Technology

59207 readers

3055 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

410

Amazon tells managers they can now fire employees who won't come into the office 3 times a week (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Amazon tells managers they can now fire employees who won't come into the office 3 times a week::Amazon shared new guidelines that give managers a template for terminating employees over RTO.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I keep hearing people making this argument.

Is the assumption that Amazon is ignoring their finance dept and that this is driven by the sunk cost fallacy? “We dumped a bunch of money into this, therefore we should continue to move forward with it.”

I ask because the appraised value of property is based on what other’s will likely pay for it. If no one else is wants to pay a lot of money for my office space, it doesn’t matter if I have 1 employees or 10,000 employees in that building.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A lot of companies have long-term contracts for these office spaces that they can't get out of, so whether or not their workers are using the space, they have to pay for it. They should really just write it off as a loss, but I'm not too familiar with how that works. Maybe they can't.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

They do write it off. The real estate theory of RTO doesn't hold water.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that’s kind of what I was getting at with the “sunk cost” thing. “We’re stuck paying for it, so we should use it.”

Even if using it make people less productive, make recruiting harder, and forces tech companies to pay expensive regional Silicon Valley salaries.

[–] dtjones@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think you have the right idea but came to the wrong conclusion. Why would anyone buy office space if there is no value in employees coming to the office? Hint: they wouldn't.

Edited to add: these properties may become a liability on their books which would impact their ability to apply for or pay for loans, as well as other negatives for the company.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No company likes to have liabilities on the books, but to think that they would force an RTO for that reason alone doesn't pass the smell check. It's a more economical option to write off the loss and try your best to sublease the space, or attempt to get out of your lease early. That way, you're no longer stuck with the costs once it's done, and can make more money long-term.

We can also observe this happening in the real world: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/20/dropbox-hands-over-25percent-of-san-francisco-headquarters-back-to-landlord-.html

[–] Pasta4u@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I doubt it's just a singular reason they are forcing return to office.

It's likely property value, micro managing , reducing head count and so on all play a role in jt