←back to thread

283 points belter | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
karaterobot ◴[] No.42130569[source]
> “We continue to believe that the advantages of being together in the office are significant."

I presume that's believe in the sense of faith, rather than believe in the sense of drawing reasonable conclusions from evidence. In other words, what are those advantages, and how do you know they exist at all, let alone their significance? As I recall, Amazon did pretty good during Work From Home, so why not start with the hypothesis that WFH is actually good for Amazon, then try disproving that with evidence.

If their Return to Office plan is itself a secret experiment to do just that, I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that they are making decisions under a combination of the sunk cost fallacy with respect to their commercial real estate, and the insane impulse to satisfy their management layer, while simultaneously shrinking their overall workforce size.

replies(1): >>42131555 #
slibhb ◴[] No.42131555[source]
It seems obvious why companies want employees in the office. Namely it's a lot easier to shirk while remote.

If you do valuable work and prefer remote then your employer ought to make an exception. That's how things were before COVID (default in the office; WFH negotiated on a person-by-person basis). It makes sense to get back to that.

replies(6): >>42131861 #>>42131908 #>>42131948 #>>42132012 #>>42132800 #>>42133616 #
1. akira2501 ◴[] No.42132012[source]
They build this work force in the office. People went through their probationary period in the office. They were moved home out of concern for health.

While you may be able to do this, I'm not sure it's so easy to sustain it, or to replace the hiring model with a fully "hire into WFH" mode.

Running a company is a lot more than putting a time clock on the wall.