亚马逊的无声解雇
Amazon's Silent Sacking

原始链接: https://justingarrison.com/blog/2023-12-30-amazons-silent-sacking/

在这篇题为《亚马逊的无声解雇》的文章中,作者贾斯汀·加里森 (Justin Garrison) 讨论了亚马逊在 2023 年实施重返办公室政策后,如何通过无声解雇员工的策略来降低运营费用,同时还因对薪资和工作条件不满意而驱逐技术工人。作者强调,亚马逊的薪酬模式严重依赖股票价值,而股票价值最近有所下降。 随着客户削减自己的成本,亚马逊努力维持增长和创新,导致其转向更便宜、更集中的组织结构。 作者认为,随着团队人员短缺并且难以维持技术技能,平台可能会发生重大中断。 文章结尾不确定作者本人最终是否会面临解雇。

不幸的是,这并不一定是真的。 虽然维护干净的架构和优化的性能指标肯定有好处,但实际上,大多数组织的主要关注点通常是提供快速且廉价的解决方案,而不管在此过程中产生的技术债务如何。 最终,此类系统的可维护性和可靠性是否随着时间的推移而提高,将在很大程度上取决于部署后持续维护工作的投资和承诺。 然而,软件开发的历史表明,此类投资往往会随着时间的推移而减少。 此外,随着软件变得越来越相互关联并依赖于其他平台和技术,它创建了一个复杂的关系网络,需要不断关注和完善,以确保兼容性和维护功能。 Maintaining software within this web of dependencies becomes a balancing act between optimization and innovation, where trade-offs must be made in real-time based on the evolving needs and constraints faced by stakeholders involved. 最后,个人无法控制的经济因素加剧了更快、更便宜地发布产品的压力,从而迫使妥协成为一种不可避免的罪恶。 因此,组织仍然有责任平衡技术进步与财务实用性,以提供尽可能最佳的解决方案。
相关文章

原文
Posted on December 30, 2023 • 6 minutes • 1187 words

This is not financial advice and I am not an expert.

Amazon has a stock problem. It’s not only Amazon, but they have more to lose. If you’re a customer, that’s going to be bad for your business too.

In 2023 Amazon laid off more than 27,000 people. While that’s a big number it’s a deceptively small percentage for a company with more than 1.6 million employees (1.7%).

The vast majority of those layoffs happened in retail where a majority of Amazon’s employees work. When layoffs hit AWS it was mostly areas that were not revenue generating or had lower margins.

But publicly laying off 27,000 isn’t good for business–at least not immediately.

A graph of Amazon’s stock price

The low stock at the beginning of the year is before the mass layoffs when operating expenses were high. Then Andy announced return to office (RTO) initiatives , but nothing changed.

I was told repeatedly it wouldn’t affect me or the teams I worked with. Then in the summer that changed.

The negative press associated with layoffs wasn’t good. But the most effective way to reduce operational expenses was to get rid of all the expensive people. How could they force people to leave without severance packages or en masse? Making them miserable and silently sacking them.

So RTO was enforced. And people started leaving in droves. If they weren’t leaving they were looking, or at minimum waiting for their next RSU payout.

In my small sphere of people there wasn’t a single person under an L7 that didn’t want out. From what I could gather this mostly came down to compensation.

Independent contributors (IC) and managers that are L7 or above generally make $400k-$800k and for that much money they’re willing to put up with some inconveniences. Since Amazon’s pay is roughly 40% stock, they only make that much money so long as the stock stays up.

If Amazon keeps lowering their operating costs their earnings go up and stock rises. At the cost of burning out everyone doing the work.

Welcome to Day 2

As customers are cutting their own costs, $1 spent on AWS is worth less than it was last year. Every trend line still goes up and to the right, but growth is slowing.

Customers aren’t coming to the cloud for VMs and ludicrously expensive network anymore. They want higher levels of abstraction that AWS has historically been terrible at delivering.

Couple that with Amazon trailing in AI and the most effective way Amazon can grow is by reducing costs. The biggest cost is people.

Many teams at Amazon have been in a hiring freeze for over a year. And now they’re chasing away the people they do have.

Amazon has shifted from a leader to a follower. From my perspective it’s not going well.

Amazon hasn’t put in the decade of AI research Google has. It doesn’t partner with external companies as good as Microsoft. The high margin services AWS was built on (e.g. network egress) is being given away for free by competitors.

Amazon is good at identifying real world problems they’ve faced from running an extremely large online store and logistics. Generative AI hasn’t been a problem Amazon has identified needed to be fixed (or even deeply worked on) until it was costing them business deals.

No more pizza teams

When I started at Amazon I was impressed that service teams were independent. It was the purest implementation of devops I had never seen before. Especially at Amazon’s scale.

Then I realized how expensive it is. There are only a handful of centralized teams at Amazon. Those are almost all tools and compliance teams.

Pipelines, SDKs, and security are centralized. All components of a service team are self-contained as part of that team. It turns out that devops is a very expensive org chart.

Many of the service teams have lost a lot of institutional knowledge as part of RTO. Teams were lean before 2023, now they’re emaciated.

Teams can’t keep innovating when they’re just trying to keep the lights on. They can’t maintain on-call schedules without the ability to take vacation or sick days.

The next logical step to reduce costs is to centralize expertise. It’s the reason many large companies have database administration, network engineering, or platform teams.

They’ll have to give up on autonomy to reduce duplication. Amazon has never had a platform engineering team or site reliability engineers (SRE). I suspect in 2024 they’ll start to reorg into a more centralized friendly org chart.

They won’t call the teams that because those titles come from Google, but they’ll effectively be the same. They’ll centralize to create “better collaboration” but in reality it’ll be because they can’t lower margins enough to keep their earnings calls positive.

Outages ahead

I suspect there’ll be a major AWS outage in 2024. No amount of multi-region redundancy will protect you.

There has already been an increase in large scale events (LSE) throughout Amazon , but AWS is so big most customers don’t notice. This is a direct result of RTO and Amazon’s silent sacking of thousands of people.

Amazon isn’t incentivized to publicly share LSEs. Only outages customers notice are worthy of a dashboard update, but even those are quickly swept under the “all greens” dashboard.

Amazon is an operationally strong company. Much stronger than any company I’ve worked for before.

But those operational practices depend on people. When people are eliminated to raise the stock price bar, operational practices suffer.

Amazon won’t fire me

On September 1st, 2023 I was told by my skip level manager and VP that my team and an adjacent team were being eliminated. They claimed we all did such good work that they wanted us to remain at Amazon. “We still have a job, just not a role.”

I was skeptical of how it was communicated–or rather not communicated–by management and I asked if severance was an option. I was repeatedly told it would be once we’d exhausted other options.

They told us our number one priority was to find another job. Every role we found had significant downsides. Lower pay, lower title, RTO, or various other things.

It was clear they wanted us to take a different role we could quit later. My management wanted to retain the headcount, but couldn’t do layoffs.

October 16th I asked my VP for the severance I was told would be available. He let me know HR wasn’t aware of what he was doing and he would have to get approval. It would take some time.

Every week for the next 2 1/2 months I asked for an update on my employment and severance package. I was either ghosted or given a variety of excuses. It’s now December 30th and I’m currently still employed by Amazon.

It hasn’t only been happening to my team. This has been happening in multiple areas as Amazon silently sacks people without being required to give them severance or announce layoffs. I’ve heard similar tactics being used at other companies–mostly large companies–and it’ll only continue in 2024 as they make decisions that drive short term profits over all else.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com