[dsugarman]

Our employees average less than 2 days in the office a week and we had remote work before the pandemic. I myself work from home often. Our situation is different than Amazon obviously. I am living the life of the other group if we're talking about remote workers, I certainly don't think I said anything aggressive or condescending.

I am genuinely confused and alarmed by the rhetoric of your post. It feels beyond personal

[lolinder]

> I don't think OP actually disagrees, the chest pounding rhetoric is likely because they're covering up something deep inside that's saying "I know this is the right move for Amazon but I'm terrified of what that means for me".

This is condescending and aggressive. You may not have meant it that way, but it is.

[DiggyJohnson]

Both of you guys are being condescending. But you had much less substance.

--WFH proponent

[lolinder]

I probably shouldn't have replied to them at all—my comment was absolutely less constructive than I normally strive for—but 'much less substance' implies that there was some substance to the original comment.

This is the entire comment I replied to. What is the substance?

> I don't think OP actually disagrees, the chest pounding rhetoric is likely because they're covering up something deep inside that's saying "I know this is the right move for Amazon but I'm terrified of what that means for me".

[DiggyJohnson]

Fair enough - happens to the best of us. Regarding the quoted text, what they are communicating in a comically absurd way is that WFH proponents aren't open to an unbiased evaluation of WFH and the company's success. They are just as biased as the bias their accusing their employers of.