Amazon Makes It Harder for Disabled Employees to Work from Home

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...

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.

Agree with this, but do want to let employees know that if this happens to them, that changes in working conditions can be considered constructive dismissal even if you quit.

Yeah, that only buys you unemployment though, not severance (which is typically much greater but comes with an NDA of some kind).

Man, nothing makes you appreciate EU labour protections like reading the HN comments.

Man, nothing makes me appreciate USA labor laws like reading the HN comments. I (unironically) love how it's easy to get a job here; since firing is easy, employers are more willing to take a chance on hiring someone. Plus it would suck as an employee to be forced to give your employer 4+ weeks of notice if you want to resign. Whereas in the USA with at-will employment we can quit tomorrow with zero notice and suffer no financial penalties.

I have worked both in the EU and in Brazil and I do have to say that the Brazilian system is better. Labor protection is high (25 vacation days, guaranteed overtime pay, etc), but companies can still fire people. However doing so involves paying severance proportional to how long you been at the company.

When you leave a company you need to give one month notice (so you can't just get up and leave). I never seen a "layoff" (you get notice that you are leaving, but still have your job for a few months and usually no severance) like they do in the EU. When you are fired, you are out of there the same day with your severance and unemployment benefits.

This specific practice does have a few problems:

1) companies not firing about-to-retire employees who have been at the company for 10+ years because of the huge severance required. Instead they just wait for them to retire. However employees also really don't want to get fired in their last few years either before retirement because of how the pension system works, so it balances-out. 60+ year old people usually take it easy, but they are usually not just showing up for a paycheck.

2) Younger employees trying to get fired instead of quitting. If you been at a company for 3-4 years and you want to leave it is really a lot more beneficial to get fired instead. I have seen this happen, but not nearly as much as you would think (at least in IT).

Although you would think companies would want to "recycle" employees by firing them every year to prevent the severance from piling up. The math doesn't really work out like that on top of all possible disruptions of such high attrition rate.