Amazon WFH policy is still flexible though. For example, in my team the current policy is to work wherever we feel the most productive and happiest.
You could have potentially moved within the company if that was only decision factor.
You could have potentially moved within the company if that was only decision factor.
“It’s WFH today, but that’ll probably change. And you can always take our bus from your local AWS office to the office where the rest of the team may or may not be because we don’t know what our policy will be.”
I’d expect a company of Amazon’s size and stature to have a better plan than “whatever your VP wants this week.”
Oh, that and I doubled my comp leaving ;)
I think it makes more sense to be non-committal than to make promises and then have to renege on them later. The latter makes people much more justifiably upset.
And yes, reneging on agreements is bad. Employers need to be forced to understand that humans have rights and their employees are humans. Telling someone their job is remote then changing that 3 months after they start should be illegal. Unfortunately, it’s not, so you’re SOL if you find yourself in that position.
Add in several other factors… 1. the VP and extended team I would have been working with was in Seattle and this position was in VA. 2. There’s an AWS office down the street from my house but they were 100% non-committal about the position being located there (vs the new Arlington HQ2). 3. Would have been a new team with lots of new hires, so I could have just hired them locally (if deemed necessary, though I’ve managed remotely for years now with success so seems silly to me).
That is interesting. I like that idea, in theory.
In practise I find the promise I have made to an employer to work/be available certain hours very useful. My time off is off, on is on.