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
 
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.
How the fuck do you sleep at night after typing shit like that??
 
I've never heard a good defense of WFH other than "but you don't have to deal with traffic/additional DEI bullshit/open offices"

I've never heard a good defense of chemotherapy other than "it fights cancer", weird how that works, isn't it?

For a competent manager, remote workers aren't a problem and are more efficient because they aren't exhausted from hour-long commutes in rough traffic, being bombarded at all hours by auditory/social disruptions, and expending precious mental energy trying to figure out how to order a plain coffee with no cream without being hauled in front of HR harpies for racism. Plus you get to save money because you aren't spending it on expensive commercial real estate, or at least less of it. Remote work should be a boon to managers and workers alike, but that depends on having competent management teams.

That is the problem - you have management teams that have no idea how to hire people that will actually work, have no idea how to actually manage, no idea how to evaluate productivity, and no idea how to solve their very basic management problems. A good manager should know how productive each member of their team is, and how to get the best performance from them over the long term - but the issue is the lack of good managers. The arms race between mouse-jigglers and IT teams to detect them is just a symptom of this larger issue of incompetent management teams.

If the only way you're effectively tracking how much work or value an employee is generating is by tracking keystrokes/mouse moves, then your management team sucks ass. Unless its a data-entry/captioning job or something, the metric you're capturing is likely barely connected to whatever they're supposed to be doing. However, they are "numbers and metrics" and shitty managers can use them as a crutch to try and paper over their own inadequacies.

This is why the C-suite and middle management is so fundamentally against WFH, sure there are economic reasons, but primarily it is because every negative aspect of the WFH situation can be tracked directly back to their own incompetency.
 
How the fuck do you sleep at night after typing shit like that??
...Did you mean to copy literally any other part of my posts? Hotdesking is a result of hybrid workplaces where there are more people than desks, which is only possible if people aren't spending the whole week at work. You don't need to hotdesk if you have more desks than people, or people are in the office full time. And if you coordinate with your team, you can often blunt the aspect of having to change your spot constantly by all coming in to the same place at the same time.

This is by far the least controversial thing I've said in this thread????? no, seriously, why did that stop you?
 
...Did you mean to copy literally any other part of my posts? Hotdesking is a result of hybrid workplaces where there are more people than desks, which is only possible if people aren't spending the whole week at work. You don't need to hotdesk if you have more desks than people, or people are in the office full time. And if you coordinate with your team, you can often blunt the aspect of having to change your spot constantly by all coming in to the same place at the same time.

This is by far the least controversial thing I've said in this thread????? no, seriously, why did that stop you?
"bzzzz bzzzz bzzzzzzz"
 
  • Like
Reactions: FierceBrosnan
Why dont they just layoff the office?
You can just pay yourself the bonus for however much the lease was.

And you get to save all the upkeep and maintenence for equipment and services and dont have to buy milk for the staff fridge.

Of course what they dont say is the office is a place meant to impress and trick investors into investing into whatever vaporware that office is dedicated to producing.
Because Amazon (from the article) doesn't lease - they own it. They spent upward of four billion dollars on their new Seattle Campus (probably more), three billion dollars on HQ2 which isn't even finished yet, and so on. Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc all have huge swathes of real estate dollars tied up in commercial real estate - probably a trillion dollars combined and the only way any of it has value is if it's used.

The main thing (regardless of what anyone else says) what WFH threatens is the Commercial Real Estate Market which is why the wealthy are scared shitless of it. Even your "bog standard" office building with like 3 floors holding 6 companies is worth like $1.2 million currently and if you were to roll up all of "Commercial Real Estate" into a single company, you'd have a company that would be bigger than Apple, MS, Google, and Amazon combined. If WFH stays the standard - trillions in value will be shed if they can't find a use for these increasingly empty buildings.

These are buildings that can only be used for Office Workers - they aren't up to code for residential and no one wants to re-invest in real estate during one of the worst economic periods of the last twenty years.
 
As much as the whole worker/manager relationship is fucked, I've never heard a good defense of WFH other than "but you don't have to deal with traffic/additional DEI bullshit/open offices" especially now since mask mandates are over, and I know the two-tier system it creates between in-office and out of office. It might've been different if I could redirect calls through their cell phone (and there are solutions to that, like routing it through VoIP).

That whole thing with the mouse jiggler software—either the employee is a lazy asshole with no concept of work, or the manager has no goals other than just "busywork".
Not having to deal with commuting, DEI or the insanely annoying offices are pretty good reasons.

  • Lot of people spend 30-60 minutes going to work, then another 30-60 minutes getting back home. That's an hour or two a day sitting in your car driving around lunatics that shouldn't be behind the wheel.
  • DEI is insanely annoying and has people treated like shit while having to smile and take it. No one wants to experience that all day.
  • The office setups are also shit where many now pine for the days of cubicles.

The only ones that suffer are managers that want to imagine they are imbuing productivity through osmosis if the employee is in the office, those that crave the power displays they enjoy with DEI, or those that have zero lives outside of work and want the social interactions throughout the day. The last bit I think is the biggest issue right now, where many of the hardest working people, which can often be higher ups, at some companies have no life outside work so being stuck at home makes them go insane.

Like the people wanting to have drinks with coworkers/employees after work or at least chat over lunch.

Then you also have those that may have wanted to climb up the corporate ladder by getting to get friendly with the right people, who have no chance of that if they're only seeing people over zoom.

A happy compromise would likely be to have people still come into work, but have the office be somewhere people can live affordably and still have a nice time out in the evening, while having the DEI shit and bad office designs thrown out. Which is likely why you get companies trying to do the campuses in a lot of places so people have zero commute.
 
If you want a real trip, you have to go read the comments section on WSJ for this. WSJ is only getting more aggravating to read as a I get older and more openly anti-any labor rights at all, but holy god the number of narcissistic boomers booming and declaring that everyone that doesn't work 80 hours a week in the salt mines is a useless waste of air is amazing. It's kind of amazing how deranged the comments get on there (and there's probably a lot of proto-lolcows that comment regularly).

Companies are starting to get wise to the Pajeet menace. It's not the end. It's not even the beginning of the end. But it may be the end of the beginning.

You know, I really hope they get the message this time. I remember how excited retards were to offshore to the subcontinent in the 2000's and how much of a mess that caused. I think the retards in management have to learn every 5-10 years or so why offshoring to shitholes failed the first time and why it's going to inevitably fail again for what should be obvious reasons. This is all ignoring why offshoring to shithole countries is awful for non-profit motivated reasons, too.
 
Last edited:
If you want a real trip, you have to go read the comments section on WSJ for this. WSJ is only getting more aggravating to read as a I get older and more openly anti-any labor rights at all, but holy god the number of narcissistic boomers booming and declaring that everyone that doesn't work 80 hours a week in the salt mines is a useless waste of air is amazing. It's kind of amazing how deranged the comments get on there (and there's probably a lot of proto-lolcows that comment regularly).

They lean against Trump as well in general.

Murdock buying them out, really was the end of them.

Edit: It was the WSJ that went after PewDiePie and ended the last good years of Youtube as well. Not NY Times or WaPo.
 
Then you also have those that may have wanted to climb up the corporate ladder by getting to get friendly with the right people, who have no chance of that if they're only seeing people over zoom.
If you can't figure out how to brown-nose over zoom/slack/discord, you probably don't deserve to be promoted. The Youth manage to have entire social circles and "relationships" on these platforms, sometimes without ever seeing pictures of each other.
 
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.
OH NO now you have to.... actually show up for work. How Terrible.

While I fully agree there are many jobs that can be done just as well remotely as they can in an office, I also know first hand that the average laptop caste remote worker is completely retarded and actually needs to be wrangled to be productive. Besides, I thought these cushy tech jobs were all avocado toast and rainbows and you get paid 6 figures to show up for a job that amounts to an adult daycare. So were all those "this job is so great I get snacks and play all day" TikToks a lie? You'd think anyone would be happy to go back to that.
 
These are buildings that can only be used for Office Workers - they aren't up to code for residential and no one wants to re-invest in real estate during one of the worst economic periods of the last twenty years.
I think the problem is that not only do people not want to invest in a conversion, it's sometimes practically impossible to convert a lot of modern office blocks into residential use. For example, take your standard shiny corporate skyscraper floorplate:
img_floor04.png
If you grab some architect plans for residential apartments and scale the furniture down to fit, you can best-guess how to cram apartments into one of these. The problem is that people like windows. You can get away with not having windows in a bathroom, so then you get something like this:
13appts.png
12 reasonably proportioned 2-bed apartments and a 1 bed apartment squeezed in for good measure. Without addressing the subsequent issues (all the plumbing is supplied to a central point, so how are you going to get it out to each apartment, the skyscraper is designed for lots of people in a large room so has high ceilings and floor length curtain windows, which makes managing the temperature in individual units more difficult) that's a LOT of wasted space. You could fix it by turning the central core into a courtyard, but then the building would fall down because the central core is a main part of its construction. So for a lot of modern offices, you'd basically have to demolish it and build something new, and demolishing a tall building is expensive.

Probably the only way you could actually convert something like that into residential use would be to make it into a worker dormitory with shared bathrooms and kitchens and then have the residents sleeping in pods:
pods.jpg
but despite the memes, the overwhelming majority of people will NOT live in pods. You don't have this issue so much with older offices, but you still see shitty conversions like Terminus House in Harlow
terminushouse.jpgo_1hd3naiqbkm21c3l74j1iq6akm0.jpg
which is little better than pod living and rapidly turned into a slum (and also is immensely isolated from amenities because it was built as a place to commute to) or insane student dorms for adults like "The Collective"
the-collective-old-oak-0001-web.jpgcollective.jpg
which is in the middle of a run down industrial estate in Willesden.
 
Indians are, by and large, incompetents who fuck up the most minor of tasks. It's why white contractors get hired to fix their mistakes.
Yes just that adds to the overall unproductive nature of the economy. Instead of doing it right the first time with more people we need to hire a specialist to fix the Pajeets mistakes taking longer than the initial time savings
 
Working from home was the norm for millennia. You either got of bed and farmed, or you got out of bed and walked into your workshop. Maybe you would go hunting or foraging some days, or go to the market to stock up or sell your wares. Increasingly complex means of production made it more profitable to put manual laborers together in factories. For knowledge workers, going in to an office really became a thing when their work required voluminous records that could only be produced by hand, and later by specialized machines. We don't live in that world any more. That doesn't mean every office will wither and die, but one of the core assumptions, the need for centralized records

I always worked better from home. And spent more time working. Meetings were easier, too: no need to secure a room, and my home office was private so I could discuss whatever on Teams without everyone else listening in. But the ladies in the office couldn't do their weekly parties and morale events, which was really hard for them. And the younger guys enjoyed talking to them--I don't think any of them are screwing--while the older ones hang out with each other and talk about sports or their kids.

If your job can be done from home, than your job can (and will) be done from India,
Not if there's a requirement to live within driving distance of your office. Or a requirement to keep your data within the US. Or a citizenship requirement.

OH NO now you have to.... actually show up for work. How Terrible.
You have to show up for work if your office is in your house, too.
 
If a job can be done remotely I think it should, what's the point of forcing people to commute to an office to do something they could do at home, just to arbitrarily extend the work day? cost people more money in gas, etc? put more emissions in the air? I suppose that last one might be meaningless and have no actual effect, but most corporations like to virtue signal about the environment and other gay shit so this seems hypocritical.

"But they'll just hire Indians!", they already do, the import them by the hundreds of millions.

I don't get why people want to be part of a menial labor slave class working in cubicles, it's bizarre to me how much this awkward and pathetic way of life has been put on such a pedestal. I guess it makes sense, 70% of people in the middle ages were just serfs so most people are descendants of serfs and just want to be slaves driving to and from an office doing some dumb job that makes your boss rich and mostly just wastes your time. If you enjoy it, and you think that's all your life is worth than more power to ya.

I'm sure the company really appreciated all your hard work lol.
 
Not having to deal with commuting, DEI or the insanely annoying offices are pretty good reasons.
My point is two-fold.

There's rarely an inherent reason to WFH and in many situations WFH is so poorly implemented that it's not worth having any WFH people at all.

You can fix office layouts and the worst of DEI policy. You can't fix the type of work that needs to be done.

If the only way you're effectively tracking how much work or value an employee is generating is by tracking keystrokes/mouse moves, then your management team sucks ass. Unless its a data-entry/captioning job or something, the metric you're capturing is likely barely connected to whatever they're supposed to be doing. However, they are "numbers and metrics" and shitty managers can use them as a crutch to try and paper over their own inadequacies.

This is why the C-suite and middle management is so fundamentally against WFH, sure there are economic reasons, but primarily it is because every negative aspect of the WFH situation can be tracked directly back to their own incompetency.

It's not just management. WFH exposed a bunch of people who are the talentless, useless people in the industry and somehow they can keep their jobs. In the issue of security (sensitive information, etc.) either you should've put people back in the office immediately if the data was that sensitive, or just fire people if you can't trust them. It's like the social media catch-22, companies will want to hire people with active social media accounts, but if you're that type of person you're more likely to leak sensitive information/air your grievances/improperly speak on the company's behalf and so on.

It could be that I particularly resented my WFH coworkers as I disliked them for their lack of talent and the inconvenience they caused, but I think that WFH is really on a case-by-case basis.
 
I don't get why people want to be part of a menial labor slave class working in cubicles, it's bizarre to me how much this awkward and pathetic way of life has been put on such a pedestal.
It is better than retail, working at amazon's warehouses or, doing hard labor for low pay. The later two will ruin your body and once that is done you really don't have many options left. A job with mediocre pay where you're able to sit in an air conditioned/heated office beats slaving away in the elements or trying to work around a conveyor belt until you back gives out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: demicolon
My point is two-fold.

There's rarely an inherent reason to WFH and in many situations WFH is so poorly implemented that it's not worth having any WFH people at all.

You can fix office layouts and the worst of DEI policy. You can't fix the type of work that needs to be done.



It's not just management. WFH exposed a bunch of people who are the talentless, useless people in the industry and somehow they can keep their jobs. In the issue of security (sensitive information, etc.) either you should've put people back in the office immediately if the data was that sensitive, or just fire people if you can't trust them. It's like the social media catch-22, companies will want to hire people with active social media accounts, but if you're that type of person you're more likely to leak sensitive information/air your grievances/improperly speak on the company's behalf and so on.

It could be that I particularly resented my WFH coworkers as I disliked them for their lack of talent and the inconvenience they caused, but I think that WFH is really on a case-by-case basis.
I can just easily say that there's no inherent reason to work from the office and in many situations working from the office is so poorly implemented that it's not worth having any in office people at all.

Plenty of people were talentless and useless in the office and kept their jobs too. If you didn't notice that, it's because you're the type of person easily taken in by brownnosing, flattery, and pointless socialization.
 
Back