After all of the HQ2 drama, Amazon workers will be WFH indefinitely

[themaguffin]

Of course this isn't shocking news given the pandemic, but there was still plans for more of a hybrid approach.

That appears to have faded.





Amazon to allow employees to work remotely indefinitely

The new policy was announced in a blog post and is a change from Amazon’s previous expectation that most employees would need to be in the office at least three days a week when offices reopen from the COVID-19 pandemic in January.

But about 50,000 tech and office employees work at the company’s sprawling headquarters downtown Seattle campus and in the city’s South Lake Union neighborhood. Their absence will hurt nearby restaurants and other businesses.

Amazon’s update to its return-to-work policy followed similar moves from other big technology companies. Microsoft announced last month that it had postponed reopening its offices indefinitely.

[mhays]

Not really. Managers will have discretion to choose what works for their teams. And as the article says they'll still need to be able to get to the office when needed (details unknown), so being within commute range will still have value.

[C.]

Originally Posted by mhays

Not really. Managers will have discretion to choose what works for their teams. And as the article says they'll still need to be able to get to the office when needed (details unknown), so being within commute range will still have value.

The pandemic has proven that there are a lot of jobs that can be done from home. Some are location dependent, and there may be an occasional in-person meetings from time to time, but commuting distances have greatly expanded.

I known a person that moved during the pandemic and now has a 3 hour commute from their office, but they'll only be asked to come in two days a week at most. For example, on Wednesdays and Thursdays they'll be in the office. Their plan is to start heading into the office at 6am on Wednesday. Work a full 8 hours and get a hotel for that night. Have an early start Thursday and do the 3 hour commute back home.

Even with the cost of the hotel, it works for them due to cheaper housing costs. They would also spend less time commuting now on a weekly basis than the use to when they had to report to the office everyday.

And that's not even the most extreme example. You're going to see people do the same thing, but with flights. I'm considering it myself because I'm not a huge fan of Atlanta. With a company like Amazon and the high salaries being paid, people are probably going to be living where they want to live, and just flight in when necessary. At least the middle and senior staff that are in a financial position for this.

[homebucket]

The absence of office workers will hurt the downtown businesses and restaurants the most. Amazon will be fine. Their employees will be fine. The businesses that rely on the pre-work coffee runs, business/casual lunches, and happy hour get togethers and business dinners... won't survive.

[LAsam]

Amazon has a ton of office space, particularly in Seattle. This is pretty concerning news for owners of office buildings... but we'll see how it plays out over the next couple of years.

[themaguffin]

Originally Posted by mhays

Not really. Managers will have discretion to choose what works for their teams. And as the article says they'll still need to be able to get to the office when needed (details unknown), so being within commute range will still have value.

Do you really think that the discretion is going to lean into goin into the office?

Only a fraction of the 50K will go in regularly.

[Hudson11]

does this mean no Poop emoji in Crystal City / "National Landing" ?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by C.

The pandemic has proven that there are a lot of jobs that can be done from home. Some are location dependent, and there may be an occasional in-person meetings from time to time, but commuting distances have greatly expanded.

I known a person that moved during the pandemic and now has a 3 hour commute from their office, but they'll only be asked to come in two days a week at most. For example, on Wednesdays and Thursdays they'll be in the office. Their plan is to start heading into the office at 6am on Wednesday. Work a full 8 hours and get a hotel for that night. Have an early start Thursday and do the 3 hour commute back home.

Even with the cost of the hotel, it works for them due to cheaper housing costs. They would also spend less time commuting now on a weekly basis than the use to when they had to report to the office everyday.

And that's not even the most extreme example. You're going to see people do the same thing, but with flights. I'm considering it myself because I'm not a huge fan of Atlanta. With a company like Amazon and the high salaries being paid, people are probably going to be living where they want to live, and just flight in when necessary. At least the middle and senior staff that are in a financial position for this.

Not necessarily. Those big salaries take into account cost of living of Seattle so if they pack up and move to Atlanta for example, they will take a pay cut. I got a job out in the Bay Area working for 'Big Tech' and the salary is pretty good but cost of living is insane out there but if I ever got the chance to move back to Houston working remotely, I would do it, pay cut and all.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by themaguffin

Do you really think that the discretion is going to lean into goin into the office?

Only a fraction of the 50K will go in regularly.

I'm certainly watching that closely, as I live within walking distance of HQ1 and advise A/E/C firms on this sort of thing.

The reality is we don't know. A lot of people like working from home, me included. And some functions are easy from home. But will teams be as effective? Will workers find their careers advancing at the same pace? What will WFH be like when some others are grouped around a table at Zoom meetings? Any decision made now by a company or worker is only the first step in an evolving, unpredictable situation.

[C.]

Originally Posted by JManc

Not necessarily. Those big salaries take into account cost of living of Seattle so if they pack up and move to Atlanta for example, they will take a pay cut. I got a job out in the Bay Area working for 'Big Tech' and the salary is pretty good but cost of living is insane out there but if I ever got the chance to move back to Houston working remotely, I would do it, pay cut and all.

It's presenting an interesting HR issue for sure. I remember reading about the perspective from one of the large bank CEOs. Basically saying they're not going to pay NYC salaries if you choose to live in Florida.

But how is that going to be enforced for the 100% WFH crowd? On paper I can live in one destination, but physically I can be anywhere.

[homebucket]

For some people it's actually more economical to rent a cheap apartment so you have the SF or NYC address and get the higher pay, and then live elsewhere and work remotely. And then you have a place to stay whenever you do have to come into the main office.

[C.]

Originally Posted by homebucket

For some people it's actually more economical to rent a cheap apartment so you have the SF or NYC address and get the higher pay, and then live elsewhere and work remotely. And then you have a place to stay whenever you do have to come into the main office.

For the Zoomers, Millennials, Gen Z, it's not uncommon for friends living in the northeast to be asked by others in the country if they can use their mailing address. Works great for jobs, tax purposes, and maybe now WFH. Haha.

[Obadno]

Tech and financial services will see the biggest WFH percentages because largely being in the office for their endless mid level employees is not needed.

I think you will still have a presence but only the people that really need to be in the office, High end management, their support, IT, some upper level sales that work better in person, legal etc.

But large swaths of general cubical mid level - hourly employees have no reason to be in the office.

Offices will still be there but probably a good 10-50% of the employees will now work form home at least most of the time for now on.

For commercial real estate that will mean instead of Bank of America taking up 300,000 sqft in your downtown office building they will instead take up 150k-200k

Edit; also you will see the C-suite and their direct staff in small luxury offices with 90% of the operations being work from home or in inland operations centers. That's already how a lot of Bay Area companies operate. Tiny office of high level employees in the bay with a suburban operation office in phoenix, Vegas, Austin etc.

[mhays]

Depends. It all, relentlessly, depends.

If someone is in the office three days a week to they have a desk? Probably. Maybe with two they have a little cabinet they roll to a shared desk, including a laptop they plug into a docking station with monitors. Companies will have many options and make many choices.

They'll also be unsure how things will play out, with good reason. Who knows what the workers or managers will want tomorrow, let alone in a year.

Meanwhile, Covid (and maybe post-Covid) design thinking tends to favor more spacing in desks, conference rooms, hallways, etc.

[Manitopiaaa]

Thank God! Maybe I can buy a forever home in Alexandria after all.

I keep seeing price cuts all over DC on Redfin. Hope that continues.

[DCReid]

Here's an example of the impact -
(from https://www.bisnow.com/philadelphia/...r-space-110433 )

GSK [GlaxoSmithKline and its US HQ in Philly] will shrink its footprint from nearly 208K SF to 46K SF, another indication that more than a year of remote work has permanently affected how companies consider their office space.

Here's another example,

( https://www.bisnow.com/philadelphia/...vy-yard-110208 )
Pharmacy Chain [Rite Aid]With Over 2,400 Locations Going 'Remote-First,' Only Taking 23K SF For New Philly HQ.


I doubt Amazon will need 25K workers for their 2nd Alexandria HQ.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by C.

It's presenting an interesting HR issue for sure. I remember reading about the perspective from one of the large bank CEOs. Basically saying they're not going to pay NYC salaries if you choose to live in Florida.

But how is that going to be enforced for the 100% WFH crowd? On paper I can live in one destination, but physically I can be anywhere.

There might be instances of 'all hands on deck' at the office every so often so if you job is in San Francisco and you moved to Denver, or Austin you might be in trouble. A lot of jobs come with an expectation that you live in the area even if you are WFH for that reason. I worked from home for 12 years and got old after a while and began to miss the energy and camaraderie of working of an office environment but would move at the opportunity of WFH only because my wife and I would be living in TX and CA, respectively. And our house would easily be $3 million in the Bay Area rather than sub $500k here.

[aaronevill]

I am less worried about Midtown Manhattan or the Loop in Chicago than I am the Stamfords, Fairfields, and Planos. Mid-management hasn't really existed in Manhattan since the early aughts...premier locations will (eventually) be filled with premier creatives and upper management or converted to housing and other uses. We are in the midst of a major shakeout, but the best locations will continue to thrive as business centers. The problem, however, is that we need all of these locations to thrive across metropolitan areas. I am very concerned about the decline of retail and office in the suburbs. Without distinguishing features, the online world has rendered these environments worthless--these declining 80s and 90s surburban nodes are in a nose dive.

[Peggerino]

Just like office areas in the suburbs. I'm switching jobs right now and only open to positions that allow WFH or are located centrally. God willing, I'll never do a commute to the suburbs again

[C.]

Originally Posted by aaronevill

I am less worried about Midtown Manhattan or the Loop in Chicago than I am the Stamfords, Fairfields, and Planos. Mid-management hasn't really existed in Manhattan since the early aughts...premier locations will (eventually) be filled with premier creatives and upper management or converted to housing and other uses. We are in the midst of a major shakeout, but the best locations will continue to thrive as business centers. The problem, however, is that we need all of these locations to thrive across metropolitan areas. I am very concerned about the decline of retail and office in the suburbs. Without distinguishing features, the online world has rendered these environments worthless--these declining 80s and 90s surburban nodes are in a nose dive.

I'll be celebrating. The main reason for locating an office in the suburbs was a race to the bottom in terms of affordability. Now you can give up the office completely and save on leasing costs for a nominal increase in an IT budget. Suburbs are just going to have to re-purpose the land. There is a housing shortage, so a smart suburb should just rezone everything mixed-use and go for the live style centers that seem to be popping up these days.

Originally there was a worry about if people would be as productive at home than in the office. Looking forward to seeing more studies on this, particularly with low-level office workers.