• scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    22 hours ago

    If Amazon don’t think that remote work is productive, then they don’t think they’re losing anything. I don’t even know how “stealth” this is at all. They must believe that those individuals could be productive, because they are trying to keep them working in office. I’m not sure why anyone thinks a company like Amazon would try to be “stealth” about a layoff anyway. They don’t need to.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        And returning to the office probably doesn’t count as an unreasonable change to the agreement, so you probably won’t win if you sue, and the unemployment office probably won’t help.

        So yeah, sucks all around.

        • BalooWasWahoo@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          It definitely counts as an unreasonable change. If you quietly accept it, or quit due to it, you won’t get the help. If you set things up in your favor by replying to the mandate with language along the lines of ‘such a significant change to working conditions requires a renegotiation of my contract’ then you’re placing yourself in a good position to say that you were constructively dismissed, not that you quit.

          A change from working wherever you are (which could be hours away if you were full remote) to the office is just as significant as being moved from one metropolis to another.

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      21 hours ago

      So they don’t have to pay severance or other state penalties for doing an actual layoff. They aren’t thinking of talent with this move.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I find that unconvincing. That they will give up all control in order to save what is ultimately a small amount of money. Paying severance to cut people is already a way to save and reduce budgets. To say they will give up control and take real risks with who they lose just to avoid a piddling 2 months salary per head… it doesn’t add up.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        Yeah, I think they want to reduce headcount, and this is the cheapest way to do it. I’m guessing they’re getting some flack for investing so much in AI w/o enough return to justify it, so they’re culling a lot of the workforce to juice the numbers a bit until that investment starts to make sense. They’ll probably just reshuffle people around as needed within the org to fill the gaps.

    • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I am pretty sure working from home has proven to be more productive, so I think other factors are at play here. I worry that returning to the office might be the only way to keep the capitalists from trying to send our jobs over to poorer nations. If the tapeworms think the job needs to be done face to face then it is much hardet to send those jobs to India or S. America.

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        They’ve already tried to send all the jobs they can to India or South America. It ultimately didn’t work. They can send some, but the language and cultural barriers, plus the difficulty of assessing quality candidates just doesn’t make it viable at scale. They’ve already tried that game and it failed. Everything that can be outsourced to India already has been outsourced to India.