• MrFappy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 month ago

    So in this instance would quiet quitting lead to the desired result? Just doing the most subpar work until they’re forced to fire you with a severance…

  • EnderMB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    As an Amazon employee…the man blatantly lied about the figures for those happy to RTO. He probably got them by seeing that ~10% of corporate staff are in the remote advocacy channel, and assumed that everyone else was…happy?

    Regardless, Amazon is known as a place that values data above anything else. If you are a fresh grad PM and you’re caught fudging or misrepresenting numbers to suit a narrative, guess what happens to you. You are more than likely PIP’d or fired

    I’d say that Matt Garman should be fired for lying about the data, but given that Jassy has a habit of lying about figures also, the rot is at the top.

  • Caveman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’ve heard that this is the new type of layoffs big tech is doing. Massive layoffs that are required lower the stock price but people quitting is not news. So the best strategy to get rid of staff is to create a hostile work environment temporarily until you reach the right amount.

    This is a really bad idea for long term health of a company. The people that stay are the ones that will struggle to find new jobs and the people that leave probably already have another job at a competing firm lined up.

    It’s just straight up dumb but keeps the stock price high and the CEO gets his bonus.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why is even the writer of the article lying about the reason? Everyone knows this is about real estate value propping up the stock price.

    • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Man, there are people who will argue until they are blue in the face that the purpose is not real estate.

      The “only” evidence I can provide is that the values of proximal commercial properties is rapidly losing value because the workforce that provided business to those properties is no longer there. And just because the properties have investments made by the company doesn’t mean they own them outright (despite the value tying into their businesses net worth).

      Of course they would lie about this. It doesn’t benefit the real estate owners and the business to publicly share that investments are losing value because of natural economics. The entire financing industry is based on lies to begin with, can’t change that now (/s).

        • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          No. They invest in funds that own buildings that rent to small businesses.

          They need businesses to stay so they can charge them rent. The Amazon owned buildings then maintain and grow their value with inflation.

          Think about inflation - who does it benefit? Only property owners.

            • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Not directly but any big company that has any form of corporate retirement benefit has it through private equity. I highly doubt any of it is publicly traded. But Amazon itself owns 25 buildings in the South Lake Union area of Seattle.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Amazon doesn’t do pensions or any sort of corporate retirement benefit…it’s all 401k like most US companies. Pensions are very rare here.

      • sudo42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        One Youtube channel suggested it was tax incentives. Cities give tax incentives to large corporate offices in order to bring customers, er… employees to the cities.

        Work from home means offices no longer meet qualifications for tax breaks. Ergo CEO freakouts.

        Don’t know if it’s true, but it does sound plausible to me.

        • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          That one sounds plausible, but I can’t imagine that property taxes are so large in Seattle that they would force their employees back. Seems like a good way to lose that tax benefit

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’ll be hilarious when their rent gets jacked up to cover empty buildings. 🤪

        • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          I’m not sure which locations they are forcing employees back to, but Amazon itself isn’t likely paying rent, they do own some buildings. That is an investment they use in their listed assets.

          What’s happening is that other businesses that do rent building space aren’t getting enough revenue due to decreased traffic (think the corner coffee shop that had a steady stream of regulars every morning but now doesn’t). This causes them to leave, driving up the rent of other renters, and you get a “mortgage backed security like” crisis. Amazon doesn’t give two shits about the businesses that leave, or what they pay in rent - they care that their building value grows. Can’t do that if real estate is vacating in the nearby area.

          Which to that I say: good, fuck em

          • Mango@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Maybe the “risk takers” who invested in corporate real estate, just before corporate real estate became useless, should all fail. Idk why anyone believes the bullshit that they should be jacking up prices to cover their failures. Their whole existence is avoiding risk while calling themselves risk takers and then blaming everyone else when gambling for a living doesn’t work

            • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Risk means sometimes shit goes south. I’ve seen a lot of shit not going south.

              Credit Suisse folded, Archeagos folded. The whole Evergrande thing in Chinaa. But I think that’s it in recent history

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Are you actually interested in the answer to that or just running in here to argue? I figure it’ll save me effort if you tell me before I answer.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Umm…good question. I think I came in here expecting to see some braindead takes and prepared to argue against them, but tell you what, I promise I’ll be respectful and attentive in this thread. You sound like you might actually have a good answer to my question.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    “Please leave! If we fire you, we have to pay unemployment, but your replacements will be younger (less costly health problems) and will accept less pay. It’s win-win-win for us if you leave of your own accord!”