this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
296 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
3630 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 14 points 2 hours ago

That might've been the plan all along.

[–] sjh@sh.itjust.works 19 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Wow, it seems like the return-to-office mandate is causing quite the shake-up! Totally get why folks are jumping ship - flexibility has become such a big deal, especially after getting used to working from home. I read that 65% of workers now say they'd consider quitting if they couldn't work remotely! It's all about finding that work-life balance in a job that respects our needs. Hang in there, tech friends—plenty of companies out there understand the power of flexibility and trust!

[–] geography082@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

that’s actually what those pieces of dump wanted lol

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 146 points 5 hours ago (5 children)

Now they can replace them without paying unemployment and pay the new workers a lower wage. This is what they wanted to happen. Mega corporations are a problem we need to solve as a society.

[–] eee@lemm.ee 22 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

yeah, the only problem is that this results in the best talent leaving, you're stuck with people who have nowhere else to go. it's one of those short-term profits kinda things, which is why Wall St loves it so much.

[–] mrspaz@lemmy.world 9 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Ooh, that's good.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 41 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

Quality programmers are a finite resource. Amazon chewed through the entire unskilled labor market with their warehouses and then struggled to find employees to meet their labor needs. If they try the same stunt with skilled labor they're in for a very rude awakening. They'll be able to find people, but only for well above market rates. They're highly likely to find in the long run it would have been much cheaper to hang onto the people they already had.

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 7 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

That's the next executive's problem. These executives will jump ship with their golden parachutes before any of that affects them.

[–] Jrockwar@feddit.uk 5 points 1 hour ago

Well then bring it on. If feels too big to fail, but if (hypothetically) Amazon were to go under, the world would be a better place.

[–] Sinuhe@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 58 minutes ago)

An awakening would mean they would analyze and understand the situation. They won’t. Amazon has and probably always had a bullish “my way or the highway” attitude - ask people what they think, pretend you care, then ignore everything they might say. Upper managers make decisions uniquely based off costs and short term vision, and are never held accountable for the consequences. I worked there for years and you really can’t imagine how bad the work culture is there, whatever you have in mind is worse in reality

[–] omarfw@lemmy.world 34 points 2 hours ago

The whole problem with companies like Amazon is that hardly anyone in charge of them seems to care about long term sustainability. They all just invest enough effort to squeeze out some short term profits, earn their bonuses and then leave for another company to do it all again. Nobody is interested in sustainability because there is no incentive to. They're playing hot potato with the collapse of the company.

[–] TheFunkyMonk@lemmy.world 17 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I thought the same. Interesting strategy cutting the people who are good enough to get another job.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

As long as it looks good on paper, somebody in higher management is getting a bonus for this.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 13 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

And they want people off the vesting ramp as early as possible.

Amazon does 5-15-40-40

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I’ve… never heard of such a vesting schedule. Doesn’t everyone else pretty much do 25%/year ?

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Amazon is super stressful and I guess a lot of people quit the first few years. Maybe the 40% is to motivate them to stay for more hellish years.

I'm very happy not to work at Amazon.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Oh I get why they do it. I’m just surprised they can get away with it. Also they pay pretty damn well so I guess that helps.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 3 points 49 minutes ago (1 children)

This isn't what they want to happen. They know it will happen, but this isn't the goal or objective.

Amazon is a big boy company, if they want to cut staff, they'll cut staff. The problem with cutting staff this way, is that they don't get to decide who they're cutting. They don't want to cut talented employees at random, they want to pick the low performers and let them go. This is kind of the opposite of that.

The higher skilled the employee is, the more likely they are to have been hired remote, and to feel they can find another job also. That means they're effectively shooting themselves in the foot and getting rid of some of their talented employees for the benefit of bringing people into the office.

There has been a swing in the business opinion that work from home isn't as efficient. This is basically the higher-ups falling in line with that opinion.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 1 points 14 minutes ago* (last edited 14 minutes ago)

I think they do actually want to cut the high skilled talent. High skill means high pay, and now that they've achieved market dominance in pretty much every industry they've stuck their penis into they don't need talent. Lower skilled, and therefore lower paid, employees can do just good enough to keep everything from burning down just long enough for the C-suite to get their bonuses and cash out. After that, who cares, they're on to their next grift.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 67 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

That was probably the intent. It works as a soft layoff. Do something wildly unpopular, knowing that a bunch of employees will quit. The ones left will pick up the slack, because obviously if they had anywhere else to go they would’ve left with the first group.

[–] jewbacca117@lemmy.world 49 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Seems like a great way to lose all your talented employees

[–] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Unfortunately a dollar in cut costs is more valuable than employee talent these days.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

It costs them more in the long run but those metrics are more difficult to capture and convey, and nobody would care anyway.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 45 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Amazing.

They order people to work in different offices than before, far away from before, or in offices that did not even exist before. They order people to work in offices who have only worked at home before.

And they call it "return", and everybody seems to accept the audacity.

Nobody laughs out loud into their faces and calls them the dirty liars that they are.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 8 points 2 hours ago

Because people who suck their tits need their milk.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 22 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

pop culture stock picker Jim Cramer points while looking cranky

That's a sell cue, for any shareholders reading along.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 25 points 5 hours ago

Nah, the shareholders love this shit.

I mean, most of them. Please ignore my piles of AMZN.

[–] db2@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago

Why'd you have to post a pic of that dead-eyed muppet though?

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 17 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

To literally no one’s surprise, least of all the leadership at Amazon. No unemployment when you quit.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 20 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The problem being that the ones moving on to other jobs are the actual talent. Unlike a targeted layoff, this leaves Amazon with the employees no one else wanted.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 12 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

That’s assuming the real talent wasn’t secretly given exception to this. And in any case, what’s important isn’t having the best talent, it’s making the numbers look better for end of year. Amazon has become too big to fail, they don’t need top talent to deliver a superior customer experience. Anyone reliant on cloud offerings is stuck. Employees get laid off, prices go up, product gets worse, who cares. People are paying. Thats the stage of capitalism they’re in.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

This is pessimistic nonsense.

No, Amazon is still very dependent on their software engineers, and no, it's actually quite easy to move cloud offerings and they face stiff competition from both Azure and GCP amongst others.

Also, virtually every single internal piece of HR, management, customer service, DevOps, random internal tool to do X, is written by other software teams at Amazon. You fundamentally do not understand how big tech companies operate if you think they can afford to hemmorage engineering talent without impacting their bottom line in a multitude of ways.

And this is not even to mention the competition that Amazon faces across all its different businesses: Kobo in ebooks, Roku, Google, and Apple TV in streaming boxes; Netflix, Disney, HBO, YouTube in streaming video; Google, Apple, Spotify, Tidal, in music streaming; Shopify, PayPal, Visa, etc in payment processing; Walmart, Best Buy, Shopify, in eretail, etc. etc. etc.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Anyone reliant on cloud offerings is stuck.

There are multiple public clouds. AWS is not the default choice a company uses for a public cloud offering anymore.

[–] elvith@feddit.org 5 points 2 hours ago

Heck, I've heard the argument "We're in retail [or insert other fittig market segments here] and Amazon is a direct competitor. Why the heck should we give them any money or any data*?" several times from several companies.

(*Where data not necessarily only meant giving them "company data" but e.g. also metadata about usage, etc. which cannot be avoided and which might give Amazon some insights)

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 13 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I really do wonder if Amazon will run out of people willing to work for them someday. Their approach assumes there is an infinite supply of workers to burn through. Given everything I’ve witnessed from the company, I’d never work there. Do they at some point poison the labor pool against them?

[–] daddy32@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

You could also think this applies to all corporations in some degree. But no, there's a fresh batch of bright eyed optimistic people out of school every year.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 5 points 18 minutes ago

You could also think this applies to all corporations in some degree. But no, there's a fresh batch of ~~bright eyed optimistic people out of school~~ people desperate to not be homeless or starve every year.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

And if it happens : Rebrand-Time!!

[–] spicystraw@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

Common theory l, that I have heard is that if business owns their office space then it's value is inherently tied to profit margins. If office goes unused, value will drop, which affect bottom line, which affects boards willingness to pay out large CEO bonuses. So getting employees back into the office becomes vital for the leadership.

Burn, baby, burn!