Live data from Hacker News

Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

techcrunch.com

21–30 of 92 posts

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#21
post #18
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their claim is that everyone affected by this is getting a net raise. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I don't think they said "everyone".

They repeatedly said that nobody was getting a pay cut

From the article:

> “Again, all hourly operations and customer service employees will see an increase in their base pay, as well as in their total compensation,” Amazon SVP Jay Carney said in the letter, obtained by the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#22

I'm going to assume a lot of these warehouse workers would rather have more money in there pay packet now then a share or two which need years to vest with an unknown value.

That's true for shares, but NPR had interviews with Amazon warehouse workers that indicated the cash bonuses are monthly. One of the interviewees indicated his bonuses would sometimes equal his salary during busy periods like the holidays.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#23
This sort of hand wringing seems like a distraction from the likelihood that Amazon has moved up the date* in which these jobs will be eliminated. Whether employees are netting out the same or not is going to be moot. If it's similar though then that really doesn't seem like a good deal longer term.

*Robots will be able to do the jobs for $15 hour sooner than they'll be able to for $7 an hour. The math will accelerate the move to automation.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#24
post #3

I can understand some of the frustration, especially for those making just shy of $15 before the raise, but even if the raise is only from $14 to $15, that still is around $2,000/yr (assuming 40 hour work week) that is guaranteed the way a bonus generally isn't. I would almost always prefer a raise over a one-time bonus for that exact reason. In my experiences, I can't always count on my company giving me a yearly bo…

This is also good for workers in that most compensation conversations in my experience (professional agency recruiter for 2 years now), start with the employer asking "how much did you make in your last role"

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article: "Those making, say, $14 an hour prior to the increase may only receive a $1 raise, which fails to make up for the loss of benefits."

And the Amazon statement in the article says "more than compensates for the phase out of incentive pay and future RSU grants." The conflict is probably due to the fact that RSU grants were very lucrative over the last few years. If you assume that the stock is going to quadruple in the next 3 years, then yes, a RSU bonus is probably better than a raise, but I don't think Amazon will be a 4 trillion dollar company in…

> The conflict is probably due to the fact that RSU grants were very lucrative over the last few years.

The conflict is probably due to the fact that Amazon publicly and loudly announced the raises alone in response to political pressure, to pretend they were giving people the same deal but with higher hourly wage, and the the benefit cuts became known later and separately. It would be a conflict even if there was no question that everyone was getting at least a small net raise, because even if that is true everyone is also getting a smaller net raise than Amazon tried to get public credit for. Being caught in a lie, including a lie of omission, by people concerned with the issue about which you are being deceptive, produces (or exacerbates) conflict.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#26
post #3

I can understand some of the frustration, especially for those making just shy of $15 before the raise, but even if the raise is only from $14 to $15, that still is around $2,000/yr (assuming 40 hour work week) that is guaranteed the way a bonus generally isn't. I would almost always prefer a raise over a one-time bonus for that exact reason. In my experiences, I can't always count on my company giving me a yearly bo…

Yes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But if it's really the case that some people are coming out with less money in the end then they've misrepresented themselves publicly.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#27
This is the problem with media. It starts with the media focusing on how many Amazon workers aren't making enough money. Political pressure mounts and Amazon increases everyone's salary to minimum $15/hr.

The media then changes focus to those that feel slighted by their loss in bonus. They stop focusing on the people who are now happy and keep focusing on the small percentage of people who are unhappy, and seem to revel in creating a narrative where Amazon is STILL doing something wrong.

This is the fake news culture that is driving people like me away from actually believing the news.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#28

This sort of hand wringing seems like a distraction from the likelihood that Amazon has moved up the date* in which these jobs will be eliminated. Whether employees are netting out the same or not is going to be moot. If it's similar though then that really doesn't seem like a good deal longer term. *Robots will be able to do the jobs for $15 hour sooner than they'll be able to for $7 an hour. The math will accelerat…

I don't buy this argument. The problem usually isn't that robots are too expensive to do the human jobs, it's that robots can't do the human jobs, period. If something can be done by machine, it is done by machine, and that's been true since the beginning of the industrial era. Entire job classifications get wiped out by new automation, all the time.

At this point, the jobs that are still done by humans are jobs that require judgment and intuition. Those things are very, very difficult to emulate in software, unlike repetitive motions and data lookups.

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#29
post #3

I can understand some of the frustration, especially for those making just shy of $15 before the raise, but even if the raise is only from $14 to $15, that still is around $2,000/yr (assuming 40 hour work week) that is guaranteed the way a bonus generally isn't. I would almost always prefer a raise over a one-time bonus for that exact reason. In my experiences, I can't always count on my company giving me a yearly bo…

This is also good for workers in that most compensation conversations in my experience (professional agency recruiter for 2 years now), start with the employer asking "how much did you make in your last role"

Anyone answering that question would be including bonuses. Or maybe you use a question like that to determine who the suckers are? How does one’s compensation at their previous company have any bearing whatsoever on how much value they can provide to a new employer, other than trying to low-ball them?

Re: Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

#30
I kind of think Amazon botched this from a PR perspective. It could have been a total win for them. Instead, it looks like a scam. Even if it isn't a scam, and employees will truly be better off (which is probably true), it at the very least failed to capitalize on the opportunity to look like a progressive company that cares about its employees.
Post reply on HN