Amazon tells employees to return to office five days a week
(cnbc.com)1498 points by jbredeche a year ago
1498 points by jbredeche a year ago
A note for engineers looking for jobs, based on this and about a thousand similar posts: If you joined a "remote" company that went remote during the pandemic, no, you didn't.
Look for companies that went full-remote before 2020, or after ~2022. Otherwise, it can't be trusted.
Companies that went full-remote around 2020-2021 are more likely to try to drag people back into the office, but I wouldn't suggest that you don't interview with those companies.
The best thing you can do is get to the finish line, get the offer sheet, and demand that your position as a full-time remote worker be written into your agreement with the company.
FWIW I know someone who did exactly this with a defense prime, and the crazy fella actually won the battle with HR when they tried to bring everyone back into the office.
Worst case scenario, they say "no," you decline the offer, and you've sent a clear message to management. It might feel like a few hours of wasted time, but we as industry practitioners have the power to make this a normal interaction between a prospective hire and a stubborn corporation.
This might work, but it also guarantees you will be first on the chopping block when layoffs come around. I have seen this happen first-hand multiple times: any employee with a special arrangement that doesn't meet what the executive team desires will be let go at the first chance, even if they are a huge asset to the company.
Not to say you shouldn't try that approach. Just that you'll have less job stability.
Agree 100%, even if you can manage an exception it does not look good to be the odd man out. It's easy to imagine people like this being the initial "easy choices" when layoff discussions happen. Not saying people should just roll over, but if you can manage an exception and see work from home as a requirement, I'd view that as your opportunity to maintain employment while looking for a company that takes remote work seriously
Yup, and I think the only guarantee for a remote-first workplace is if the whole company ( or at least the whole engineering dept. ) is spread out enough that there is no possible plan for an in-office setup.
Seems like most these types are building niche products (e.g.: tailscale) and not just SaaS or CRUD-with-AI ?
While layoffs can be pretty horrible, getting a severance package (or even just a "severance package" in the style of not being allowed back to work during the WARN Act period), can be a pretty good deal and/or vacation that you've needed.
Most companies in the US are hiring workers at-will. There are no contracts and anyone can terminate employment for any reason. I don't think that would work in the United States for most non-contract roles. It might work for contractors and for people in Europe.
I joined a company in late 2020 that had gone remote at the start of the pandemic, and this crossed my mind. The deciding factor for me? The founders had since moved to different locations across the US. That put their money where their mouth was more than anything.
Reducing the number of managers is an interesting decision. I briefly worked at Amazon, and the only way for managers to get promoted is by hiring more people under them. There isn’t any other way to get promoted, which incentivizes managers to grow their teams and sometimes add features that may not make sense. Any opinions from ex-Amazonians?
Isn't this (kinda) true, in general?
I work at Google. Many of the "official descriptions" of various levels include "size of team" as part of the description. I think, generally, anyone in a middle management position, particularly at a growing company knows that "more people equals more advancement".
Headcount based promos is the most backwards system out there.
But Amazon is too dysfunctional to change.
Goodharts Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
Once organizations get to a sufficient size, increasing your "scope" is the only metric left to compare. You could compare revenue, but the easiest way to get more revenue is to increase the amount of work that falls under your purview. You could compare profitability, but then you encourage everyone to make the most expensive products they can get away with and your company fails. You could compare productivity, but there is no scientific way to do that, and funding the research required would bankrupt you and your company fails. You could do it by vibes, but the snake oil salesman will sell you garbage and your company fails. You could do it by seniority, but then you stagnate and your company fails. You could do it at random, but then none of your managers would bother trying and your company fails.
Do feel free to suggest a better way to compare two managers that doesn't fall into worse situations than "scope".
So, there is no objective way to measure performance of a manager ? It sounds similar to measuring the productivity of developer.
Measuring scope to evaluate performance is like saying developer who works on most number of tickets/bugs is the highest performer.
We know that's not true and we also know how it can and will be fudged(w.r.t managers its increasing un-necessary headcount).
If we are able to come up with a solution for developers it shouldn't be too difficult for managers too.
How would profitability fail the company? Too expensive products won't be bought means no profit, but if you can get away with the price, you're not failing, are you?
BS, you can measure management productivity and effectiveness.
Lazy management, ones that focus on "metrics" and "numbers" rather than actual engagement with their teams/business lines.
I'm only 20% joking here...
Goodheart's law. As well as too many cooks.
it's not like FAANGs are strapped for teams. Managers can just mnage horizontally instead of needing to hire more people to "prove themselves" (especially when the hiring process is absurd these days).
The actual announcement
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/ceo-andy-jassy...
An equally important update was reducing number of managers which nobody seems to care about :-)
So, we’re asking each s-team organization to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by at least 15% by the end of Q1 2025.Strategic of them to include the 5-day a week to hide the 15% managerial layoffs. 1 in 8 managers need to be converted into ICs. The average manager has around 8 ICs with the "two-pizza team" ideal, so that means 2% overall layoffs. Not huge, but managers generally cost more than ICs, so there's likely outsized salary impact. Organizational changes will surely reduce productivity as everyone gets shuffled too.
I honestly wonder how useful most managers are..
Just anecdotal ofc but over my career having worked for 14 managers.
Half of them were eventually fired.
Most of them sucked at rallying teams, mainly because who the f is going to follow a doofus cringe lord?
2 managers stand out to me in my career. I’m really good friends with one of them that I’ve been in contact with for over a decade now.
Most were basically checkbox checkers who sucked at engineering and faked their way into “people management” only to be found out that they just plain suck as employees. I actually checked LinkedIn just now of a few of those bad ones and they work at small companies and have made no upward progress. Not surprised honestly.
Keep in mind I worked at a pretty good place, not a noob tier place.
Being ex-IBM, i can relate.
Basically, the management class despises SDE worker class, and thinks of them as overhead. Recent statements by the aws head about chatGPT replacing SDEs is along the same lines.
SDEs are tools that just do what mgmt tells them. mgmt holds the decision-making and all the cards.
periodically there is a whipping (pipping) in the form of a layoff to keep the troops in fear.
I’m curious: what, in your experience, was the root cause of this contempt? Other skilled professions can make decent money as SDEs do. Is it a love/hate thing? Feeling like the tools could easily not need them if they had sufficient gumption and will?
you touch on a raw nerve that could be the subject of a long post.
in summary, the attitude of management in many large companies is that code is just work that needs to get done, and any engineer who can type on a keyboard can do it equally well (cue in ai-coder). so, the smarts is embedded in defining requirements and managing execution of said-code which resides in management.
The problem with this is many-fold. 1) it encourages a culture of top-down decision making including technical decisions and the person making designs is not the one doing the work 2) as tech evolves, the org is unable to catch up since the decision makers are the elite few.
in short, a manufacturing line mentality where the supervisor holds the cards and workers are tools.
Amazon found the best way to reduce their workforce. Make them switch from a perfectly fine work environment to a horrible one and wait for them to leave. You don't even have to make them come, threaten to do it.
Just come work in small companies that respect their employees. Good talents are hard to find.
Unfortunately for them it means losing highly sought after senior employees with the option to leave, and keeping those without that option.
I can never actually find this study, but it's similar to a study showing companies that moved their headquarters to Connecticut instead of staying in downtown NYC actually perform worse as they lose employees that have an option to stay in NYC and not uproot their lives. The mediocre ones that cannot find another job end up moving.
They should also remove all desks and force people to sit directly on the floor. Forget open office plan. The new trend is Minimal Office.
"Everyone I know at Amazon is over-worked and stressed out" is the biggest myth.
Practically the majority of middle management I knew at AMZN didn't do anything.
Source: ex-AWS
Managers at Amazon just enforce dates and identify the underperformer on their team.
That... doesn't strike me as the the worst activities for management to work.
This is true. Not only management, but a bunch of the so-called SDEs that are only there to say "we're investigating" every time there's an issue while they all wait for the guy who knows the system to wake up in his timezone.
There's people that's overworked and stressed out, tho, but those are the minority that do the actual work. I'd say it's an 1 out of 10 ratio at best, being conservative.
This is all because every single project is scoped, designed and implemented with the only goal in mind: your own promotion. Same applies for hires, you don't hire roles, you hire _the structure you need to be promoted_.
Source: same.
Another point to consider: the environmental impact of having hundreds of thousands of people commuting to work every day.
Transport is the second most important source of greenhouse gas emissions, after electricity and heat.
I'm not sure if large office spaces are more energy efficient than home offices.
Any improvement in heating/cooling efficiency will be greatly nullified by the environmental effects of commuting
And the fact that their homes are still being heated and cooled while they’re in the office too
ironic since one of their LPs is Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility
> We must be humble and thoughtful about even the secondary effects of our actions. Our local communities, planet, and future generations need us to be better every day.
https://www.amazon.jobs/content/en/our-workplace/leadership-...:
We saw that taking all those cars off the road could really accelerate our climate goals.
and the job market is likely to be flooded with even more people looking for fully remote jobs over the coming months. Should be good for some companies looking to hire remotely, but it will be tough time for job-seekers.
And I’m sure those same execs love to carp on about ask the sacrifices everyone else needs to make to stop climate change.
Yea it would be more efficient to have "living pods" essentially little chambers where the employee can sleep in after a long 16 hour day a work. The personal home emits too much energy and waste. It would be better for the employee to just go into the pod, plug in their nutritional tube, and watch netflix for a few hours before falling into an induced asleep at the mandated time as set by their work schedule.
Person one: hey driving is bad for the environment, why don't we drive less? Besides, wouldn't everyone enjoy that?
Person two: this is slavery and you're a commie. I want muh freedom to be forced to drive 2 hours a day!
Are you seeing how this isn't a reasonable response? Like, at all?
This does not make sense. Who are you talking to and what is your point?
Demanding that folks work in the office 5 days a week does not make sense.
Might be an extreme take but, I think engineers have some onus to stop agreeing to work there, lest the amazon corporate culture spreads further.
It made sense starting from when the concept of an office was established until mid-2020. Has the world really changed so much in these last ~4 years that we can't even imagine going in to work 5 days a week now? That too considering every other industry besides tech is already doing it?
WFH would have worked before Covid as well. Covid just forced the hands of most companies. So no, there hasn't been some breakthrough that has made WFH possible within recent years.
> we can't even imagine going in to work 5 days a week now
For a lot of people, yes. The reason why there is so much outrage around RTO mandates is because:
1) WFH offered a massive quality of life improvement
2) There is essentially no evidence that in office workers are more productive (or vice-versa)
When executive teams, (many of whom work remotely themselves, as often as they'd like), try to reverse the quality of life advancement that WFH offers, without an evidence backed reason for doing so, workers get angry.
It's the equivalent of a parent saying "because I said so". Except these aren't children that Jassy and others are speaking to.
> Has the world really changed so much in these last ~4 years that we can't even imagine going in to work 5 days a week now?
I think we are going further and further away from "the future".
In 1964, Arthur Clarke said that "I am perfectly serious when I suggest that one day we may have brain surgeons in Edinburgh operating on patients in New Zealand." and "Men will no longer commute, they will communicate." [1]
I would think that a future where people aren't limited by where they live is desirable and not commuting to office is a way to achieve this.
Covid was a way for companies to realize that many jobs don't really need physical presence in an office. And maybe we should invest in technology that makes more jobs remove so that even brain surgery could be so. But it seems like instead of Covid being the impetus for change, things are reverting, as if non-remote is the normal state of affairs.
Maybe it is the natural state, but it's a sadder world because of it.
[1]: https://fortune.com/2024/05/29/arthur-c-clarke-space-odyssey...
You have it backwards- it hadn’t made sense from the invention of the internet until 2020. I point to “teleworking” being a legitimate thing even before the internet was mainstream as evidence that the traditional office is a relic from the 40s and 50s typewriter factories.
My dad has been working from home since the 1980s. He worked for AT&T, selling telepresence products. He told his boss "how can we expect our customers to believe in these products if we don't?" And they let him work from home forever
Hilarious to watch Zoom return to office in the last two years.
It's not some big or recent development, effective WFH has been possible since ADSL matured for many, it just took a while for that to be commonly understood.
Yes, it has. We spent 4 years working from home with no loss in productivity, and now we're being dragged kicking and screaming back into the office to satisfy the KPIs of some business degree loser and his fragile ego. Offices suck. A lot of people here talk about the commute, but the office itself sucks, too.
I'm really not sure what people were expecting, honestly. Of course things would always revert back to the mean.
Amazon has been a known "do not work there" employer for a very long time. At least since 2008 in my recollection.
Yes there are people here who consistently post on Amazon threads that they enjoy working there. I even know a couple such people personally. But it's always with the disclaimer "you need to be in a good team". OK but is there a field in the offer letter that denotes "Good_team: TRUE". Nope.
So you can like the idea of competing in "The Hunger Games" while trying to write and fix code. Or not..
They pay too well to say no if you don't have any other competing offers. For some roles they pay too well even with competing offers. It's literally life changing money for a lot of people.
I'm just about to hit 2 years and was planning to leave anyway around that point, which is typical, but now there's going to be a sudden increase in the competition for remote jobs that I wasn't anticipating.
> but it’s not like it’s inherently bad
Sure it is. We can directly measure the impact of this.
Amazon has approx. 35,000 software engineers. Assuming a commute of total 1 hour a day (very generous of me), that's 35k extra hours of human labor wasted a day. Assuming an average lifespan of 613,620 hours, that's about 1 entire human lifespan lost every 17 days.
We could also measure the carbon impact, too. 1 hour of driving releases about 4 pounds of CO2 into the air. This is about 70 tons of carbon a day, or 25.5K tons of carbon a year.
Or maybe we can measure deaths? Assuming a commute daily of 30 miles, that's about 1 million miles traveled a day. The rate of traffic deaths is about 1 for every 100 million miles traveled. So, every hundred days, Amazon indirectly killed one of their employees, or about 3.5 dead employees a year.
And we can go on and on. Point being, yes bad things are bad and yes, when you make BIG decisions those have BIG consequences. This isn't like deciding what drink to get at McDonald's.
OK but what if the output of the company being in the office is enough to offset that?
Like is Apple “better” for the world if they worked from home and never made the iPhone?
Or what if there are people who want to work in an office with other people who want to work in an office and are willing to trade some CO2 and small risk of death to do so?
Can’t the people who believe remote work is bad quit and get a job somewhere else? Should be simple since remote work is so obviously inherently good.
I get that this is going to be like playing tennis against a wall because HN has such a hard-on for remote work that they’ll never admit that in-office work has benefits that remote work lacks and that a company that requires in-office work isn’t inherently evil.
What sucks is that other companies will follow Amazon because “Amazon did it”. Other company I worked at went to a “hybrid model” to be followed at the end of last year. Ended up “silent quitting” by using up all of my PTO and sick time which allowed enough time to get my bonus and find a new job. Of course I was put on a PIP but by that time I was already gone, lol.
Silent quitting is a great way to permanently ruin your reputation. Even if you never get a job there again, you could never ask your coworkers or management for a job. Silent quitting is indistinguishable from being a bad employee.
From my experience though WFH just doesn’t work. People aren’t as invested in the company and they produce worse results. If companies could figure out how to keep productivity and quality up while not paying rent I’m sure they would, it’s just nobody has figured out how to do that on a large scale yet.
Edit: My experience with WFH has to do with software development. It may work for other fields, however WFH often attracts the wrong kind of employee which is why I don't do it anymore. If you can't be bothered to drive 10 minutes into work you probably aren't that motivated and you probably won't stay that long.
> From my experience though WFH just doesn’t work.
Apparently, it does work with thousands of consultants and contractors, and it did work during the years of lockdowns. We didn’t see any productivity decrease, generally speaking. But we all know the whole back-to-office thing is just because C-levels want to justify the grants from banks, investors, etc., by showing a “working office with people in there.” Middle managers wanted it back because, as it turned out to everyone, they were useless, so it was a justification for their positions. Additionally, real estate landlords lobbied to push it back because, without rent income, they wouldn’t be able to pay it back to the banks. The government has its reasons too, because it’s easier to focus on building small hubs and maintaining infrastructure for these offices instead of starting to work on rural areas. It ultimately shifts the power dynamics from the government, landlords, and banks to the average person, and that was an absolute no-no direction for them and had to be killed early on.
>From my experience though WFH just doesn’t work. People aren’t as invested in the company and they produce worse results. If companies could figure out how to keep productivity and quality up while not paying rent I’m sure they would, it’s just nobody has figured out how to do that on a large scale yet.
There is good thing called stock based compensation.
Because why would I want to sabotage MY money?
Of course it aint perfect.
It’s cute that you think most people can afford to live 10 minutes from work in cities.
> From my experience though WFH just doesn’t work. People aren’t as invested in the company and they produce worse results.
What a terrible take. I've been remote for 7 consecutive years at a couple of companies and I was always invested in their produce. You know why? Cause they gave me RSUs so I actually cared about the value of the stock. Nothing to do with being remote or not.
> From my experience though WFH just doesn’t work.
Your inability to WFH is not shared by most people. Sounds like you were the one quiet quitting by default (even if not realizing it).
I'd be willing to bet that it's closer to 10 minutes than an hour (over/under 40 minutes) for most Americans. The full 60 minute AVERAGE commute is still pretty rare. These conversations make it seem like the norm. In my mid-size city, my colleagues commute from 3-50 minutes a day. Average is probably 25-30 minutes.
Depends on the city, but fortune-500 types tend to be located in very busy cities. So there is a bias here. The average American isn't working in a fortune 500 office. Commuting to the average McDonald's is certainly shorter than commuting to the average Amazon office. There many millions of people in food service - Amazon employs 35,000 SWE.
I don’t care about references from that dog shit place filled with micromanagers and corporate grinders working on projects that have no meaning and add zero value to company and the world. Hence, silent quitting. RTO just gave me the push to move on from the bullshit.
> From my experience though WFH just doesn’t work
Corporate profits tell another story
> People aren’t as invested in the company and they produce worse results
Anecdotal. What backs up this claim? Just your personal experience? What’s your data?
> companies could figure out how to keep productivity and quality up while not paying rent I’m sure they would, it’s just nobody has figured out how to do that on a large scale yet
What do you think happened during COVID-19…
Have seen many companies reduce their corporate building costs due to shift to remote work. In some cases, it was eliminated entirely the following year.
As I mention, this is just from my personal experience. I would expect Amazon doesn't make a decision like this without significant internal data, there is a lot of money to be saved if someone figures out how to do work from home.
> ruin your reputation
How would this happen, exactly?
Say you saw an acquaintance get put on a performance improvement plan and then leave the company, would you want to recommend them for a job at a new company if they asked? If you were the manager who witnessed an employee fail to complete basic tasks, would you refer them to new positions?
I’m invested in my company because they pay me. If you think there’s anything else you’re deluded. Just give people RSUs if you’re so worried about that.
I'm very close to being completely done with tech. This whole career has been stressful and the ROI is debatable
I've been doing it nearly 20 years, and I'm very done with it. But I need to save for retirement and I don't have anything else I want to do more. So I'm just apathetically collecting a paycheck.
If you focus on the career part, you can increase your network and find a much less stressful position. Last two gigs I've had I wasn't even on call (lol, imagine!), and found remote work. So better opportunities are out there if you work at it.
Where are your retirement savings that inflation is outpacing it? If it's in 401k's or IRAs then shouldn't the stocks in that be keeping up with inflation (mine are). Even bonds should be outpacing inflation this year at least. And real estate has been insane the past 5 years and done so much better than inflation.
For what its worth, "I've been burned out for years but need to collect a paycheck... so I've been taking remote work" isn't a good reason for companies to prefer hiring remote. That's actually a perfect description of how the same individual might have worse differential performance while WFH. The reason for the preference to WFH is also the reason for businesses to prefer RTO.
Did you start your career before covid? If not, didn't you already experience and endure 5 days a week in the office and not quit your career?
I worked in an office 5 days a week, wearing a shirt and tie, for 20+ years of my career. My commute door-to-door was nearly an hour each way. Most of that by train fortunately. It was just normal.
"I worked in the mines / on the farm since I was 13, it was just normal" - until child labor laws protected the kids (mostly)
"I worked 12-16 hour days in the factory" - until a lot of people fought, incredibly hard, to push that number down.
People have learned in these last 4 years that they can work just fine AND have a life AND not have a commute and it can be many, many companies' "best years ever!".
Inertia is a sad, but common, excuse for bad practices.
>Inflation has outpaced everything
True, while tech salaries may seem great, when you factor in inflation, well the earnings are not much. Needless to say people in the non-tech sectors have it terrible. The 'middle' class is a rapidly thinning.
For sure, that's why i asked. Was curious if it was due to not wanting to go back or not wanting to experience something they never have before
As a former senior person at aws although I left on good terms I will never return there and this stuff cements the deal for me. I need a company that respects my decisions on how I do best in my career and not surveil of police my work style. As long as I am a trusted leader who delivers results that customers need why does anyone care where my bag of water is physically located? Who are you to tell neurodivergent employees to suffer? People who had an organ transplant to expose themselves to death? How petty are the tyrants.
> How petty are the tyrants.
Having to work in an office for $300k/year is an incredibly privileged position. There are so many people that have it much, much worse, and calling it tyranny is so out of touch it's a bit distasteful. I'm not disagreeing with the points that you probably can get your work done remotely or that companies should respect their employees, but tone it down a few notches. And the organ transplant thing should be a conversation about social security and health benefits in general, it's not really a remote work issue.
Just because we have it great as tech workers and much of the rest of labor is absolutely fucked up in many ways, doesn't mean we should stop fighting to make our situations even better and use the privilege to advocate for those in worse situations.
I'm all for workers right, unionizing, and not letting companies take advantage of you. If remote work is something important for you, you should make that clear for companies that wants to hire you.
But I'm sure there's plenty of people who would gladly trade their tyranny for a well paid office job in a safe part of the world. I'd also like to add that American tech workers are pretty uniquely well off, working in an office for a fifth of an Amazon paycheck is the norm for a lot of us. Nobody likes to commute, I'm not defending unnecessary mandatory back to office policies, just adding some perspective.
The difference between someone making $50k/year and $500k/year is functionally irrelevant as compared with the C-levels. It's a rounding error to their multi-million comp packages.
There shouldn't be anything distasteful about advocating for yourself and others who rely on their labor to survive, even if they're well paid for that labor.
I didn’t ask for pity I pointed out their requirements are petty and in the labor market it’s my choice as a worker to not take their offers no matter how much money they throw around. I am fortunate that I’m in demand and make a great living. This gives me more power to refuse their petty mandates, but that in no way makes it any less petty or tyrannical. Most people don’t have my optionality but that doesn’t mean I can’t call things the way they are, because it’s petty and tyrannical for everyone everywhere who doesn’t have to be in the office but is forced to be.
There are petty tyrants in all aspects of our lives and your boss being a petty tyrant spans classes.
Saying organ transplant is a health care issue misses the point. Even with the best health offerings you have to take powerful immunosuppressives for life. People who are severely immune compromised live longer the more they can isolate from infections. But requiring them to go into a crowded open floor plan office in a company mandating presenteeism is a, risk adjusted, significantly worse trade for the immune compromised. (Speaking as someone whose wife is in this situation)
300k a year is what they get paid for making the company 3-4x as much, if not even more. If they can generate that value remotely, then being forced to waste another 1-2 hours of your life every day to go to the office should be worth even more pay.
> How petty are the tyrants.
I would consider the relationship between a company and its employees as alliance. If both have the same goal and compatible style, then they work together. Otherwise, they part ways. Tyranny is possible only with violence, while employment is at will, at least in Amazon.
I consider you wrong since an alliance presupposes a unity of interest whereas the interest of a worker (get more money, work less or maybe more nuanced: have as much control over own work as possible, have as much exposure to fruits of work as possible) is directly opposed to that of what you call the "company" or, really, the owners of the company (compel the worker to produce as much as possible, and pay as low a wage as possible to extract as much profit as possible).
Brushing this dynamic under the rug by conceptualizing it as a mutual agreement of "I will work for you for this wage" is at best glib, even if we ignore the elephant in the room that the worker doesn't choose to work since unfortunately we all need to buy food and a place to live, doesn't choose his wage since the entire labor market is practically the same and not in his power to influence nor shop for an alternative (we don't live in a text book where people can make purely rational economic choices since are born to a context and we live in places and have access to a given pool of resources etc) and lets not even glance at the lack of political alternative to this economic arrangement in this historical flash of time.
Both employer and employee want the employee succeed in helping the employer provide value to the customer. I fundamentally disagree with the first paragraph, and don't see how it can be justified without an appeal to emotion. They are not perfectly aligned, of course, but no alliance is.
And why would the employer or employee give two shits about prodividing value to the customer? You understand that employees and employers don't act out of a sense of compassion for customers? They both want to "provide value" so the customer parts with his money. They want him to part with his money since the employer wants to reproduce their capital, and the employee wants to sustain himself. How is your premise in any way a more natural framing? To the contrary it seems extremely contrived in essentially restating what I did but keeping the actual material dynamics implicit. And again who is actually providing value, the employer that recieves the revenue by virtue of owning the cafe or factory or tools, or the employee who actually valorises whatever good or service is being put on the market by virtue of his labor? What appeal to emotion are you talking about, I fail to see any.
If you need to refer to a system where those at the top don't give their reports adequate leeway to get results but instead choose to make all-encompassing proclamations about how the entire hierarchy must behave, then "tyranny" isn't so bad a word.
Money is just violence that got too old to carry a sword anymore, so the threat if violence and the threat of termination are pretty well linked. It's only different in that once the money runs out the violence will come from elsewhere.
You will have a hard time being heard over the hoards content to tear down their houses out of anger that they are not palaces.
I have an expectation of democratic rule outside of work. In work I expect to be told what to do top down. If tyranny is too strong a word, how about feudal or dictatorship or top down? Not only is this unpleasant it is information theoretical inefficient, and greatly damages espirit de corps and the development of a group dynamic that inspires the best performance people are capable of.
For me it’s at will absolutely and I won’t work there no matter how much money they offered me to go back.
For most people it’s only at will in one direction. They need the job, often for home and board, and always for insurance benefits. Saying it’s at will ignores the worker needs the benefits more than management needs the individual worker. Management absolutely uses that asymmetry to force people to do their petty whims. If you’ve ever worked for anyone else before we all know this to be true. It’s so true and pervasively experienced it’s almost vacuous to even say it.
I for one am pretty sick of the endless litany of bullshit in my career and am probably going to go it on my own again or just retire. Almost no one is so lucky as me and that’s a fucking tragedy of epic proportions.
> Who are you to tell neurodivergent employees to suffer?
I found this line telling. I’m wondering if the Hacker News crowd is biased towards the “hacker” stereotype - the socially awkward coder who likes to be left alone and crank out largely independent work.
I have a couple of folks like this in my team, and they are absolutely as good (or better) working from home, as they don’t really talk to others much or contribute in meetings anyway.
But you can’t build a team/org out of those personality types. Much of the creative work and important decisions _does_ happen face to face, let alone the ad-hoc ideation and brainstorming from being in the same space.
I don’t think it’s a requirement that everyone be in the office 5 days a week (I don’t do that myself), but I do see the negatives of letting the team work from home whenever they want and expecting to get the same level of work done over Teams/Zoom calls and email.
This is a legitimate thing to want, and I myself prefer remote work and run a distributed company...
...but I don't think it's engaging with the problems involved.
Management exists for a reason. I'm not going to speculate too hard on what that reason is, but it's a profession older than those practiced by just about anyone on this forum, found across every culture, in every part of the world, at every time in history. You could say that it's just the case that managers can abuse and extract value from their employees, and that certainly does occur, but in claiming that that's all that management is you would be arguing for the greatest market failure in the history of mankind. The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent, but you better have some really strong evidence if you want to argue it's remained irrational independently and in the same way across millennia.
So taking for a moment for granted that management exists and is important, its ease of execution does matter, too. And I think it's more-or-less a truism that it's a lot easier to manage a group of people who are all in a room, who you see every day, whose facial expressions and mannerisms you have a chance to read, whose casual water-cooler (water-bag? why do you have a bag of water? i am so curious) conversations you can overhear or participate in.
Remote work has trade-offs, and like any trade-off, it's in principle legitimate for someone to decide the upsides outweigh the downsides. They might be wrong about the trade-offs they choose to make, but that's not the same thing as being a petty tyrant - it's just running into the limitations of your judgment, which is a very ordinary human thing to do. If you want to convince people to run remote teams, you need to figure out what the trade-offs they're concerned about are and address them, not pretend they aren't there at all.
As someone who spent half his career in executive management of globomegacorps management is for the most part total bullshit.
Every global company is already working remotely because teams are spread out everywhere. Even if your team isn’t your dependencies are. The more senior you get the more you work on zoom these days. Before the pandemic it was in conference calls.
In fact the half assed in office approach is worse because not everyone is on the same foot. The remote offices from the leaders don’t get to have the on mute influence with the leader. When the call ends the people in the local room with the leader have a little meeting to make the real decisions. That’s grossly inefficient and unfair, to the point it’s started to make me sick to my stomach when I see it happen and I refuse to book rooms for in the office meetings.
In fact a role I had prior to the pandemic was figuring out how to shut down most offices of a megacorp to save money. We called it “bring your own office.” We analyzed deeply the interactions and determined in a global corporation the percent of time we make better decisions in office was less than 20% or 1 day a week. When the pandemic hit our predictions came true. But our elderly CEO couldn’t understand how the strategy he agreed to to save money would work once his ideological hackles got raised so he mandated everyone return 5 days a week even tho we were then 5 years into the bring your own office plan he agreed to. There were no metrics or reason other than, basically, he likes working in the office because it made him successful in his career and he can’t conceive that anyone could do anything different.
There are people who work better in the office and having a small office with plenty of high quality meeting areas and private places to work is smart. Management should allow knowledge workers to work the way they work best and figure out how to maximize team efficiency as managers are required to do. It’s a hard job. I know. I’ve done it. But RTO is a short cut that fails to recognize the incredible inefficiencies inherent in the approach, especially in a global company.
This isn't about pettiness. Amazon has a significant investment in commercial real estate in downtown Seattle. The foot traffic supports a thriving ecosystem of shops, restaurants, and housing. When the employees aren't coming to the these buildings, that extended non-Amazon environment withers and impacts city politics.
Amazon employees must return to the office because otherwise downtown Seattle decays even further.
On the other than people working at home frequent their neighborhood businesses more leading to broader economic activity. Downtown can take care of itself and can become relevant for a better reason than people are forced against their will to be there. I shed no tears over this - cities evolve over time as we as humans change in structural ways. It’s time to move on.
Downtown did just fine before Amazon too. And they need to realize Amazon has no loyalty to downtown seattle and depending on them alone is stone cold dumb. See Detroit.
Bro you were making more money than most people ever will. Unclutch your pearls. That's not tyranny. An annoyance at best.
Other companies will follow soon. A tough job market will allow them to do anything they want with you.
The Fed begins cutting rates Wednesday (25-50bps), and will land near 2.5-3% by end of 2025. Assuming traditional macro policy outcomes, the tough market is transitory (with my apologies to Powell).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-09-15/is-the-fe... | https://archive.today/5B8Tk
If you're counting on this for a recovery, you're in for a bad time. Remember, the drop is quick, the recovery is slow as molasses. It's going to take so so so much more for things to turn around and I doubt we will ever see the 2020-2022 days of high salaries and full remote again. I hope and pray I'm wrong, but after nearly 20 years in tech, my gut says we are in for some hard times ahead.
Plus there is latency on the supply side. A lot of people were drawn by the crazy compensation starting about 10 years ago and accelerating during Covid, so that there is a huge amount of new developers out there. Plus due to the internet and mobile devices we're all more connected so the existing pipelines in developing countries are all also pointed at developed countries, bringing in even more supply.
I wonder what's the number of developers today compared to say, 2014, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's 2x if not 3x.
Big tech companies have been making record profits year after year and their share prices are at record highs. Competition in the tech job market isn't due to Fed policy, it's because companies figured out that they were overstaffed and could afford to lose the headcount. That isn't going to change moving forward regardless of what the interest rate is.
You think they all magically figured out they were overstaffed at the same time? It's 100% herd mentality. They're cutting because everyone else is cutting, just like they went on hiring sprees because everyone else was doing the same.
It's easy to measure short-term impact (we cut a bunch of people, we're saving money, we're more profitable) but it's very hard to measure the medium to long term impact of these cuts.
Note I'm not arguing these cuts are the wrong strategy, I'm arguing they have absolutely no clue.
It's unreal how people think tech leaders are geniuses when they keep doing this stuff. Oops we overhired but I take "100% responsibility" however the staff will take 100% of the punishment by being laid off. All while spending $32 billion on legless VR worlds that nobody wants or driving social media giants into the ground. It's Gell-Mann amnesia. Remember how dumb their last decisions were, by their own admission.
A lot of well funded VC startups poached liberally from big tech. A lot of VC money dried up (and some is now dry powder) because of higher interest rates.
If money pours back into VCs and they turn on the spigot again, you'll absolutely see the market change. Will it be significant? Maybe not in the grand scheme of things, or maybe it will, but to act like interest rates don't matter at all is silly.
> it's because companies figured out that they were overstaffed and could afford to lose the headcount.
Well yeah but why were they suddenly overstaffed? It wasn’t some kind of collective paranoia. It was interest rates. With low interest rates, investors want you to prioritize growth. With high interest rates, its profitability.
It's never going back to the level of the pandemic again. It might improve... but those days are over forever. They were hiring people as SWEs who could hardly read and write.
Not so fast. "Strangely, America’s companies will soon face higher interest rates" by The Economist [1] explains why Fed cutting rates will not translate into easier money for US companies.
Tech market is interest rate sensitive, broadly speaking.
Maybe but they’re facing political pressure from the left, like Elizabeth Warren, to basically make the economy at least look good artificially. And they may do that. Will it be a sustainably better economy? I doubt it given federal debt and what feels like shaky employment levels.
What is the best way to handle this if you are unwilling to return? Wait to get fired? Resign? Hope they make an exception for you?
If I was absolutely not willing to return. I'd probably continue working, maybe even more, smarter, or harder than currently. And attend everything I can virtually. Make it known that I exist and my work matters and they need me. Continue working. If they make any threats to fire me, I work towards an exception. If no exception is granted, probably just get fired and hope for a severance.
I might consider negotiating for lower pay to continue working, or try to work towards some sort of deal like that. But I'm not sure if that would actually be better than a potential severance and unemployment considering the a firing could still be on the table and would only make the severance and unemployment lower.
Yeah, good luck persuading an SVP to approve an exception for you.
The best thing you could do, if you're working at Google, Meta or Amazon is to always be looking, or any other publicly traded company for that matter. They prune people whenever they feel like it. If shareholders aren't happy, this typically happens roughly every three months.
> Wait to get fired? Resign?
Job market is bad right now. Probably why AWS felt they could do this currently.
Run it by your supervisor. When I worked as a developer at Amazon, pre-pandemic, I worked from home whenever I wanted, which was mostly one or two days a week. If your manager won't let you flex, consider switching teams.
The director told my manager that I could ignore it, then the director was made to move out of the house he just built!
Be wary of who and what you trust. There are proper remote gigs, don't risk it IMO.
edit: To be clear, this wasn't at Amazon or even part of FAANG. I took my own advice and went elsewhere, seeing the writing on the wall.
That's not the case anymore. There are teams that run badge tracking systems to make sure you're badging in every day, for enough hours and ping your manager if you've not been in enough.
If you continue to not come in enough, your manager gets assigned a task to have a conversation about firing you or getting you in the office regularly.
If you continue to not come in enough, you're fired and it doesn't look good for your manager.
Bizzare. When I was at AWS I'd IM my manager that I was working from home and he'd say, me too. There would be no need to ping the manager about my location, he knew. Amazon had such a big retention problem, and I hear they still do, that I'd doubt a manager would fire a good performer over work location. They had some tempting retention offers when I resigned. Amazon fires low performers aggressively, so avoid being in that category, on-site or otherwise. Sounds like it's completely changed?
Jassy dreams of having the same control and spying over corporate employees as he does over the warehouse workers.
I mean this company has devolved into one that spies on its workforce so much that it can, and will penalize drivers who sing along to the radio.
Yes thats the key. Before pandemic it was under radar, team could set their own policy, people do not come at all, people come for few days in week, few hrs in a day. All would work if manager is okay.
Now companies have implemented tons of metrics and monitoring right from the top. So individual manager have little leeway in giving employees any flexibility.
I personally would not want to work in a place where managers had such little flexibility. I'd quit, if pushed. But Amazon wasn't like that pre-pandemic and I suspect they are returning to pre-pandemic norms so I don't think that's the case here.
I find the “remote vs onsite” debate to be a little bit misguided. I try to reframe it as a balancing act between “broad work” and “deep work”. The difference being that broad work is the kind of thing that needs collaboration and interaction and deep work needs focus and singular attention.
As an engineering leader, I have had some success and traction with non-engineers by re-framing the debate in this way.
I wrote these ideas up as a blog post earlier this year:
Broad work vs deep work https://matthewsinclair.com/blog/0165-broad-work-vs-deep-wor...
Now that we're in the spiffy sci-fi year 2024 with video calls for all, I find that 90% of the "collaboration" work benefit is achievable remotely. (Like a co-debugging session.)
Less task-oriented stuff--general office chatting--doesn't work quite the same though.
I think the main thing you miss with 100% remote working is what I call "corridor creativity" [0]. As good as working from home is (or can be), I do miss the serendipity of walking past someone in a corridor, having a quick chat, drawing something on a whiteboard, and then continuing on about my day. In a fully remote world, I need to organise a meeting (over Zoom) for just about every interaction, which ends up being quite a chore and far less than serendipitous.
[0]: Corridor Creativity: https://matthewsinclair.medium.com/0124-corridor-creativity-...
It's possible to have this remote. The communication style of gen z and younger is entirely remote and also for younger millennials. But in a remote setting there has to be complete trust "in the chat". Just like in office you have to be open to allowing communication and ideas to be voiced. You also have to allow for impromptu video calls which can be disruptive but it's the same at a desk in office. I remember having to put up signs "do not disturb" that people promptly ignored. It's the same but different. My opinion is that what is happening now is just an uncomfortable generational shift. There is a very wide age range in the tech workforce because it's not limited by physical ability.
Are Amazon teams co-located?
My team is global. My customers are global.
When I go to the office, I still spend >5 hours/day on Zoom. The only reason I go in is to get out of the house.
Except for the 95% of employees who don't like to come to the office?
It is great when claim everything works better when we are all in the same office together and then expect you to get online in the off hours because of an outage, or work with teams from other offices 3 timezones away on a project, or work with offshore to save money.
Why don’t they mandate 6 day work week to compete even more…
Same, I've been able to focus best when finishing up something either during the weekend or when I allotted more OOTO time than I actually needed, I think it's just being in that (slightly) more de-pressurized state and no overhead of Slack pings and meetings.
This is not a good way to hire or develop the best. The best are going to go elsewhere.
To whatever companies will be top of the pile in a decade or two, after Google and Amazon have gone the way of IBM. Some of those will be founded by engineers who left the current FAANG setup and managed to not copy the insane parts of their previous org.
There's a life and death cycle even for companies and its important to remember that. Leaving and starting somewhere fresh seems natural.
Depends how badly you want the "big bucks". Non-FAANG software jobs still pay good money. Maybe not "I own a yacht" money, but definitely "I own two new cars and a 5 bedroom house" money.
10 years into my non-FAANG career and I own a basement suite and a bicycle. Any tips for better-paying non-FAANG companies I might look into?
Hard to say without a lot more detail on location and specialization. All I know is software engineering in DC metro pays well enough to live comfortably. If you’re working a .gov contract on a TS/poly, even better.
Ok, but how do I find these types of jobs in my metro area?
Read like this: you must return to the office or leave—50 waiting for your position now.
> We want to operate like the world’s largest startup
It's always amusing when a multi-decade-old, multi-hundred-billion-dollar company says stuff like this. You're not a startup. You never will be.
And if you were, you probably would actually offer perks in your offices that might actually encourage people to be there. Instead, the only perk that Amazon has is that you get one free coffee per day, and even that they have tried to remove multiple times.
I've never seen a company where it seemed more like the leadership of the company actively despises the employees that worked for them. Between stuff like this and the incessant pushing of Amazon Q against everyone's will, it's really apparent that Amazon execs think that having to employ humans as SDE is a defect they're trying to get rid of ASAP.
I like working there, but Amazon definitely has the worst in-office accomodations. No snacks, no free coffee, for-profit (like 4-5$ for a chocolate bar) vending machines on every second floor, no cafeterias in most building and when they have one it's a hole-in-the-wall that microwaves stuff (except Seattle).
In the original RTO email they even pointed the importance of employee spending money in the surrounding restaurants to support the downtime economy as if I should feel personally invested in spending 30$/meal on an overpriced burger for lunch.
When I worked at Amazon, I also was tired of paying for expensive lunches available nearby. But I didn't always have time to make pack lunches.
So I ordered canned soup, on Amazon, to be shipped to the office mailroom. Then picked up the soups and kept them in the drawer by my desk.
Super tangential please accept my apology. Do you have any insight on why one of the biggest companies in the world can’t create a dark mode on their app after 10 years?
They have these big dinner-style machines that you can use to brew a large batch of coffee and then put it in large thermos, but honestly the taste is pretty bad (but it is free!) and it requires you to babysit the process.
We also have free tea and hot cocoa.
In most places employees will also bring a Nespresso machine so you can bring your own pods which is somewhat better.
Writing all that I feel like it will come off as extremely entitled. I just want to stress that I personally don't mind much, but having worked for other tech companies, it's definitely at the bottom in terms of "free stuff".
I was an intern at Amazon in Seattle in 2018 and full-time from 2019-2021. Coffee was definitely free back then although someone had to brew it for the office.
I did it pretty often as it was a nice thing to do and a good way of meeting people who were waiting for the coffee.
It is incredibly insulting they want to use guilt of not spending like a good consumer as another tool in their sociopathic toolbox.
> Instead, the only perk that Amazon has is that you get one free coffee per day, and even that they have tried to remove multiple times.
This is crazy, seriously? Apparently no one has written a good enough two-pager arguing that gratis coffee pays for itself with increased productivity
They have repeatedly tried to remove the free coffee perk (usually by claiming that it was only intended as a temporary thing and will be removed at the end of the year) and the only reason it has been retained this far is because for multiple years running now there was an internal uproar about it.
I suspect at the end of this year they will fully remove it, uproar be damned.
That’s so hilariously petty. As if management was not already dictating who is in charge.
Can you bring your own cup? Get the Big Gulp 4 liter thermos every day.
Holy crap, not even coffee? That's so laughable.
Not that we get great coffee here. It's one of this pod/packet machines. But, it does various teas and some cold drinks as well (fruit/herb infused stuff). So, it works for my second coffee, or a hot cocoa when it's cold outside.
We also get free lunch on T/Th, but that's a new thing since COVID (to entice people back), so I'm not counting on it being around forever. But for now, it is a nice perk and encourages some of that chit-chat the executive class tells us is so critical to making them more money.
Honestly, this lifestyle is extremely stressing, and to go back to it just due to the whims of a higher-up seems very frustrating
My polite way of saying "f.ck that sh.t". I wouldn't do it
Usually I would think these are shadow-layoffs, but employees were already required to be in-office 3d/week, which means that employees were at least proximate to their office.
I wouldn't be so sure. Proximate for 5 days in office and 3 days in office might be two different things. I got an offer from Amazon last year (ended up declining) and the HM at the time talked about how a sizable portion of the team were commuting extreme distances to work there (including by plane) on the pretense that they only had to be in office 3 days a week.
It'll be interesting to see how soon the other big tech companies follow suit and do the same. Cynically, I wonder to what extent that forced RTO has been directly coordinated between these companies VS copycatting each other.
Given that finding a job takes time in the current market, January 2025 essentially mean that people who don't like the policy should start looking right now.
> manager layoffs coming too.
A large pharma company which I worked for until quitting in July went through a similar process this year. The goal was also to reduce the manager / IC ratio - organizational efficiency and span of control, they called it - but in most instances it were ICs who were laid off while their managers were simply relegated to ICs.
> pre-meetings for the pre-meetings for the decision meetings
This is not a structural problem but a cultural one. Sure, you can address it by changing the org structure, but 15% fewer pre-meetings to pre-meetings sounds like a drop in the ocean. In my experience, pre-meetings are a result of low-trust environments.
I wonder where CEOs are getting the input to drive these decisions forward. Has there been significant research lately suggesting that working from the office is better, or do they just rely on their gut feeling that the office feels more productive when people are present?
Pressure from local govt to somehow salvage the "downtown tax base", pressure from boards of directors that are inbred with big investment funds holding most of that commercial real estate. The relatively small group of ultra-rich parasites is trying to claw back the inevitable change of decentralization. We would all be so much happier in a scheme where instead of one giant "center" our metro areas were "distributed" ie more commercial centers closer to more residential areas.
Where I used to work, their theat was less subtle:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kxqnx/dont-mess-with-us-web...
Within a company, employees (managers or otherwise) attend to, and take care of, their own interests.
As such, within a company, employees are attentive to, and take care of, the interests and needs of those who control their job security.
So for example, HR cares about management, not employees.
In this case, with RTO, we see that managers run a company, and they attend to their own needs; and their need is to be able to control and monitor their staff, because managers are held responsible for outcomes. This is inherent in a hierarchical arrangement of power. Managers then fundamentally attend to their own interest, which means having employees at home. The face this is not necessary, and is absolutely non-optimal is every way except for maximizing managerial control and monitoring, is irrelevant, as managers here are attending to their own interests.
This is exactly the problem the Soviet centralized economies faced, when they were trying to improve economic efficiency. Managers were responsible for meeting plan targets, but to be more efficient the system as a whole needed decentralization, but managers had every incentive under the sun to maintain maximum control (useless and efficiency destroying as it was), and so decentralization never occurred.
Are "managers" really driving the RTO mandates? Or do you really mean "executives"? Because none of the line managers or directors I work with care about RTO - they're mostly ambivalent about it (and about 50% remote or hybrid themselves). The only push for RTO here is from the very top down (ie the PE group, BoD, and C-levels).
Wall St. tightening their grip on the STEM population.
My prediction: strong remote work advocates will claim this will be catastrophic for Amazon, many critical people will leave and only those not competent enough to get a job elsewhere will stay. Office advocates will claim it will reinvigorate the culture and lead Amazon to new heights. The actual outcome will be that mostly nothing changes about Amazon’s performance or product quality.
It won't work that way. If you look at the internal structure of amazon, you realize that majority of the good engineers have been there for 5+ years. Amazon always churned through people, causing good engineers who couldn't deal with the culture to leave within 2-3 years, and mediocre engineers getting pipped over 3-4 years.
Your statement is solid. But from What I have heard, Amazon is getting a lot of pressure from the GOV to bring in more people into the office to support local businesses which I think it is a bit vague. But yeah, they are going to lose some great talent. They are going to have a bunch of useless recruiters roaming the offices lol.
Many critical people will leave. The problem is that issues of brain drain, process devolution and lost institutional expertise are effects that only occur years after the cause. When you try and figure out why all of your internal services are down because one core server is in a bootloop and the engineer with knowledge of it all has left.
Speaking from my own personal perspective, it's quite frankly scary how many teams and companies are running with skeleton crews because they've chased off a lot of competent engineers and think they can coast by with the bare minimum. Stuff like what happened to Boeing or Crowdstrike are great examples of the end result, and a lot more companies than you'd expect are operating right on the critical failure margins. The concept of redundancy has outright vanished.
It's even more subtle than that. Things just start decaying when talent leaves- you often can't trace it to a single engineer or piece of knowledge that's lost. You'll find reasons why things broke- but you won't see the myriad ways a more talented pool of developers would have prevented it from ever breaking in the first place.
This is what's happening in my org, talented people was leaving consistently (5-6/month), things are currently maintained with skeleton crews -- the ones that are maintained, the rest are accidents waiting to happen.
Quality inertia is what's preventing stuff from crashing down instantly, but it'll eventually be the case. It's just a matter of when the last guy that's worth their role leaves.
Most "SDEs" attracted by past big money have below-minimum reading skills, can't write code, can't troubleshoot, can't debug anything even if they life depends on it. They were hired to form a particular structure for the manager two levels above to be promoted.
I agree they may decline over time, but I don’t know how to disambiguate that from the general rot of big tech companies that have been around for a long time.
When Elon fired everyone, people said Twitter would collapse, but they’ve been technologically ok. They may be struggling on the business end but that’s more likely to be caused by the owner telling advertisers to fuck themselves and by him tweeting racist conspiracy theory stuff rather than any problems with their infra.
WHO CAN HELP ME GET MY BITC0IN BACK WITH MIGHTY HACKER REC0VERY AND HIRE THE BEST HACKER FOR ALL HACKER SERVICES AT MIGHTY HACKER RECOVERY
I can't believe the turn of events that led me to reclaiming my lost Bitc0in! A few months ago, I fell victim to a phishing scam and lost a significant amount of money. I was devastated and hopeless, believing I'd never see my money again.
After some research, I came across Mighty Hacker Rec0very. Skeptical but desperate, I decided to contact them. I began chatting with one of their hackers and was immediately impressed by their expertise and professionalism. They patiently walked me through the recovery process, reassuring me along the way.
They worked diligently on my case for several weeks, using their expertise to locate my lost funds. It was intense, but I felt optimistic for the first time since the scam. The communication was clear, and I received regular updates, which reduced my anxiety.
Finally, I received the news that my Bitc0in had been successfully recovered! I couldn't believe it—I was ecstatic! I'm extremely grateful to the hacker who assisted me. Mighty Hacker Rec0very transformed a nightmare into a triumph, and I'm grateful beyond words. If anyone is in a similar situation, I highly recommend contacting them!
WH@TS@PP: +1 8 45 6 99 50 44 EM@IL: support @ mightyhackerrecovery . com FB: mighty hacker recovery
As a reminder,
https://www.amazon.jobs/content/en/our-workplace/leadership-...
> Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer
> Leaders work every day to create a safer, more productive, higher performing, more diverse, and more just work environment. They lead with empathy, have fun at work, and make it easy for others to have fun. Leaders ask themselves: Are my fellow employees growing? Are they empowered? Are they ready for what’s next? Leaders have a vision for and commitment to their employees’ personal success, whether that be at Amazon or elsewhere.
> Amazon founder and former CEO Jeff Bezos saw his warehouse workforce as necessary but replaceable, and feared that workers who remained at the company too long would turn complacent or, worse, disgruntled.
https://www.vox.com/recode/23170900/leaked-amazon-memo-wareh...
I've worked at two companies that are heavy on former Amazon leaders.
As leaders do (and should!) they are often sharing stories of how they approached similar problems in their past roles. What I find to be interesting is how different people across time weave the same caveat into everything they say about their time at Amazon - some version of "...but keep in mind, that isn't the kind of culture we are trying to build here."