be for breaking it.
replies(2): >>42131331 #>>42131443 #
3. ghaff ◴[13 Nov 24 23:21 UTC] No.42131331[source]▶
Sure. Breaking leases have costs. But the cases I have some direct experience with are generally simply not renewing them.
replies(1): >>42131386 #
4. galleywest200 ◴[13 Nov 24 23:29 UTC] No.42131386{3}[source]▶
For what it is worth, Amazon has built (as opposed to just rent) very large buildings in Seattle, WA and Bellevue, WA. It could be a sunk-cost fallacy sort of deal going on here. They even built giant ~~testicles~~ glass spheres with plants in them.
replies(2): >>42131757 #>>42131917 #
5. jacobr1 ◴[13 Nov 24 23:38 UTC] No.42131443[source]▶
subleasing is an option, though demand is down across the board
6. dgfitz ◴[14 Nov 24 00:20 UTC] No.42131757{4}[source]▶
I don’t think I buy that answer. They’re on the hook for the money either way. Ego?
7. underlipton ◴[14 Nov 24 00:36 UTC] No.42131858[source]▶
That's assuming no corruption involved, which would be weird, given the previously-mentioned circumstances. Who stands to lose if the building is sold at a loss or the lease isn't renewed? Are they connected to the executives pushing the RTO decision in any way? It need not even be a direct connection. Who's got CRE MBS in their portfolios? Whose friend does?
8. notyourwork ◴[14 Nov 24 00:45 UTC] No.42131917{4}[source]▶
They lease a lot of buildings too. Paul Allen owned a bunch of the area.
9. DanielHB ◴[14 Nov 24 10:34 UTC] No.42134854[source]▶
You underestimate the "it looks bad on my numbers" effect. For example, if you have real state that you can't get rid of, for the company it doesn't matter if the people use it or not if it doesn't affect productivity. But it sure does matter for some accounting department close to the CEO.

It is like that old adage that goes along the lines "Tell me the incentives and I will tell you the outcomes"