Hacker News Reader

Comment by smarmgoblin | Hacker News Reader

My theory is that they need attrition, and they need managers to be managing out employees at a higher rate than they’ve historically been comfortable. So they won’t typically fire someone directly for attendance (yet) but they will give the managers permission to do so. That’s what these memos are meant to convey.

Maybe we’ll see something similar from other big tech cos in the near future, since they all use the same consulting firms for these decisions.

View on HN

The reality is they need office attendance to meet tax agreements with the cities they’re located in. All the “culture” hand waving is certainly a factor, but something so fuzzy wouldn’t fly at Amazon. It’s when data is presented that decisions get made typically, and they have no data that shows in office collaboration improves productivity - quite the opposite - I’ve seen the data collected by other megacorps I’ve worked at where we had these discussions. The only real data is the many millions they’re getting in tax agreements with seattle and other cities they’re located in.

Attrition is probably also a part of it. However, I’ve heard there’s a strongly negative bias working again Amazon in that attrition where only top talent is attriting and they’re loading up on bottom quartile who are coming into the office every day to try to cling to their job.

> The reality is they need office attendance to meet tax agreements with the cities they’re located in.

I don’t disagree, but that doesn’t explain these actions right? Amazon would be free to have a policy which was not enforced by badge tracking — leaving things up to managers and establishing a culture norm of in-office work with flexibility was pretty much standard pre-COVID. Surely the city isn’t asking for attendance records.

I guess it’s likely a confluence of factors (tax breaks, monetary incentives, old-guard management, real-estate portfolio losses, resentment toward engineers they perceive to be lazy) pointing in the same direction.

> The reality is they need office attendance to meet tax agreements with the cities they’re located in.

Why don’t they just come out and say that?

Salaries, total compensation, total net employment costs, tax credits, and special deals on electricity negotiated directly with utilities are tightly held secrets.

That and “culture” / “think of the kids” sounds less bean countery and petty

No, instead they sound gaslighty, dishonest, and manipulative. Is that less damaging to morale? Perhaps their employees are gullible or desperate enough to take these saccharine euphemisms at face value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com