I mean let's get real. If there was data that said the team was going to be X% more productive in office these 500 people would find another reason to hate the decision or say the data was bogus.
It's fine to love remote work and it's fine to love in-office work. But one isn't inherently right and one isn't inherently wrong.
> one isn't inherently right and one isn't inherently wrong
While I agree that's true in a vacuum, the situation here is different. There are people who signed on to work for Amazon assuming that remote work would be an option, and now the deal is being changed unilaterally with (apparently) no compensation to the formerly-remote employees, and no valid data-driven reason.
Thank you, I understand what at-will employment is. I’m not even considering whether it’s legally wrong, so at-will employment isn’t relevant to my argument. I don’t really believe you were referencing legal wrongness either, in your original comment.
My argument is that it’s morally wrong, because Amazon’s actions are causing real financial and/or emotional harm to the employees, as outlined in the article.
I thought I stated it clearly above, but I’ll try again: my argument is that it is morally wrong to promise someone that they can work remotely, have them accept and then base their life around that promise, and then later unilaterally rescind that promise without compensation or recourse. It’s morally wrong because it causes undue financial and emotional hardship for that employee.
Even if I grant that your counterpoint isn’t whataboutism, it’s still nonsensical, because anyone who prefers to work from an office was already welcome to do so, at least at Amazon. It’s not at all necessary for full RTO to be enacted for those people to work in their preferred environment.
You’re making a common mistake many people make when talking about RTO.
If a person’s preference is to work with other people who in an office then full RTO must be enacted. Simply going into an office while others work remotely is not “their preferred environment.”
I would also bet that these people were not promised that they can work remotely for longer than remote work fit the needs of the business. Otherwise remote forever would be written into their agreements.
Sure you can argue that a recruiter or hiring manager over-promising and not putting it in writing is morally wrong, but at the end of the day, caveat emptor.
All of these employees knew they could be called back to the office and either a) pretended it wasn’t true or b) knew it was true and thought they’d have enough leverage to stay remote.
And the market has obviously changed since the agreement was made. Keeping the job is the compensation and recourse. If you think that you can find a remote job that pays as much as your now in-office job, go get it.
[citation needed] for pretty much every single sentence of this comment. I think I’m done here; it’s clear you’re not actually interested in engaging in this conversation in good faith. Have a good one.
Lol [citation easy to find] for everything I said.
Do you really think the current job market is more favorable to tech employees than it was during the peak of COVID/ZIRP?
Do you really think Amazon is breaking contracts to get people to RTO? I’m sure it would be mentioned in some of these articles if it was the case.
Do you really not understand that if somebody does something risky (assumes they will be remote forever despite no guarantee of that being true) and bases their life around it that they may one day pay a price for taking those risks? And it seems like in this situation, the company is the bad guy in your opinion?
I’m not sure how any of this is difficult to understand.
12 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 40.8 ms ] threadIt's fine to love remote work and it's fine to love in-office work. But one isn't inherently right and one isn't inherently wrong.
While I agree that's true in a vacuum, the situation here is different. There are people who signed on to work for Amazon assuming that remote work would be an option, and now the deal is being changed unilaterally with (apparently) no compensation to the formerly-remote employees, and no valid data-driven reason.
THAT is wrong.
The employees knew this going in whether they admit it to themselves or not.
It still doesn’t make the change wrong.
My argument is that it’s morally wrong, because Amazon’s actions are causing real financial and/or emotional harm to the employees, as outlined in the article.
To be honest I’m not even sure I understand your argument besides it being, “Some people feel like this is morally bad.”
And my argument is, “I’m sure they do! But that’s life. And some people feel like this is morally good.”
Even if I grant that your counterpoint isn’t whataboutism, it’s still nonsensical, because anyone who prefers to work from an office was already welcome to do so, at least at Amazon. It’s not at all necessary for full RTO to be enacted for those people to work in their preferred environment.
If a person’s preference is to work with other people who in an office then full RTO must be enacted. Simply going into an office while others work remotely is not “their preferred environment.”
I would also bet that these people were not promised that they can work remotely for longer than remote work fit the needs of the business. Otherwise remote forever would be written into their agreements.
Sure you can argue that a recruiter or hiring manager over-promising and not putting it in writing is morally wrong, but at the end of the day, caveat emptor.
All of these employees knew they could be called back to the office and either a) pretended it wasn’t true or b) knew it was true and thought they’d have enough leverage to stay remote.
And the market has obviously changed since the agreement was made. Keeping the job is the compensation and recourse. If you think that you can find a remote job that pays as much as your now in-office job, go get it.
Do you really think the current job market is more favorable to tech employees than it was during the peak of COVID/ZIRP?
Do you really think Amazon is breaking contracts to get people to RTO? I’m sure it would be mentioned in some of these articles if it was the case.
Do you really not understand that if somebody does something risky (assumes they will be remote forever despite no guarantee of that being true) and bases their life around it that they may one day pay a price for taking those risks? And it seems like in this situation, the company is the bad guy in your opinion?
I’m not sure how any of this is difficult to understand.