Amazon Workers Rejects Company’s Return to Office Policy
More than 500 Amazon workers have demanded that the company reverse its return to office (RTO) policy, but they have also refused to leave over their refusal to follow the new rule.
According to reports, the CEO of AWS previously told staff that nine out of ten people he met agreed with the approach.
The argument that the RTO policy was universally supported is refuted in this letter, which claims that the figure does not align with the experiences of many employees. According to the letter, Garman’s argument, which was not supported by evidence, “appalled” the employees.
The letter opens, “We were appalled to hear the non-data-driven explanation you gave for Amazon imposing a five-day in-office mandate.”
Newsng understands that workers contend that Garman’s focus on conventional brainstorming and “white-boarding” meetings ignores the efficiency and success attained during the Covid-19 pandemic-related remote work era.
The letter highlights that it would be “very disappointing to take no lessons from that experience.”
Companies are restricting employee flexibility in the tech industry as a whole, despite abundant evidence that remote and hybrid work improves morale and productivity.
Twelve employees shared their personal stories in the letter, citing long commutes, family responsibilities, and medical needs as reasons why they were unable to follow the guideline.
One employee complained that the trip to the closest office was four hours, while another said that if they moved, his spouse would have to quit her job.
It appears that AWS is adhering to its RTO policy. Matt Garman informed staff members this month that if they didn’t enjoy coming into the office, they could work somewhere else.
“If there are people who just don’t work well in that environment and don’t want to, that’s OK. There are other companies around,” Garman said during an Oct. 17 meeting.
We earlier reported that Amazon’s alliance with artificial intelligence startup Anthropic has been cleared by Britain’s competition authority, which stated that the $4 billion deal isn’t subject to additional investigation.
