JPMorgan CEO: "I don't care how many people sign that f—ing [WFH] Petition"(fortune.com)
fortune.com
JPMorgan CEO: "I don't care how many people sign that f—ing [WFH] Petition"
https://fortune.com/2025/02/13/jamie-dimon-popped-off-jpmorgan-employees-fighting-against-full-time-rto-petition/
105 comments
I individually have almost no power to shape how the industry treats its laborers, I'm forced to maybe find the job marginally better than the median position for my needs. Collectively though...
Don’t waste your life trying to unionise.
They almost never work, because they are a bad deal for the company and a bad deal for above average workers.
You’ll waste years trying to push a rock up hill, when you should have just changed jobs.
They almost never work, because they are a bad deal for the company and a bad deal for above average workers.
You’ll waste years trying to push a rock up hill, when you should have just changed jobs.
Follow the money...
Unions make money off of your labor - and the more people they can convince to join the union, the more money they make. Put another way, a Union is a business and you are the product.
How much value does the average union provide a highly-skilled in-demand employee, such as those working at JPMorgan or FAANG companies? Very little if any at all, it would seem.
Unions make money off of your labor - and the more people they can convince to join the union, the more money they make. Put another way, a Union is a business and you are the product.
How much value does the average union provide a highly-skilled in-demand employee, such as those working at JPMorgan or FAANG companies? Very little if any at all, it would seem.
Negative value, because unions standardise wages.
They are under-performers teaming up to peer-pressure (bully) over-achievers into averaging the fruits of their labour.
If you’re a high achiever the absolute last thing you want is to work for a company that is unionised.
They are under-performers teaming up to peer-pressure (bully) over-achievers into averaging the fruits of their labour.
If you’re a high achiever the absolute last thing you want is to work for a company that is unionised.
Check their post history, don't waste your time...
Just to offer a little counter point to your motivational speech.
I took a stand at a company where they asked for RTO. They fired me, I sued them, and the first phase of the trial just ended where the judges cut the baby in half and dismissed the "firing with cause" and offered a 3 months severance (to cover what would have been a notice period), but without asking anything more of the company. The lack of empathy for the worker was surprising to me, frankly. Overall it was basically pointless.
So, if you do try to offer resistance to RTO policies, make sure you're not entirely alone, and probably leaving on your own with garden leave is a better option than trying to fight them in court. (This was all in the EU, so YMMV.)
I took a stand at a company where they asked for RTO. They fired me, I sued them, and the first phase of the trial just ended where the judges cut the baby in half and dismissed the "firing with cause" and offered a 3 months severance (to cover what would have been a notice period), but without asking anything more of the company. The lack of empathy for the worker was surprising to me, frankly. Overall it was basically pointless.
So, if you do try to offer resistance to RTO policies, make sure you're not entirely alone, and probably leaving on your own with garden leave is a better option than trying to fight them in court. (This was all in the EU, so YMMV.)
Fighting RTO is going to be an uphill battle. First off, it’s a fairly narrow class of job that can be performed in a WFH environment. Those same jobs can arguably (because there is no real solid productivity data either way) be at least equally productive in an office too. Prior to 2020 and the pandemic WFH was a rarity.
So you are fighting against work tradition even within your industry, poor productivity data supporting your assertion, and frankly a general work culture where most everyone else doesn’t work from home. Your deck is stacked against you.
I work from home, but if my company chose to RTO, I wouldn’t challenge it. I know from my team’s experience (same base group pre-pandemic) we are not measurably more productive WFH as in office. It would suck to add a commute back to my day, but prior to 2020 I did that for over 3 decades anyway.
So you are fighting against work tradition even within your industry, poor productivity data supporting your assertion, and frankly a general work culture where most everyone else doesn’t work from home. Your deck is stacked against you.
I work from home, but if my company chose to RTO, I wouldn’t challenge it. I know from my team’s experience (same base group pre-pandemic) we are not measurably more productive WFH as in office. It would suck to add a commute back to my day, but prior to 2020 I did that for over 3 decades anyway.
Sure, but people need to start fighting that battle. Not in the least because asshole employers want it both ways: get people back into the office, but keep the precarious work environments of Corona times: shared desks, noisy environments, long commutes with no compensation which are not part of the work time, etc.
I'm all for going to the office if they're willing to compromise. But no, it's their way or the high way.
I'm all for going to the office if they're willing to compromise. But no, it's their way or the high way.
Seems like your battle is more about the work environment they are providing you in the office then WFH vs RTO. Still an uphill battle, it’s not like they are asking you to work in a dangerous and dirty factory for 8+ hours on your feet.
People need to get over the “long commutes” complaint, that is not your employers problem unless they just can’t find workers due to their physical location. If they can find suitable local employees without a long commute, your long commute is a “your” problem to solve vs. employer problem to solve.
People need to get over the “long commutes” complaint, that is not your employers problem unless they just can’t find workers due to their physical location. If they can find suitable local employees without a long commute, your long commute is a “your” problem to solve vs. employer problem to solve.
I resent your paternalism a little. I understand your opinion, but please don't patronize me or anyone that might think like me. Nobody needs to get over anything that is important to them, despite not walking barefoot in the snow uphill both ways. Small problems for you can be larger for others.
If you're comfortable hypothetically giving up extra free hours in the day for a company that's fine, but please don't try to make me feel guilty for wanting something else in life.
> is not your employers problem
Of course it's my employer's problem, If I'm unhappy at work I do a less good job. It's baffling to me, and forgive me for being patronizing in turn, that individual people can have the same mentality as organizations, where people are just replaceable cogs in the machine. Yes you can replace them, but the cost, monetary and of knowledge is greater than retaining them.
If you're comfortable hypothetically giving up extra free hours in the day for a company that's fine, but please don't try to make me feel guilty for wanting something else in life.
> is not your employers problem
Of course it's my employer's problem, If I'm unhappy at work I do a less good job. It's baffling to me, and forgive me for being patronizing in turn, that individual people can have the same mentality as organizations, where people are just replaceable cogs in the machine. Yes you can replace them, but the cost, monetary and of knowledge is greater than retaining them.
> If you’re comfortable hypothetically giving up extra free hours in the day for a company…
You are not giving those hours to your company. The company gets no more or less for your hours of commute time than they do from your colleague who can walk to the office in 5 minutes. That is an investment you are making (because of your location), along with your labor, in exchange for money. If the investment is not worth it to you—why would you do it?
The “get over” comment is really meant for the realization that your location in proximity to your office is really meaningless to your organization. No need to feel guilty if you don’t want to make that time investment or location change. You do you. Just realize that your company’s concern for your individual happiness will be limited to what it can do for the aggregate net happiness of all its employees. Your individual reactions and feelings and how the relate to productivity outside their net HR benefits are kind of in your ballpark to solve.
You might hate the metaphor, but we really are just cogs in the machine. I have had a long career and can tell you that I learned long ago that the organizational cost of an unhappy cog is much much more than the cost of replacing them.
You are not giving those hours to your company. The company gets no more or less for your hours of commute time than they do from your colleague who can walk to the office in 5 minutes. That is an investment you are making (because of your location), along with your labor, in exchange for money. If the investment is not worth it to you—why would you do it?
The “get over” comment is really meant for the realization that your location in proximity to your office is really meaningless to your organization. No need to feel guilty if you don’t want to make that time investment or location change. You do you. Just realize that your company’s concern for your individual happiness will be limited to what it can do for the aggregate net happiness of all its employees. Your individual reactions and feelings and how the relate to productivity outside their net HR benefits are kind of in your ballpark to solve.
You might hate the metaphor, but we really are just cogs in the machine. I have had a long career and can tell you that I learned long ago that the organizational cost of an unhappy cog is much much more than the cost of replacing them.
This is kind of true, but it depends on risking your financial stability in the short term. Better to get a bunch of IT workers on board and then strike. What are they going to do, not have IT? they’d be out of business in a month.
Good luck hiring scabs when they don’t have the passwords…
Good luck hiring scabs when they don’t have the passwords…
> Better to get a bunch of IT workers on board and then strike
Why would you do that? That is by definition, a hostile work environment.
Find a place where you don't need to pull a bunch of shenanigans to get what you want.
Especially in the IT field, you have a massive amount of options. People tend to only think about FAANG and friends, but there's millions of SMB's out there that need IT of all levels, pay well and offer generous benefits.
Why would you do that? That is by definition, a hostile work environment.
Find a place where you don't need to pull a bunch of shenanigans to get what you want.
Especially in the IT field, you have a massive amount of options. People tend to only think about FAANG and friends, but there's millions of SMB's out there that need IT of all levels, pay well and offer generous benefits.
I think a hostile work environment might be a fun outcome of ‘return to office’ mandates.
> Why would you do that?
I think they were offering that as a solution to the difficulty of finding new equivalent jobs quickly.
While it's true people can "just quit"... there's usually more factors that make that very difficult, like having enough money saved up to last until you get a new job, and actually finding a replacement job that pays enough to let them keep a similar quality of life as they have now.
I think they were offering that as a solution to the difficulty of finding new equivalent jobs quickly.
While it's true people can "just quit"... there's usually more factors that make that very difficult, like having enough money saved up to last until you get a new job, and actually finding a replacement job that pays enough to let them keep a similar quality of life as they have now.
You’re just making excuses for laziness.
It has never in all human history been easier to find a new job than it has been in the past few years.
It has never in all human history been easier to find a new job than it has been in the past few years.
> Better to get a bunch of IT workers on board and then strike. What are they going to do, not have IT? they’d be out of business in a month.
Last year there were nearly 100k tech layoffs in the US, the year prior nearly 200k. Every tech opening is saturated with a few hundred resumes. Do you really think your company couldn’t hire replacements?
> Good luck hiring scabs when they don’t have the passwords…
Shame on your company if they don’t control security to prevent this. Shame on you if you are willing to withhold more than your labor in a strike situation. There is work stoppage and there is sabotage. If you are not relinquishing the only set of keys to the factory, that borders on intentional sabotage.
Last year there were nearly 100k tech layoffs in the US, the year prior nearly 200k. Every tech opening is saturated with a few hundred resumes. Do you really think your company couldn’t hire replacements?
> Good luck hiring scabs when they don’t have the passwords…
Shame on your company if they don’t control security to prevent this. Shame on you if you are willing to withhold more than your labor in a strike situation. There is work stoppage and there is sabotage. If you are not relinquishing the only set of keys to the factory, that borders on intentional sabotage.
[deleted]
Taken at face value you are just repeating what Jamie Dimon said.
> And at the end of the day, Dimon stressed, employees have a choice in whether to work for JPMorgan at all. “It’s a free world,” Dimon said.
And isn't it interesting that your worker empowerment talk is aligned with what the billionaire CEO publicly says?
> And at the end of the day, Dimon stressed, employees have a choice in whether to work for JPMorgan at all. “It’s a free world,” Dimon said.
And isn't it interesting that your worker empowerment talk is aligned with what the billionaire CEO publicly says?
> And isn't it interesting that your worker empowerment talk is aligned with what the billionaire CEO publicly says?
And that means the GP is wrong when he says, "you have the power folks... not the employers." The employers have the power."
He'd be right if there was a lot more worker solidarity and unionization, but that's not the world we live in. Right now worker power is too diffuse and unorganized to make a difference. Individualism divides and conquers workers.
And that means the GP is wrong when he says, "you have the power folks... not the employers." The employers have the power."
He'd be right if there was a lot more worker solidarity and unionization, but that's not the world we live in. Right now worker power is too diffuse and unorganized to make a difference. Individualism divides and conquers workers.
> And you might wish to consider whether there are any implications to your argument given that you and the billionaire CEO agree
Why? Are we now saying anything a billionaire (gasp!) says is automatically wrong or nefarious? Come on people, I expect better from the HN crowd.
Why? Are we now saying anything a billionaire (gasp!) says is automatically wrong or nefarious? Come on people, I expect better from the HN crowd.
I edited my comment for better wording.
No you got it backwards: Jamie Dimon isn't wrong—he is in fact a highly effective business leader. You are wrong. He knows that the company is more powerful than the workers and the at-will employment is theoretically fair but in practice tilts the balance of power towards the company. And yet you have not realized that.
No you got it backwards: Jamie Dimon isn't wrong—he is in fact a highly effective business leader. You are wrong. He knows that the company is more powerful than the workers and the at-will employment is theoretically fair but in practice tilts the balance of power towards the company. And yet you have not realized that.
While true, this is a bandaid and frankly a battle the common people will never win. Small, organized groups that have no morals will always win. There may be small victories (5 day work week) but they will eventually be eclipsed (nearly all households are dual income - the capital class ended up with 10 days worked a week per household instead of 7).
Americans need unity, and from that needs to come leaders who have a concept of noblesse oblige. We need rulers that care for their people and are judged by the state of their poorest. Unfortunately, America is far too diverse (both genetically and spiritually) for this to happen. Diverse democracies never succeed (there are many books on this - one was even on Obamas reading list). People will pattern match the solution to “facism”, “Hitler”, “tyranny” - reject it - and continue to live in a time of technological miracles worrying if they’ll be able to afford a place to sleep. The knee jerk rejection is exactly what the capital class has engineered to continue leeching off the rest of us.
We could unionize but what’s the point? Our leaders should love us and we should love them. And wealth gaps as large as they are are anything but love - they’re a moral failing.
Americans need unity, and from that needs to come leaders who have a concept of noblesse oblige. We need rulers that care for their people and are judged by the state of their poorest. Unfortunately, America is far too diverse (both genetically and spiritually) for this to happen. Diverse democracies never succeed (there are many books on this - one was even on Obamas reading list). People will pattern match the solution to “facism”, “Hitler”, “tyranny” - reject it - and continue to live in a time of technological miracles worrying if they’ll be able to afford a place to sleep. The knee jerk rejection is exactly what the capital class has engineered to continue leeching off the rest of us.
We could unionize but what’s the point? Our leaders should love us and we should love them. And wealth gaps as large as they are are anything but love - they’re a moral failing.
> Diverse democracies never succeed
May be I get this wrong. This sounds like a bold statement. Switzerland, Canada, Belgium but also India are multi-lingual or even multi-ethnic democracies. They know tensions but they are not failed.
May be I get this wrong. This sounds like a bold statement. Switzerland, Canada, Belgium but also India are multi-lingual or even multi-ethnic democracies. They know tensions but they are not failed.
[deleted]
I think WFH is another point of leverage for employees. If something doesn't work out with the job it's easier to deal with it on your own terms, whether that's taking more breaks or silent quitting. This leverage is exactly what employers are afraid of and want to rollback completely.
Companies treat employees like just another resource, so I personally think it's fair when employees try to game the system back. If you can work less and get away with it, I think that's fair because companies do the exact same in the opposite direction.
If it were up to companies they would select for indentured servitude, if not slavery, because that maximizes profits, and that's the bottom line. Companies even admit as much, and they're going to fight to remove as much leverage from employees as possible.
Companies treat employees like just another resource, so I personally think it's fair when employees try to game the system back. If you can work less and get away with it, I think that's fair because companies do the exact same in the opposite direction.
If it were up to companies they would select for indentured servitude, if not slavery, because that maximizes profits, and that's the bottom line. Companies even admit as much, and they're going to fight to remove as much leverage from employees as possible.
I've worked for an all remote company for over a decade. Dimon is largely correct. There is a huge amount of abuse and we pay a high cost for it. It's not that remote interaction is worse in terms of creativity and productivity, I don't think it is. It's about the discipline to spend the time on task when nobody is watching. It takes a rare character to keep that up over years, and I'm not one of them. (And being free to say that is why I don't put my name on this account.)
If anything it's easier for folks to goof off in the office vs. working from home. In the office, you have the appearance of being "at work". When working from home, you tend to be judged much more on your output rather than when you start and end your day.
Managers should be able to know whether people are productive or not. If their only measure is looking if people are in the office or not, their problem isn't remote work.
> It's about the discipline to spend the time on task when nobody is watching.
Again, if you're expected to deliver something, the discipline should come from risk of being fired if you don't deliver.
> It's about the discipline to spend the time on task when nobody is watching.
Again, if you're expected to deliver something, the discipline should come from risk of being fired if you don't deliver.
I have done both over the past 3 decades. in the office the most I worked productively ever is maybe 3.5/4hrs. at home it is not uncommon I hit 9-10hrs of straight up work. just about everyone I know feels the same way. my at-office day is like:
- drive 20 minutes
- get in, hit the breakroom, coffee and chat for 20-30 minutes
- work a bit, maybe a meeting
- IM bunch of people about lunch plans
- go to lunch for 90 minutes
- back at the office, another 15-20 minutes before settling in
- work a bit while keeping an eye on traffic to head home
- head home
At home,
- get up and work for about 90 minutes
- bike to school with my kid.
- work for 6-ish hours
- pick up my kid
- work another 90 minutes while she is doing school work
- parenting fun
- work another 60-90 after her bedtime
the core difference between at-office and at-home is that when I have to go to the office I do not touch my computer at home ever (often won’t even take it home with me) while when I am at home I will frequently work late at night etc
- drive 20 minutes
- get in, hit the breakroom, coffee and chat for 20-30 minutes
- work a bit, maybe a meeting
- IM bunch of people about lunch plans
- go to lunch for 90 minutes
- back at the office, another 15-20 minutes before settling in
- work a bit while keeping an eye on traffic to head home
- head home
At home,
- get up and work for about 90 minutes
- bike to school with my kid.
- work for 6-ish hours
- pick up my kid
- work another 90 minutes while she is doing school work
- parenting fun
- work another 60-90 after her bedtime
the core difference between at-office and at-home is that when I have to go to the office I do not touch my computer at home ever (often won’t even take it home with me) while when I am at home I will frequently work late at night etc
I think it ends up being a sort of an evolved trait. Somebody in a full remote company doesn't show up for work one day, they notice that the next day nobody says anything, nobody noticed, or nobody cared. Over time, this leads to disconnection from work.
When I first did remote working I suffered from motivation problems. I had days when I did nothing at all. It actually made me depressed.
But, that was also a failure of the company. They did not manage me well or even think about my productivity. I strongly suspect that I wouldn't have done anything much even if the role had been office based. The role and the company were simply poor and not a good fit for me.
These days I'm much more productive working from home than an office, but I'm in a place where what I do matters and I like that.
But, that was also a failure of the company. They did not manage me well or even think about my productivity. I strongly suspect that I wouldn't have done anything much even if the role had been office based. The role and the company were simply poor and not a good fit for me.
These days I'm much more productive working from home than an office, but I'm in a place where what I do matters and I like that.
at the least i was super productive during the pandemic, as was my entire team at work. commuting really saps my productivity.
You can also waste time in an office. It doesn't make that much difference, ultimately.
What matters are deadlines and productivity. If you can be productive in less time than others then good luck to you. Wages are 'flattened' between people employed at the same level so why shouldn't the more productive workers benefit in some way.
What matters are deadlines and productivity. If you can be productive in less time than others then good luck to you. Wages are 'flattened' between people employed at the same level so why shouldn't the more productive workers benefit in some way.
And you kept up the hard work in the office?
RTO is just a cheaper way of reducing the workforce. The 'star' talent will sign contracts that say they can work from home 1-3 days a week and as soon as they make enough seats empty, WFH privileges for the rank and file will come back as well.
Probably also doesn't care about:
-attrition
-smartest talent leaving
-salary to output ratio
-innovation
Mask is off, watch your best people go work for Chime.
Mask is off, watch your best people go work for Chime.
Jamie Dimon earned $39 million in 2024.
That's not actually a huge number in the grand scheme of things. That's entertainer/pro athlete money. Especially considering he runs one of the most powerful companies in the country and his net worth is $2.6 billion.
>That's not actually a huge number in the grand scheme of things.
Your comment seems to lack any awareness of the distribution of annual income.
Your comment seems to lack any awareness of the distribution of annual income.
No, I'm aware. It's just $39 million a year is not actually a salacious number. It's actually a semi-reasonable salary given the size and performance of the company in question.
If only compensation for the 0.1% stopped there. But unfortunately, the distribution of income pretty closely follows the Pareto principle.
If only compensation for the 0.1% stopped there. But unfortunately, the distribution of income pretty closely follows the Pareto principle.
Your claim requires the belief that $39M is a reasonable compensation rate for anything at all.
I dispute that.
However, I also acknowledge that I don't have a solid proposal to deal with how to distribute vast revenue/profits within organizations that successfully raise them. Mostly I think it indicates they should be charging customers/clients less, but I'm not a proponent of any sort of simplistic "maximimum salary" rules.
I dispute that.
However, I also acknowledge that I don't have a solid proposal to deal with how to distribute vast revenue/profits within organizations that successfully raise them. Mostly I think it indicates they should be charging customers/clients less, but I'm not a proponent of any sort of simplistic "maximimum salary" rules.
I find it morally repugnant that anyone makes $39 million in a year.
I find it hyper salacious. Driving a boat twice as big doesn't make you inherently deserving of double the pay, just as investing double the money doesn't make you inherently deserving of double the return. And the oft-cited accountability of leadership over large machines does not come even an additional 5% closer to validating that salary.
I am of course speaking from a human context, which I realize is not the context normally used when talking about these things. You're utterly right: It's not salacious in the capitalistic context from which we have yet to find a viable escape.
I am of course speaking from a human context, which I realize is not the context normally used when talking about these things. You're utterly right: It's not salacious in the capitalistic context from which we have yet to find a viable escape.
I'm with you -- that much yearly income is more than enough to retire on, after one year.
Yes, one can argue that the world is (today) set up such that these numbers aren't huge, to which my response would be that today's world is badly mis-calibrated along the axis of income inequality.
Yes, one can argue that the world is (today) set up such that these numbers aren't huge, to which my response would be that today's world is badly mis-calibrated along the axis of income inequality.
That's such a strange number to me these days. If I got paid that much in a year, I'd instantly retire, and yet it's still essentially nothing compared to $1 billion, which Elon Musk probably makes or loses in an average day (and has lost much more than that over the past few months due to the drop in TSLA) and has no actual effect on his lifestyle.
The only CEO who I've worked for who I would describe as winning at capitalism is a former bank CEO who worked in the job for 8 years, retired in his late forties (IIRC) having pulled in a minimum of $50m over that time. And actually retired.
The rest of these people are as addicted as heroin addicts.
The rest of these people are as addicted as heroin addicts.
Why retire? You work just a few more years and you’ll have $100million+
The more money you have, the less utility you gain from each additional dollar; the longer you wait, the more valuable each remaining year of life becomes. At some point you're not going to have enough (healthy, active) lifetime left to do anything interesting with more money, even if you could get it.
because you can do everything you want to do for the rest of your life for $30million and don't need to continue working for 100?
No you can’t? You can blow $20 million on a house that then costs $500k a year in maintenance, and that’s just the beginning.
And then you might say well just buy a regular house?? Why bother going through the struggle of becoming a CEO just to work for one year as CEO then go live in a regular house? Does not make sense at all.
And then you might say well just buy a regular house?? Why bother going through the struggle of becoming a CEO just to work for one year as CEO then go live in a regular house? Does not make sense at all.
The list of foolish things a person might do to squander a fortune is effectively endless, but one also has the freedom to refrain from being stupid.
Warren buffet would like a word.
https://www.fancypantshomes.com/celebrity-homes/warren-buffe...
> For six decades, Buffett has lived in the same residence in the central Dundee neighborhood of Omaha, Neb. The “Oracle of Omaha” purchased the home for $31,500, which would be worth about $250,000 in today’s dollars.
> As it turns out, the house was the “third-best investment” he’s ever made, Buffett wrote in a letter to his shareholders in 2010.
https://www.fancypantshomes.com/celebrity-homes/warren-buffe...
> For six decades, Buffett has lived in the same residence in the central Dundee neighborhood of Omaha, Neb. The “Oracle of Omaha” purchased the home for $31,500, which would be worth about $250,000 in today’s dollars.
> As it turns out, the house was the “third-best investment” he’s ever made, Buffett wrote in a letter to his shareholders in 2010.
I mean, you pretty much answered your own question with "blow" which doesn't indicate it being a worthwhile purchase.
The people I know who have done well in business don't have extremely fancy houses anyway. They vacation a lot.
> Why bother going through the struggle of becoming a CEO just to work for one year as CEO then go live in a regular house? Does not make sense at all.
People's priorities change. Maybe you're driven and got that kind of position and then think shit I can leave this and live well for the rest of my life.
The people I know who have done well in business don't have extremely fancy houses anyway. They vacation a lot.
> Why bother going through the struggle of becoming a CEO just to work for one year as CEO then go live in a regular house? Does not make sense at all.
People's priorities change. Maybe you're driven and got that kind of position and then think shit I can leave this and live well for the rest of my life.
do that a few more times and pretty soon you're taking real money
Ok, and?
That's probably why he's happy to work in the office seven days a week.
Does he? I wonder what his attendance record is.
I doubt it, but he apparently claimed he does.
i would work for the taliban if they paid me that much
Ok I laughed so hard at this.
But yeah, really tired of CEOs criticizing their workforces when they make as much money as they do.
Pay me your salary and I’ll live in the office.
But yeah, really tired of CEOs criticizing their workforces when they make as much money as they do.
Pay me your salary and I’ll live in the office.
We have FAANG'ers bringing in hundreds of thousands and still complaining about RTO.
We never had WFH before - it was an experiment. For many businesses, the experiment didn't work. If you don't want RTO, find some other business that allows WFH. It's pretty much that simple...
We never had WFH before - it was an experiment. For many businesses, the experiment didn't work. If you don't want RTO, find some other business that allows WFH. It's pretty much that simple...
Where’s that data that it didn’t work? No one can show me this.
It works fine.
It works fine.
The data is all of the companies saying it doesn't work and calling for RTO. Does anything really think they're doing this for funsies? Does anyone comprehend how expensive it is to operate office buildings?
We think of these mega-corps as inhuman, penny pinching, stingy monoliths - yet we then believe they're blowing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars a month on office space that's unnecessary. The math ain't mathin'..
We think of these mega-corps as inhuman, penny pinching, stingy monoliths - yet we then believe they're blowing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars a month on office space that's unnecessary. The math ain't mathin'..
https://apnews.com/article/jpmorgan-chase-bank-earnings-prof...
Speaking of "math that ain't mathin'" what about the fact that their best year ever was a year while they had a shitload of remote workers?
Speaking of "math that ain't mathin'" what about the fact that their best year ever was a year while they had a shitload of remote workers?
You think these ego-maniac CEOs are entirely rational machines?
They’re just as into vibes as the corner shop trying to sell you spirit crystals.
Show me one CEO with a building and I’ll show you one who doesn’t have one. ThE MaTh AiNt MaThInG
They’re just as into vibes as the corner shop trying to sell you spirit crystals.
Show me one CEO with a building and I’ll show you one who doesn’t have one. ThE MaTh AiNt MaThInG
If it didn't work how did JP Morgan bring home record profits in 2024? And in 2023, and in 2022, and in 2021?
Nothing is failing. Bro likes the office. He thinks everyone should too.
Nothing is failing. Bro likes the office. He thinks everyone should too.
It’s insane to me how all these companies have profit numbers up and to the right for half a decade under hybrid policies, but then are like “you know what will make us do even better? Pissing off the whole work force all at once for no good reason.”
It’s just comically stupid.
It’s just comically stupid.
My guess is that it probably has more to do with the fact that Dimon probably has an entire floor all to himself with all kinds of customized artwork, couches, lounge chairs etc, with personal assistants, likely a private elevator, maybe even a private chef or personal catering everyday etc. He doesn’t have to deal with fighting for conference rooms, loud office mates, a shitty cubicle, etc.
Dimon’s office is likely bigger and nicer than most of his employees homes, so of course he doesn’t mind working from there.
Dimon’s office is likely bigger and nicer than most of his employees homes, so of course he doesn’t mind working from there.
He earns so much money, of course he loves to work and doesn’t give a damn about people who don’t even earn a fraction of his salary. He also seems to forget that people who actually work for him bring these high profits for the company. How about being thankful for having smart employees who help you to keep your business so profitable?
If I were to get paid as much as he does, I wouldn’t even leave the office; I would sleep there.
If I were to get paid as much as he does, I wouldn’t even leave the office; I would sleep there.
You're on HackerNews so I assume you work in software. Your income is top 0.1% globally. But that doesn't solve your problems, does it?
This is a very abused fact. When you are comparing the incomes, you are competing in your region, not globally and then your income goes from top 0.1% to top 10%. And then you realize that you won't be able to buy that house or that you don't have as much flexibility to change your employer. If you want to feel like top 0.1%, then you probably have to move to some forgotten place in Africa (most large cities do not count due to income inequality and corruption) but then your standard of living with your top 0.1% income is even worse. Statistics is too easy to abuse without critical thinking.
You’re correct :) I think I understand what you’re trying to say, and I agree, but I still don’t understand his arguments. It’s not like his company is not profitable, or the employees work not well enough
Been WFH for many years, but I can understand why some companies prefer (demand) in office. Sorry, but unless its written into employment law, no-one has a "right" to it.
I would think this could be a perk that companies could use to get an advantage in hiring. Although, maybe those who it appeals to on the whole may be lower performers?
Would love to see some real data on this.
I would think this could be a perk that companies could use to get an advantage in hiring. Although, maybe those who it appeals to on the whole may be lower performers?
Would love to see some real data on this.
His call.
I will say this:
>I’ve been working seven days a goddamn week since COVID, and I come in, and—where is everybody else?
I remember when my employer was acquired from another company. Executives were on the 4th floor. After the acquisition they were gone and the 4th floor was open. I went up and found that the offices were palatial, private bathrooms, they had a bar, a lounge area... let alone all the personal assistants to do things for them. They had good parking spaces, lunch brought in for them, and so on.
I had a cube with a wall that they wouldn't fix, no window (I was about half a dozen cubes from a window in the middle of a room), no natural light, my cube was along a busy cube hallway where everyone looked into my cube as they walked down the hall.
So yeah it's different going in as an IC rather than executive, comparing them is hilariously narrow sighted.
Having said that after they left, the 4th floor was the best place to go to the bathroom. So I got that for a little while.
I will say this:
>I’ve been working seven days a goddamn week since COVID, and I come in, and—where is everybody else?
I remember when my employer was acquired from another company. Executives were on the 4th floor. After the acquisition they were gone and the 4th floor was open. I went up and found that the offices were palatial, private bathrooms, they had a bar, a lounge area... let alone all the personal assistants to do things for them. They had good parking spaces, lunch brought in for them, and so on.
I had a cube with a wall that they wouldn't fix, no window (I was about half a dozen cubes from a window in the middle of a room), no natural light, my cube was along a busy cube hallway where everyone looked into my cube as they walked down the hall.
So yeah it's different going in as an IC rather than executive, comparing them is hilariously narrow sighted.
Having said that after they left, the 4th floor was the best place to go to the bathroom. So I got that for a little while.
This is fascinating to me, having been at a few companies with market caps north of $50B in the tech space. The senior exec's office space aren't fundamentally different from anyone else's. I wonder if it's an old-money vs. new-money industry thing.
This was an older company. It was one of those "IBM satellite companies" (that's what I called them before they used that term for something else). It did business with a lot of IBM customers providing services and hardware that IBM didn't choose to do so, but did so with their blessing and cooperation.
Very much an old company style.
Very much an old company style.
Expensify's CEO ran an experiment opening up an office to the public with a free open bar and daily champagne saberings and still couldn't get people to show up more than once
I don't think amenities make or break WFH for the average person, the commute and the fact you're not home period probably rank a lot higher
I don't think amenities make or break WFH for the average person, the commute and the fact you're not home period probably rank a lot higher
To play devil's advocate here:
- most of that space is for entertaining/selling to other execs
- the execs that work up there aren't actually there most of the year (they travel A LOT, like A LOT A LOT)
- execs, per my understanding, are basically on-call, with a few exceptions
i agree that old-school rank-and-file workspaces are spartan and depressing
- most of that space is for entertaining/selling to other execs
- the execs that work up there aren't actually there most of the year (they travel A LOT, like A LOT A LOT)
- execs, per my understanding, are basically on-call, with a few exceptions
i agree that old-school rank-and-file workspaces are spartan and depressing
I don’t really care one way or the other if there’s good reason for fancy offices, I am more so noting how being in the office is different depending on your office (if you even have one).
> JPMorgan has 14,000 open positions.
That sort of speaks for itself.
That sort of speaks for itself.
What does it say?
In other news, old man yells at cloud. I don't care how many days he fucking works in the office.
Seriously though, if he's working 7 days a week in the office and can't get a hold of someone, I hope he's planning on paying them his salary. Hell, I'd come in the office 7 days a week for the multi millions of dollars he's worth. I'd do it for a year, retire, and live happily ever after.
Seriously though, if he's working 7 days a week in the office and can't get a hold of someone, I hope he's planning on paying them his salary. Hell, I'd come in the office 7 days a week for the multi millions of dollars he's worth. I'd do it for a year, retire, and live happily ever after.
This is really interesting. On one hand there's no going back to exactly what we had pre-covid, on the other hand there's a big power imbalance here. Something tells me in the end most of us will have to RTO.
I'll play devil's advocate because I have the karma to burn.
I don't remember Dimon ever committing to making work-from-home permanent. From my brief time working with/interviewing for JPMChase, I never got the impression that they would ever do this. They were always very attached to their offices.
If this is true, then I think it's totally within his right to call it back.
It would be a whole other thing if he pulled a Sundar and said "wfh really works! wfh forever" in 2021 when vaccines were being rolled out only to cry "but my efficiency" in 2025 and roll it all back.
I also don't think Chase is going to lose much of their top talent over this. Most of the super highly paid/highly-talented people in tech that work there live near their central offices anyway, and the folks that worked for the business never really had a choice since finance is very tightly coupled to a few geos (NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston for O&G, London, Hong Kong).
I don't remember Dimon ever committing to making work-from-home permanent. From my brief time working with/interviewing for JPMChase, I never got the impression that they would ever do this. They were always very attached to their offices.
If this is true, then I think it's totally within his right to call it back.
It would be a whole other thing if he pulled a Sundar and said "wfh really works! wfh forever" in 2021 when vaccines were being rolled out only to cry "but my efficiency" in 2025 and roll it all back.
I also don't think Chase is going to lose much of their top talent over this. Most of the super highly paid/highly-talented people in tech that work there live near their central offices anyway, and the folks that worked for the business never really had a choice since finance is very tightly coupled to a few geos (NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston for O&G, London, Hong Kong).
100% RTO (return to office) is coming back later this year with a vengeance, and it's going to mean a lot of layoffs without severance. It's what they're getting at.
The way i see it as a intricate dance between layoffs and attrition.
In a way both are forced.
In a way both are forced.
Labor is the biggest fixed cost. Employees are liabilities to the owners
> “Don’t give me this s–t that work-from-home Friday works,” he said. “I call a lot of people on Fridays, and there’s not a goddamn person you can get a hold of.”
I mean, yeah, if you not picking up a phone call from Jamie freaking Dimon during working hours, that does seem messed up.
I also don't suspect these are low level people he's trying to get ahold of. One of the things I've learned about WFH is that the problems are not coming from individual contributor productivity - it's that a lot of the problems actually come from managers and executives. Either they lack the understanding of projects that are not in front of them, or they check out completely when needed.
I mean, yeah, if you not picking up a phone call from Jamie freaking Dimon during working hours, that does seem messed up.
I also don't suspect these are low level people he's trying to get ahold of. One of the things I've learned about WFH is that the problems are not coming from individual contributor productivity - it's that a lot of the problems actually come from managers and executives. Either they lack the understanding of projects that are not in front of them, or they check out completely when needed.
Well yeah JPM is spending three bills on its new headquarters at 270 Park Avenue and wants to fill it with 14,000 employees.
Yeah, why would he care? In fact they'll just lay you off and displace you with AI.
Won't be surprised to see JPM participating in the WEF 2030 jobs of the future report and being part of those companies that would love to reduce the majority of their 200k+ employees with AI.
First it was Meta x2 then Microsoft, Salesforce, Klarna, and now JPM. More to come and as predicted in. [0]
Are you now getting what "AGI" really is? [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42490692
[1] https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-repo...
Won't be surprised to see JPM participating in the WEF 2030 jobs of the future report and being part of those companies that would love to reduce the majority of their 200k+ employees with AI.
First it was Meta x2 then Microsoft, Salesforce, Klarna, and now JPM. More to come and as predicted in. [0]
Are you now getting what "AGI" really is? [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42490692
[1] https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-repo...
lol what is this petition about? look like corporate version of strongly worded letter
just go work elsewhere at another company until the loss of top tier talent causes one of these companies to reconsider their position. no one stays as ceo forever.
CEOs can be dumb and have their head in the sand but they are the CEO so no sense in punching a wall. they don't care.
The majority of workers won't work more than 3 days a week in office 10 years from now
CEOs can be dumb and have their head in the sand but they are the CEO so no sense in punching a wall. they don't care.
The majority of workers won't work more than 3 days a week in office 10 years from now
What a small, small man.
Dimon does not care because he isn’t affected and because JP Morgan Chase is too big to fail. He’s rich enough that he can own multiple residences, commute on a helicopter, and all that. And to him, this job is his whole life and he probably does not care much about sacrificing other things. Employees don’t have the same situation.
But the real issue is that this company is immune to competition and consequences from a large number of employees fighting all this. All the large banks are propped up by our political, regulatory, and financial systems. You can’t start a new competitive and sustainable bank easily. Why would he listen when reduced competition and too big to fail protect him and the company from consequences?
But the real issue is that this company is immune to competition and consequences from a large number of employees fighting all this. All the large banks are propped up by our political, regulatory, and financial systems. You can’t start a new competitive and sustainable bank easily. Why would he listen when reduced competition and too big to fail protect him and the company from consequences?
What does any of that have to do with their employees?
Just like selling anything - if the terms don't satisfy you, then don't sell. Find someone else willing to accept your terms of sale.
You have the power folks... not the employers. Many have been led to believe the power-dynamic is reversed, and that the employer holds all of the power. That's absurdly untrue.
You have the labor, knowledge and experience (aka talent). Be your own advocate.