Comment

Comment on Amazon tech workers leaving for other jobs in response to return to office mandate

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?

source

Sort:hotnew top

BradleyUffner@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
We’re constantly producing new people that don’t know any better

source
- floofloof@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  This is why employers are ageist. They want naive employees.
  
  source
EnderMB@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
When I joined Amazon, I was told that for some roles in the US Amazon received more applications than corporate employees worldwide - so I assume 1M+.

That number has probably reduced significantly, given we’ve now had two rounds of RTO. I know some recruiters are really struggling to find external candidates to join, and rightly so, but I don’t doubt that Amazon can find someone to fill these roles, or can find someone outside of North America or Europe to take that role.

The FAANG acronym was the worst thing to happen to tech, because people will flock to Amazon to say “I worked for FAANG”. Prestige is a powerful thing to some, and they’ll deal with some insane shit for the clout that comes from being here.

(FWIW, I’ve been at Amazon as a software engineer for close to four years now, and I’ve noticed zero improvement in opportunities afforded to me)

source
- Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  
  The FAANG acronym was the worst thing to happen to tech, because people will flock to Amazon to say “I worked for FAANG”. Prestige is a powerful thing to some, and they’ll deal with some insane shit for the clout that comes from being here.
  
  The problem is that the clout boost is real. I never worked for a FAANG/MANGA company, but just having one relatively well-known company on my resume opened up options I never would have had. All my interviewers would mention it, even though it was almost 20 years ago.
  
  source
  - jj4211@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    It’s real and it can suck.
    
    Any time someone has one of the ‘big names’ on their resume, they get to skip the line and call the shots. Problem is in many of these cases, they got fired from those big companies for very blatantly obvious reasons once you work with them. They will tank their new projects, and executives will just say “this can’t be right, Google is such a success” yeah, because they fired that guy…
    
    source
  - roofuskit@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Yeah, I’ve gotten multiple jobs in my industry based on a company I worked for like 15 years ago. Just because they’re a major player who is well respected.
    
    source
  - dan@upvote.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    
    MANGA
    
    MAANA. If you’re going to swap Facebook for Meta, you also need to swap Google for Alphabet.
    
    source
  - EnderMB@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    It might have been a few years ago, but having Amazon on my CV has offered almost nothing. If anything, I get fewer legitimate interview offers than I did before.
    
    source
    Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    I used to work for MapQuest so it might be nostalgia on the part of my interviewers
    
    source
- dan@upvote.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  “FAANG” is interesting because it was initially only used to represent high-growth stocks that were leaders in their respective fields. It was originally just “FANG” - Apple was added later.
  
  At some point, it changed to mean the best tech companies to work at. I’m not sure I agree with the list, though. I’d swap Netflix for Microsoft (TC is lower but it’s a more prestigious company and work-life balance is better), and I’d swap Amazon for another company. Not sure. TSMC, Nvidia, or AMD maybe?
  
  source
  - phoneymouse@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    It’s funny that Apple was added later given that it is the most valuable company… it’s seen the highest stock growth of any company on earth.
    
    source
    dan@upvote.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Their stock wasn’t growing a lot a decade ago when the FANG term was coined.
    
    source
daddy32@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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 every year.

source
- BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ 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.
  
  source
- SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Another company I had contact with did a few layoffs. Afterwards the recruitment department had a lot more issues finding people. Experienced people would ask a premium because of that company’s reputation in the industry and the experienced people would usually stay a short time and leave. The other option was hiring fresh graduates and put effort in training them.
  
  source
- Valmond@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  And if it happens : Rebrand-Time!!
  
  source
- jj4211@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Also a sea of people looking to put in a respectable time at a recognizable employer to dress up their resume.
  
  source
Curious_Canid@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
I saw an article a year or two back that talked about this very thing. It was actually management people at Amazon saying that they predicted they would be “out of employees” before the end of this decade.

source
- foofy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  They were talking about warehouse workers, not corporate employees.
  
  source
- bassomitron@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Iirc, didn’t the article say that was one of many hypothetical scenarios they try to plan accordingly for? Like you said, it’s been awhile since it came out, so I could easily be wrong. I imagine it won’t be a problem any time soon, though. There are always desperate people, and simply changing policy to allow rehiring people that had previously been fired/quit would open eligible candidate pools back up.
  
  Or, y’know, they could just make working there not be miserable.
  
  source
scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
I never understood why anyone works for them at all. And I’m not even talking about warehouse workers. I’m talking about the tech staff. Amazon is known as a cutthroat workplace that drives people like a hammer drives nails. I would never choose to go there.

source
- Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  FAANG looks good on the resume so people go there with intention to eventually leave for another company willing to pay for FAANG experience. unless you work in a very focused team (e. g Occulus) youre better off jumping companies for higher pay.
  
  source
  - scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    It’s pretty hard to beat FAANG pay though. Probably there are other factors involved as well. Like maybe they can command 90% of the pay but have 2x better work-life balance or something. But people do stay at these companies for long periods. I’m sure some are there to stamp their passport but not all.
    
    source
    Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    theres definitely people in there for the long haul, but most people are just job hoppers jumping onto companies paying more till they land into one with the perfect work/life balance for their preferences. Part of the reason why unionization int he programming sector is hard, because most of the people already willingly leave jobs for higher paying ones.
    
    source
- phoneymouse@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  Yeah and they have an average tenure of like 1.2 years, but their stock vesting schedule gives you 5% in year one, then 15%, 40%, and 40%. So you’re pretty likely to never get whatever carrot they dangle in front of you.
  
  source
  - dan@upvote.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Their strange stock vesting schedule makes me think that they’re aware that people won’t actually want to stay for four years. A back-loaded vesting schedule never benefits the employee, only the employer.
    
    Other companies usually have an even schedule, for example Meta vests 6.25% per quarter (i.e. 25% per year but you get it quarterly instead of yearly). Google is an outlier too, but they do the opposite of what Amazon does - 33% in year one, then 33%, 22% and 12%.
    
    source