←back to thread

283 points belter | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.64s | source
Show context
no_wizard ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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. umeshunni ◴[] No.42131147[source]
That makes very little economic sense.
replies(1): >>42131222 #
2. schmidtleonard ◴[] No.42131222[source]
It makes sense if a counterparty extended Amazon a benefit in exchange for driving foot traffic and now the benefit is at risk because they are not driving the foot traffic.
replies(1): >>42140974 #
3. umeshunni ◴[] No.42140974[source]
How would that even make sense at Amazon's scale? A company that makes $500B in revenue is somehow beholden to some random commercial real estate company that owns a few billion in commercial real estate.