[HN Gopher] Amazon Makes It Harder for Disabled Employees to Wor...
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon Makes It Harder for Disabled Employees to Work from Home
Author : belter
Score : 120 points
Date : 2024-11-13 21:16 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| no_wizard wrote:
| For a company that is supposedly data driven like Amazon likes to
| tout, they have zero data that RTO would provide the benefits
| they claim[0]. They even admitted as much[1].
|
| I wouldn't be shocked if one day some leaked memos or emails come
| to light that prove it was all about control and/or backdoor
| layoffs, despite their PR spin that it isn't (what competent
| company leader would openly admit this?)
|
| [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-
| policy/2024/10/over-500-amazon-...
|
| [1]: https://fortune.com/2023/09/05/amazon-andy-jassy-return-
| to-o...
| changoplatanero wrote:
| How would you even gather data to support this? You can't a/b
| test company culture.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Sure you can. Why can't you?
|
| Its lack of imagination and inability for upper management
| leadership to even consider that the way they "always done
| things" may no longer be the best way, and they need to
| evolve with the times.
|
| For instance, find a group of teams that work on a similar
| function, have some of the teams RTO, and have some WFH, and
| see if there is any tangible difference in the results and
| what they are.
|
| Thats off the top of my head. Never mind that there are
| actually more scientific approaches that can be used than
| what I've suggested, and there are researchers that are
| clamoring to do this as well.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| > For instance, find a group of teams that work on a
| similar function, have some of the teams RTO, and have some
| WFH, and see if there is any tangible difference in the
| results and what they are.
|
| I'm not sure I buy this. In my mind the downsides to
| permanent working from home are these intangible things
| like team cohesion, speed of onboarding, effective cross
| functional collaboration, etc. Some of these issues
| wouldn't manifest themselves in a measurable way until more
| than a year later.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Firstly, there are better more scientific ways than I
| what I proposed at thinking about it for maybe 30
| seconds.
|
| Secondly, you're saying this
|
| >In my mind...
|
| There's still no objective metric being cited?
|
| >the downsides to permanent working from home are these
| intangible things like team cohesion, speed of
| onboarding, effective cross functional collaboration,
| etc.
|
| But we can prove these things can work well remotely. If
| they didn't, remote only companies would have such a
| higher bar to clear and that would be proven already.
| Gitlab did great in their IPO, and they're 100% remote.
| Zapier has grown strong and steady, 100% remote, Deel has
| grown quickly since 2019, also 100% remote etc.
|
| Clearly none of these businesses have issues
| collaborating.
|
| >Some of these issues wouldn't manifest themselves in a
| measurable way until more than a year later.
|
| So measure it as long as it takes. 1-2 years is a blip
| comparatively, and lots of companies already have
| internal data they could use to make this determination:
| look at employee performance and satisfaction rates
| _before_ they worked from home and compare it to _after_
| they worked from home. Lots and lots of people worked at
| the same place before WFH became far more common, and
| after it became far more common. I imagine this is true
| at Amazon as anywhere else it would be.
|
| What I find entirely humorous about this is its
| executives that want hybrid / RTO by a large margin, and
| comparatively few employees want hybrid / RTO and prefer
| working from home.
|
| Do you think this would even be a conversation if it was
| the inverse?
| ghaff wrote:
| It depends a lot.
|
| I've worked with people in person quite a lot--some of
| which admittedly pre-dated current communication
| technologies. And some of which was certainly augmented
| by a fair number of face to face meetings that sort of
| fell off the table between COVID and tech budget cuts.
|
| But I'd say that, in general, some amount of meeting
| people locally (including going into an office if people
| you work with are actually there) is beneficial.
| legitster wrote:
| Even if you did, you couldn't do a proper A/B test without
| forcing at least _some_ people into the office.
| ouddv wrote:
| There were some teams that never stopped coming to the
| office, due to sensitive aspects of their work.
|
| And there's a boatload of data from centralized project
| management and ticketing systems, as well as centralized
| source repositories.
|
| The data was absolutely available for data-driven
| arguments.
| regularfry wrote:
| Unfortunately you'd probably have to discount the teams
| that never switched to WFH. The same reasons that likely
| drove that decision would mean they're unlikely to be
| good comparators to teams that had a choice.
| xyst wrote:
| Let's just ignore the quarterly employee feedback, historical
| performance records of employees before, during, and after
| COVID-19 lockdowns, business performance before, during ,
| after COVID-19 lockdowns; and rates of attrition in across
| organizations and teams...
|
| There is plenty of data to support why forced RTO makes no
| sense.
| thrw42A8N wrote:
| How are you so sure this data is favorable to remote work?
| kevingadd wrote:
| I feel like the 4 day work week experiments at various
| companies suggest you could do control/treatment tests for
| RTO too.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2024/02/27/1234271434/4-day-workweek-
| suc...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/04/microsoft.
| ..
| ouddv wrote:
| There were countless natural experiments available from teams
| that had differing levels of in-person attendance; as well as
| teams that either were or were not colocated, and teams that
| took steps (or didn't) to align their in-person appearances.
|
| After all, there _were_ teams that never pivoted to WFH.
| andreygrehov wrote:
| https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2024/09/wor.
| ..
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| If any corporation has done this, it's Amazon. I suspect they
| just don't give a damn about the needs of employees beyond
| how it impacts revenue.
| roughly wrote:
| Open office floor plans are sufficient evidence that "data
| driven" is bullshit when it comes to management, corporate
| aesthetics, and cost saving. Obviously there's no data to back
| RTO.
| meta_x_ai wrote:
| Unless you can spin an alternate universe, some complex-dynamic
| things like corporate culture can't be data driven.
|
| A classic example is this
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/12/10/the-friendship...
|
| How will you design an experiment that would create a world
| where Jeff Dean WFH just solved the problem and 'completed his
| Task' and Google was just a search engine with a $10B market
| cap due to scaling issues or a huge operations cost.
|
| Today Google is $2.5T marketcap and you can bet a significant
| portion of it came from the work culture created in the office.
|
| No amount of Social Science can ever capture the tail events
| that has massive upside like tech companies.
|
| Even if 180,000 employees are unhappy, but the 20 who are happy
| create the next Amazon revolution can change the trajectory of
| Amazon that can't be measurable
|
| Edit : Butthurt HNers downvoting a perfectly logical argument.
| Then they expect leaders to listen to them
| gagik_co wrote:
| Online interactions aren't any less complex, they're just
| different. Newer generations are more online and less fan of
| an idea of an "office culture". This all seems based on the
| idea that just because something happened before, the only
| way to reproduce it is to replicate its setup. Times have
| changed & people have changed since. Office work will
| continue to exist but some magical "work culture" isn't just
| thanks to the office. And 20 people can change trajectory but
| they're absolutely nothing without the 180k to stir the boat.
| meta_x_ai wrote:
| Do you have data to prove that? If not, then leaders have
| every right to go with their gut instincts.
|
| Give me an example of a company that is immensely
| successful (massive growth) like say OpenAI that are fully
| remote
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| You're arguing on capital's terms. The company isn't
| _owed_ massive growth. They are _allowed_ to have it _if_
| labor is willing to work under the conditions they
| provide and _if_ the state continues to allow their
| incorporation and its related benefits (and they get
| lucky, presumably).
| gagik_co wrote:
| Massive growth is your arbitrarily chosen definition of
| success. Companies that have grown massively required a
| less competitive environment and the time to do so (with
| many being founded before fully remote was as common)
| and/or took a ton of funding (with oldschool investors
| who obviously see in-office expansion as the
| needed/natural sign of growth). There are plenty of
| profitable and growing companies that are fully remote,
| whether that's "successful" is just how you want to see
| it.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Firstly, do you have any data that proves that it isn't
| true? You haven't made any data driven assertion here
| either.
|
| Secondly, what is 'massive'? Like, adoption curve growth
| for many remote first companies is huge, like Zapier, but
| I digress, that is a very subjective thing.
|
| Gitlab has been day one remote.
|
| Zapier
|
| Deel
|
| Posthog
|
| Others have transitioned to be fully remote, like
| GitHub[0] and GitHub has had a second wave of massive
| growth around the same time and its continued to this
| day.
|
| [0]: https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/09/github-lays-
| off-10-and-goe...
| v1ne wrote:
| How do you recreate the rich interaction that you have when
| you meet somebody face to face, when you have to use (a)
| Amazon's crappy Zoom clone (forgot the name, they forced
| their applicants to use it, too. It's horrible and couldn't
| even cope with my German keyboard layout) or (b) some text-
| based messaging?
|
| Even if you replace (a) with a proper video chat solution,
| it's a much, much narrower channel than real interaction
| between people where people perceive all these tiny non-
| verbal signals like changes in posture, gestures, mimics,
| breathing, and you can actually point a colleague to
| something with your finger, all in real-time.
|
| So, no, from my perspective, online interactions are very
| sad and simple, compared to real-world interactions.
|
| I work in a low-latency field, maybe I'm more sensitive to
| latency. But I find all those narrow communication channels
| a nuisance. I find it frustrating to have to rely on a
| variety of tools to achieve collaboration: Chat, video
| chat, digital whiteboard, code sharing. There is so much
| friction, at least in my workplace, to switch between those
| tools or to combine them. This can surely be improved, but
| there are things that naturally can't disappear, like
| latency.
|
| Honestly, I'm dreaming of a place where people have to work
| from the office again. So I can have a Kanban board with
| paper cards on a board again, for everyone to see, touch,
| and write on.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| > Online interactions aren't any less complex, they're just
| different.
|
| Exactly why I spend days on chatrooms instead of going out
| and making friends.
| abeppu wrote:
| While it's true that there are things that cannot be directly
| measured with data , that point cuts in both directions.
| Perhaps some rare and critical person who is happy in the RTO
| environment will create something of extraordinary value --
| but also someone rare and critical could leave because of the
| RTO environment. So if you don't have _data_ to suggest that
| the effect is stronger in one direction than the other, it 's
| not a great argument for any particular policy.
| no_wizard wrote:
| There are multiple errors in the logic here, but the biggest
| one is you're trying to prove causation with correlation (and
| implicitly at that). Which to iterate my understanding, its
| this:
|
| Google was founded and everyone worked in an office together,
| Google is a $2.5T marketcap company, therefore Google's work
| culture could only be created, fostered and maintained in an
| office setting and therefore Google is successful because
| they all worked an in office together.
|
| You can't actually prove the assertion that being in office
| makes the difference here at all. For instance, the article
| you linked t talks about the way two friends _collaborated_.
| The backdrop _happens to be an office_ , but the _office
| setting itself_ is not what made the collaboration
| successful. Merely, the fact they shared so much and worked
| collaboratively so closely is what let them to be successful,
| but nowhere in the article does it say "well we could only
| do this if we were in person with one another". The office is
| the backdrop to the story, its not the reason it happened.
|
| Also, you're throwing an entire field under the bus that our
| entire industry definitely builds on, which is business &
| management theory (aka social science), but if we couldn't
| use social science to make informed decisions, why do so many
| startup founders read things like 'Zero To One'? (which is a
| book form of the notes that Blake Masters took while Peter
| Thiel was teaching CS183 at Stanford University in Spring
| 2012)
| changoplatanero wrote:
| > You can't actually prove the assertion that being in
| office makes the difference here at all
|
| That was the point that they were trying to make. You can't
| prove such a thing with data one way or another, i.e. it's
| not possible to a/b test company culture.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Again correlation != causation.
|
| All they said is you can't test it because 'it already
| happened in an office therefore its bound to office
| culture'. I am stating that they can't prove _that_
| assertion and it thereby _does not prove_ it can 't be
| A/B tested.
|
| It absolutely can, there are entire fields of study and
| companies that exist simply to facilitate changes and
| measurements in company culture[0]
|
| [0]: A random example of this:
| https://harver.com/blog/cultural-transformation/
| metabagel wrote:
| > A classic example is this
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/12/10/the-
| friendship...
|
| It would be nice if you would post a short summary of the
| article, since it seems to form the basis of your argument.
| tpurves wrote:
| They'll have plenty of data to support the primary motivation:
| that enforcing arbitrary RTO policies will absolutely aid in
| generating staff turnover and voluntary attrition without
| having to payout severance costs. The policy gives them less
| direct control over who they lose, but I'm sure the data also
| points to any critical replacement employees being willing to
| work for less on average. That's the data they are looking at.
| regularfry wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if it's even more straightforward
| than that. They've got some very expensive office space
| that's extremely under-utilised, and they're probably at risk
| of the rent getting raised on a lot of it unless they can
| increase footfall.
| ghaff wrote:
| If you have way-underutilized office space that you can
| sell or not renew leases on, you can shed it like a former
| employer was doing when I left. Otherwise, there's
| basically no value in how many or few people are filling
| the space unless they're actually delivering some business
| value to the entity paying for the lease.
| nateglims wrote:
| I think it's even more basic: they think it will be just
| like it used to be before 2020.
| neilv wrote:
| > _they 're probably at risk of the rent getting raised on
| a lot of it unless they can increase footfall._
|
| Raised, because the property owner has other investments
| that are affected by the presence of people, such as nearby
| restaurants and stores?
|
| Or is a valuation of the office property itself affected by
| how many people are physically in the building or area?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Agree with this, but do want to let employees know that if
| this happens to them, that changes in working conditions can
| be considered constructive dismissal even if you quit.
| ChumpGPT wrote:
| 1000's of H1B's from India will work, sleep, and live at AMZN
| 24x7x365. Most folks are competing with this and it is
| happening across the industry.
|
| Junk away...
| alephnerd wrote:
| No need to be racist when you could have just said that it's
| a competitive hiring market.
| flappyeagle wrote:
| There's absolutely no way that Amazon employees are more
| efficient at home.
|
| Nothing about the company's organizational structure or
| resources are set up to be optimized for this.
|
| It's like asking someone to play tennis, but you gave them a
| baseball bat.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| I dunno. I don't _like_ the idea of companies holding
| inquisitions on just how disabled people are, but if we 're going
| to hold the expansive view of disabilities the article takes for
| granted it seems inevitable. When someone claims that they're
| unable to work in an office because they're suffering from a
| stress disorder, it's reasonable to have some followup questions
| about how they manage the disorder on other occasions that call
| for them to leave home.
| kevingadd wrote:
| I would assume stress disorders is a blanket that includes
| things like bipolar disorder, which has real proven sometimes-
| catastrophic health impacts
|
| PTSD is serious too.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| It's unfortunate for people that have legit disabilities that
| the system is abused in this way :(
| no_wizard wrote:
| I think the worry around any of the system being abused is
| louder than the actual instances of abuse.
|
| I'm sure it happens, but people get all up in arms about the
| potential for abuse without even looking at how often it
| might even happen to begin with.
| mathgeek wrote:
| One needs only look at the recent political weaponization
| of the small number of transgender kids playing sports to
| see another example of a small number of instances being
| generalized for outrage. Doesn't make the needs less
| important, but it does happen.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Have you ever asked for a disability accommodation from a US
| employer?
|
| Its already very common that such accommodation requests get
| filed with associated medical paperwork from a medical
| professional outlining why the accommodation is what the person
| needs. That alone should be more than enough[0]
|
| Secondly, why don't we simply trust adults to make decisions
| about how to manage their conditions, especially if there is no
| demonstrable issue with how they work with their team and their
| work is up to standard.
|
| [0]: Its been some time since I haven't simply produced such
| paperwork to go along with a request, but if you don't produce
| it upfront if I recall correctly employers reserve the right to
| ask for more information, which typically boils down to getting
| associated paperwork from a medical professional
| adamredwoods wrote:
| I have, complete with medical details, and doctor approval. I
| was "denied" because I was told to use Federal Medical Leave.
| no_wizard wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer, but I'd recommend you consult an attorney
| about it. That does sound like a possible violation
| aliston wrote:
| You can find a medical professional to basically claim
| anything these days. I could go into specifics, but there's a
| whole industry of ethically questionable doctors that can
| help you take advantage of well-intentioned accommodation
| policies with a subjective diagnosis. While I agree there are
| cases of serious stress disorders, there are also a bunch of
| people claiming a disorder for personal benefit.
| no_wizard wrote:
| See my other comment on this very thing.
|
| I suspect strongly that the people worrying about it being
| abused outnumber the actual instances of it being abused. I
| don't think there is rampant unchecked fraud.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Only you rich fuckers can get in with those shady doctors.
|
| There's abuse of every system. So should we just quit doing
| anything?
| finnh wrote:
| Opioid epidemic disagrees that only the rich can get
| shady Rx written.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| The opioid epidemic where the pharma companies were the
| ones paying to bribe the doctors?
|
| I don't think pet-food companies will be paying doctors
| to approve support animals, so probably most of this will
| have to come from the patients themselves.
| danudey wrote:
| > someone claims that they're unable to work in an office
| because they're suffering from a stress disorder, it's
| reasonable to have some followup questions about how they
| manage the disorder on other occasions that call for them to
| leave home.
|
| No it's not. It makes no sense to say "oh, you can't commute to
| work and then home again five times a week? so how do you get
| groceries?" because those are two completely separate things in
| completely separate environments.
|
| It's none of Amazon's business how people manage their
| disabilities outside of work. The only thing that matters is
| what the most effective way of managing their disabilities is
| _inside_ of work. Amazon is not your doctor, and if your doctor
| says that this is the most effective way for you to manage
| things while being productive then they need to accept that the
| doctor knows what they 're doing.
| benced wrote:
| This falls apart the second you realize it's trivial to find
| a doctor who will say or do literally whatever you want if
| you pay the right amount.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Actual instances of disability accommodation being abused
| aren't exactly rampant.
|
| Part of which is that people face lots of stigma around
| disabilities still, but also the need to have some
| historical and diagnoses paperwork is a barrier that I
| suspect lots of people don't want to go through.
|
| Frankly, I don't believe its rampant to begin with, and I
| can't find any real evidence that supports that people are
| widely abusing these accommodation requests.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The jackasses that bring their "support dog" shopping
| with them are pretty rampant. People abuse the fuck out
| of the support dog program. I even know two people with
| "support dogs" who straight up admit they did it because
| they want to take their dogs out with them.
| rincebrain wrote:
| My personal experience in the two years or so has lead me
| to conclude that a lot of employers have started wanting
| medical paperwork for much more inane cases than they
| historically did, and in response, a lot of medical
| providers have started saying "no" to such requests,
| since they (pretty reasonably, to me) don't want to be in
| the business of saying "yeah they were sneezing for 3
| days maybe don't make them come in", or such inane
| things.
|
| Of course, this screws over people with problems who
| could get such paperwork before but didn't need to, as
| well as people who existed in the gap where they didn't
| need that before so now if they try to report it, they're
| going to get questions about "why don't you have a paper
| trail of this?", as well as "you didn't seem sick".
|
| Because, shockingly, if you tell people, directly or
| indirectly, that you prefer the people who don't have an
| illness, they will learn to cover it up real well, or
| they get fired or quit when everyone but them gets
| promoted.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > Actual instances of disability accommodation being
| abused aren't exactly rampant.
|
| Check out pictures or videos of 'people in wheelchairs'
| at Southwest Airline gates who sit in a wheelchair simply
| for priority boarding.
|
| Also, security blanket animals, I forgot the actual term
| they use but that's what they are.
| olyjohn wrote:
| That's bullshit and just shows you have no clue what you're
| talking about. Regular people who don't live in some rich
| people's bubble can't even get a PCP without waiting weeks
| or months. And fuck off if you need to see a specialist
| with anything, there's another 3 months. Not to mention
| mental health specialists won't write you shit if you don't
| have an established relationship with them.
| rincebrain wrote:
| I don't think it does, actually.
|
| Let's say, hypothetically, that someone gets this benefit
| who has no health condition that anyone will admit exists
| without being paid a bribe.
|
| Are you arguing that you're taking something from the
| company by them allowing this?
|
| You rapidly run into a similar problem to one many means-
| testing programs for benefits in the US do - it becomes far
| more expensive to do the testing than it would to just give
| people the benefit if they ask for it, even if many more
| people asked for it.
|
| And if some core job requirement makes WFH an actual
| nonstarter (e.g. if you're being paid to move packages in a
| warehouse, you generally can't do that from your bed), then
| it doesn't matter if your doctor says you can't do it, they
| can still fire you for not meeting a core requirement of
| your job that they can't just work around.
| michaelt wrote:
| Eh, it's reasonable for an employer to ask _some_ follow-up
| questions.
|
| If a guy asks for a special chair because they've got an
| injury? I probably ought to check whether they're OK standing
| for long periods, whether they're OK with carrying heavy
| things, whether they're able to self-evacuate in a fire, etc.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Well fuck it. If someone breaks an arm, and needs some time
| off, maybe we can have an inquisition on them too. They do have
| two arms after all. They can probably still get their work done
| with just one. What about people taking sick leave? I mean, you
| aren't dying, you can still flip open your laptop and type. No
| reason to be staying home for that. Better quiz them and see
| how sick they really were. Not vomiting up blood? Probably just
| slacking.
|
| What do you even need vacation time for? Why don't you just
| work 7 days a week. It's just typing on a keyboard. You still
| have 4 hours a day of free time. Oh, your mental health might
| suffer if you work 7 days a week? Maybe don't be such a pussy,
| they're paying you the big bucks after all.
|
| I guess mental health disorders are less valid somehow. Even
| though all we do all day is mental work, sitting on a computer
| and typing. Must have something to do with the fact that you
| can't see it.
|
| It just gets tiring filling out forms, explaining shit over and
| over to people, and telling clueless HR people and execs my
| whole personal life that they won't even understand anyways.
| It's fucked up. My doctor wrote me a diagnosis, go fuck
| yourself if you want any more information. There is nothing
| more the employer needs to know.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| Sadly, zero repercussions. Who will sue them? Individuals cannot,
| the process of law is long and requires substantial money.
| Government is difficult enough to get involved, and will soon
| lack resources to intervene or impose fines.
| perihelions wrote:
| I'm not sure if that's the right take: the Americans with
| Disabilities Act is maybe the most plaintiff-friendly tort law
| in the US. There's whole law firms specializing in finding
| viable plaintiffs to take on contingency (i.e at no cost).
| some_furry wrote:
| That might matter if it weren't for forced arbitration
| clauses.
| lthornberry wrote:
| There are tort firms doing that in every area of tort law.
| ADA cases are not easy wins and don't often produce
| significant awards.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Amazon is big enough that they might even be able to get a
| class action lawsuit going, to be honest. If enough people
| started coming forward about disability discrimination.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > "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.
| jmyeet wrote:
| RTO is nothing to do with efficiency. It's about suppressing
| wages.
|
| People who quit over RTO are cheaper than severance. You then
| distribute their work to the remaining employees who work harder
| for the same money. Layoffs and departures help keep wages down
| because the employees there are in fear of losing their job.
|
| If disabled employees are more likely to quit because of RTO,
| that's a win for Amazon because those people are harder to fire
| or layoff, being a protected class.
|
| The tides have shifted in tech. It's no longer a seller's market.
| Now that it's a buyer's (employer's) market, you're seeing the
| true colors of these companies. You are a cost. They will do
| everything to pay you less and/or get you to work more. To
| extract more profits.
|
| Nobody should be surprised by this.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| Ohh the dastardliness of a mutually agreed upon contract!
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| At this point, Amazon doesn't care about bad press. I wouldn't be
| surprised to see a headline that they kill puppies.
|
| Nor do they care about their labor in the slightest. Amazon has
| earned their reputation as a bottom of the barrel meatgrinder for
| people looking to work at a larger tech company.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| _" Amazon to reduce carbon emissions by shrinking excess puppy
| headcount (Washington Post)"_
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| I just don't understand why Amazon hates its employees so much.
| These are the people making you billions and billions of dollars.
| And their jobs very clearly do not _require_ them to work in an
| office, nor does it sap productivity, as years of experience and
| multiple studies confirm. And people could previously work in the
| office _if they wanted to_ , so it's not like anyone was
| alienated before.
|
| It's like the execs are just sadists. There's no upside.
| doitLP wrote:
| It takes a certain kind of person to rise to the top of a
| company like this. almost every single person here above L8 has
| been here for at least a decade or more.
| bitmasher9 wrote:
| Employees are a resource to extract the value from in the most
| cost efficient method possible.
| cebert wrote:
| Is this what striving to be the world's best employer looks like?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-13 23:00 UTC)