523
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.” (fortune.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 126 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent