This was always what he intended. Get people to quit instead of paying redundancy when he has to reduce the work force. Classic stuff done by many big orgs over the years. Make the place shit to work at and people quit for you.
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
163 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
34816 readers
189 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Good for the market i guess, since mostly people who have it easy tho find a new job (highly qualified) leave that way.
Would really suck if people said "fuck it", did return to work but intentionally decreased productivity. Best to get laid off than quit.
Amazon policy is to stack rank all of its employees and regularly fire anyone in the bottom tranche. So any kind of deliberate slowdown would need to be incredibly well-coordinated. Even then, there would inevitably be a ton of attrition as the automatic Fire Everyone triggers started kicking in.
Its not enough to play by the rules with a company as vast and encompassing as Amazon. You need to take it a step further and start sabotaging the anti-organizing functions of the company. Start shoving monkey wrenches in the employee monitoring systems. Start dismantling the automation that allows the business to function at such a breakneck pace. You've got to get in there and break the machine before it breaks you.
CEO Matt Garman said nine out of 10 workers he has spoken with support the new policy
Got news for you, Matt. 9 out of 10 workers are kissing your ass.
More likely it's an outright lie.
I'm willing to believe he asked ten of his VPs and nine of them agreed with him. Also, that he's currently looking to fill a newly opened tenth position.
"ceo of cloud company says employees must work on premise."
must do wonders for the marketing of the capability of their platform.
I mean, they aren't reporting to the data center...
That worked out great for Apple, Microsoft, and others. Good luck, Amazon.
I beseech you god of Irony, make it so Amazon workers can vote him out of office.
"9 out of 10 workers support the policy" he decided to imagine and then say out loud
9 out of 10 dentists recommend our toothpaste.
I've always wanted to meet that 1 out of the 10 who don't. Probably would be interesting to have a beer with.
It’s probably one of the dentists I visited while in the army.
“Toothpaste! Use sandpaper you bitch. No, I’m serious. Then floss with it.”
RTO was always lay-off without compensation
Let them enforce it. Don't quit, that's what they are trying to accomplish anyway.
Or just skip ahead and unionize.
Both things should be done simultaneously!
Along with eating the CEO with a side of Jeff Bezos
How would that work? People are just going to stay home in front of a disconnected PC and somehow not get fired?
Institutional inertia is real. Obviously every situation is different but in most cases they are not blocking remote access, they're just tracking if you badged in that day. If you are still doing work, it's going to take them awhile to respond - they are hoping you quit rather than having to fire you.
Why would the PC be disconnected?
If the company doesn't want you to work from home they're not going to let you connect to their system.
They want people in the office, but they still want people to be able to work when they're at home too. No shot RTO comes with blocking remote access to corp systems, or even prod for that matter.
How would oncalls be handled without it even?
I'm guessing by going into the office haha.
Fuck'em.
Oncall is usually a 24/7 type of thing, where speed is a major factor, and I doubt they would want to restrict oncall engineers to on-site only.
I'm not seeing anything about 24/7 on call workers. The article is about five days a week employees. Did I miss something?
Bork is saying a blanket ban on computers connecting remotely would not work in a company that has a huge operations department who need to be on-call.
Ok, I understand that. But I didn't say anything about either of those things.
Unless I'm misinterpreting your comment.
I don't know what comment exactly you're referring to. So probably yes.
Nothing I've said has been complicated or profound.
Usually it's phased and they don't cut off remote access entirely. They still want you to be able to work on the weekend at home...
That's constructive dismissal
This lines up with their marked decrease in service quality. Azure is eating AWS' lunch.
Operation: Eat the Rich is a go! I repeat: Operation Eat the Rich is a go!
Heard
At least he is honest about their intentions I guess?
AWS SLOs are going to shit aren't they?