[dimtion]

Amazon WFH policy is still flexible though. For example, in my team the current policy is to work wherever we feel the most productive and happiest.

You could have potentially moved within the company if that was only decision factor.

[alistairSH]

Maybe? I recently interviewed and nobody could tell me what the policy would be in a few months.

“It’s WFH today, but that’ll probably change. And you can always take our bus from your local AWS office to the office where the rest of the team may or may not be because we don’t know what our policy will be.”

I’d expect a company of Amazon’s size and stature to have a better plan than “whatever your VP wants this week.”

[mmmmkay]

exactly this. I'd been at Amazon for 5 years, so I know how quickly these things can change and I wasn't about to get caught in the crossfires.

Oh, that and I doubled my comp leaving ;)

[otterley]

Why? The world changes around us, and the best businesses are capable of adapting to suit. It doesn’t make any sense to make promises that one can’t keep. They can’t promise that some teams can WFH forever, because it might not make sense forever. Nor should every team have the same policy, because different teams do different things.

I think it makes more sense to be non-committal than to make promises and then have to renege on them later. The latter makes people much more justifiably upset.

[thewebcount]

Why? Because people have responsibilities outside of work. People have children and spouses with chronic conditions that require them to be available at a moment’s notice to deal with, for example. And it’s not going to change just because some manager at ConHugeCo wants people back in the office. I cannot take a job without knowing that I’ll be allowed to work a particular way for the foreseeable future, as it just wouldn’t be safe for my family.

And yes, reneging on agreements is bad. Employers need to be forced to understand that humans have rights and their employees are humans. Telling someone their job is remote then changing that 3 months after they start should be illegal. Unfortunately, it’s not, so you’re SOL if you find yourself in that position.

[otterley]

I meant “why do you expect anyone to be able to foresee the future?”

[alistairSH]

I don’t either, but they could have at least been open about “we’re WFH today but going hybrid as soon as COVID allows.” Instead they waffled and hedged around and wouldn’t commit.

Add in several other factors… 1. the VP and extended team I would have been working with was in Seattle and this position was in VA. 2. There’s an AWS office down the street from my house but they were 100% non-committal about the position being located there (vs the new Arlington HQ2). 3. Would have been a new team with lots of new hires, so I could have just hired them locally (if deemed necessary, though I’ve managed remotely for years now with success so seems silly to me).

[fooey]

All I hear with the waffling is "we want to force everyone back, but we're not sure we can get away with it"

[quadrifoliate]

From what I hear, policy in general is wildly inconsistent within Amazon. I have heard all sort of stories from people at Amazon ranging from "world's best boss" to "horrific and Dilbertesque".

[worik]

> ...policy is to work wherever we feel the most productive and happiest

That is interesting. I like that idea, in theory.

In practise I find the promise I have made to an employer to work/be available certain hours very useful. My time off is off, on is on.