I quit Amazon 3 weeks ago after nearly a decade. Work from home was one of the biggest reasons.
In my view, the personality traits that are conducive to promotion up the Amazon leadership ladder are strongly aligned with loving work-from-office. Most people L10 and higher not only don't understand the desire for permanent work from home, I think maybe they cannot understand it. It's just too foreign to many of them.
The first announcement was "We can't wait to be back in the office, and we know you can't either". Senior engineers started quitting. Then it was "Okay, okay, you can work from home 2-3 days per week, but only with your L10's approval". The exodus continued.
Now it's "Fine, you can work from home with your L8's approval, but you better be ready to show up on 24 hour notice if we say so!". The biggest benefit of work from home is not needing to commute, and lower cost of living by leaving the HCOL cities.
They don't get it. Other companies do. And anyone who has spent 5 or more years working for Amazon is well-trained enough to get a better paying job with a company that understands the cultural shift that just happened to the developer world.
Edit: I know not all developers are anti-office. But for those of us who are, working for people who don't understand us, who make policies based on what works best for them, is a problem.
I have this theory that one of the contributing factors to the "I don't want to go to the office" trend in the US (which I'm part of), is that cities are also not made for commuting. Coming from Europe, where public transport is really practical, and cities are built for density, your commute is often much less cumbersome AND you can enjoy some social life after work since you're in the city. Here (the bay) it was just the worst. Companies can't build in cities so they build large offices in suburbs. There's a lack of housing so no matter where you live you'll end up paying like crazy. And there's pretty much no practical public transport so you're just going to live through hell. I spent some time in LA and I can't even imagine how people deal with that there. I'm never going to commute ever again after that experience, unless I'm back to Europe.
I've never lived in the US, so I can't comment on the commute situation there, but I live and work in Paris proper and one of the main reasons "I don't want to go to the office" is the commute.
I need 30-45 minutes to get there, and our public transit system is supposedly good. But the metro's still too crowded, dirty, smelly, etc. And I even usually avoid rush hour and take an automated, hassle-free line.
Commuting by personal motorized vehicle is hell, so you can forget that.
I'm contemplating buying an electric bike, but only because I'm lucky I have a place to keep it secure both at the office and at home.
The situation may be better in smaller cities, but I think that this consideration still affects a quite sizable bunch of people (20% of the country's population lives in the Paris region).
Seconding. I live in Kraków, Poland, which has a great public transit infrastructure. For all jobs I had, I could always get into the office in 20 to 40 minutes. That's still 20 to 40 minutes too much - it's 40 to 80 minutes per day, out of my very limited free time. I hated it, and I prefer WFH.
A threshold for me is probably around 5 minutes, counting from my apartment's door to the office door. Anything more feels like wasting time, so I'll avoid it for as long as I have the option.
I live in Stockholm and have a beautiful 20 minute walk to the office. It takes about the same by bus or metro.
On the other hand I have an 45m2 apartment, since I would rather have a small place in the center of Stockholm than having a bigger one in the suburbs.
Well, I'm spending the fall in Barcelona right now, but I don't think I'll move somewhere else permanently. As I get older I seem to get more attached to Sweden and have hard time imagining building a permanent life somewhere else.
I'm actually wondering what you consider not a long commute if 30 minutes hits the threshold. I've known plenty of people who have longer commutes driving directly from home to work.
It's not only a question of time, but also of how that time is spent.
For example, I would much rather prefer to walk 30-40 minutes instead of taking a crowded, smelly metro for 20. I actually used to regularly walk 50 minutes to get home in the evening because I didn't want to deal with the transit.
There's also the fact that this is the time it takes when everything works well. Again, I take an automated line, which is fairly reliable.
But most of the other lines have "incidents" going quite often (more than once a week). In this case, if the delay isn't extreme (less than 30 minutes) people will just wait and stuff themselves in the even-more-crowded trains when they do show up. Or they'll try taking another line, adding to that train's usual crowd.
When there are too many people, trains usually have delays, because they have to deal with people literally not fitting in the train at the stops.
So even if you're OK with riding a train packed to the brim (say you ride from end to end, so you're guaranteed to have a seat and won't have to fight your way off the train), you still can't count on getting at your destination on time.
That's interesting, I'd generally much rather drive an hour than walk 20-30 minutes. I lived on a college campus for a while where you could walk to everything and I like it much more now driving everywhere.
I was vaguely irritated when I moved office because it was 10 minutes walk from home; the previous one was about 35 minutes. So it cut down on my mandatory walking; I had to start going for a walk in the evenings to compensate :)
The car is climate controlled, has a stereo, I can have water/food in it without needing a backpack or carrying anything, and it's sitting in a comfortable seat while I'd find a super long walk like that uncomfortable. I could use headphones while walking but something about walking feels like a constant distraction if I'm trying to listen to something. And if I'm in a car, I feel like I can go anywhere I want on a whim, while if I'm walking I'll just want to get it over with and only stop somewhere if it's directly on the way.
I don't mind walking if I want to, on a trail or something, but not if I have to. I guess I'm just not used to it and don't like it enough to make it a habit.
It depends what you're walking through! I'll walk for hours on a beautiful nature trail or a pretty, safe cityscape with interesting sidewalk-addressing buildings.
I won't walk for 5 minutes sandwiched between a fast road strip-mall parking lots, industrial facilities, or open fields.
It's exposed (to the sun and the wind) and it's dull. Inviting pedestrian environments need a sense of enclosure. Can be sidewalk-abutting buildings, can be trees, can be parked cars, can be all three. And they need stuff to look at that isn't monotonous.
For me, anything over 10-15 minutes is "long". It has always struck me as a weird concept that 45 minutes-each-way is a "normal" amount to travel to work, or even that people are happy its under an hour.
Edited to say I suppose I am privileged enough to have the option, and that I have traveled more than an hour before (I just wasn't happy about it)
I consider a five-minute commute to be short. Ten can be okay too, if the route is nice (e.g. you live in a pretty place and you travel through it to get to work). That is door-to-door.
I can think about anything when I drive a car. Walking exercises your muscles, so it's preferable way of transportation because of health, but not because of thinking, IMO.
Thinking consciously and explicitly about a skill like driving (or hitting a tennis ball) is a good way to screw it up. Obviously you have to be aware of your surroundings. But if you're thinking about when or how to press the pedals or how far to turn the steering wheel, you're doing it wrong.
Yeah, OK, I could have used some phrase like "directing your main attention to" in stead of "thinking".
I used them as synonyms because I assumed the GP meant "thinking" as in thinking with concentration about some specific issue(s), which tends to divert your attention from your surroundings far more than the idle stream-of-consciousness / daydreams we all have going in the back of our heads all the time. Didn't you?
Should probably have said "When you're driving, the rest of the world would prefer you to concentrate on your driving and your surroundings, traffic, pedestrians etc. Deep actual thinking is far better done while walking than while driving."
But that wouldn't have made for a snappy turn-his-own-words-against-him comeback. :-)
Anything more than 10min on a daily basis feels arduous to me.
Once you get used to a life where you do not have to drive more than 5min to get everywhere, it would really suck to have go further. Even better than a 5 to 10min drive is being walking distance.
For me the ideal commute(pre Covid) was an under 20 mins walk/bike ride. That is still nearly 3.5 hours a week not counting dressing up / getting ready for the commute.
Same.. mainly due to extremely unaffordable housing situation as a student. But because of covid my university my university now livestreams and records every lecture and has online meetings for exercise groups. It's actually incredible and in a way this is one good thing that came out of covid.
I cannot even imagine not being able to rewatch part of a lecture as a student. That seems incredibly bad.
I’d take a crowded train any day over driving, though I get why some people loathe it.
I miss taking the train when I was in Europe compared to driving in the US. I had the option to read a book some days or play a game. Definitely more options to find joy when compared to driving when I can only choose from podcasts, music and audiobooks
The main difference for me is the mode of transport provides different possibilities for joy or benefit. While the cons of biking or walking maybe be sweating and climate, there’s a lot of joy and health benefits to be had if the times are comparable (e.g., 20 minute walk, 20 minute bike ride)
Take advantage of the 500eur subsidy for ebikes if you can. And... Well it's Paris, so be prepared to shout and push your way to work... I went recently in a crowded miced car+bicycle place in Paris, and it was pure pandemonium, I don't know how no one got terribly hurt in the half hour I was there.
> Europe, where public transport is really practical, and cities are built for density
Hmm, European cities weren't built for commuting or public transport, almost all of them were laid out in the medieval era for walking. They then acquired one or more railway stations in the 19th century, creating commuter ring #1 and becoming an order of magnitude larger, and may have been partially redesigned for cars in the 20th century, creating commuter ring #2. A popular conversion was demolishing the medieval-era city walls and replacing them with a ring road. Some were entirely flattened during the war, although generally rebuilt on the same plan.
Now most American cities were by comparison entirely designed for commuting ... by car. The problem with car commuting is that once you're over capacity it slows down the experience for everyone. Public transport just jams you in physically, which was uncomfortable before the pandemic and now just a nightmare. An overcrowded train is not slower than an empty one. (Subway throughput can be embark/disembark limited, though)
The difference to me seems to be the walkable core. That in turn depends on norms about use of public space and perceptions of public safety.
I'm slightly biased, but I think the Edinburgh New Town design with a couple of modern adaptations could be the ideal even for the 21st century. Grid layout, four to six floors, high ceilings, decent size windows, wide streets, occasional shop on the corner or restaurant in the basement.
>An overcrowded train is not slower than an empty one.
I have taken the "California Train" which runs from San Francisco to San Jose, and advertises its capacity to carry bicyclists. Numerous times, however, bicyclists were denied boarding (each had paid for his ticket) because the carriages had become overcrowded, with the subsequent train arriving in forty-five minutes' time.
This experience made me understand why many commuters in that region embrace the automobile in spite of its many drawbacks.
The whole medieval cities designed for walking is not actually true. Not just bikes youtube channel(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ) has a great video about this. Here he has taken Houston as an example.
> I'm slightly biased, but I think the Edinburgh New Town design with a couple of modern adaptations could be the ideal even for the 21st century. Grid layout, four to six floors, high ceilings, decent size windows, wide streets, occasional shop on the corner or restaurant in the basement.
I just moved to the New Town from Chicago and the difference in walkability and general "convenient access to convenient things in the city" is startling. I highly recommend it!
> cities are also not made for commuting. Coming from Europe...
I moved from the Middle East to the US. Cairo was a shit city for commuting. But that didn't stop socializing, because the other big difference between the US and many other countries is how individualistic and work-based society is. Back home, I had relatives, child-hood friends, etc that I was not only able to see, but often EXPECTED to see (even when I didn't want to).
In other countries, life was much more social, and work was just a tiny part of your social life. In the US, everything is individualistic (and nuclear family oriented) and people rely on the office for socialization.
Europe only has good public transport in very few selected cities and you have to ignore strikes in France to pretend its working well and is reliable. The city with the best public transport in the world is probably Tokyo in terms of frequency and service reliability but it is constantly over capacity and things are not getting better. Crowded trains are hell.
so no commute is certainly better pretty much just anywhere.
> you have to ignore strikes in France to pretend its working well and is reliable
This is the same argument has "what about the rain ?" for people who don't want to commute by bicycle.
Yes, it happens. But it's only a few days a year. Contrary to traffic. So you can adapt. Human is supposed to be great at adaptation.
And the rest of the year it just works.
As for rain, the average where I am is about 120 days a year. While some of those days are "not much rain", it's still enough that walking/biking to/from work would be fairly annoying a large number of days per year. Plus... winter and snow (which is included in the number above, but more of an issue).
To imply that in some parts of the world (desert climate, reliable public transit service), the disruption is infrequent and manageable, and in others (wet and cold climates, unreliable public transit service) the disruption is significant enough to render the bicycle or the public transit economically non-viable for some users.
>Europe only has good public transport in very few selected cities and you have to ignore strikes in France to pretend its working well and is reliable.
Well, until recently I've lived in a very much French city for twelve years and I've never had to face a strike or any problem besides bus traffic being shifted around due to road work. To the point I've now got to get a driving licence in my thirties, as I've never needed it before. Maybe that was just luck.
I'm French and maybe experienced a strike once or twice in my life. That being said, people who commute daily using public transportations maybe affected a few days a year. Usually, strikes are mostly planned in advance. Technical incidents are more an annoyance.
> Europe only has good public transport in very few selected cities and you have to ignore strikes in France to pretend its working well and is reliable.
It's working well and reliable enough.
> The city with the best public transport in the world is probably Tokyo in terms of frequency and service reliability but it is constantly over capacity and things are not getting better.
Things absolutely are getting better; crowding is better than it was. A healthy growing city will always have some capacity issues at any given time, but that's the same as anything.
> so no commute is certainly better pretty much just anywhere.
Not at all proven. Most people choose not to live right next to their workplace even when that's an option. 15-30 minutes' separation is helpful IMO. Even if I'm not commuting, it takes me that long to get my head out of "work mode", and having my home be my workplace makes that worse. "You don't take your work home with you" was always something I looked for in job applications.
I live somewhere in central Tokyo, and as long as I’m fine with a max 1hr commute I can reach pretty much anywhere else in central Tokyo (which is where the jobs are).
If your job is on the red line, and your house is on the red line, it's an easy commute, maybe 20 minutes. Calm, relaxing, easy to zone out.
If you change jobs, the new office might be on the purple line. Which does not cross the red line. So now you need to take the red line, to the green line (15 minutes + 10 minute layover = 25 minutes), and then change trains again to get to the purple line (15 minutes). That's assuming there are no delays, weather, construction/remodeling at any of the stations. If your morning coffee takes too long you might miss your connection, and now you've blown out your schedule by another 15-20 minutes, especially if part of your commute takes one of the less-frequent suburban lines.
End result is your 20 minute commute to your old office, has turned into a 40+ minute commute one way, assuming no delays. On a good day. Plus walking to and from the station.
My old office used to be on Castro Street in Mountain View, a 5 minute walk from the Caltrain Station. Then they leased a large building in the warehouse district, a 20 minute walk away. My old train commute + walk was almost exactly 1 hour from San Francisco; with the new office relocation it turned into 1 hour 15 minutes each way, which meant when I got home in the evening, the tram I wanted to take home had already stopped running, meaning either walk 45 minutes, or take a $9 (probably $15 in today's economy) uber home.
What point was he making? Well, switch jobs, and just move closer to your new office! Easy! Just never buy a house and only switch jobs at the end of your lease term, and rent forever.
Agree that you want to be living somewhere with enough employers within tolerable commute range, and obviously it's hard to compete with access to the whole world. I don't find a single change to be beyond the pale (maybe I would if it was a 10 minute wait), and I find that in dense cities with decent networks you can be in range of "enough" employers, but YMMV.
Around this German state, a 30 minute drive turns into 2 hours commute into each direction if I go with public transport.
And this is one of the places with best connections.
Back home in Portugal, and many other southern countries, good luck with the bus connections that only come around once per hour, and better not skip the 2nd connecting bus/train.
I don’t know why this is downvoted. This is very much true. Outside of a handful of largest cities, Europeans are as car-dependent as Americans, and if they drive less, it’s mostly because they are poorer, while cars and gas are more expensive: instead of replacing what in the US would be car trips with public transit, they simply travel less and stay home more. As European nations get wealthier, car ownership rises, and people drive more kilometers. If you use public transit outside of a handful of major cities, you’ll find that it’s full of students and retirees, instead of commuters.
Seems to me that many people here simply project their tourist experience while vacationing in London of Paris, as a result getting a wrong image of how people in Europe actually live their lives.
> Outside of a handful of largest cities, Europeans are as car-dependent as Americans, and if they drive less, it’s mostly because they are poorer, while cars and gas are more expensive: instead of replacing what in the US would be car trips with public transit, they simply travel less and stay home more.
Citation? I think we travel less far, but that's not because people choose to stay home so much as because you don't have to travel so far to achieve the same things (e.g. we probably travel less far to visit relatives than Americans, but still visit our relatives more often and spend more time with them).
I’d like to point out that the correlation between size and public transport isn’t always applicable. Helsinki has a fantastic and uncrowned public transport system. It’s also affordable (50-60e) a month. And it’s a tiny city when you compare to other capitals.
I know nothing about commuting in Finland but is Uusimaa not roughly equivalent to "the economic gravity well of Helsinki"?
Sounds like you two are nit picking over the difference between the I495 loop being the "DC area" vs everything east of Fredricksburg/Front Royal/Fredreick being the "DC area".
I've no idea of the Geography you are referring to in the DC area, being European. That said Uusimaa is a region, Helsinki is a (capital city). Helsinki spans quite a large geographic area and is fairly densely populated but primarily in a metropolitan area. Take a look on google maps and you'll see it's tiny, say compared to London, Paris, Berlin etc. Uusimaa covers a much bigger area with huge amounts of space between the edge and the metropolitan area (mostly covered with fields, private land and forest).
[EDIT:] So, sure, most of those cars must be owned by inhabitants of the Greater Helsinki area. Heck, I live in Helsinki proper, and I have a car. But... Up until last year, when I still worked at the office in the more central parts of town, my daily commute there was by bus and metro (and will possibly be again sometime soon). And AFAIk I was(/am/will be) far from alone in this combo. [/EDIT]
> As European nations get wealthier, car ownership rises, and people drive more kilometers
I'm not sure this is true. Ireland went from one of the poorest nations in Western Europe to one of the richest from 1990 to now. In Dublin, commuting to work via car has been falling since at least the late 90s, driven by increased traffic, and greatly improved public transport and cycling infrastructure (though still quite bad by European standards); it hit 30% by 2018. The number of cars per capita is still, as far as I know, rising, but they're being used to commute to work less.
Rural areas of the country are much more of a mixed bag, and prosperity did drive an increase in driving there (though it has started to fall off a bit during the recovery after the financial crisis). But in urban areas, prosperity does _not_ seem to drive increased car use.
> In Dublin, commuting to work via car has been falling since at least the late 90s, driven by increased traffic
Ah, the classic joke, "nobody drives in Manhattan; there is too much traffic there".
> The number of cars per capita is still, as far as I know, rising, but they're being used to commute to work less.
Alas, 75% of Irish workers commute by passenger car, either as driver or as passenger. Only 10% of workers commute using public transit. That's what I meant when I said that Europeans are very much car dependent too: even in Dublin, the capital, most of the workers drive, and small minority uses public transit. Outside Dublin, cars dominate even more.
We can take Hamburg for example #1. Beautiful city, working public transportation, BUT there are congestions, and try getting anywhere from other end of the town early morning (rush hour) or late at night. Sometimes almost impossible.
#2 I live in Zagreb, Croatia - recently drove from Austria back through Slovenia to Zagreb, ended up spending more time in Zagreb traffic at 11:30 am then driving across three countries.
Hm. I agree to #1 mostly, but it could be better. More light rail like Hochbahn & S-Bahn would be good.
OTOH they extended the Metrobus and Expressbus like mad, at least it felt so after my initial disappointment from around 2004.
Most bus stops have an electronic timetable, dynamically updating their 4 rows. The busses are prioritized on traffic lights and partially have their own reserved lanes.
For when- and whereever I need to go I simply don't care when exactly, because a few minutes later the next one is coming, which applies the same way for sometimes necessary switches.
30mins max from outlying suburb to core, rather 20mins, maybe 50 to 60min from my edge to another edge of town, not necessarily through the core.
Only at night the intervals are getting longer, and the net is less 'dense', but not catastrophically so.
And it is fu****g expensive for single tickets :-(
When was the last time you used the HVV?
Besides that usually I want to ride my bicycle, bicycle, bicycle... ;)
He, actually I prefer the outer suburbs for bicycling because downtown is insane. In the suburbs I can tone the paranoia that everyone is out there to kill me at least down a little :)
Even in another much smaller German city of only ~50k inhabitants, my school commute for years was ~40-50 minutes (dependent on season etc.; EDIT: 40-50 minutes per direction, also on mondays and another weekday my schooldays started at 07:05 not at 08:00) when the trip by bicycle to the same school would only take me ~20-25 minutes.
Add to that the rapid aging of the population combined with the old people having the absolutely stellar idea to go by bus during the 07:15 morning school rush. Not like they have the whole day free to schedule their appointments... oh, wait
And after years of having to deal with these fossils (most with that creepy perpetual half-smile-half-smirk) who think they're entitled to demand that people of all pre-pension ages (sometimes even heavily pregnant women) vacate their seats for them instead of literally just walking one or two steps further to the next seat, thereby not only clogging up the bus corridor while everyone has to shuffle around but also being a general nuisance I've got enough and for years haved avoided riding busses in this city like the plague.
I've seen public transport done differently and better in other cities, one key feature for working better AFAICT being tram lines with low intervals, not like in the above example relatively short busses every ~15-20 minutes per line.
Last week my car wouldn't start when I was heading home. I called AAA and waited. And waited. After 2 hours I went to the street and it's 5 miles of housing developments one way and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 fast food restaurants the other. I got a $30 Lyft after 4 hours of sitting in the dark at my office. AAA called at 3AM asking if I still needed service...
This hits home. I've been working remotely ever since we moved away from LA, largely because the traffic situation there was just unbearable. I don't even know how people with kids do it, since it takes hours to drive a few miles on each side of the work day, how do you drop off/pick up kids from daycare? I realize it's incredibly privileged position to be in but I actually don't know how we'd fit office-based work into our lives again with two kids under 5 -- I guess you have to pay for a nanny and accept that you get to see your kids on the weekends.
Boston is often compared to a European city. I also think I fit your observation pretty well, as I can't wait to be back in our downtown office. I'm looking forward to a 25 minute bike commute and being in a lively area packed with things to do. The routine gives me a little bit of everything (exercise, people, fresh air, and amenities) and it's conveniently built right into the work day.
I see the 'European' connection moreso than some other cities here in the US. I've visited Boston twice - once just a few weeks ago - and I could definitely see some attraction of living/working there. It seemed way too expensive to actually live in for my budget, but I may have just gotten too accustomed to a LCOL area. I enjoyed the breadth and depth of the city, and have some family living there at the moment, so I expect I'll get to enjoy a bit more of it next year.
Yeah, it’s an infrastructure problem. I love my commute because it allows me to disconnect from work after I’m done with it. I don’t think my American colleagues understand that, even though i get a lot of sympathy from my European colleagues.
I had to, though, be intentional about setting up my commute so i had time to read a book to and fro, and I’m sure not everyone is willing to think about it in those terms.
I foresee a movement in a few years of “commute forward” people trying to improve on their work-life balance, once they realize how much of life they’re going to be missing once they start commingling work and home life together.
> I foresee a movement in a few years of “commute forward” people trying to improve on their work-life balance, once they realize how much of life they’re going to be missing once they start commingling work and home life together.
Could we just agree that people are different and that some of us do not feel the way you do?
When I'm working I put on work clothes, I sit at my work desk and I take my work coffee cup. When I am done, I roll down my roll-top desk, and go pick up the kids on foot.
Arguably I appreciate that work culture in North-America and Asia may not be conducive of this. But ultimately we can all have the separation we need.
For me I built it around routines and work/leisure separation. For you it is your commute. Could we not let us both have what we want?
I have this theory that one of the contributing factors to the "I don't want to go to the office" trend in the US (which I'm part of), is that cities are also not made for commuting
I live (well lived) within easy biking distance of the office (and commuted by bike nearly every day) and after the first few months of COVID work from home, I didn't ever want to go back to the office. We have an open floor plan office that's loud and not conducive to concentrating on work, and we have a distributed workforce (3 USA locations and 3 international locations), so most meetings had at least one zoom participant.
I took advantage of working from home to move farther from the office (now I'm within biking distance of a transit station that will take me to work, but the commute takes over twice as long as it used to), and will do my best to go to the office as little as possible. (we don't have a return to office date yet, but we reportedly won't be expected to be back 5 days a week)
Same here. I actually love my commute since it allows me to do 30 minutes of free soft exercise a day.
But I hate being at the office. There's nothing I like about it.
Noise, disturbances, poor desktop setup, too hot in summer, too hot in winter, no place to take an actual break...
Obviously it's a personal preference, but most people I know who have easy commutes (<20 min, walk, bike or public transit) still don't want to go into the office. Neither do I.
It might be nice for a change of pace of a specific purpose (i.e. planning meeting that is just easier in-person).
If I want to go downtown and socialize with coworkers, I can do that after work (and have while WFH).
As a counterpoint, I loved my commute to work in the Bay. After almost 16 years of not riding a bike, I took a chance on getting one and fell in love with riding around the city. For the first year I also rode BART pretty much every day. It had its downsides but honestly I just learned to have a more positive mindset about it.
Obviously this isn't viable solution to many people, and cycling has lots of risks, but its just an anecdote I had.
ALSO, the days I had to drive my car in the city were some of the most stressful ever(big car too).
This mindset is mind-boggling to me. BART’s operational reliability is excellent. The new cars are really nice. Trains in the core come often. What exactly makes it “absolutely atrocious public transportation”? Of course it doesn’t serve all destinations, but that’s inevitable because the Bay is mostly suburban sprawl.
Dirty, noisy, unpleasant rider experience. The terminals are sketchy. Try public transportation in other places (europe) for example. Hands down a better experience all around.
This is a result of America’s and California’s larger ills, especially extreme housing unaffordability (California) and lack of an adequate social safety net (America). Of course these symptoms are lessened or absent in countries that have addressed the core issues—the same is true in other areas besides public transportation. It’s not a BART thing, it’s a society thing.
I think of course if you compare it against the best transportation systems in the world you're going to come up pretty short with BART(Tokyo for example was AMAZING). I come from Atlanta where MARTA is a pretty big farcry from effective public transportation, so maybe that is why I don't mind BART as much...
This is valid, especially when there isn't a lot of other riders around and when you start going to some of the worse areas of the Bay(or insert almost any American city).
As somebody who works in London, you are right that infra is much better here than at least some places in the US (was shocked when I visited Austin) but the commute is brutal, overcrowded and often unreliable. For example the train line I used to rely on would fail 1-2 times a weeks such that I has to find another way into the office.
Unless you're rich you will be living 40 mins - 1hr out, I am more like 1hr20 so I can own a home that isn't tiny or in a high crime area.
The commute costs, if I pay a year in advance, ~£5k/yr, set to go up by 10-15% next yr.
Generally speaking, and especially taking into account the climate crisis, it really doesn't make much sense to do all this even when there is more infra.
It is time for more companies to accept that WFH is largely a win/win.
I lived in Lausanne and my commute was non trivial (EPFL is on the edge of Lausanne in the middle of a huge field, no housing nearby, even student housing was at least one stop away). I lived in LA and my commute was just two blocks, a 3 minute walk (got an apartment in Westwood next to UCLA). So I guess my experience is a bit different.
yeah no, tell that to someone living in for example paris, london or madrid, where even with decent public transport you are gonna lose on average a bare minimum of 2 hours daily commuting to work.
Funny, I left Amazon two weeks ago because WFH burned me out. I'm currently taking a sabbatical.
* Zoom fatigue is real.
* I find it much harder to collaborate with peers.
* I feel like less of a part of the company. Not being in the office, so I'm no longer seeing that busy bee activity on the floors, not able to mingle with other people from other teams, not seeing new faces, no team activities, and no desk with my name on it. It's a very isolated feeling.
* I find it even more Groundhog Day. To wake up from bed, walk a few steps to my desk, and start plugging away. Yeah, commuting can suck, but at least there's more stimulation and "life" to it.
* Deadlines, at least from my perspective, got even more ridiculous since WFH started.
I suspect the problem is that Amazon doesn't want to change the way it works. So WFH is more or less the same as the office, but with Zoom (Chime?) instead of conference rooms. But of course that is awful.
Companies that are embracing remote work are changing the way they work. Becoming a true distributed organization isn't easy and we're not really sure what that looks like yet, but it's much easier to cope with than WFH in an organization where the executives say "we can't wait to be back in the office, and we know you can't either".
Edit: Of course, if you can't wait to be back in the office, maybe Amazon is just the right place for you in the long term. That's perfectly reasonable. I just doubt your experience is representative of the emerging industry trend toward permanent remote work.
I've worked at two companies that have embraced remote work, and are hiring "anywhere", though still obviously limited by language, jurisdiction etc. The changes I've seen are mainly cultural: preference for asynchronous communication and preference for structured coordination over ad-hoc. So fewer meetings, and those that remain tend to be standing meetings on a regular schedule with a defined leader and consistent agenda, and they often get cancelled or ended quickly if possible. Slack tends to be more asynchronous; you're not expected to respond right away, and people turn off notifications when they need to concentrate. Waaaay less email, to the point where it's mainly meeting invitations. More writing and documentation, but even then, a preference for things like Jira, Notion, Coda or Team Retro over more unstructured tools like generic documents or spreadsheets.
Now obviously none of that is new or confined to remote-first organizations. But I do see deliberate thought about how to collaborate more effectively, and how to mitigate the downsides.
This is an important point. The transition to working from home is not "Here is a laptop with network access, try to ignore the pandemic, go", that is a recipe for a bad experience. Like wise, working from an office completely sucks if it is "Here is your cubical and desktop with network access, try to ignore the pandemic, go".
There are real traps when it comes to WFH that need to be considered, even outside COVID. Trying to work from the couch or bed is 'possible' but 99/100 a terrible idea. You will likely need a fairly dedicated space, setup that supports your workflows. These things take time to workout, and having a supportive company that gets this can make such a difference.
Once I found what works for me and was clear about what I expected from employers, things were generally a lot better. Saying that, if your bosses ever become heavily anti-WFH, they can make things suck pretty quickly, but the same bad office politics/dynamics I guess.
The issue I had is once we started going back to the office 2x a week, all my meetings were STILL on zoom all day, I just took them from my cube with my mask on. It was a total bummer!
Been going back to the office one day a week for a a few months now. People are okay with dropping the masks when not in the main flow of traffic (hallways).
One on ones with the boss are much nicer when we can go outside for a stroll....
> Deadlines, at least from my perspective, got even more ridiculous since WFH started.
This. People keep talking how much more time they have for work now that they don’t have to commute, and don’t realize how terrible that is for them.
For me, the dealbreaker is the groundhog day effect that working from home has. Never heard anyone one describe it that way, but it’s so true, i will probably steal it. It’s the primary reason why it still feels like April of 2020 for me. Time paused then, and hasn’t moved since.
I get the feeling that a lot of discontent related to the archaic 8-hour work day. I have personally interacted with at least a dozen other engineers at my workplace who openly admit they "actually" work maybe 2 hours a day. The rest of the day is spent idly feeling burned out forced to sit at their workstation for the next meeting or instant message to reply to. I personally suffer burnout from this.
I had that groundhog-day effect for a while too, living in California. Then I moved to Montana. It's impossible not to notice time here. The leaves changed colour, it snowed, it rained, it was hot, and the leaves changed colour again. My daily routine is a bit monotonous, sure, but the world pulls me into it.
This is so accurate, especially the 3rd bullet. When WFH, all interactions are centered around your immediate work responsibilities; although minimizing social interactions at work sounds great for some, it can make it much harder to gauge where you stand in relation to all the people you work with.
One thing I found helpful was some chill time in virtual rooms periodically. For those who opted in it seemed to work well. For folks who are all business all the time it was fine to opt out.
IME different life seasons can bring different preferences. With a young family and project house I don't want to socialize as much with coworkers as I did when I was a single 20 something.
The problems with virtual rooms is that you can't have small breakout conversations naturally. In-person I can walk around a space and talk to small groups of people. On a virtual conference call, if I'm speaking everyone has to listen to me, which makes speaking for some people even harder.
There was a "meeting" startup on HN last year (several years ago?) that had such a product. Each "room" had multiple tables, which you were free to move between. You could sorta hear people at the other tables; the closer the table was, the easier you could hear the people at it. There was also a "stage" feature that allowed someone to address the whole room at once.
It seemed like a pretty good experiment, but I don't think it caught on. Maybe Slack (or Teams) should aquihire them and implement something similar.
And that's a totally valid view. Strangely enough, I suspect Amazon will be a great company for you long-term if you go back. Management is aligned with your needs, not mine.
The question is whether there are enough developers like you to run one of the largest software companies in the world, while maintaining 'the bar'.
I quit Amazon a few months ago for the same reason. Holy shit Amazon culture does not work over video. I used to work hard, but I would stay late with my cool team and we’d build things. That stopped happening and I burned out.
> To wake up from bed, walk a few steps to my desk, and start plugging away. Yeah, commuting can suck, but at least there's more stimulation and "life" to it.
You're allowed outside for non-work reasons too though haha. I've incorporated an hour of just wandering around into my day and it's the best work situation I've ever had
It's usually when a "work-from-office" culture (for both you and your company) collides with the "work-from-home" culture.
Working from home is amazing if the company and the employee can embrace the changes that come with it. If your social stimulation happens to come from your office and your commute, maybe that's a problem? Same goes for meetings, usually embracing work from home comes with more async communications, more emails, documentations and less meetings.
But I agree, even at it's best work from home makes you come across less people face to face than a commute + office time. And I think in the coming years we will see some cultural impacts of this between people who love work from home and people who abhor it.
I found the meeting lid increased as did a lack of decision making. But that’s mostly because there are too many facilitators and not enough engineers. Most of my career WFH has been built on solid in person relationships. So I do get the dichotomy. I think more on or off sites are needed for sure where people get a chance to work in person just to have the human connection and informal pieces.
I'm with you. But you missed the social interaction part. I actually like my coworkers as people and enjoy(ed) hallway chit-chat.
Some members of the team, for example a woman that does documentation, I see almost not at all any longer because she's not one of the WebEx invites. But she was always just down the hall in the office.
> I find it even more Groundhog Day. To wake up from bed, walk a few steps to my desk, and start plugging away. Yeah, commuting can suck, but at least there's more stimulation and "life" to it.
How about replacing your commuting by a morning walk outside?
All that stuff can be ameliorated somewhat imo with a cultural change. At my job (admittedly a much smaller group of a few dozen, nothing on amazons scale), we initially had a ton of zoom meetings but have cut out most of them since people want to have uninterrupted days of productivity, with room to schedule their own submeetings with peers when it comes time to collaborate with specific people. We all still live in the area so we've gotten together in a park and do potlucks and stuff like that after we got our vaccines. For the lack of commute thing, I find it helpful to build in a morning routine rather than wake up > work. I tend to my garden in the mornings, workout, and usually do a walk around my neighborhood to serve as a faux commute before I make my cup of coffee and begin the workday. Sometimes I head out to the golf course early in the morning and get back home before 9. Other coworkers surf at dawn. If I had to commute it would be tough to fit in gardening and working out or golf without waking up indescribably early to make it all work.
If you’re going to work from home, do so for a company where WFH is first class. I’ve worked for remote-only companies and for mixed companies. The mixed ones were really terrible WFH experiences. The remote-only / remote-first ones were excellent. It really makes a difference.
I've worked remotely for about 15 years. It isn't what it is cracked up to be.
But TBH, after the pandemic hit, I found written communications to be far better than they had been previously.
That really leveled the playing field for me. But from my point of view, I've derived much of my communications from mailing lists, forums, listservs over the years. When people get around the water cooler and and I am just hanging around Thunderbird, I'm at a big disadvantage.
In particular, "remote-first" can effectively work, and bring diversity in the work place that is always welcome. It requires discipline and a real buy in from every layer of the company, but when it works I think it's the best.
A team that has strong reading and writing abilities and a culture that promotes documentation and decentralization of work through tickets or some other form.
Vs
A culture that will always prefer an hour long zoom meeting to a 2 minute exchange on stack. A zoom based culture is one that hasn't fully walked away from the office.
Hasn’t fully walked away from the office and probably hasn’t learned that “management by meeting” is probably an indicator that management isn’t sure what they’re managing for. Probably.
You are right - the market has shifted and developers can now work from home, far away from their office, and still get paid great salaries. This may also work for marketers, designers, and few other digital verticals. For the majority of regular people (teachers, bakers, warehouse workers, hospitality workers, waiters, medical workers, etc etc) this is going to stay a pipe dream with physical barriers in place that will never enable them to get something similar.
What an advantage in life to have chosen this career path over any of the above ones. And what a shame whenever we come across one of those "I am a developer and it's horrible!" type of posts.
The Toronto office (where I worked) is seeing a shift in the seniors vs juniors ratio. The rate of senior engineers leaving is exceeding the rate of promotion and hiring- not that Amazon has ever had an easy time hiring senior engineers in Toronto.
I'm curious. Why? Amazon pays competitively, and they're the biggest player in online retail and cloud services. Why wouldn't engineers want to work for them?
Anyone who does any research during their job hunt will read that Amazon has the worst work-life balance paired with aggressive/punitive performance reviews.
The other big names will pay you the same or more and treat you better.
Their reputation as an employer is as awful as can be. And why would anyone who knows how they treat their warehouse workers -- and who doesn't? -- think they're fundamentally a friend of any employee?
For the engineers that can pass Amazon's 'hiring bar', other companies will often match or do better on total comp. For a long time in Toronto they were the highest offer, but those days are over.
Amazon also has an on-call culture that - depending on the team - can be brutal. And it's often viewed as the team's own fault and problem to fix.
There are some really wonderful niches within Amazon that I will continue to refer friends to.
I was just last week in an interview for a role at Amazon and was told that -- while they would entertain a permanent remote arrangement for the right candidate -- it was the interviewer's honest opinion that being fully remote would hurt my chances to advance in the organization.
I live in Seattle and thus a notable percentage of my social circle works at Amazon.
The folks I know who work there were almost entirely all prepared to quit if the company forced their initial "everyone back in the office" requirement, especially in this current job market.
It feels rare to see Amazon ever make a change to such a publicly stated policy like this, I can only imagine that the groundswell of feedback from employees was quite startling in how much of a problem their retention would be with such a hard rule.
Many employees voted with their feet. From the outside it seems like Amazon has already suffered significant brain drain, they are likely trying to stop the bleeding at this point. In addition to their poor reputation as an employer, seems like they've backed themselves into a corner.
With stack ranking, many engineers blacklisting Amazon, and the sheer size of their engineering department, they must be close to literally running out of engineers to hire in America, right? At least if they stuck to in person work and limited their hiring pool geographically.
> Inspiration for the new backend program came from Amazon Technical Academy, which trains current, non-technical Amazon employees for software development engineering roles within the company. Amazon Technical Academy’s curriculum is based on the critical knowledge, skills, and attributes required to succeed as a software development engineer at Amazon, which Lambda’s program will cover in their entirety. Amazon Technical Academy is part of Amazon’s commitment to upskill 100,000 of its own employees by 2025.
Nah, all the new grads will be able to balance a red-black tree on a whiteboard in seconds, so they should be able to easily handle all other engineering tasks
Every problem is a solution in the waiting. Imagine a "every project management problem ever" as a service for enterprise customers of AWS. Every year there could be an almanac of recently discovered screwups. Amazon Studios would have a long run reality TV series.
Big co manager api from aws sounds fantastic! You send promo request, they send that less than stellar feedback from 360 review three years ago and your “consistently exceeds (needs more impact)” response.
It's one of the reasons I left. A team full of new grads with nobody to properly teach them. Poor designs are drafted and implemented leading to unmaintainable systems.
I basically get weekly recruiting emails from the Vancouver office (I work in Vancouver) but I tell them that I’m not doing the online assessment. Surprisingly the recruiters always go silent shortly after. I am a mid level Senior engineer and Amazon can pound sand if they think I’m going to take their dumb online test without any commitment from them whatsoever.
Amazon fails to understand that it is currently a worker’s market in software engineering so they are the ones who have to convince engineers to work there.
The assessment is ridiculous time commitment anyway. You have to set aside a 2.5 hour block of uninterrupted time to do it, and from what I hear it's pretty brutal anyway.
I get pinged by Amazon recruiters almost every week right now, and once I discovered the assessment was 2.5 hours during my last job search, I had trouble finding the time and energy to fit it in amongst all the other job search requirements I had to do.
Ended up getting so far along the process with 6 other companies that I just didn't bother to take it. Still ended up with a job offer with a 60% bump in pay and what seems like a better environment than Amazon would have been, without any threats to force me back into the office or needing to relocate.
I’m in Vancouver and get multiple recruiters contacting from Amazon weekly it seems? I’ve engaged a couple times out of curiosity and their offers were always hilariously low.
Back during the HQ2 circus, wasn’t Vancouver the city that tried to pitch themselves to Amazon that “we have talent like Seattle, but our average software engineer pay is much lower!”?
This has always been an advantage of setting up shop in Canada, though ideally this leans more on the "Canadian dollar is cheaper" aspect than the "we simply underpay everyone" aspect.
I replied back to one of these and explained that due to their anti-union actions, and they way they treat employees, I would never be interested in working there, no matter the salary. I thankfully have never received any more of their spam.
To be fair, very few tech companies would hire someone who starts off by expressing their support for unionization. It's certainly a good "unsubscribe" tactic. For example, if you want to get rid of unwanted Linkedin outreach, just put into your title "Go unions!"
Employers won't hold it against you for being against tactics that involve privacy and surveillance issues in general (eg: "I wouldn't want to work at a place that spies on every single Slack message I send to coworkers"), because they give you the benefit of doubt that from their bottom line perspective you will be a net-positive contributor. The minute you include the word U-N-I-O... (eg: I wouldn't want to work at a place that spies on unionization efforts), that benefit of doubt is lost, and now everyone is wondering why that topic is on your mind.
None of this is a reflection of the value of unions from the employees' perspective. But it's important to realize that unions are one of the instances where the employees' and employers' interests are not aligned. So, emailing a recruiter and mentioning unions has only one possible outcome - none.
I'm in the US and Amazon's Dublin office was trying to recruit me last year. I've turned down invitations to interview at Amazon about every other year throughout my career but this was the first time I'd been contacted by an overseas location. Their message even acknowledged that it would be a big move especially with the various travel restrictions in place at the time but they wanted me to interview anyway. Seems like they're running out of people everywhere and poaching each other's local labor markets.
Same here, I have been contacted multiple times for Amazon Vancouver positions. I am from Slovenia and they told me they would be glad to help me out with the overseas move and sponsor the Visa..
They stopped being able to hire seniors easily. So I quit, because working with 8 people 1 year out of college, and myself with 7 years exp, was awful.
After doing 5 years of interviews, I think part of the issue is Amazon doesn’t really do onboarding, so everyone is scared of making an L6 offer, because the new hire is expected to perform equal to an L6 who has already been at Amazon for years, on day 1.
I interviewed w/ Amazon - they contacted me during the pandemic and I though what the hey, ignore the worst reviews of any company on glassdoor, let's see what they're all about.
The interview was, and I hate to use this word, followed a template clearly put together by an MBA who went into middle management without any work experience, The two people to whom I talked showed the enthusiasm of a dead wet beaver while asking the questions. This was for a storage position that I've been doing for 20+ years at some of the biggest accounts all over the planet.
During the 2 hours, I got asked two very basic questions. Then a bunch of weird generic scenarios - what have you done that fits this scenario and how did you handle it.
About half way through the second interview I decided there's not enough money in the world, and decided to have fun with it. I tells ya what - I made up some of the most ridiculous obviously fake <and then vanilla ice walked into the meeting> stories ever. They sent me a rejection letter, just to ask me to interview for a similar position two months later. I asked their recruiter to read their employee reviews and only contact me again if they offer 7 figures. Been a year now - nothing. Maybe they got the hint.
For what it's worth, the Amazon interview experience is modelled that way for fairness. We are pretty much told that we can't deviate too much from the script because by doing so we might advantage a candidate over another. There are exception with more senior employees that tend to disregard that advice but overall it's pretty well followed.
Not complaining about the use of a common script for all interviews. A good script would have many avenues where you can ask the person about his specific resume. I've done a lot of emc/netapp/pure storage as an example, but only xiv from ibm. the way amazon handles this is to not ask a single question about storage, for a storage role. this is the wrong way.
well, let me correct myself. for this sr position in storage, i was asked one question about storage. "what is the difference between object storage and file storage."
imagine you are interviewing to work as a mathematician. a sr level one, you walk in, and the ask you no math questions, except "what is the difference between multiplication and derivatives."
here is the issue i take with this completely undeveloped script: it tells you zero about someone's technical skills or abilities. this means the hiring criteria, for highly technical roles, might as well be what color car I drive. if this is what leadership uses to determine who is good during an interview, they're going to have useless, illogical, and bogus criteria for performance. and this means the job will be frustrating and will wear me out. oh look - that's what all the tech employees are saying about amazon on glassdoor.
I can tell you that when training interviewers, Amazon makes it very clear that candidate experience is the most important thing about the interview. Stoically asking questions without a wink of emotion certainly does not fit that. :(
Oh to be clear I don't think your experience was terrible only because of the script. It's not like they tell you to be cold and unpleasant so I'd put some fault on your interviewer as well.
People really undervalue self-narration. It works so well in many areas of life. I narrate with my kids, "I'm parenting you this way to get X outcome." Here's my canned start to every interview:
"This interview has a simple three step format. There's no gotchas or narrow trivia here. I'll start by asking you technical questions about the work you say you did until I've gotten the information I need about that. Then there will be a few social questions. Lastly, I'll open it up for you to ask me anything you want about working here."
Doing this seems to help the people with social anxiety and/or autism. Setting specific concrete expectations right up front and then sticking to it really comforts people.
> Then a bunch of weird generic scenarios - what have you done that fits this scenario and how did you handle it.
That part was particularly frustrating; often I couldn't think of anything relevant to the specific wording.
At least you got a rejection letter, though. Multiple interviews over >1 day and I had to log in to the Amazon Jobs account to see my application's status had changed to "no longer under consideration".
It's amazing right now how in this market so many companies are simply ghosting on rejections. They seem so desperate in their recruiting but then can't bother to at least call with a rejection out of the usual courtesy that used to be a standard part of the process?
Strange, indeed.
A "sorry, no thanks, good luck elsewhere" email would have been fine. Feedback would have been very useful but I suspect they'd be reluctant to offer any.
Yes, I anecdotally have had two different recruiters at different companies on the phone before interviews tell me they definitely would follow up after the interviews with feedback and in one case I got a form letter email and no response to a reply email I made (asking about that feedback they had "definitely" promised me) and the other time no response at all but checking their portal and showing the thing was closed (again after promising me they always give feedback). It's so very weird and doesn't give me a lot of confidence right now that recruiters aren't just wasting my time.
It feels rare to see Amazon ever make a change to such a publicly stated policy like this...
Jeff Bezos recently stepped down as CEO. Google tells me that happened July 5th of this year, a few months ago.
He founded the company. It's essentially under new management for the first time ever.
I don't think you can infer much from this incident. There are too many unusual factors at play and we don't have an established track record for what the "new normal" (post Bezos) will be for Amazon.
Jeff was still with the company when the last version of the policy was announced, i.e. "3 days from office, 2 days from home." It was probably the head of HR who came up with it.
Jeff accepted it like, "Oh well." You could tell he couldn't care less.
But Andy Jassy looked ashen. I think his becoming CEO was the reason Amazon changed course. If Jeff had stayed, he would have let HR decide the policy for the entire company, and it would have been disastrous for AWS.
They aren't given up anything. They can walk into multiple other jobs with similar pay and benefits, and that's the problem Amazon has.
It isn't being picky, it is employees having actual worth and choice. Employees can "pick" the pay, conditions, and benefits that suite them best: In this case moving out of one of the highest housing cost areas in the country.
It’s not about being picky, it’s about knowing your worth. If an employer chooses a ham-fisted approach of forcing everyone to work out of the office, then they will have to pay the consequences of their top talent leaving for companies that are more flexible (and often pay the same or more)
Wasn't amazon but this is exactly what happened, they mandated "back to the office, no exceptions" last summer, I put my notice in and went to work for a company that was 100% remote, within a year I got promoted from lead upwards.
Turns out sometimes not only is the grass greener but it's much better tasting as well.
Ironically the place I left announced a "developers can work from home forever" policy a couple of months ago (after they'd lost 7 out of 9 senior devs off their 9 teams - the attrition rate wasn't much lower for non-seniors).
They are so fucked it's not even funny - literally decades of accumulated domain/business knowledge walked out the door.
The social contract is different here. You focus on the salary but most employees are considered fungible here by most employers with 'industry standard' as a synonym for 'sucks about as much as what we consider our competitors'. Due to the unique circumstances, employees in some industries finally have some ability to try to better their lot so it would be irrational of them to not avail themselves of likely a once-in-many-lifetimes opportunity before the iron fist of our corporate masters comes crashing down upon our spines again. Yes, I am old and cynical - how did you know :) ?
The way I read the parent comment, it's not that people are "giving up" the ability to make hundreds of thousands, but rather they're able to give up their role at a company paying that much because the market allows them to make that money elsewhere.
The flip side is that many feel an intense pressure to do whatever it takes to get the most lucrative job they can find because the US has much less of a social safety net than many European countries.
Once you get beyond a certain threshold that's not really true. Or it's a story they tell themselves because they care more about money than other considerations.
Yes, multiple times--most recently a few years ago was close to that just pre-pandemic. Another probably 4x in the 3 week to 4 week range in previous job. Pretty standard tech industry jobs. More recently have had many other multi-week holidays that were a combination of tech events and pure PTO.
I realize a fair number of people can't do that or, commonly in my experience, feel that they can't do that but it's not actually impossible if that's what you prioritize.
Wow, that is very poor. I don’t know many Amazon people though, but I have read they are stingy. Although, I assumed 3 weeks of vacation was a minimum for white collar employees, especially in finance/law/engineering. I got 3 weeks when I came out of college in mid 2000s.
Do you really mean "give up" here? You're strongly implying that you're not in America, so there's a decent chance English is not your first language, so maybe you don't mean "give up" in the way it usually means in English.
To be explicit, there's nothing being sacrificed. People leaving their jobs because they don't want to go to an office are finding new jobs that pay the same amount or even more. They're not giving up anything.
American programmers are mercenaries, capitalist minded workers, that have access to a digital hive mind that not many other professions can fully access. We hold a lot more power than I think we realize.
Probably worth mentioning that you aren’t safe if you hide out in some low-paying European job. Sooner or later the US/Chinese platform companies are going to come and eat your boss’ lunch
So you may as well come over and get a share of the spoils
You should stop being a crab in a bucket, and go try to improve your own situation instead of being unhappy that others have done so in their own lives.
The other thing to add on is that Amazon is having a hard time recruiting, at least anecdotally from friends who work there. Between their reputation as a company and hot job market, filling some senior level eng roles has become near impossible.
I have shared this story on here before, but my first "real interview" out of college was at Amazon and to this day it is still one of the worst experiences of my career.
The recruiter was great, super nice, got me all organized for a full-day loop. They gave me some things to prepare, so I did. Admittedly, I was under-qualified for the job as a fresh grad but was assured that'd be fine.
Still, the entire team made it abundantly clear how much I was apparently wasting their time even being in the room with each of them as they took turns throughout the day talking to me.
Felt so unbelievably toxic, and even though this was in the early 00s, I have never even considered working there since.
Very similar experience. It was a boring and tedious interview. The behavioral part of the interview felt odd with a focus on tailoring my experiences around Amazon principles which I wasn't aware of until a few days before the interview. The employees seemed nice, though, but not really cheerful and a little standoff-ish. It honestly felt like a more traditional style of interviewing.
I contrast that with another FAANG interview I had, where you had lunch on campus and they tried to leave a positive impression.
I found my Amazon interview to be surprisingly easy and friendly, except for one interviewer who gave me Alien Dictionary and got offended when I told her this was a well known leetcode problem. Oops..didn't get the job.
Apart from getting asked the same questions, the other parts are quite common in the industry. I mean, some places might move you around a bit between rooms, but literally every job interview I've had over the last 25 years has been essentially 4-6 hours of tag team wrestling with coding/systems/personality questions.
I don't think it's a "Brazil" thing, I've been in Europe for a while now, I only mentioned where it was because maybe it's different between (Amazon) branches.
The current job I'm at was like 5-6h of interviews, it was hard to pass, but it didn't feel like the interviewers were trying to play "good cop, bad cop"
They also sort of shoot themself in the foot with their interview process. I recommended the absolute best person I know for a position he was exceedingly qualified for. Amazon would have been lucky to have him.
They blitzed him with leadership questions and were “not inclined”. Incredibly dumb given their current situation. He’s not even bad on those dimensions, they just can’t get pretty off topic imo.
A recruiter contacted me one for a position at Amazon, and I straight up said I will never work there because of the way they treat their employees. (Probably burned a bridge with that recruiter, but oh well)
It's not possible to burn a bridge with a recruiter, these are 'salespeople' who get many no's per day and have pressure to perform.
A recruiter call doesn't mean a company has interest in a candidate. It just means the Amazon job description and your resume both included the word JAVA.
I probably burned a bridge with Activision-Blizzard a few years ago. They contacted me about a potential job, and I said "When I was earning my degree, I dreamed of working for Blizzard. But then earlier this year, you announced record profits, and then only a couple days later announced the lay-off of over 800 workers. No thank you."
And considering their current controversies, my opinion on working for them has not changed.
If they ever contacted me again, I'd probably just laugh.
Both Facebook and Amazon have contacted me recently, and in both cases it was a senior manager doing the recruiting. Maybe just a new strategy in general, or perhaps it's because both companies struggle with reputation.
I know a local Amazon director and he was spending a lot of time with recruiting, he had to hire a very large amount of people and that was his top measure for that year. Even paying above the market, with their reputation and the competition on the market it was difficult to meet the target.
If they were contacting you with a specific interesting position, that would be something. If they were contacting you with a generic position they just needed to fill...that sounds like a lot of cringe.
I have only actually talked with the guy from Facebook. All he did was talk about how great his teams are, how super intelligent his engineers are, etc. While he politely listened to what I had to say, he was definitely on a mission to market his little slice of Instagram and get me interested in running the Facebook interview gauntlet.
He even suggested that it would be totally okay if I was one of those people that wanted to study for a month or two before interviewing. Study?! For a job interview?
It was a weird experience. I normally shun recruiters, but I was just curious enough to hear what this guy had to say. His LinkedIn profile didn't indicate any past involvement with recruiting, so I wanted to know why a senior manager would spend time recruiting random people -- he must spend every waking hour on these calls.
Studying a month for a job interview...well, if you need a job and have the time, it can definitely work out well in the end. The leetcode problems are kind of fun to work on once you get into them, but they are definitely of limited use.
My Facebook interview was weird also, but the people were super nice and the coding problems were fairly easy. I failed on distributed systems architecture, oddly enough, as it was an area I had no experience in for a senior hire (but I got an offer from Google the same day I was rejected from Facebook, so I didn't have much time to be sad about it).
But managers recruiting random people, just seems weird to me. If they wanted me for my specific skill set, that would be great! But if they were just looking for general hires, they must have lost a bet or something.
Both and I someone else I’ve spoken to have been reached out to by Amazon recruiters for different, both technical roles.
Neither of us get any attention from “good” companies whatsoever, but we both at least got a handful of messages from Amazon recruiters. They seem desperate. I didn’t bother pursuing as a little research showed they wouldn’t offer enough for me to relocate anyway. I’m not a fan of the FAANG hiring/placement and would probably not engage Amazon on that unless they could offer me a particularly enticing role, at least not now. Am I missing out on money? yeah probably.
The most interesting thing though, was how robotic the recruiter felt. The messages I got felt more like some mass automated messages than someone reaching out to speak to me about open roles.
I was downtown this weekend and it was much busier than I expected. I rode the light rail from the new Northgate station, and the train was (relatively) full after the university stations. I hope the two are related.
It's not as doom and gloom as you might think. Without such a huge wealth gap between the people who work for the downtown industry and tertiary business you might get lucky and have a cultural resurgence as artists, musicians, restauranteurs, local retail, etc etc can afford to live and set up shop downtown again.
People seem to forget that outside of the supermega metro areas the typical downtown/financial districts are basically dead.
> People seem to forget that outside of the supermega metro areas the typical downtown/financial districts are basically dead.
Before working in tech I lived in mostly small and medium sized cities. The downtowns were always packed, and usually the artists were local, but as much as I hear "artists and musicians" brought up with respect to a cities value, they don't lure people in. It's just a bonus. What does is good schools, affordable home prices, stable jobs, and a decent economy.
I'm surprised that's your experience to be fair. Mid sized cities like Columbus or St. Louis's downtown effectively shuts down at 5pm in my experience. All those tall buildings are offices, most of the restaurants around them serve business people and don't offer dinner service and close after the workday. Night life is in other neighborhoods adjacent, but not in downtown.
St Louis and Columbus are much bigger than the towns I'm thinking of. The two towns are basically suburbs with a downtown area. I was able to bike to both of them from my house. In my favorite of the two there were two restaurants that offered dinner service and were owned by locals. Everything else was chain restaurants and they all offered dinner and late night/bar services.
Yeah if there isn't a ton of office space downtowns seem a lot more lively, since businesses stay open outside of 9-5 and people might actually live closer by. Even lower manhattan is considered a dead area after hours due to all the offices and not a lot of other businesses and housing to draw demand outside of 9-5 m-f.
A lot of core downtowns (whether financial district or something more diverse) were pretty dead pre-pandemic after hours even if nearby areas of the city were pretty lively.
> Before working in tech I lived in mostly small and medium sized cities.
How long ago? If you compare downtown Seattle to downtown Seattle 10 years ago, it was much better back then. Things changed quickly this decade, I wouldn't be surprised if the places you left packed are struggling today.
Seattle in general isn't struggling at all, it grew 25% this decade and the housing market...but downtown has a huge hill to climb in going to back to a fun place to visit on the weekend.
When was downtown the fun evening getaway? I've been here 15 years, and unless you're looking for a Frat Bro party in Belltown, Fremont/Cap Hill/Ballard were always where the real social life was. They're all doing just fine now - you wouldn't know there was a pandemic on.
I’ve been visiting Seattle since a toddler living in the tri-cities circa late 1970s. It indeed was a place to be, at least for a kid then a teenager and even when living in the U district and working at crackdonalds on third and pine.
But when I tell my son Seattle center used to have arcades and a roller coaster, he doesn’t believe me. Or when I talk about sending my great aunt and uncle off back to Alaska on the ferry at the water front (the Alaska marine highway used to start at Seattle rather than Bellingham).
The two I'm thinking of are in Texas and they're doing well.
If I'm reading it right, the problem you're calling out is that it is unaffordable to live in a downtown metro after it reaches a certain density. People still think they can hack together solutions by subsidizing housing, rent control, applying grants, etc but I'm more of the mind that there's probably a max size to a city, where once you hit a threshold it either takes a nosedive into poverty or becomes so unsustainably expensive that it chases out what desirable things may have existed there in the first place.
There's no lack of denser, cheaper cities than Seattle. If there's a max soze, Seattle isn't there yet. Poor design is the likely issue, likely cars being the problem. Cars take up a huge amount of space, both for wide roads for getting places, and parking both at home, at work, and at shopping centres.
> the problem you're calling out is that it is unaffordable to live in a downtown metro after it reaches a certain density.
I don't know where you got that. Affordability downtown isn't really what is keeping people away (and it is not like rental buildings have lots of vacancies, nor are close to downtown condos, towhomes, and SFHs difficult to sell), but retail and restaurant choices have been decimated over the last decade, it isn't thriving from the point of view of someone going there to do things.
Ah, retail and restaurants are low-margin businesses, so I usually associate their decline with a rise in cost (labor + real estate). Usually restaurants don't just go away, they're replaced by fewer-in-number but more-expensive options that people don't want or can't eat at regularly. Cost also correlates with density, but I think that's more abstractly. Eg: more businesses show up, more workers are needed, more houses are needed, supply and demand flip flops as inventory in a relatively-fixed area shrinks or becomes a rental market instead of buyers market.
Retail has declined due to online commerce. Seattle ironically lost its downtown Bon Marche/Macy's to become more office space for Amazon.
The homeless factor can't be understated in Seattle, especially with all the encampments downtown. I worked at 3rd and Pine McDonalds in the mid-90s, and for as bad as it was back then, it is ten times worse today.
I was just in Seattle for the first time in about 5 years. The situation was... not good. And this from someone who has spent a lot of time in SF and always had a not totally positive take on Seattle with respect to the grunge factor compared to other PNW cities.
Compared to other PNW cities, Seattle is about average. Portland isn't much better, Vancouver is...better because it is Canada but otherwise has very similar problems. No one can decide whether the term "skid row" was coined in Vancouver, Seattle, or Portland, they all had a similar place that was muddy because logs skidding to the mills which became a home for the down trodden.
So at least as far as its peers in the PNW, Seattle isn't very much of an outlier. Well, unless we can compare to other Seattle-area cities like Bellevue, which can simply push most of the homeless problem onto Seattle.
I imagine there are nicer areas of Seattle than Downtown just as there are nicer areas of SF than Moscone/Union Square/Market Street but ick. Not really a city person except to visit anyway but the northern West Coast (and maybe the whole West Coast) has just gotten worse if that's possible.
There are several city parks outside of downtown overrun with homeless encampments. Many roadside parking strips and interstate greenspaces too. It's widespread.
The city is trying to move people into housing but there's a lot of mental health and addiction problems that make many people resist the outreach support.
All of the west coast cities have similar problems (soaring housing costs, high growth, great tech jobs, lots of homeless people). Even when we count non-coastal cities in the west (Spokane, Reno, Sacramento, Las Vegas), it doesn't look better.
Combination of weather and a political climate that makes harsh approaches to a difficult problem unpalatable. It's probably mostly not housing prices although that doesn't help.
> as much as I hear "artists and musicians" brought up with respect to a cities value, they don't lure people in. It's just a bonus. What does is good schools, affordable home prices, stable jobs, and a decent economy.
Sounds very dependent on what stage of life you're in. I can see how people who are already looking to start a family would want the things you mentioned, but for those of us who haven't married yet, good options to socialise and meet people are a prerequisite before we even start to think about schools and buying homes.
I think you're oversimplified and over-regimenting. Cities are like organisms. A healthy city needs a large number of different kinds of organs and systems all working in concert. Some may not be entirely essential—you can live without an appendix and give up a kidney—but almost all of them need to be in place to have something someone would call a thriving city.
I'm saying artists and musicians aren't a bonus. A city without them might be functional, but no one would love it and few would call it thriving. No part of a city is really inessential.
My hometown wasn't really known for artists or artistry and I still loved it. I think the desire to be around art is one that only part (maybe even a small part) of the country shares. Having it is nice, but not having it isn't really missing out on much, and it's fairly low on the hierarchy of needs.
"you might get lucky and have a cultural resurgence as artists, musicians, restauranteurs, local retail, etc etc can afford to live and set up shop downtown again." Or you might get what you have now: boarded up businesses, open air drug markets, rampant unprosecuted crime, needles and human waste everywhere.
The thing with the needles is crazy scary - I keep seeing them a lot recently when in Seattle, not only downtown.
Just the other day I visited Capitol Hill around 15th Avenue and an entire park is full of tents, and a person defecated in an alley by Kaiser Permanente in broad daylight. Reminded me of Tenderloin district...
Feels like the city is going downhill - especially if you have family I'd stay away
> you might get lucky and have a cultural resurgence as artists, musicians, restauranteurs, local retail, etc etc can afford to live and set up shop downtown again.
The question really comes down to how much downtown real estate is paid off or under mortgage, which basically depends on how recently it was sold to a new owner.
Anything under a mortgage will be subject to a CMBS that was valued based on the worth of renting out the units in the building. These will have terms setup such that if the owner lowers the rent, they will be required to pay an additional down payment to cover the lost value in the mortgage's collateral (the building) from the now lower rents.
CMBS's will be invested in by multiple investors at different risk levels, creating different incentives on modifying or maintaining the collateral requirements, and anywhere from 50% to 75% of the investors will have to agree to any changes to the loan terms.
In short, some landlords downtown are bound by terms forbidding them from lowering rents without having to pay a huge capital expense for the privilege to do so.
What is stopping local restaurants and retailers from serving downtown workers? Back when I worked in a CBD, I almost always ate lunch at local/regional businesses.
After reading the article it’s not clear why this is a change to such a publicly stated policy. The only thing that has changed is that the directors have discretion to choose how many days in the office will be required for teams. The headline is extremely misleading.
They are pushing the decision from the L10+ level to the L7/L8 level. But we all know behind the scenes, L7/L8 will be pushed to behave a certain way. If it was truly their choice, those with a strict policy would bleed engineers to the directors with more lax policies, Amazon would not accidentally create a free market within their own company.
As someone also on the inside: a generous take might be that this could allow them to accommodate more people.
If you hate commuting into the office and your current team is going to make you do so, you can transfer teams if there's not a hidden directive to just say no across the board.
If you dislike working from home, as I do, and your current team isn't going to encourage attendance 3+ days a week, you again have the chance to transfer.
Amazon keeps employees this way, and employees get their ideal balance. It seems better than the top-down one-size-fits-all approach if there aren't hidden instructions being passed down management chains. There's not as large a problem of a "preferred class" of workers if your director and everyone below them is on the same WFH/in-office balance.
I'm surprised you would say this, because creating internal "free markets" to encourage competition across teams is not an uncommon pattern within Amazon. I could name numerous examples of multiple teams competing either implicitly or explicitly with each other, seeing who's designs or systems would win, seeing which teams would be more successful at attracting talent.
I do agree about this being mostly a punting of the responsibility for deciding from L10 to L8. But I think competition is not a bug, it's a feature.
Idk if im just at a good org, but I expect my whole management chain doesn't care, and will let my team decide what works well for us.
Also, amazon definitely makes free markets within the company. When I accepted the offer, multiple teams pitched on which team to join. Plus, OPs is different by team, as are opportunities to work on promotion worthy stuff (well, at least once you get to sde3)
> At this stage, we want most of our people close enough to their core team that they can easily travel to the office for a meeting within a day’s notice. We also know that many people have found the ability to work remotely from a different location for a few weeks at a time inspiring and reenergizing. We want to support this flexibility and will continue to offer those corporate employees, who can work effectively away from the office, the option to work up to four weeks per year fully remote from any location within your country of employment.
How disorganised does a team need to be that they need to call meetings so involved they can only be done in-person with less than 24 hour’s notice? This isn’t a genuine business requirement, it’s just management wanting to remind everyone that they’re on a leash which can be yanked whenever they like.
> How disorganised does a team need to be that they need to call meetings so involved they can only be done in-person with less than 24 hour’s notice?
I've put similar bounds on WFH hires before. Not because we were calling short-notice meetings frequently, but because it prevents single, long-distance employees from dominating all of the scheduling requirements.
Once you have someone on your team who needs a lot of notice to attend any meeting, you are now planning every single meeting around their schedule. Everyone else must choose between accommodating that person or quietly doing the thing without them. It's ultimately not a great experience for the employee who gets left out of things because their schedule has become difficult to accomodate.
It also sets appropriate expectations. Some people interview for flexible WFH positions when they really want full-remote positions, then spend a lot of energy trying to shut down any in-person meetings no matter how much the rest of the team wants them. This is a good way of signaling that in-person meetings are a requirement for the job.
I think this is putting the cart in front of the horse.
The thing you should be optimizing for is not geo-location, but time zone. The latter is only weakly related to the former. It doesn't matter if someone is within driving distance of the office so long as they are in (or willing to work in) the time zone that the office works at. Rejecting someone in Los Angeles because they're not within driving distance of Seattle would be penny wise and pound foolish.
> Once you have someone on your team who needs a lot of notice to attend any meeting, you are now planning every single meeting around their schedule.
This doesn't sound like you're actually running a "WFH" team then. You just can't demand short notice in person meetings with a remote team; that's an unreasonable ask. Hold remote meetings and schedule in-person meetups far in advance, or don't call it a "WFH" team.
I don't know how productive it is to search for the true definition of "WFH". Regardless of what we call it, it seems reasonable to have an intermediate model like Amazon's proposing, where you can mostly work from wherever you'd like but you have to be available for in-person meetings because the company thinks they're valuable.
> I don't know how productive it is to search for the true definition of "WFH".
It's very productive, because abusing terms like "WFH" will be the technique that companies use to try and get through this without giving up anything. If you thought you were going to be "working from home" and discovered that your boss had the option to demand a commute from you at will on short notice, you would probably feel like you'd been tricked, no? Or if you landed that dream WFH job only to discover that it required you be X miles from Y expensive city, you would probably have some questions about what exactly they meant by "work from home".
Personally, I'd call the environment OP described above as semi-remote or "Flexible Working Arrangements", although I'm sure there are other terms that would suffice.
> Regardless of what we call it, it seems reasonable to have an intermediate model like Amazon's proposing, where you can mostly work from wherever you'd like but you have to be available for in-person meetings because the company thinks they're valuable.
Not for me, but that's fine I guess. But it's very important that everyone be clear about what this is, and it's not WFH. If the expectation is that you'll commute regularly or on the demand of your boss (ew), then that's not a WFH job. Come up with a new name for it if you want, but it does not meet the social expectation of what "WFH" means.
Unrelated to the terminology, I find this intermediate proposition utterly perplexing. So I have to live within reasonable commute range for the 2-3x times I commute per week, and I have to pay higher per foot cost if I want to work from my home? You do you, but I find this to be the worst of both worlds; I'd rather have a short commute to an office all the time, or no commute and more personal space.
(Excepting of course the “I have a dentist appointment in the other direction, I’m going to WFH for that.” But even my non-remote jobs have offered one-off remote days for logistical reasons for years, so I implicitly exclude that from such discussions).
I'm not sure what we're discussing here. "WFH" is a common, casual shorthand for any sort of arrangement where you work while being at home - I've only seen the term used to summarize, not to trick or mislead people. It's worth noting that Amazon's formal message (https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/amazon-offering-t...) identifies what they're offering not as "WFH" or "work from home" but "more flexibility as we return to office".
We’re discussing GP requiring that their “WFH” team live within a certain radius of the office for regular meetings. It’s my assertion that the team described is not really WFH, but rather a mislabeled form of flexible working or semi-remote work.
I do not believe that Amazon’s framing here is duplicitous, although I find their policy insufficient. I would however keep an eye out for companies offering “WFH” with expectations that are incompatible with the popular understanding of that term. Therefore I disagree with your assertion that it’s not profitable to discuss what “WFH” means.
Don’t feed the troll, man. This person clearly has an axe to grind against working from the office and nothing you say will help them see the other side.
Sigh. I’ll remind you that calling other people trolls here is verboten, so please don’t do that.
If you bothered to read what I wrote, you’d realize I haven’t said that going to the office is bad. I have my own preferences, yes, but I also gave clear room for the fact that others might have different preferences than me (“you do you”, “not for me, but that’s fine I guess”). I even made it clear I’d prefer to work from the office with a short commute than half time from an expensive city, but why let nuance get in the way of a good ad hominem?
What I am absolutely adamant is about is that companies are clear about what they’re expecting and offering. What I’m railing against here is companies offering “WFH” and then demanding people come to the office on short notice, a practice which I think is misleading at best. That should have been extremely clear from the context. This is in fact the third time I’ve said it. In fact I said that such policies are fine as long as they aren’t marketed as WFH, even though personally I wouldn’t want to work that way.
Also, since when is having a preference “having an axe to grind”? How bizarre.
Or, just host fully remote meetings. Which, if your employer is large enough, you have to do anyways because there’s an office in Europe or India or someplace else.
I've found this really depends on seniority. Higher seniorities like principle engineers, senior managers, directors, vp meetings are much different than a normal stand up, strategy session or engineering discussion and physical presence does have an advantage. But I admit this isn't likely to be the target audience for the original policy.
Pretty sure facebook needed to do this last week :)
It's important for large companies to still have some way of getting people together quickly to solve problems. That's hard if people in are different timezones.
The question this raises to me, is what travel times is this accounting for?
There are more complex issues (taxes, school pickup, dog walking, local errands) before travel in a plane and rental car can't get you somewhere in 24 hours.
Pre pandemic some nycers had a 15 minute walking commute, others might grind it out for 2 hours each way in the northeastern corridor.
As an errand example. I schedule my dental appointments 6 months out. If my work gives me only 24 hour notice I have to be in the office for a meeting that didn't exist until now, it makes no difference if I live a 6 hour flight away or a 30 minute walk away.
Now do the same for a 1hr meeting at 10am or 2:30pm with a need to be able to dropoff or pickup school children at 9am or 4pm.
The common pattern across various L8 all hands ive been in is that we all want to have fairly regular planning and design sessions in person, then go home to get the implementation done.
I think the "withing a day's notice" mirrors that, and that the fully remote days will keep growing and growing and growing to match being in the office for ~3 days every 2 weeks. Occasionally more if you need to do lots of in office work, and said in office work could come up at random.
Before the pandemic most of my team at amazon was already WFH about half time, answer were trying to work out how to make sure the right people are in at the same time together
There are a number of reasons, first is that by working from another location you might be breaking the law, second is taxes - if you stay somewhere long enough they might argue you need to pay income tax there. Lastly, data protection laws vary per country and there's a chance you have to give your laptop with company data to authorities in another country, which might be a security issue.
>second is taxes - if you stay somewhere long enough they might argue you need to pay income tax there
This is true even if you work a single day in a state. Consultants at Accenture, PWC, Bain etc. end up having to file in dozens of states a year sometimes. Fortunately their employer almost universally handles all the paperwork.
It depends on the state but some states, as you say, want you to file for even working a single day and states are apparently really starting to crack down.
There's different tax, visa and HR regulatory implications they probably don't want to deal with. For example if Amazon has an American worker who decides to work remotely in France (where Amazon is also established) can Amazon fire the American "at will" or are they subjected to French regulations that make terminating workers extremely difficult?
To be able to legally work in France, an American citizen would need a work visa which requires to have a local work contract. So they would have to follow French regulations.
It also includes a minimum of 5 weeks vacation and 2 weeks of PTO, too bad!
Yeah, I think you misunderstood. In Europe, "vacation" pretty much universally means "paid vacation". Otherwise, we'd call it "unpaid leave" or something.
I've only recently -- in threads here on HN in the last few weeks, in fact -- encountered the acronym "PTO", and concluded from context that it must mean "personal time off". (Right?) I also didn't quite grok what the GP meant by including those "two weeks of PTO"; WTF are those, in a European context? Can't be sick days, because AFAIK at least in most of Europe there's no quantitive limit on those: When you're sick, you're sick. Have I understood correctly that Americans who happen not to be ill for more than the "sickday limit" in a given year usually take the opportunity to "use up their sick days" even if they're healthy? (To repeat what is rapidly becoming my refrain on here: God, America is weird.)
In some companies, there is a separate "sick day" allowance, but that's rapidly vanishing. In most companies it's all put into a single bucket and your employer doesn't know or care about the reason you are not at work. It does not matter if you just want to stay at home and take care of things or fly to Venice.
If you are too sick to work for an extended time, then there is a disability insurance program. Sick days, for companies that have sick days, are for things like the flu, dental appointments in the middle of the day, etc. They are not for months-long cancer treatment.
Point being, when I go on vacation, I take PTO. There is nothing else to take if I want to be paid.
I think my company also has an unpaid leave program for unusual situations - say someone wants to take a year off to go to school but they still want their job waiting for them when they come back. But using this is very rare. Of course, each company is different as benefits are part of how firms compete for workers.
There's really no such concept as an employee in another country. You need a subsidiary incorporated in that country and then they become an employee of that entity. So...huge paperwork hassle at the very least.
Or support your kid in that overseas one month study program. There are a lot of interesting things you can do here with flexible working arrangements.
Tax, visa, and regulatory reasons. Other jurisdictions will impute residency for all legal purposes if you spend too much time there or work from there. They are trying to avoid myriad very messy legal edge cases.
There is an insightful summary of all the issues from HashiCorp founder when trying to establish an international remote-first company.
I can agree on almost everything from his post because my employer (startup) is trying to do the same, we are a US-company, in the process of acquiring by one of the giants, and I'm working and living in Ukraine with a US-based contract.
Almost certainly. Taxation is hard enough between states, for both the employer and the employee. Adding another country in the mix and it gets really hard, especially when (as is common with tech employees) people go to other countries to work without paying the slightest attention to how incredibly many immigration and labor laws they're breaking in their target nations.
I wonder about the definition of "easily travel [...] within a day's notice".
I've hopped on a plane to LA in the afternoon from San Francisco same day... is this just about "how willing are you to book a last-minute flight?" or is it "do you live near enough a major airport?" (Plus the usual "travel and abandon your family at a moment's notice").
I feel like if you're committed to "I wish to live in Toronto, while my team is in Seattle" that's tough (one flight and not every day currently!) but you could probably easily live ~anywhere along the West Coast or even SLC / Boulder / Denver no problem.
We(seattle team) had an SLC team member for a bit, and it was pretty rough. Even Phoenix partner teams are a huge pain since lunch time overlaps so much
Personally, having spent a pandemic working fully remote I wouldn't even consider working for a company that didn't offer that as an unquestionable human right, didn't frown upon it, didn't consider it to be "a way to refresh my sense of duty" and didn't think of it as a privilege.
I'm never going back to the open landscape of hell.
I understand and that's fine. I don't actually care about where you work in this context.
Human Rights are special things. They aren't preferences. The more you conflate the two, the more you erode your position and the term 'human right' in general. I would urge you to stop doing that.
Well, at least the right to life is a human right. It turned out that having to work in a crowded space with many others can be a real threat for your life.
It's not limited to HN. Even in a local dev Slack community, I often see people expecting companies to flagellate themselves just for a chance to hire the unique, special talent that they believe and need constant reassurance that they are. As far as I can tell, it's unique to tech because that kind of talent is in demand, but the toxic behavior it brings out in some people is really something to behold.
I prefer to know my value and vote with my feet. No pontificating required.
Would love to know if they believe that 'unquestionable human right' extends to all the service workers that tend to their daily life by making and delivering their food, transporting them to/from entertainment, packing and delivering their toys/consumer goods, etc. too.
We are very fortunate to be paid as much as we are for sitting at home and working on a computer. Compared to 99% of other adults around the world, we are spoiled.
>I don't fully agree. Instead, what I think, is that the stock holders of the company I work for are very fortunate that I work for them.
This is true and often lost on a lot of people. It's easy to blur the big picture when so many people slave away for scraps. If you weren't worth a significant portion more of what you are paid, you wouldn't be employed.
>We are very fortunate to be paid as much as we are for sitting at home and working on a computer.
We are fortunate enough to be born with the brain capacity to be rarely apt at such an in-demand and highly valuable skill. Of course developing the skill itself was hard work, not luck. We automate at pennies on the dollar. If we were paid 5x more than "market rates," our employers would merely double their investment rather than 10x. Double is an impressive return on any investment.
Your phrasing makes it sound like people should be grateful that their generous employers pay them so much. Employers don't do that because they're nice, they do it because tech workers generate enough value to justify paying large sums. Not paying them accordingly will result in them getting poached by another company.
a large chunk of the workforce, from accountants to stock brokers to HR, work on a computer. It's not a privilege to have no fresh air and to spend 70% of your life in front of a screen on a chair.
One of the things that's been missed is that remote working has been a big part of counteracting the massive inflation that's been caused by covid. Making people go into the office is a effectively a pay cut with all the price increases. Start forcing people in and salary expectations will rise accordingly.. .
Productivity has also appeared to increase with remote work (at least at my job), yet I keep seeing articles from high-profile CEOs on how remote work is bad for business. I'm not quite sure where all the resistance to remote work is coming from.
I think you'll find that it makes sense if you begin imagining non-productivity reasons why execs want workers back. Sunk cost fallacy over an expensive office is a regular guess, personally I suspect that it's got to be quite a rush to see hundreds of people working at your direction in an office and remote work cannot replace that.
That or bad management techniques work better in person.
It's astonishing how unified the message is, across big tech and smaller tech leaderships. It's like every CEO is reading a script from the same business magazine: "We understand how important it is for employees to return to the office and we can't wait to make this happen! We know that this is the One True Way to work, and that everyone is looking forward to it! We must get Back To Normal and the only way to do it is to get bodies in offices." How many of us have heard variations of this script in our own internal memos?
I've never seen all of Corporate America's CxO-level Leadership so aligned with each other on a topic like they are aligned on Return To Office being the only logical way...
I assume most of this is simple survivorship bias. The kind of people who become executive leaders are the those who thrive in that specific office environment, so naturally they will want to preserve it.
It's like asking polar bears what temperature to set the thermostat. They're going to want it like the arctic because that's their home.
Maybe the are used to collect all the suffering by sitting over the main office with all its cubicles.
Maybe they are afraid of a way more aggressive competition for workers and what they have to pay them. Considering they now could switch the workplace via different login credentials.
Well, as part of my MBA classes I read a metric ton of WFH articles and some interviews with CEOs. And all of them get the same advice from their HR, finance and compliance and likely get very similar responses from their respective heads. Since that is the case, it is less of a surprise that the decisions they optimize for is so prevalent.
As an anecdote, as part my class last semester I did an interview with 2nd in command at our company. It was exactly this. Covid is a temporary distortion of the market.
edit: removed between the lines part; its my interpretation so it might be an unfair read
There exists an area of study emerging in economics covering the effect of companies being directed by a small number of shareholders - for example, if the key stakeholders of all US airlines are (for the sake of the argument) Black Rock, then what effect does that have on the companies? If they same shareholder selects the same sort of execs for all their airlines in their portfolio, how does that affect the strategies for each company? If Delta loses share but United gains it and you've got a similar shareholding in both, what difference does it make.
If significant investors have heavy positions in commercial and residential real estate in particular locations, and also has a significant position in companies who employ workers in those locations, how might that change the perception of how your employer does business? Will support a CEO taking a position that tanks their real estate positions?
I don't know why these companies with massive in-person offices don't just convert them into mini data centers. Maybe have 1 or 2 top level floors reserved for in-person meetings or executives but the rest of the building can be used for housing data centers.
Most businesses wouldn't even need to an entire floor.
I don't think offices make great datacenters without a lot of investment in HVAC at least, beyond the handful of racks they might already have in a few rooms. Plus most businesses don't own their offices, they lease them from a property owner that would probably prefer to keep it as office space should the business fail.
So why don't they just not renew the lease on 50-80% of that expensive office space? It's not like a majority of tech businesses own the buildings their office is in. Or if they do, rent the excess out to others. (Sure, right now if everyone does either, the office-space rental market will pretty much crash... But a lot more tech corps would profit from that than would suffer from not getting good profits from renting out their property.)
I think that part of the resistance is that if you have people who work remote, the bonds you build with the company and your coworkers can potentially be less strong than if you were there in person. This may make it easier for employees to job hop.
Another reason could be real estate related. If you signed a long term commercial lease right before covid hit, you want to make sure that you're getting your moneys worth.
Yes, as a hiring manager I have seen this. There is certainly less friction to moving jobs when all you do is show up on a different video call the next monday. However, I would argue that there is certainly something lost in the personal interaction. While we've been individually productive during the pandemic, more complicated design/brainstorming has been slower.
Also, part of the human experience is that bond. fellowship with your team if you will.
They may be measuring productivity wrong. People may be working. But are they working on the right things and solving the problems correctly? For example, is creativity and genuine cross-team collaboration suffering? Those are much harder to measure, and at certain companies like startups that have ill-defined processes, these may be breaking down. Again, I’m not saying this with certainty. But perhaps this could be one view from the C-suite.
I've worked at two fairly large companies during the pandemic, and both have publicly stated that their productivity has increased as a result of WFH. I've heard a variety of measures being mentioned such as profitability, hours worked per week, and responsiveness of employees when they are needed outside of normal working hours for production issues - they found people to be much easier to reach when their home office is their office.
It is clear, however that this data was gathered and released by a different part of the company than the ones that make the call on whether or not people will be required to come back in. Ultimately it's as we would expect: executive leadership deciding to pull people back in has little to do with data and more to do with feelings. Despite publishing that data and overwhelming support for full-time WFH, both have begun the process of pulling people back in.
>such as profitability, hours worked per week, and responsiveness of employees when they are needed outside of normal working hours for production issues
I'm sorry none of those are direct indication of productivity per se, even profitability, which is a long lagging indicator of productivity.
Anecdotally, we've seen more velocity in Jira from the same engineers - about 20% more. However, I've also noticed people are working more hours, which is more challenging to quantify. Hour-by-hour productivity may be a wash. Regardless, more stuff is getting done, and employee sentiment seems to remain the same as pre/post pandemic.
It's not an exact science, but based on our team's velocity which is tracked in Jira, we appear to complete more units of work while remote...but of course there are likely numerous factors to consider.
The cost situation varies a lot. For some who already have an office in a house some commute from a company office, WFH financially saves a lot of commute costs which can be substantial. For someone who lives in a city, want to live there, and no longer have the option to work in a company office (which is admittedly mostly not a common situation if they haven't changed jobs), their costs have probably just risen substantially.
Somewhat related: I wonder how many companies are seeing profit increase because of reduced costs associated with on-site workers? I wonder if the increase in costs as folks return to the office is being factored in their stock prices?
Conversely in Amazon's case, they finished building multiple huge buildings in downtown Seattle right before COVID-19, which have been mostly empty since March 2020.
Some of those buildings were built for them and they would just be leasing them. They already backed out of their Ranier Square lease (the new skyscraper in Seattle that looks like a bunch of steps).
Those maintenance and utility costs are then passed on to the employee and reduce the take home pay, which is frustrating to workers.
There’s also more uncompensated time spent on duties a janitor, office manager or IT person would perform, like unloading the dishwasher, preparing coffee or being on the phone with an ISP during an internet outage.
Might want to consider moving if your internet connection is bad enough to result in material time being spent getting it fixed. And maybe drink less coffee if there is material time being spent on making it and rinsing the cup and putting it in the dishwasher.
Since they're having problems with retention, I wonder if they'll also get rid of that 6 month rejection cooldown? I had an Amazon recruiter cold e-mail me 2 months ago and me, being off the market for 8 years, had no idea software engineering interviewing was its own skillset, and subsequently bombed the online assessment. 2 months later, I've "grinded Leetcode" and passed a few phone interviews, but I'd be interested in circling back to Amazon. I will probably find another job before that 6 month cooldown is up, so as it is, Amazon basically is missing out on someone who is otherwise qualified just because they reached out to me first.
I'd recommend scanning all the "leaks" publicized about 4 months ago from internal Amazon HR policies. They're real, and why I was like eff this, and quit. It is plausible they're very varied across divisions and teams.
I’m on the opposite side of many folks responding. After spending the quarantine at home through the pandemic, I’m now looking at HCOL cities which headquarter big tech or startups (SF, NYC, Seattle, Austin). I’d love to spend time in a posh office again, meeting new people, getting drinks after work. Now, I have everything I need in one room: computer, weights, instruments, art supplies, dog, etc.
TBH, I’m crossing my fingers employers will prioritize folks willing to work in the office to compensate for my lack of pedigree in other hiring/HR attention areas.
All that stuff sounds great until you have kids, then you want to find ways to be home as much as possible. At least, that was my experience.
I was lucky - I bought a house in the suburbs of my hometown and moved back. Told my company I was moving out of Toronto during the second lockdown last year, they didn't even question it.
Now my biggest distraction is my 2yo running in because he doesn't understand that dad works, yet. Sometimes he might be having a tantrum in the kitchen/living room and it makes it a bit difficult to concentrate...nowhere near as bad as the constant barrage of irrelevant noise from an open office.
Actually, if you are willing to move to a lower cost upcoming satellite office location (like say Raleigh), your strategy might work better. Positions in those new offices are ramping up and they are specifically looking for people to fill those offices.
I think it depends on 2 important factors: age and the team. At early age you like to go out for drinks, later you may want to go home and rest or read or take a bicycle ride or spend time with the family. Also it depends a lot on the team you are in: I worked with teams where we spent a lot of time together outside business hours and I was in teams where I avoided even seeing most people, by no means spending any time together.
Cities are nice even with WFH to me. I don't care that much about the office, though it is easier to form bonds in person imho. I do care about having an active social life which is part of why I live in a city, and I'm very glad people are going out again generally and things are open with events happening (Seattle is where I'm at).
I don't know why people say Amazon has a bad reputation as an employee.
You have to consider there is a million employees and it most likely depends on department, location, job.
I personally know a couple handful Amazon employees who are all most happy and treated well.
Some of them have previously been at google and they say Amazon is the better employer period.
In some jurisdictions they pay clear above industry standard.
All companies have good and bad aspects, some feel better in a startup , some feel better in a corporate giant.
> I don't know why people say Amazon has a bad reputation as an employee.
Note this isn't actually a question. You then go on to preemptively defend Amazon's reputation with:
- "depends on department, location, job."
- "I know a couple of employees who are happy."
- They pay really well.
- "All companies have good and bad aspects"
What I find striking about this defense is that it is so generic, it could apply to any and every company (aside from maybe pay). You obviously have no interest in learning why Amazon's reputation is negative, and frankly are trying to shut down discussion of it.
Left AWS two months ago to confound a startup. Can only say good things about my personal experience (SDM at AWS Professional Services). On the other hand I know personally people who work in teams that due to no fault of their own, have a culture that, to say mildly, isn’t necessarily everyone’s cup of tea. Amazon as an employer, is generally great. But you really can’t underestimate how “it depends on the team” matters there.
I learned about technology more in 5 years there than my entire (20+ years) career. Smart people, always got help when I needed, always were able to keep work life balance (it’s many times up to you to know how to disconnect and say no, people respect it).
It will make you a better decision maker, much better writer (it might make you hate writing narratives but you’ll get dangerously good at it).
If you join and you got into “one of these teams”, use the wonderful tool of internal transfers. It’s one of the best things about Amazon. There are no minimums and no manager approval required to find a better match.
Anecdotal sure, but I joined earlier this year and am absolutely loving it so far. Fantastic pay, great manager, interesting impactful work, and more than enough flexibility on the personal side.
I specifically chose a team based on my perception of the manager, and that decision has paid off so far. Amazon is a huge company and experiences can vary dramatically.
Imagine if 20 public state schools, 50,000 students each, formed a mega university and someone started describing it in terms of a singular culture. Ridiculous right?
I fully expect my experience is different than others and I don’t expect it to generalize to Amazon as a whole. It’s nice to hear first hand accounts from former employees (positive and negative), but I could do without the people parroting what they read online.
English is not my first language but I think joined is a common term to say when you start a new job at a new company. "I joined Google recently" or "I joined the team at X" seems like common terms I hear...
Seems to be a rather recent development; looks very much like youngsters falling for tech-bro propaganda-like language usage. If they can make you think of it as sometihng you "join", a "community" or something, they can exploit you more easily than if you think of it as a straight-up business relationship: You sell your labour, they buy it.
Yeah, I have the same experience. I work on a major aws team and we have a lot of focus on work life balance. Oncall sucks for sure but otherwise it's fine. My girlfriend at Google has a much worse work life balance. It depends on what team you're on.
Google doesn’t have a massive distribution network. If you take out the distribution and warehouse has jobs there are still many complaints like the hire to fire headcount. Not to mention one must ask themselves do they want to work for a company that doesn’t give lower employees bathroom breaks or fires people based on AI feedback? How long until they use AI feedback to fire SWEs?
I am noticing a lot of the big tech companies are becoming more flexible about remote work, but they are still far away from a true remote friendly option for me at least.
It seems the expectation is that they want people to be available to come to the office on demand every once in a while, so you need to be living within at least a 1-2 hour drive from the office. While that is certainly an improvement, it isn't true remote.
If there are any big tech companies who only expect travel to the office a few times a year I would love to hear about them!
1-2 hours away from a major city is actually kind of a sweet spot, IMO.
Big cities have things like major hospitals and major employers, they have airports, they have baseball stadiums. They've also got social networks -- it's much easier to make friends in a place with 100,000 people your age than 50.
Now, escaping to the undeveloped areas is cheap, and many of them have access to things like beautiful mountains or beaches that are either far away from or too crowded near big cities. However, rural areas generally have poor infrastructure that big cities have, and often have extremely bad schools.
Being 1-2 hours away from a big city? That's kind of a sweet spot. You're still close enough to the city for culture and hospitals and the airport. But you're on a big plot of land, and since you're still in a metro, you've probably got reasonably good infrastructure and schools.
The whole "move to the mountains" thing that so many people talk about assumes you don't care about good schools, airports, hospitals, etc.
> The whole "move to the mountains" thing that so many people talk about assumes you don't care about good schools, airports, hospitals, etc.
That certainly is a trade off some people have to make.
We're finalizing a move to a new home that fits that description. 20k pop, basically on the beach, backed by mountains and trails, 4 hour drive to anything with greater than 200k population, small hospital that is not well equipped, local schools are pretty meh to terrible.
Here is the thing though, I'm the sole breadwinner. That opens up tons of options and flexibility.
My wife and I are deeply involved in our son's education, in which we substantially add on to his online classes. We have gigabit fiber internet, I can drive to an international airport in under 15 minutes(granted, only 3-4 days a week for flights), and our son is now getting a chance to make friends again, outside of school.
My wife wanted to move to the area, my sole objection was having fast and reliable internet to do my job. I grew up on a farm, so getting out of dense metro areas suits me just fine.
Now that we have secured internet, and my starlink reservation should be delivered in a few months as a backup, there is nothing stopping us.
Remote work has allowed me to get away from California and their income taxes, raise my pay in the process by finding a new and fully remote job, and live in a much cheaper COL area.
Renting for now, but we build our house in 2022/2023. My pay versus the cost of the area means that we will pay cash for everything, no mortgage needed.
You’re right that being close to amenities is good, but you’re building up a false dichotomy between 1-2 hours from the office[0] and “move to the mountains”. You’re ignoring option C “move close to a smaller city”. Often 1-2 hours from the kinds of cities where major offices are located provide an inferior quality of life compared to a smaller city.
1-2 hours away from my old office is basically Burbank, which is still quite expensive and crowded. There are tons of small cities that provide better quality of life than Burbank for cheaper, including the small one I picked (Boise). Also, I can get to nature much easier from where I live.
0 - I’m assuming from context that the “major city” you reference is the one where the office is located.
I think a problem with the Boise-sized metro is that it's super hit-or-miss. Places like Boise or Salt Lake City are awesome, but I think those are kind of the outliers. Many smaller, isolated cities struggle with being desirable places to live. Small cities in places like upstate New York, the Deep South, far Northern California, or Eastern Washington are tough to get young people to move to so they often have problems of urban decay.
Yeah I agree it is helpful to be close to a large city, but unfortunately for me it isn't the right city for most tech companies! I am also closer to the east coast, so less convenient for Seattle or SF.
As someone working for a company I like while living in a place that I'd rather not, there's no more annoying thing for me to dwell on than the fact that the only thing standing between me and moving is the fact that my employer expects me to be in the office 2 days/month.
2 days a month seems like it could be handled pretty well with an airplane? Like even if the commute were six hours and you had to stay in a hotel, that doesn't seem awful twice a month if the other 28 days you get to live somewhere that makes you happy.
Dropbox has gone "remote first" and sold off some of their offices, so I assume that means you don't need to live near one. Perhaps folks who work there can correct me.
Facebook has this option. Idk if it’s new but I know one person who’s doing it, and talked to a recruiter recently about another role of the same type. Come in to the office once per quarter (ish - varies by team), but they’ll pay for your travel.
I interviewed at amazon,India last year for their Arora DB team. It was one of the worst experience I ever had interviewing at any company.
I was asked to come to their office on a week-end, the HR calls me a day before to remind me that I have to be there at sharp 8:30 AM. I was living bit far from their office, but I made sure that I was there at their office well ahead of time. Turns out there are 50 odd candidates waiting there. They had never informed me that it was a mass interview. They then asked us to assemble in a room and told that interviews will start soon. Turns out the people who were supposed to interview us were flown down from their HQ and they were running late. So, to our frustration, they arrived 4 hours later. They provided us some average lunch and interviews started in the afternoon. The initial interviewers were fine, but in the later rounds(in late evening) I felt that the interviewers did not seem interested. In the last interview, the interviewer( I guess he was one of the directors), was not even making eye contact. He asked me a data structure question and asked me solve it on the white board, but then he got busy with his laptop. My solution was not very efficient one, but there was no hint or discussion on how to make it better and he then suddenly started talking about how great Amazon is as a place to work for!
After few days, they arranged for next set of interviews and the HR mailed me bunch links I had to study. Then I got a call from one their senior managers to inform me that there will be lot of leadership principles questions and they are very serious on them and I have prepare for them thoroughly!
They took another month to complete like next 5 rounds and at the end the HR calls me and say that I had to take one interview again as one of the the directors had lost the feed back on me!. I said no, then he comes back and says that they have found the feedback.
They took another few days and sent me a rejection letter. I wasn’t expecting an offer from them as I did sort of average in the interview, but the whole experience made me think how unprofessional they were!.
> He asked me a data structure question and asked me solve it on the white board, but then he got busy with his laptop.
It's bad that he didn't tell you this, but it's expected of an amazon interviewer to write a more or less accurate transcript of the interview. Almost certainly what the interviewer was doing on his laptop was writing down your work.
This is absolutely tragic, and software is not yet so commoditized that most folk should need to put up with this kind of experience. I can imagine why locally Amazon might seem like a good employer, but after a recruitment experience like that, how would you expect to be treated as anything but cattle for the remainder of your placement? I'd sooner take work in a bar or soup kitchen than an environment like that, and in any case definitely wouldn't have participated in the interviews.
Are mass recruitment events a recent software thing, or perhaps a local culture thing? I've never heard of them before except maybe for new graduates
In my experience, they offset the first 2 years of vesting with cash. So all 4 of my first years were equivalent with RSUs/Cash with the first 2 years cash heavy, and the final 2 years RSU only.
There must be a bonus that's not properly represented on levels.fyi, because Amazon's cash compensation is pretty poor compared even to some non-FAANG companies.
Amazon offer generally gives you roughly the same "total compensation" for the first 4 years, assuming that the stock price doesn't change much.
So if they're trying to pay you 300k per year, then you get 160k salary, ~140k starting bonus each of the first two years, and ~300k of stock that mostly vests in years 3 and 4.
Off-topic, but is levels.fyi... on the level? I ask because I'm hearing about all sorts of 350k-500k offers for senior engineers, but they're not showing up there. My current salary seems right about "in band" on there, but people in my network who I talk to seem to think I'm way underpaid.
350-500k annual comp levels exist (that’s E5-E6 at Facebook, for example). There are a lot of E5s, but fewer E6s.
Your friends might also be including the full four-year grant in a single number, which creates a sort of nonsense figure? Another thing that increases comp is if the stock rises a lot after grant — but that would not show up in offers.
Levels.fyi is as legit as any other source, as far as I know.
I'm an ICT5 at Apple, pushing for ICT6 (but it won't be next year, ICT6 is more about who you know than what you know), and just had my perf review. This year I got total comp (salary, bonus, RSUs) of just over 520k, which is consistent with last year and the year before.
What do you mean when you say "they're not showing up there"? If you look at senior SDE comp for Amazon, you'll see that most of the numbers fall in that range (especially for new hires, with 0 years of experience at the company): https://www.levels.fyi/company/Amazon/salaries/Software-Engi...
Does everyone else get multiple recruitment emails a week from Amazon? I get more recruitment emails from them than all other companies combined. Even when I suspended my linkedin I am still getting emails.
I applied years back and now get them once in a while when they decided to go full WFM maybe 6 months back. They make the email seem like a manager is interested in your skillset for a specific role, etc but it is clearly an automated template.
YYYESSSSS, I feel like I'm on multiple recruitment DB and they have no communication. Hell I've gotten the same EXACT email from two recruiters the same day.
> “We’re intentionally not prescribing how many days or which days — this is for Directors to determine with their senior leaders and teams.”
This reminds me of what George said to Jerry in The Deal on Seinfeld:
> Jerry: Spending the night. Optional.
> George: No, you see? You got greedy.
Making the policy discretionary will ultimately make it like an "unlimited vacation" policy where it actually doesn't happen but the company gets to say that it's their policy.
Is Amazon really such a bad employer? I've just started process with them now. I dont want to work for Facebook, there is no local Netflix and I'm probably not good enough for Google - Amazon is the only FANG company I'm realistically going to get.
Please be aware that Amazon will insist on a non-competition agreement. Depending on your seniority level and whether such agreements are enforceable in your jurisdiction, there is a high chance that this will limit your opportunities after you leave Amazon. Don't overlook this aspect when evaluating offers.
They're not that bad, uniformly. But they have a vocal cohort of people that had a bad experience. From what i see in my cicle, its not rare to have a bad experience, but its not uniformly bad. But often bad. It seems heavily dependent on manager and the team's combo of priority and funding and history of good/bad development (aka tech debt).
They have some good cultural points (easy to change teams) but also bad ones (bad on-call). So depending on your tolerance of WLB vs salary, and how good you are at shipping, you could have a good experience.
I am currently a software engineer at Amazon. I obviously can't speak to other people's experiences at Amazon.
And having never worked at any other big tech company, I'm not in a place to compare to them. But my own experiences at Amazon have been pretty good. I've been quite happy with my compensation and work life balance, which all have improved since my previous roles mostly at start-ups. There have been some stressful crunch times (Q4 tends to be stressful, between Thanksgiving-Christmas peak on the Retail side and Re:invent on the AWS side), but not more stressful from other big milestones at previous companies.
I have been lucky, in that I had worked with my first team's director at a previous company and so I knew he was a good boss, and I had known the manager for my second team prior to joining. It's important as part of the interview process (at Amazon, or anywhere else) to treat the interview as a two-way process, as you're vetting the company, the team, and your boss as much as they're vetting you, and if you don't get all your questions answered as part of the interview (interviewers are supposed to save time for you to ask questions!), feel free to relay them to your recruiter.
This is only a single data point, but I recently went through the whole interview cycle with Google, Facebook, and, Amazon, and I thought Amazon was the toughest interviews.
I have friends that work at Amazon. It seems that work/life balance varies quite a bit among different parts of it.
Plenty pay >$250k remotely and in large cities such as SF and NYC-- For Engineers, Managers/Executives (Eng, Mktg, other), Salespeople, etc. You just have to ask for it. If you're unfamiliar, join TeamBlind.com
A company sent me roles at $125k recently. I wrote them back with a polite variation of "heck no, my rate is $250k".
I'm currently quite broke-- $5k to my name (too many sabbaticals, plus only recently paid off student debt and pivoted into engineering). But I bluff every time and sometimes it works out. Nothing to lose: there seem to be infinite employers in need of software engineers.
Excluding finance, there's Spotify, Doordash, Salesforce, Square, Twitter (incl. remote), Coinbase (remote), Palantir, Roku, Affirm, Robinhood... and that's just the publicly-traded companies that explicitly have offices in New York. You have even more options looking at companies that are either remote-friendly, or are late-stage startups with competitive equity grants (i.e. Stripe, Instacart, etc), or both (there's a lot of overlap between those two categories).
Does Amazon actually pay $250k. I heard from someone who works there that the salary ceiling for all engineers is $150k and the rest is compensation. Is this true?
Yes, there is a base cap of $160K ($185K for HCOL areas like NY and Bay Area), and the rest of the compensation is RSUs. For engineers who are senior and above, RSU based compensation will usually be more than 50% of their overall compensation.
It is all relative. In comparison with the other FANG companies, the people that I know told me Amazon has worse work-life balance and a more stressing environment, but it can be fine versus other companies outside the FAANG group, especially with the top compensation you get for that.
> as long as they are able to commute to the office when necessary
This is they key right here. Basically you still have to live within a few hours drive of Seattle or Palo Alto, or even less depending on your patience.
Still better than five days a week in the office though!
Doing a sometimes long commute that gets you out of high-cost areas is hard in the Bay Area but a few hours gives you a lot of flexibility in what type of place you live in generally.
I'd be looking hard at housing along regional rail lines. If the commute is going to be an hour or more, I'd much rather do that occasional trek in a commuter train with wifi and my laptop than in a car when I'm still half asleep in the morning. Eventually with cal HSR you will have the choice of living like a 23 year old in a tiny bay area apartment or living like an emperor in fresno or bakersfield for as much money.
The labor market is super tight, so whatever labor wants, labor gets. I suspect this will turn on a dime, when the labor market softens.
The cynic in me thinks big tech wants to promote WFH forever, as they have benefited stupendously from the war-time economy and they are in no rush back to normalcy.
I hate these kinds of half-compromises because they feel really disingenuous. The company knows a significant proportion of their engineers want to work from home permanently and rather than giving a straight yes or no they try to weasel their way out with a solution that sucks for almost everyone.
People that want to WFH permanently are forced into the office, with the restrictions on commuting that entails.
People that want to work in the office are frustrated that people aren't in when they want to speak to them.
Hybrid solutions genuinely look like the absolute worst of both worlds from the perspective of all parties involved.
16 days is kind of a lot. For me the hybrid model means I can much more easily do long weekends or weeks-in-an-interesting-place as 16 days would let me do 2 weeks and a half dozen long weekends.
16 days a year is 1.3 days per month; not exactly a lot. Most companies offer more than 16 days a year in vacation.
Long before Covid I worked at a co-located office that allowed WFH for logistics or “heads down” days. Employees there regularly racked up 5-8 days remote a month. And it was a nice office to work from, all things considered.
> Compared to my old employer that's a ton.
The issue is that after the pandemic the standards have changed. Most of us have spent 1-1.5 years remote now; for those that want to work remote 16 days is now badly substandard.
Personally it’s my belief that if a company is going to remain in the office and offer flexibility, the minimum seems to be 1-2x a week.
It seems that somewhere between you must be butt in seat all day every day and everyone can move to a mountain town or the beach if that's what rocks their boat there probably exist reasonable flexible approaches.
Some will doubtless resent that they can't depend on being able to tap an arbitrary coworker on the shoulder on a given day and others really don't want to live close enough to an office to drive in occasionally. But there seem to be intermediate approaches that make most people happier overall.
I feel low trust environments like Amazon would actually make working from home a misery.
While I was there (more than half a decade back), my manager had a week where they were working remotely. And the first thing they'd do every morning in that week was call everyone on the team _individually_ to get updates. Not a team standup, but individual calls. And they were honestly "a good manager" by Amazon standards.
There was also very little writing culture back then which is very important to have thoughtful conversations in remote setting.
One of the changes from the covid-19 pandemic and pandemic's since history began is social changes that happen once the pandemic recedes. The fact that a job that can be done almost anywhere(within a certain timezone at the least) and is forced to be done at one of the most expensive real estate markets in the World(sfbay area, Seattle, NYC as well) always seemed crazy to me, and alot of others are starting to see it as well.
I expect google, apple and even the biggest stalwarts of working from the office to finally relent and allow work from home permanently. They can't put that genie back into the bottle even if they tried. Companies in tech want to be serious about climate change, then don't force your workers to commute hours to your office, its bad for the environment, bad for the workers mental and physical health, and horrible for the areas these companies cluster in by driving real estate prices to the moon and contributing greatly to homelessness and over-congestion.
In São Paulo big names became remote friendly, smaller ones followed and, given the high demand for IT workers, non remote software engineering jobs became a joke. Note: Crowded and not a commute friendly city for most people.
My company said they'd let people work remotely, but based on my observations from friends on other teams and my own, this is more of a last resort. If you're going to quit and are not a lead engineer, then they'll offer you remote. If they can't fill a position in a timely manner, then they'll start looking remote.
My takeaway is that maybe the C-Suite has been convinced, but now you need to convince line-managers and the like.
It reminds me of the "will consider remote for strong candidates" that you can see on job postings. There aren't many bigger red flags for me for how the company treats remote employees.
Amazon employee here: this title is very generous. In fact this could easily go the other way because they removed the 2-day-at-home guarantee. Now it's up to your L8. He can force his entire org back to the office if he wants to.
If we're told to go back, then I'm looking for an internal transfer to an org with a more reasonable director or even a new job. WFH has been a huge boon to my quality of life.
I live in Barcelona, where public transportation is quite good and it doesn't take me more than 20 minute to get to the office.
Still, I prefer to work remotely. Commuting in certain places makes working remotely a necessity but this is not the only reason for not having to go to the office.
There is a lot of friction about this, mostly I suspect is because higher management became such before working remotely was an option.
Are they still forcing recruits to travel to Seattle for a loop interview or have they gone virtual? I interviewed a few years ago and the cross-country travel was tiresome. Also, my room at the Inn at the WAC smelled like mold. Not an experience I care to repeat.
As Principal, yes. As an SDE 3? Maybe at the 99.999999 percentile if you got super lucky with stock vests given recent stock appreciation. But otherwise, no. That’s not SDE 3 comp.
Personally I find it pretty damed shameful to see the tone deafness as I read comments from a bunch of self-important Amazon developers complaining about quitting due to a possible RTO when Amazon’s delivery drivers feel the need to have to piss in bottles to meet their work obligations.
In my view, the personality traits that are conducive to promotion up the Amazon leadership ladder are strongly aligned with loving work-from-office. Most people L10 and higher not only don't understand the desire for permanent work from home, I think maybe they cannot understand it. It's just too foreign to many of them.
The first announcement was "We can't wait to be back in the office, and we know you can't either". Senior engineers started quitting. Then it was "Okay, okay, you can work from home 2-3 days per week, but only with your L10's approval". The exodus continued.
Now it's "Fine, you can work from home with your L8's approval, but you better be ready to show up on 24 hour notice if we say so!". The biggest benefit of work from home is not needing to commute, and lower cost of living by leaving the HCOL cities.
They don't get it. Other companies do. And anyone who has spent 5 or more years working for Amazon is well-trained enough to get a better paying job with a company that understands the cultural shift that just happened to the developer world.
Edit: I know not all developers are anti-office. But for those of us who are, working for people who don't understand us, who make policies based on what works best for them, is a problem.