Business The Work From Home Free-for-All Is Coming to an End - The laptop class discovers that, actually, they have no baginning power over the C-suite; in fact, they may even have less power than the blue collar chuds.

Lifestyle Workplace

The Work From Home Free-for-All Is Coming to an End
Amazon’s CEO just called everyone back to the office full time. If you thought your two days a week at home were safe, think again.

By Vanessa Fuhrmans, Katherine Bindley and Chip Cutter
Sept. 20, 2024 9:00 pm ET

Amazon Chief Executive Andy Jassy set CEOs abuzz with envy—and white-collar workers with fear—this week with a surprise memo calling corporate staffers back to the office full time.

Now, long after hybrid work seemed a settled matter at many companies, suddenly both sides are wondering: Who’s next?

At a party in Seattle Tuesday evening, shortly after Jassy went public with his plan, his return-to-office rally cry was a hot topic among executives in attendance.

“It was the talk of the town,” says Glenn Kelman, CEO of Seattle-based real-estate brokerage Redfin, who was there.

Until Jassy’s memo, 4½ years after the Covid-19 pandemic sent everyone home, bosses and employees had largely reached a truce on part-time remote work. Many company leaders looked out at their substantially empty offices in quiet exasperation. But they feared that forcing their employees to come to the office more often could send top performers fleeing for more flexible work setups elsewhere. The handful of companies that have returned to full-time, in-person work, including United Parcel Service and Goldman Sachs, have been outliers. The number of firms requiring five days in the office has actually fallen by 15% from a year ago, according to data from Flex Index, which tracks the work policies of more than 6,300 companies.

But a tougher labor market, especially for white-collar professionals, is now changing the calculus. With jobs harder to find and more companies willing to cut them, the balance of power is shifting from workers to bosses. Many of those bosses still worry that productivity and innovation suffer when people aren’t together in an office. With Jassy laying down the law at Amazon, some executives predict more full-time office mandates will now follow.

In a KPMG survey of 400 U.S. CEOs released this week, nearly 80% said that they expected corporate employees to be in offices full time within the next three years. That’s more than double the 34% who said so in April.

Kelman said other CEOs will be watching Amazon for two things: Will Amazon bleed workers? Or will this give it a competitive edge?

“There’s one world in which Amazon loses talent—it doesn’t become an employer of choice,” says Kelman. “And there’s another world where Amazon is able to innovate faster, is able to resolve snafus more quickly.”

Redfin employees—currently expected to be in the office two days a week—have already queried Kelman about whether he’ll follow suit, he says. Though he has no plans to require more days, he says, hybrid work is harder than everyone thought it would be.

“It’s working,” he says. “But it’s hard just as a physical fact to pay for an office that is mostly empty.”
A layoff without layoffs

In his note to Amazon workers announcing the change, Jassy said that the new policy will help both the company and its employees.

“We’ve observed that it’s easier for our teammates to learn, model, practice, and strengthen our culture,” he wrote about office work. “[C]ollaborating, brainstorming, and inventing are simpler and more effective; teaching and learning from one another are more seamless; and, teams tend to be better connected to one another.”

Some current and former Amazon employees suspect that Jassy isn’t just interested in more collaboration and connection. They blasted Jassy’s memo as being tantamount to a layoff announcement for workers who will be alienated by the new policy.

“The fact he didn’t use the word ‘layoffs’ doesn’t change the meaning of the lengthy email he sent to company employees explaining a fresh round of flagrantly unpopular and alienating policy changes,” wrote Tony Carr, a former Amazon general manager who left the company late last year, on LinkedIn.

An Amazon spokesman said any inferences about motive beyond what Jassy laid out in his memo are inaccurate. Amazon doesn’t plan to reduce overall headcount as part of its new policy, he added.

Jassy said in his memo that the company understands that some workers will need to make adjustments to their personal lives to accommodate working in the office five days a week, which was why the new policy wouldn’t go into effect until Jan. 2.

Other return-to-office orders have sparked worker exoduses. Nearly half the staffers at Grindr resigned last fall after the dating app shifted from a “remote-first” policy to requiring office attendance twice a week, according to the Communications Workers of America. Some Farmers Group employees quit last year after the insurer said the majority of Farmers employees should be in the office three days a week. A few months later, Farmers cut 2,400 jobs, or 11% of its workforce.

The problem for bosses, though, is that it’s often high-performing employees who leave, since they have the best odds of getting hired elsewhere, says Stanford University economist Nicholas Bloom. “Managers are very happy to tell underperformers, ‘You gotta come in or you’re out of here,” he adds. With more coveted employees, “they often just don’t want to enforce it, because it impacts their own bonus from promotions.”

CJ Felli, a 29-year-old systems-development engineer with Amazon, added an “Open to Work” banner to his LinkedIn profile not long after Amazon made its announcement. He’s hunting for a new job and says the company’s new policy was a tipping point.

Felli lives only 15 minutes from his office in Seattle and doesn’t mind going in three days a week as the company has been requiring since last year; lately he’s been going in almost every day. He’s a huge fan of Amazon’s culture and says getting a job there was the proudest moment of his life. But he fears as a result of the new policy that the company will lose a lot of its midlevel talent, especially parents and those who have long commutes.

“We are not going to be able to flourish and survive long term if we’re just an entry-level college shop,” he says.

Pavi Theva, 30, was working as a product manager for Amazon’s customer service technology team in Austin last year when Amazon began cracking down on its three-day-a-week mandate for office attendance. After twice going to the office two days in a week instead of three, Theva’s manager had a conversation with her about how if it continued to happen, it could come up in her performance review.

Theva says she enjoyed going into an office before the pandemic. But afterward, her days in the office often didn’t make sense. “No one else from my team was working from Austin but I was still asked to go into the office and sit by myself,” says Theva, who left Amazon in February to start her own leadership and career coaching business.

Employees are more likely to understand the company’s culture and become a part of it if they’re with other Amazonians in person, even if those people aren’t on their team, according to a company spokesperson.
Reversing remote work

It’s hard to overstate how much remote and hybrid work have reshaped the postpandemic labor market. It has enabled moves to lower-cost areas, let working parents better coordinate child care and brought millions of people into the workforce—including those with disabilities. And it made it easier for mothers of young children to stay on the job, helping drive a sharp increase in the number of women working.

Tech-industry workers especially took advantage of the ability to work remotely, flocking from high-cost coast cities to cheaper locales such as Salt Lake City, Utah, and Boise, Idaho. High in demand, many commanded the same pay they made in San Francisco and Seattle. “Work from anywhere” became a favorite recruiting tactic, with some workers being told they’d never need to come back to the office.

Remote work also fueled a digital commerce boom that let online retail giants like Amazon reap record profits, and hire hundreds of thousands of people, many in far-flung places. Over 2020 and 2021, Amazon’s head count roughly doubled to more than 1.6 million employees. Then the company laid off 27,000 workers starting in late 2022.

The once red-hot demand for tech talent has been cooling as the industry adjusts its labor needs and shifts resources into artificial intelligence. Postings for software development jobs are down more than 30% since February 2020, according to Indeed.com. And industry layoffs that began in late 2022 have continued this year: Tech companies have shed around 137,000 jobs since January, according to Layoffs.fyi.

Returning to the office five days a week may prove too difficult for many companies. All of that remote pandemic hiring means many companies’ workforces are far more scattered than before. Nearly a third of workers at large firms last year didn’t work in the same metro area as their managers, up from about 23% in February 2020, according to data from payroll provider ADP.

“For us, and for many CEOs at this time, bringing everyone back fully would be so disruptive—not just to the company, but to employees’ lives as well,” said David Ko, CEO of Calm, a mental-health app. Calm shifted to remote work at the pandemic’s onset in 2020. Nearby staff now typically come into one of its six office hubs anywhere from one to five days a week, depending on the role, and the company periodically brings some teams together for two- to three-day collaboration sprints on specific projects.

Will companies succeed in coaxing remote workers back into offices? The answer likely hinges on hiring demand. Economists David Autor, Arindrajit Dube and Annie McGrew have found that the share of people working from home was significantly higher in states with tight labor markets during the 2021 to 2023 period than states with looser markets.

For now, bosses are likely to get more questions from their workers wondering if they need to get ready to be in the office more often.

In a meeting with Intuit’s New York office this week, employees pressed CEO Sasan Goodarzi to address Amazon’s move, and to clarify whether the company would change its own policy. The maker of TurboTax software generally asks employees to show up in person at least two days a week.

Goodarzi told them he’d like them to come to the office a bit more—say, three days a week—but didn’t call for a full in-office return. He has told employees before that he believes the current ways of working could still evolve, based on what Intuit needs.

In an interview afterward, he said that employee surveys and badge-tracking data show Intuit’s most engaged staffers typically come in three to four days. Those who are there one day, or less, tend to be weaker performers.

“There’s a massive experiment going on,” said Goodarzi of corporate work arrangements. “I think it’s important that we remain curious as to what’s the optimal answer.”

Justin Lahart contributed to this article.

Write to Vanessa Fuhrmans at Vanessa.Fuhrmans@wsj.com, Katherine Bindley at katie.bindley@wsj.com and Chip Cutter at chip.cutter@wsj.com

SOURCE
 
as someone that has worked mostly remove for the last 20+ years.
CIA spook detected..... :)

Exactly. These companies that produce and sell an electronically distributed product have literally no need to herd the bulk of their employees into incredibly expensive offices. It's beyond stupid.
Yet, recall the famous meme image of the Zoom offices....

It's all for the prestige.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falcos_Commisar
This.

Work-from-home is actually work-at-home.

As long as you're at home? You'll be working.....

Sounds great to start with.

No commute

No dress code

No theft of lunches


But then, when you think about it....


No end to office hours.

This is something that became a serious discussion topic I found during covid, and ongoing for some.

I did observe some managers, and employees, really did lose the home/work divide. When HR or unions do their surveys they almost always come back with "Home working good".

Without being too specific, Im not giving a 101 on how to fool productivity/monitoring software, when I look at internal data Ive seen some interesting things. Productivity doesn't always go up at home, more often than not there's a slight drop from where an individual person was before (the bonuses you can get from being a pro active presence not being factored in). Not huge, it is small and can be written off under some HR wellness allowance. What I do see is an increase in hours spent online and a decrease in speed across the board.

Workers tend to spend more time working, but working at a slower pace. I mean, in my line of work and level the ones I look over are salaried. They're getting their weekly hours and no more, but they spend more time doing it. It may be more different if you have an hourly rate.

Not something for me to raise or complain about, the output is the same at the end of the day but I wonder if people do think how it might not actually give you more free time.

This is of course assuming your manager isn't a psychopath who reaches out for you outside of office hours and penalises you directly or indirectly for not jumping on command. Wrong as it is, I have seen this and its a lot easier to do when all the necessary equipment is at hand at all times.
 
Last edited:
I see three kinds of people when it comes to the WFH stance:
It is easier if you can see them in irl and also if you push them to perform on the spot.
Working from home is too much "and then I had really important meetings with secret department, and then I invented the flux capacitor".
If you can watch them irl, especially in interactions with other engineers and design meetings it becomes a lot harder for them to "I missed the meeting because President Obama wanted me to test the new time travel-portal"

You can hide your incompetence a lot better behind a zoom call that when you are in person in front of the brainstorming whiteboard.

And also, as someone that has worked mostly remove for the last 20+ years. It requres an enormous amount of discipline to work remotely. And it is VERY hard because you lose so many of the enormously important face to face meetings in front of a whiteboard.
You would be surprised of how many of the billion dollar ideas were hashed out informally and ad-hoc in front of a whiteboard compared to something like a ITU-T standard.
1 is this stance. Either full non-wfh, or hybrid supporters, who will state they are fully aware of people whose productivity suffers if left to their own devices. Granted, they probably trend more extroverted in general.

If we were to look back at work methods over the years, there have always been times of mass change that have taken some getting used to and the COVID 19 lockdown artificially accelerated the "work from home" discussion and left a lot of businesses floundering about to find their "correct" approach.

However, a lot of the roles were shoehorned into WFH that didn't really work, from practical or logistical reasons, but I accept that it was better to try "something" than do nothing.
It's not unreasonable for companies to expect those roles to revert back to what they used to be.

I worked from a home office before lockdown, because my role and working style is suited to that.
My own experience is that I'm far more productive because I don't have people wandering up to my desk with "just a quick question" which magically transforms into a meeting (or three) with an ever expanding scope and audience.
2 is the stance of people like Nero here. hybrid to pro-WFH, WFH centrists essentially, who take various stances which can be generalised as 'it's not for everyone, only certain jobs/mindsets' and may or may not identify as part of that subset. I would consider myself part of this group in outlook, but not as part of the functional full-WFH subset. Others just value the ability to clock out and tell the boss to fuck off 'till monday.

And then, we have stance 3:
The person who crawls out of bed five minutes before work realizes (correctly) that giving 110 percent will result in him getting a wage that barely pays the rent on the cardboard box he lives in and his boss getting a third house. Tell me why the average wagie should burn themselves out for corporations who'd happily have them run over if they were allowed to take insurance policies out on their employees?

The benefits of increased productivity haven't trickled down to the average worker. People won't engage in a system they don't benefit from, especially as inflation robs them of their money and assets in real time, and foreign scab workers rob their labor of its value. Working from home was the only bone that corporations could throw their workers, and now they want to take it back, lest the peasants get too uppity. Let them try.
People who have outlooks on work structure that varies from disappointed to outright hostile. People who will, nine times out of ten, insist that the entire system is designed to screw them over. People who are completely unmotivated, who seem to hate everyone else at their job, and believe with ironclad certainty that their work is underappreciated and underpaid.

People who say all of this, yet insist - with incredible vigour - that there is absolutely no value to them being in a place where anyone else who works for their company could actually check in and make sure they're not watching My Little Pony porn on the company's dime.

Bonus points if they complain about either lazy activists/coomers, or state that all COVID policies were a disaster - but don't make the leap that maybe the slapdash policies to keep most businesses somewhat functional during covid are also a disaster, or that the activists/coomers don't exploit these policies to their absolute fullest. To say nothing of those whose industries are actively contracting, and yet dig their heels in the sand about something they would have been perfectly agreeable doing a handful of years ago like that isn't going to be the perfect excuse for their boss to kick their ass out the door.
 
I found that the people who slack off from home will still slack off in the office and cause more problems for everyone else. These people were the "chatterboxes" that roam the building trapping various people in endless conversations all day every day.
They never get fired because, even though they never produce anything, management love them for their brown nosing and ability to talk "positively" about future plans and "how" we should all be working.
These people always volunteer for the DEI nonsense so will sit in planning meetings about crap completely unrelated to work then inflict this mindslop on everyone else during branch/team meetings.
This still counts as work to the organisation so no one cares they don't do what they're actually paid to do.

A job that takes me 30mins at home to work on because I can sit and silence and work can take close to all day in the office from the constant distractions around me.
There is definitely a productivity benefit to WFH.
 
If your job can be done from home, than your job can (and will) be done from India,
It depends what you do, but in general I dont think this is true. I base this opinion on the fact that a lot of people who do what I do do it from home mainly, and we’ve still never managed to outsource it to India because it just doesn’t work. They can’t do it. Even outsourcing the grunt stuff is unpopular and often backfires. Most of what I do can be done remotely, if I need to go visit a site it’s not where the office is anyway and I don’t actually work in a project with anyone in the local office either so there’s no point sitting on two buses for an hour each way to work remotely in an office then get on a plane to visit a site.

If people wanted to wfh and didn’t use Covid as a bargaining chip to get their contract changed to an ironclad wfh deal, they done goofed.

As for people not working, well every place I’ve ever worked it’s obvious that the 20:80 rule holds, and it holds remotely or in office. There’s a large number of office drones who just shuffle stuff around and produce or do nothing. There’s also a load of people who hate wfh because interaction with colleagues is important to them and maybe they need that in person stuff too. There are some jobs that need you to be there to be productive or creative, it’s horses for courses, but just shoving people back into cubes to not speak to each other is effectively remote anyway.
 
Last edited:
Why do you have to get people to come into the office to do this? Just map out what they actually do and fire the ones that don't do anything. That's what a manager or head is meant to do.
If you fire them then you have to pay out unemployment or deal with discrimination drama if they are colored or a person of gender.

If you make them quit on their own then your off the hook for everything.

My guess is a lot of people who legit did nothing but goof off for the past few years or moved away are going to just quit rather then come back to the office and do real work. It's going to be a freebe layoff for alot of companies that wanted to reduce headcount anyways. .

Having worked in an office where people got to work from home, I can say that it creates an environment where it really is unfair to the people actually there. Not being able to transfer calls, even if they were the ones to specifically set and up and handle those incoming calls; not being there to take calls and instead do some vague task that wouldn't take all day, and so forth.
This is the problem in my office. Some people who got WFH during covid or later hired for WFH are left out of a lot of meetings or other activities because its just a PITA to include them. And when they are needed for some pop-up issue you can never get a hold of them. The in-office people all think they are picking up the slack for people who get paid to do nothing all day at home.
 
I'll come into the office if you give me one with my name by the door that I can personalize and make my own. This "hoteling" bullshit is so incredibly disrespectful to employees and even outright insulting, it says to your face you are an interchangeable part and nothing more. You as a person do not matter.

I also think it's designed to prevent employees from getting to know each other so they are continually isolated and easier to exploit.

People who have outlooks on work structure that varies from disappointed to outright hostile. People who will, nine times out of ten, insist that the entire system is designed to screw them over. People who are completely unmotivated, who seem to hate everyone else at their job, and believe with ironclad certainty that their work is underappreciated and underpaid.
Because honestly a lot of the time they're right, their work is underappreciated, they are underpaid and they're not getting opportunities or ownership of things to motivate them.

A lot of elements of workplace culture have shifted in horrible ways over the past 15 years. There is a real problem out there and it's causing a lot of harm.
 
Last edited:
You have to be firm with those people. I got one of those Luxafor LED indicators and if it's red, you cannot disturb me. If someone tries to anyway with "just a quick question" I just tell them I'm currently focused on a task but I can come back to them later with an answer (unless it's c-suite, obviously). The trick is to only use it when you're actively concentrating on something, because if you leave it red most of the time (like someone who copied me did) then people learn to ignore it completely.
A place I used to work at trialled those, but as you note, it only takes one person to over indulge on their use to undermine the whole concept and they gave up with the plan.
I found that the more senior managers and execs are the worst offenders and pushing back against them, generally, isn't something that has a good outcome.
 
when you become a manager of a field that isn't your own it does become harder to know the intricacies like how long something actually takes for certain.
Kill any manager who doesn't have direct experience doing the thing he expects his subordinates to do.

Unironically and not in Minecraft
 
It's going to be a freebe layoff for alot of companies that wanted to reduce headcount anyways.
It's 100% a backdoor layoff without having to go through any of the WARN Act stuff or making investors worried. Especially if the office conditions/commute suck and people will leave just to avoid having to be there five days a week.

In any case, for me personally it's simply not happening until hoteling ends.
 
I kind of hope the work from home thing does end. There's a trend I've been noticing, I'm not sure of other small towns are like this but, I go to people's houses for my work and I've noticed a huge increase in the number of people who now live here but don't participate in the community in any way. They work from home, they have all their stuff delivered from Amazon and shit like that, they don't even use local grocery stores they'll even have their food delivered and they all moved here within the last 4 years.

It's created this weird effect where there's both a lack of affordable real estate or even rentals but also a fairly bad labour shortage even for skilled well paying positions and so the pajeets have been rolling in and bring their families to fill up all the jobs.

Every time I go to one of those houses.with people like that it just bothers me. Like why the fuck did you move to a place where there's already a lack of resources and too many fucking people if you could live anywhere and it wouldn't matter? And they'll sit and brag to you about how they give zero fucks about the community and don't need to bother with anything in town because they live online. The work from home laptop faggots should fuck off back to their offices and their bughives.
 
I'll come into the office if you give me one with my name by the door that I can personalize and make my own. This "hoteling" bullshit is so incredibly disrespectful to employees and even outright insulting, it says to your face you are an interchangeable part and nothing more. You as a person do not matter.

I also think it's designed to prevent employees from getting to know each other so they are continually isolated and easier to exploit.


Because honestly a lot of the time they're right, their work is underappreciated, they are underpaid and they're not getting opportunities or ownership of things to motivate them.

A lot of elements of workplace culture have shifted in horrible ways over the past 15 years. There is a real problem out there and it's causing a lot of harm.
My point is that a lot of Stance 3 people are so openly hostile that it reads as insecure or paranoid, and I cannot help but think that their managers have a point riding their asses. I'm not even disagreeing with you here that there's been a lot of shitty workplace policies over the years - I just think chances are there's a much smaller group that benefit in both productivity and free time from policies like these than there are people who claim they benefit in both.

If your work is generally not getting the respect it deserves, the least productive thing is to lurk in the shadows of the company that's not appreciating you so you can squeeze out every extra minute you can. The business world is more a staircase world than it is an elevator one - look for a different job with better pay/conditions elsewhere.

...what's this hotelling thing you're talking about, by the way? is it giving offices standardised numbers rather than designating them to certain people?
 
Last edited:
My point is that a lot of Stance 3 people are so openly hostile that it reads as insecure or paranoid, and I cannot help but think that their managers have a point riding their asses. I'm not even disagreeing with you here that there's been a lot of shitty workplace policies over the years - I just think chances are there's a much smaller group that benefit in both productivity and free time from policies like these than there are people who claim they benefit in both.
I can't say for sure which it is without more context. I've mostly seen it being legit because there is some really bad shit in this industry and it burns people out or even kills them. The best approach may be to discuss office work and concerns with them in advance, you'll be able to tell who has legitimate grievances and who's just goldbricking.

It also sounds like negative effects from isolation. Some people like me are comfortable with it and prefer the solitude when working since my work is now extremely specialized for certain types of engagements and requires a lot of research and wading through paperwork.

Others get weird and hostile exactly like what you're describing.
 
...what's this hotelling thing you're talking about, by the way? is it giving offices standardised numbers rather than designating them to certain people?
Basically you have a row of desk/cubes and you "check in" to thst desk for the day and then "check out" (leave) at the end of the day.

So nobody gets the same desk every day and the company maximize space by leaving nothing empty.
 
Basically you have a row of desk/cubes and you "check in" to thst desk for the day and then "check out" (leave) at the end of the day.

So nobody gets the same desk every day and the company maximize space by leaving nothing empty.
Ah, so hotdesking with extra bureaucracy. Fun!

I’ll point out that things like that are downstream of hybrid models specifically - it’s from when companies hire more people than they have desks, so there may not be space for everyone on a given day. In practice, it’s generally easiest if people come in on set days as a whole team and set up in the same place every day. This often leads to people being able to essentially ‘cool down’ hotdesks and claim them.
 
Why do you have to get people to come into the office to do this? Just map out what they actually do and fire the ones that don't do anything. That's what a manager or head is meant to do.

My own experience is that I'm far more productive because I don't have people wandering up to my desk with "just a quick question" which magically transforms into a meeting (or three) with an ever expanding scope and audience.
This is a huge issue with my job because I’m the only person that has the specific skill set for my role. It’s maddening. I’ve had to turn into an asshole that just refuses even a “quick question.” I go into the office specific days and times for actual meetings or other things I need to do in person, but I have made it clear that I won’t commit to deadlines if I can’t be given the flexibility to work away from the office as much as I’ll need.
I found that the people who slack off from home will still slack off in the office and cause more problems for everyone else.
Exactly. The practice of treating your entire work force as the bottom 10% is a sure way to fill your company with the worst performers. Anyone who is worth anything will leave as quickly as possible.
 
Sucks to you wagie, I support the US Gov and the govie union basically told Biden to fuck off (while calling themselves heroes for working during COVID). My ass is never going back on site to spend a 1 hour plus each way in traffic to site in a storage closest that has been converted to six desk in a windowless concert building made in the 50s. My ass is taking a paycut before that shit happens cause I'm not going back.

Plus I work in the IT area of "Clean up after the Pajeet" and business isn't slowing down.
 
They don't want you to not be a slave. They don't want you to be happy. They want you to go into their offices, eat their slop, and thank them for working you like the little slave cuck you are.
Yeah sure you are such a hero sticking it to the man, but all those blue collar workers and others who have to be on site to work, sometimes far away from home for weeks or months, can get fucked. They deserve to be slaves and not be happy and eat slop and work like little slave cucks because they didnt learn to code lawl, privileges for meeee but not for theeee you resentful faggot leech.
 
Back