what option will you pick? hint: most people would gladly forgo more money to be remote or hybrid.
12 replies (most recent on top)
Option #1
The gall of silent layoffs.
Companies know that workers get more than the same amount work done at home. It's indeed a free ride when you don't have to commute and waste your life in traffic.
Go work from home like 25% of the population - they make a difference.
Amazon wants to add value to their net income by reducing employee expenses without having to pay out severance.
If you add value, why should you waste your time in traffic each day to effectively do the same work than can be done from home?
Why are you being asked to actually go to work? The gall.
Companies know office workers don't exactly work. You're at home and it's not a free ride.
GO to your workpkace like other people who actually go. to. work - but they make a difference.
They want to see if you add value because some unfortunately a lot of desk workers posted online in the last few years about doing literally nothing at work.
If you don't add value and play games or pretend to work, why should any company continue to fund your life?
The problem with forced attrition is that it will push out the top performers, who can easily find another gig that fits their WFH preference at their desired pay level (not 50% cut). Amazon winds up with a bunch of in-office draggers ("company culture").
It will be 50% pay cut for full remote. Bigger impact to benefits.
Why ask for a 20% salary reduction, when you can trade up? Go elsewhere and work remote? Maybe do contracting on the side?
Fu-k Amazon.
I have been suggesting a 20% salary reduction should allow employers to let folks with from home. A pay cut is the compromise we are looking for.
Then you just rinse and repeat. "Less money" can grow more remotely, BTW...
Until you change jobs for less money and the next company then removes their remote/hybrid work policy.
#1. 3 years of work-life balance for 1 month of leetcode.
#3. Don't feel like revising leetcode again