Pretty sure Amazon gets kickbacks from the city of Seattle to keep the offices filled with ppl
You realize this is a self defeating point, right? If they knew it was more efficient for the workers were more efficient at home they would commit to total WFH.
The logical conclusion from your claims is not that the data contradicts what he wants to be true, but that the data confirms that return to office is better, but for some reason he can’t share that information.
Tkpro@lemmy.world 7 months ago
EatATaco@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Amazon is massive. Much of their overhead goes to workers, and if the workers were more efficient at home, the city would have to offer a ton of money to make up for the most productivity. So unless you have some convincing evidence otherwise, this is hard to believe.
SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 7 months ago
“We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” --Anais Nin
A manager who thinks physical access to employees makes him an effective manager is going to push for that, even if the data says otherwise. We see this in every industry. During pandemic the headline was ‘productivity is flat or increasing with WFH’, now it’s ‘time for RTO’.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 7 months ago
You’re contradicting the top level commenters point that they relentlessly pursue efficiency. Now it’s that the pursue shareholder happiness. I wonder why you didn’t correct them, but me.
It’s almost like we’re throwing explanations against the wall looking for something to stick.
But the simple counter is the simple explanation: we didn’t know a pandemic was coming and couldn’t foresee what no one was able to foresee: a rapid shift to WFH. We held the offices as we didn’t know that WFH could be a long term solution. Now that we are pretty confident our workforce is more productive at home, we’ve decided to cut our office space losses.
No one would bat an eye at this.
hglman@lemmy.world 7 months ago
No, it does not. It means that they think it’s more profitable for shareholders.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 7 months ago
So the logical conclusion is that it’s better for the share holders for the employees to be less productive?
Enfors@lemm.ee 7 months ago
It’s not that simple. There’s also the issue of paying rent for offices which also feeds into shareholder (although possibly different shareholders) profits, etc. I’m no expert, but I have a feeling this is all very complicated.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 7 months ago
I can’t come up with a care where making their employees less productivity is better for the shareholders simply because they are paying for space somewhere. you’ll have to explain this.