Amazon exec says it’s time for workers to ‘disagree and commit’ to office return — “I don’t have data to back it up, but I know it’s better.”::“We’re here, we’re back. It’s working,” an Amazon Studios head said in a meeting, before acknowledging a lack of evidence.

  • @StereoTrespasser
    link
    English
    1276 months ago

    I wish these assholes would just come out and tell the truth: they need you in the office to justify their multi-decade office leases that they can’t get out of.

    • @PeleSpirit
      link
      English
      54
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      deleted by creator

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        36 months ago

        I work on commercial real estate. Sometimes the fees we charge make me feel shitty but then I remember the borrowers are landlords.

    • @Got_Bent
      link
      English
      176 months ago

      Ding ding ding!

    • prole
      link
      fedilink
      English
      156 months ago

      That’s still sunk cost fallacy. If they’ve already paid, it doesn’t matter. In fact, they’d probably save money on maintenance and overhead by keeping the office empty (or even subletting it or something).

      • Flying Squid
        link
        English
        86 months ago

        Corporations base so many decisions on sunk cost.

      • @hglman
        link
        English
        26 months ago

        They don’t have leases. They own that real estate. So its value is a considerable line item in the company’s value. If they get people in office, it’s a boost to the company’s value. The property is hit yet sunk in their eyes.

        • prole
          link
          fedilink
          English
          46 months ago

          They own that real estate.

          Yes, that’s the sunk cost. It’s fallacious to believe that: just because you’ve already paid for the real estate in an attempt to earn money in the long term, it’s necessarily more profitable to see that plan to the end regardless of changes in circumstances. More often than not, it’s better to just cut your losses.

          If they get people in office, it’s a boost to the company’s value.

          I don’t really understand what this means… We’re talking about those people doing that same work, but from home. They’re still doing the same amount (if not more due to higher efficiency) of work. Only now you don’t need to pay the salaries of maintenance, janitorial staff, security, etc., which would be a savings and help recoup some of the losses.

          Or, like I said, if they own the building, they could lease out part of it or all of it themselves while their employees do their work from home.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            36 months ago

            The people who claim “real estate value!” have just latched onto the simplest reason they can which aligns with their worldview.

            The reasons I suspect companies are forcing return to office are more:

            • shareholders don’t like unused assets, so they tell the ceo to “use it or lose it”
            • the people who make the decision have the type of extroverted personality where they actually do work better in the office and they can’t fathom people being different
            • the people who make the decision prefer to have the office full because it makes them feel more powerful. They can see the people they lord over.
          • @hglman
            link
            English
            16 months ago

            If getting people back into work makes your property more valuable that the productive losses, it’s not a sunk cost. The leaders might be doing their math wrong, but they are not necessarily making a sunk cost fallacy here.

            However, i do agree it’s likely a choice driven by power and personalities, not money. I suspect a lot of talk about how remote workers can be abused and controlled has happened.