Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomcam | Hacker News Reader

With respect, I'd like to suggest that they don't need to prove their preference to you. And I am genuinely trying to discuss a policy, not to be argumentative. I am also not assuming it's any better than remote. Maybe it is, I have no clue.

If I ran a company, and I have, I would want the ability to require that people work at the office. (I didn't always require it; in fact, my last company was 100% remote for 21 years.) I wouldn't feel like I had to defend that policy to anyone.

Put another way: why would Amazon need data for this? What's wrong with simply telling people they have to come in? If you don't want to come in, why not just find a remote job?

View on HN

> If I ran a company, and I have, I would want the ability to require that people work at the office. (I didn't always require it; in fact, my last company was 100% remote for 21 years.) I wouldn't feel like I had to defend that policy to anyone.

This is tangential at best. It all depends on the original understanding of when an employee came on board.

If you hired someone with the understanding that it's a remote position and there is nothing that requires to be present in the office (e.g. lab work or doctor/nurse), then if you want them to suddenly come in, you do need to defend it.

Not doing so makes you an ass.

> If you hired someone with the understanding that it's a remote position and there is nothing that requires to be present in the office (e.g. lab work or doctor/nurse), then if you want them to suddenly come in, you do need to defend it.

Thanks. I tend to agree with you. I just realized as I was reading your point that I am assuming most Amazon employees were hired with either no explicit remote policy or were working on site before the remote policy took place.

You don't have to defend it, but if your motivations are that you want to have some measure of control over the serfs you own, be prepared for people to also mock and scorn you for it.

That right to have an opinion cuts both ways, bud.

Do you feel that if you ran a business, you should be unable to control the (legally allowable) terms of employment, bud?

> you should be unable to control the (legally allowable) terms of employment

But it's not about that? You're implying that nobody should have any right to criticize or share their opinions about your decisions because you/the company have the legal right to make them.

> You're implying that nobody should have any right to criticize or share their opinions about your decisions because you/the company have the legal right to make them.

You hallucinated that, bud. I am implying no such thing. Life may get easier for you if you respond to what people actually say instead of what you imagine they say.

As the entity responsible for the livelihood of your employees, do you think it is fair to change the terms of their employment, in a way that can have a serious impact on their life, just because you feel like it?

I like that question, and personally, I wouldn’t do it. But fair is pretty subjective here, especially when in my view a company has the right to make its own policies.

They’re legally allowed to do this already. We’re questioning why they’re doing it because it could still be an action driven by bad motivations, which would inform us more as to the nature of amazon and its leadership.

The culture of Amazon is to demand data and anecdotes for every decision, and how that will make customers better off.

> If you don't want to come in, why not just find a remote job?

This is why it's described as a layoff, and they should just announce that it's a layoff and do their paperwork.

You are discussing a different point IMHO. The parent is focusing on the PR aspect of it.

Amazon gave ample justifications for their moves, even if they had no obligation to explain anything, as you point out. Given they put their reasoning on the table, it's fair game to question it and call bullshit.

> What's wrong with simply telling people they have to come in?

On this very specific point, and irrelevant to the thread, I see a company of the size of Amazon as having more social obligation than a startup selling rainbow headphones for instance. I don't know if their shareholders see it that way, and it is totally legal for Amazon to not give a shit. But that's what I'd see as "wrong", in a moral sense.

permitted to force RTO without any data != ought to force RTO without any data

Why though?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com