- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Amazon CEO reportedly told remote employees: ‘It’s probably not going to work out’::Amazon CEO Andy Jassy responded to employees’ reluctance to return to the office by telling them that “it’s probably not going to work out,” according to Insider.
Removed by mod
I think it’s the intersection of a lot of different issues (most things are), and most of them are about keeping workers beaten down and under control, but real estate is definitely a big part of the push we’ve seen in the media to suggest that remote work is somehow bad and going to go away.
But why though?
Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to not pay for huge buildings?
And even if you can’t get out of the contract, wouldn’t it still be more cost effective to just leave it empty without paying for electricity, water and heat?
Because the executives have money in, or relationships with, investments funds that are heavily vested in commercial real estate. So it might save money for the company, but the knock on effect of devaluing that real estate is a threat to many wealthy. So no matter how wasteful it is for the companies in question, the personal conflicts of interest at exectutive/board levels will ensure the farce continues until those companies are replaced or have no alternative.
Removed by mod
Yes, for the companies offering remote work downsizing your real estate footprint can be a huge cost savings.
For the real estate industry, however, the effects are devastating and the future looks terrifying. These companies are absolutely shitting themselves.
Outside observers tend to get these effects mixed up, because there is some bleed over, albeit in weird ways. Basically, yes, Amazon would be better off using less office space, but Amazon share holders all have huge investments in real estate (because it’s considered the safest bet in the universe) and they’re watching their portfolios with mounting horror. So even though it doesn’t benefit the company, the shareholders are all big on getting people back into the office so that the unbelievably valuable global office real estate industry doesn’t face an existential threat.
This happens to align nicely with all the ways in which managers prefer having employees in the office because they prefer keeping people on a short leash (extra time to do all the shit you want to do means extra time for things like learning new skills and hunting for a better job), and of course many of those managers are also heavily invested in real estate themselves.
Its all a big complicated mess with many other factors that I’m glossing over. Real estate is in there, and it’s certainly a reason, but people are oversimplifying when they say it’s the reason, at least in my opinion.
It’s gotta be. If they were concerned about collective action they would be all for remote work, it’s much harder for coworkers to bond or fraternize in remote positions.
Yes and no. While it’s harder for workers to fraternize, I think they’re also concerned that more of that fraternization would take place through channels that they can’t observe.