Most active commenters
  • runnr_az(6)

←back to thread

Amazon Makes It Harder for Disabled Employees to Work from Home

(www.bloomberg.com)
283 points belter | 18 comments | 13 Nov 24 21:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | 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 #
1. thegrim33 ◴[13 Nov 24 23:47 UTC] No.42131509[source]▶
Amazon has existed for 30 years. For 26 of those years it was primarily an in office job, only temporarily shifting to WFH, where applicable, in response to a full blown global pandemic. Now that the global pandemic is sufficiently wrapped up, they're trying to go back to business as they're used to.

You, a random internet person, are claiming you know what's better for their business than they do. You claim that the CEO and all the Presidents and VPs and everyone involved in the decision have no data backing them? They're all just making this decision with no logical basis or internal data? You really claim you know better than them what's good for their business? It's not their job to provide data to you, random internet person, about their internal functioning and what they think is best for their company.

Linking to literally .032% of their workforce signing a letter saying that it just isn't fair to go back into the office, while once again not providing a single piece of data to bolster that opinion, is not evidence that your opinion is right.

I can't read your second link because it's behind a paywall and thus not accessible to 99.9% of the people reading your comment.

The fact that I'm already downvoted to negative karma really highlights the strength of the echo chamber involved.

replies(2): >>42131545 #>>42131688 #
2. anigbrowl ◴[13 Nov 24 23:51 UTC] No.42131545[source]▶
I can't read your second link because it's behind a paywall and thus not accessible to 99.9% of the people reading your comment.

It opens just fine in an incognito window. Failing that, you could use an alternative browser that doesn't have any cookies set. Failing that, you could look it up on archive.org. This would have taken less time than fulminating at an internet stranger.

This is Hacker News, after all.

replies(1): >>42131960 #
3. runnr_az ◴[14 Nov 24 00:10 UTC] No.42131688[source]▶
Random smarty pants internet people always crack me up... like -- Amazon is super successful company. Like, maybe they know something about being a super successful company?
replies(6): >>42131780 #>>42131938 #>>42131977 #>>42135349 #>>42137507 #>>42143426 #
4. no_wizard ◴[14 Nov 24 00:25 UTC] No.42131780[source]▶
Success in one arena does not mean success in another.

Also, its doubly true that one of their core beliefs is being 'data driven' but no data on this has materialized, even the CEO admitted this is all 'based on gut feeling'.

I don't blame people for calling that on its face, it flys against a purported core value

replies(1): >>42131989 #
5. ipaddr ◴[14 Nov 24 00:49 UTC] No.42131938[source]▶
They never win best place to work awards. Success for shareholders isn't success for employees.
replies(1): >>42132046 #
6. ipaddr ◴[14 Nov 24 00:53 UTC] No.42131960[source]▶
Hackers are lazy at the core otherwise we wouldn't spend writing a program once so we never have to do it again.

Someone could do all of those things you list or form an opinion based on the title. Which way do you think a hacker would take?

replies(1): >>42141872 #
7. akira2501 ◴[14 Nov 24 00:55 UTC] No.42131977[source]▶
> maybe they know something about being a super successful company?

If being successful is simply a matter of knowing a few things then why aren't more businesses successful? Why wouldn't those employees in the know just leave and start their own business?

replies(1): >>42132020 #
8. runnr_az ◴[14 Nov 24 00:57 UTC] No.42131989{3}[source]▶
Given your obvious expertise and experience, I’m shocked that they didn’t consult you.
replies(1): >>42136092 #
9. runnr_az ◴[14 Nov 24 01:00 UTC] No.42132020{3}[source]▶
Doesn’t that observation support the point I’m making?
replies(1): >>42132084 #
10. runnr_az ◴[14 Nov 24 01:04 UTC] No.42132046{3}[source]▶
AMZN employees are very well compensated for their efforts. Hard to see this as an attack on the proletariat
11. akira2501 ◴[14 Nov 24 01:09 UTC] No.42132084{4}[source]▶
And how do you account for the fact it has no predictive power? Following the logic of your assertion we see very few cases which actually reach it. Wouldn't that suggest it is incorrect or at least incomplete in some way?
replies(1): >>42132128 #
12. runnr_az ◴[14 Nov 24 01:15 UTC] No.42132128{5}[source]▶
I’m not sure I really understand what you’re trying to say here, but in general, I’d be inclined to let the people who successfully built Amazon into a 2.25 trillion dollar company continue to do their thing
13. Wytwwww ◴[14 Nov 24 11:55 UTC] No.42135349[source]▶
Boeing and Intel also were very successful companies until they weren't. Arguably the decisions that led to that were made years if not decades before there were any publicly obvious signs of their demise.

I bet the there plenty of people saying the same things as you are here and in other threads. Of course I'm not saying this or any other specific action will somehow lead to Amazon's demise but saying stuff like you did in the other thread:

"I’d be inclined to let the people who successfully built Amazon into a 2.25 trillion dollar company continue to do their thing"

Just seems a bit silly...

Regardless, Amazon might have other incentives than maximizing the wellbeing and of their employees in no way does that conflict with them being very successful.

replies(1): >>42135798 #
14. runnr_az ◴[14 Nov 24 13:02 UTC] No.42135798{3}[source]▶
Eh. Maybe. Who knows?

It's more the attitude that I'm mocking: "I've seen that this company performed very well, perhaps better than any company in history. I, a random person with absolutely no idea what metrics / etc... they've used to make these decisions, insist that they should do it a totally different way."

15. ◴[14 Nov 24 13:47 UTC] No.42136092{4}[source]▶
16. htrp ◴[14 Nov 24 16:00 UTC] No.42137507[source]▶
Leaders operate at all levels, stay connected to the details, audit frequently, and are skeptical when metrics and anecdote differ. No task is beneath them.
17. anigbrowl ◴[14 Nov 24 22:27 UTC] No.42141872{3}[source]▶
It would be foolish to do all the things when one is sufficient. It's also foolish to rely on superficial things like titles (which are written by editors, not the writer).
18. ycombinatrix ◴[15 Nov 24 02:25 UTC] No.42143426[source]▶
Random smarty pants internet people always crack me up... like -- Blockbuster is super successful company. Like, maybe they know something about being a super successful company?