Hacker News Reader

I'm sorry but there's no correlation to AMZN's stock price reaching all-time highs. 1) The entire world was caught in a two-year pandemic and caused e-commerce to exceed retail spending virtually overnight (See: SHOP, BIGC, etc)... and 2) The fed printed an asinine amount of money that dislocated the market from reality.

Your work-from-home team had nothing to do with either of those two massive tailwinds.

Sure, but was the company tanking because we were all working from home?

No?

All I'm saying is that the company was operating just fine despite everyone being remote. There wasn't a financial reason to do it, and probably lots of good financial reasons not to (sell the offices, reduce overhead that way).

Yeah, it strikes me as odd that Amazon is a company whose success is absolutely predicated on having a minimal physical presence, yet their leadership has become obsessed with getting their employees to work in a physical office.

Like, what if we could do all this over the internet?

I can understand they want it. What I can't stand is their doublespeak and complete inability to openly address the issue. "Yes, we understand you prefer remote work but we prefer to have an eye on you and control you more" is a fair statement. "We know you all want to come back" just makes me furious.

If the stock goes up, you will not give credit to remote work.

If the stock goes down, you will blame remote work.

The point is that the company wasn't going to make big invasive moves while the stock was up.

> The stock was reaching new heights every day; things were going great; the was no reason to change back at all. Amazon senior leadership were taking their culture of data-driven-everything and ignoring it because they like it better that way.

Why is the real reason for this? It's not clear to me from reading the articles.

There is one mention about how innovation happens more often when people are in the office. I very much doubt that, specifically because if it were so, they would mention numbers/data that this is based on.

I personally work from home 2-3days/week. When I have a good idea I just write it down in our wiki, mention it in slack, maybe grab the phone or just wait until the next meeting to explain it. The best ideas typically need some back and forth, some thinking time, a discussion here or there etc. until they really start to materialize.

> Why is the real reason for this? It's not clear to me from reading the articles.

Same reason why every study of open offices show that they're bad for productivity but managers and executives can't stop building them.

The managers have an emotional need for it, the data doesn't matter.

Because bad managers feel disconnected when they aren't physically colocated with their employees.

Good people always have other options. That's something employers often forget.

Of course the survey would show that devs don't want to be required to come to the office. Everyone wants the flexibility to choose. If you asked them if they want to move to 4-day work weeks I'm sure most devs would say yes. In the end you need to balance between what the employees want and what's reasonable for the company.

How is requiring staff to spend hours of unpaid time in commutes reasonable? In practice since working 70% from home I have more energy, more ideas, am less tired at 5he end of the day... Looks reasonable to me.

They need to live closer to the office if they don't want to spend hours commuting. I agree fully in-person is overkill. But 2-3 times a week is reasonable.