Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

11–20 of 92 posts

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

#11
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…

That's all well and good, but Amazon replaced their bonuses for raises and then pretended like they were giving everyone an actual raise when in fact, some people could end up getting a pay cut.

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

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

#12
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…

[deleted]

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

#13

Are bonuses incentivized? What is that incentive and how will it impact Amazon's business now it's gone?

They were generally not incentivized, but had a 2 year vesting period. That kept people working at Amazon longer for that extra few grand.

The bonuses were incentivized. It was based on monthly attendance. The stock grant program was not though. You might be confusing them.

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

#14
Is it something like this?

For someone who worked at one of these jobs at Amazon for 3 years

Basic wage: X

Bonus Wage: Y

Total: X+Y

Under the new system

Basic Wage: X+Y

Bonus Wage: 0

Total Wage: X+Y

The net effect is zero but principly the value of the bonus has been reduced to nothing, after the loyalty of rhe employee and the benefits that come with that, have already been collected by the employer.

Seems somewhat unfair from that perspective, but they can do what they want I guess.

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

#15
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all well and good, but Amazon replaced their bonuses for raises and then pretended like they were giving everyone an actual raise when in fact, some people could end up getting a pay cut.

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

[deleted]

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

#17
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all well and good, but Amazon replaced their bonuses for raises and then pretended like they were giving everyone an actual raise when in fact, some people could end up getting a pay cut.

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

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."

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

#18
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all well and good, but Amazon replaced their bonuses for raises and then pretended like they were giving everyone an actual raise when in fact, some people could end up getting a pay cut.

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".

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

#19
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 makes plenty sense but, still, why not keep both when they can clearly afford to? It really doesn't look good. They say the new setup more than compensates for the removal of the old. But how much more? Does it cost amazon 5% more, 20%?

I think even from a PR perspective it might be the right move. In prior news cycles about Amazon's compensation, I don't think we heard about all the people who apparently were already making $15/hr after expected bonuses.

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

#20
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?

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 3 years time...

Post reply on HN