←back to thread

Amazon Makes It Harder for Disabled Employees to Work from Home

(www.bloomberg.com)
283 points belter | 1 comments | 13 Nov 24 21:16 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
karaterobot ◴[13 Nov 24 22:02 UTC] 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 ◴[13 Nov 24 23:52 UTC] 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. Der_Einzige ◴[14 Nov 24 06:28 UTC] No.42133616[source]▶
"Shrink" is what you call good WLB.

The cosmic justice for dealing with a life-time of hatred from those around you for being a tech-bro/nerd (see hatred of "coastal elites" from MAGA) is that since they don't actually know what you do or how to measure you, it's extremely easy to make a mountain out of a mole hill on any technical issue.

In literally every organization, tech job, or related I've been in, the amount of real hard work expected of you was almost inversely proportional to your compensation. Those paid the most were sitting in meetings all day, talking. No matter how much they cope and claim it's hard, it's easy compared to coding all day.

This is why we still maintain the idea of "he has management written all over him" to the people who actually see through it and speak truth to power about how dumb most of the make-work that's being done actually is.

The reality is that if you make it clear that you're willing to do a lot of grunt, annoying, stupid work because someone tells you to do it - they will naturally treat you worse for being gullible enough to uncritically do it. Those who buck the trend are treated well in American tech jobs. Why work hard when not working anywhere near your max gets you perceived as a wunderkid?