Amazon WFH Policy

Interesting thread.

I am in a predicament at work a little. Currently working hybrid 1-3 days on site. Average 2.5 per week I would say. 3 hours a day commute (120 km each way). A lot of autonomy in my role. And I can likely get away with 4-5 hours work on my days at home.

A fully remote role has come up that I would have a strong chance of getting. Side step. Might be small pay rise but nothing more than a couple of k. Can still come into office if I want and as I want but the role is more global with no need to be on site…….Would be more boring…….very boring…..less autonomy as I would be constantly chasing other people (not reports) try get them hit dead line compliance metrics rather than maker of my own destiny.

As I said a few times I’m talking here about graduates in the FAANG companies, these will typically be the best of the best students but they are being offered in the range of €100k and this can rise quickly if they perform well. Screenshots below from a few of the big payers from levels.fyi. I know from working in these places that this is what the pay is for grads so can confirm it is true.

Probably because some people work to live, not live to work. Crazy, I know.

no I don’t, I want the remote aspect of it and trying to balance that out against it the negatives.

Also the thoughts prepping for an interview….shudder.

You're being told that even when someone is in the top 5% it's not enough. You need to spend more time in the office to get them higher. Then you can both be unequally happy. Or happy because they've told you that you will be happy.

Though maybe you're more sick of the commute.

No organisation is going to hire a graduate into an SRE role with benefits at over 100K a year, no matter how "best of the best" they are in college.

As with anything, there is nuance to that.

There very much can be a housing crisis or living crisis for someone on 100K a year if they have bad spending habits. It is all well and good getting a good wage, it is another thing to be smart with it.

Well, as with anything there will be exceptions, but they are just exceptions. 

Of course, however I wouldn't mark them in the rare occurrences. Once people earn more, they spend more.

My point is that money buys comfort and security. It's all well and good to say you should work to live, but if your work can't fund your living then you're pretty much stuck.

Money CAN buy those things, but not always. It will depend on lifestyle and so on, you might be viewing this from your own perspective and I get that. I have seen first hand when folks earn lots, they aren't always wise or smart with their money. Like I said, once you earn more, you will spend more.

If work can't fund your living or lifestyle, you can either get a new job and earn more, or adjust the lifestyle. If the basics can't be covered by your income, (rent/mortgage, food, transport, medical etc), then yes, there is an issue there.

There's a limit to how much a person can cut back their spending. There's no limit to how much a person can earn.

There is very much a limit on what a person can earn though. Even the most senior engineer with hit a cap at a tech firm, and to earn more they might have to move to SF or somewhere like that, in which case their outgoings are higher. Unless you are a founder or get in at an early stage and get equity etc, you won't be a millionaire working a standard job. Working for yourself, perhaps, but even at that, it would take over most of your life.

Cutting back on spending can always be improved, if someone will change their lifestyle enough for it.

Statistically there is a limit for most people.

That's quite the leap from not taking a promotion to not being able to survive.

Some on this thread have already said they write off people who don't apply for promotions. It's a bit of a daft corporate catch 22. It's the exactly the Peter Principal. But then they don't agree the principle exists. Can't win that one.

Dragging everyone back to commuting into the office 5 days a week is absolutely living to work. It's the embodiment off prioritising work in the office to everything else.

Obviously there is "value" to remote working for many. Enough to be worth more financially.

If they can't measure the benefit of returning to the office, then how did they measure the benefit of WFH?

Lots of people saying they will and actually doing it are very different.

And that’s not how you generally differentiate yourself from the others, just get your job done, which can be done with basic effort within the work week, so “above and beyond the call of duty”. Use the least amount of effort to get your job done, you’ll progress just as fast and stress free.

"Up sticks", bringing a laptop in a bag and plugging it into the monitors in the office instead of the ones at home? This is quite the dramatisation.

Hybrid is better than 100% of either.

I am referring to internal vacancies. The person is already employed by the company and researching the role is something you do before you do the interview. And when it's in-house, it's a lot easier to find out stuff.

In house you might get a internal counter offer or hear something in the grapevine afterwards that wasn't in the interview.

While I would like a fully remote job or one that you only pop into the office a few days per month hybrid is indeed a nice medium. I do like keeping my WFH and office days in a row though, not that it’s a big job as you say but it’s nice to get a run in one place and the other. So I have always done Monday and Friday at home.

It really depends on the type of industry you are in. Lower paid workers in a dead end boring job are far more likely to slack off. Higher paid, career driven employees in a satisfying job where there is great career growth potential rarely slack off.

Wouldn't be so sure about that…..

I previously worked for a global medical device company and the type of people promoted weren't career driven.

They were basically bottom kissers, knew who to befriend and knew what committees to be on in order to increase their salary.

Yup, I think a lot of people will say and do different things. The jobs market is also a factor as well, so if it was gang busters like 2/3 years ago, then people can speak with their feet and bail. I am sure some actually have left due to certain circumstances changing, not saying that it doesn't happen, just not as often.

We of course can disagree on how to progress (I was expecting that), I am at the stage in my career to know that all that matters is getting your work done, showing up, and not being a dick. "High performers" etc, who burn the midnight oil and do tasks outside of their JD, they aren't guaranteed a promotion, or safety if the company falls on hard times, that is a myth. So my own advice to young professionals is to do your work with the least amount of effort, foster good relationships in your job, but always put your own needs before that of any company.

Well that's it entirely.

no one is guaranteed anything but there are ways to make it more likely you will be the one promoted or not the one cut.