[0xbadcafebee]

Actually I was being charitable. I was only assuming their decision is from spite. If I also assumed they thought this was good for the company in the long run, I'd have to assume they were idiots.

There is no rational, data-driven argument against optional remote work. Even the one downside of it (not getting promoted) could be solved by an employee just opting to go into the office.

Everything else is a plus, for the company and the employee. The company saves on real estate, salaries, can hire anywhere in the world, and gets increased productivity [and profit]. The employee gets flexible hours, choice of living arrangements, and improved quality of life, which then benefits the company as improved morale/loyalty.

[Wytwwww]

> There is no rational, data-driven argument against optional remote work

If we ignore tangentially relevant (from the company's perspective) stuff like employee wellbeing etc. the same could be said about WFH.

[consteval]

Sure, but employees are not machines and companies should realize this. Amazon is getting far too comfortable biting the hand that feeds them. Employees aren't underlings of your company; they ARE your company. The fact they all got together is what makes it a company. So, what happens if you hurt them?