←back to thread

283 points belter | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.226s | 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 #
thegrim33 ◴[] 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 #
runnr_az ◴[] 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 #
Wytwwww ◴[] 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 #
1. runnr_az ◴[] No.42135798[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."