Amazon Makes It Harder for Disabled Employees to Work from Home

> “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.

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.

The way to get employees to not shirk their duties is to incentivize them with what they want: $$$, increased leisure/family time, opportunities for career advancement. Either the hiring process or the company culture are at fault if someone can't be trusted to deliver without a middle manager staring at them.

If an employee isn't performing what's asked of them to a satisfactory standard, discipline and/or fire them. If they're non-physical laborers getting things done on time who'd rather not work in an office, there is no reason to force them to work in an office.

I doubt giving someone who isn't doing a lot of work more money/leisure/status is going to motive them.