Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 175 posts

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#151

Post by lazyasciiart »

ajross wrote: post #145
pyuser583 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah … employer handbooks are considered contracts. Every raise I’ve ever received has been accompanied by a “contract” hr puts in my folder.

So frustrating to see this interpretation repeated here. No, that's not correct, because it if were correct these Amazon folks would have an open and shut case to keep their raises, and they don't. That's not the way compensation works. It might be the way one side or the other wants it to work in some situation, but it's not. You get paid what your employer offers. Your employer gets to keep the employees that want…

You’re wrong. “Work for contract” is irrelevant to there being contracts used for salaried jobs. There was a contract involved, but it sounds like it was covering the period starting in October - so Amazon just has to cancel it and say “actually this is how much we will be paying you” and employees have the same option to reject the new contract terms as they do the existing contract: quitting before the new terms become active.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#152

Post by pyuser583 »

ajross wrote: post #145
pyuser583 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah … employer handbooks are considered contracts. Every raise I’ve ever received has been accompanied by a “contract” hr puts in my folder.

So frustrating to see this interpretation repeated here. No, that's not correct, because it if were correct these Amazon folks would have an open and shut case to keep their raises, and they don't. That's not the way compensation works. It might be the way one side or the other wants it to work in some situation, but it's not. You get paid what your employer offers. Your employer gets to keep the employees that want…

You’re wrong and spreading confusion.

Every job I’ve had has had a contract, and it’s usually “we pay what we want, we terminate you when we want, and you quit when you want.”

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#153

Post by ineedasername »

KallDrexx wrote: post #118
ineedasername wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then that is a misunderstanding by the employee about how their compensation works. It’s little different than owning stock. I could say “I own $5000 in Amazon stock” but I still know it actually means I own $X shares while the dollar value is variable.

That's not a mis-communication by the employee. There are several events that happen with refreshers/bonus: 1) Notification period 2) Granting period 3) Vesting period When the notification period happens, the manager doesn't say "You are getting X units of stock". The compensation system actually at this point has zero idea how many units of stock you are getting. Instead you get told "you are getting $x worth of st…

Perhaps the communication process varies a bit then. The only situations I've ever encountered or heard of come in the form of "X units". E.g., After starting you might be assigned 1000 RSUs that vest in two years. At the two year point when you receive them you're given the $ value and often (not always) the company will automatically withhold the portion necessary to cover the taxes that will come due that year.

I've never heard of RSU grants that might vary with market price where the person did not know 1) That any $ amount quoted was based on the current market price of the stock; 2) The actual # of RSUs being granted; 3) That when they vested their value would be dependent on the stock value at that time.

I know sometimes grants are made in the fashion of "10% of your base salary". But whenever the grant value might vary with market price I'd be very surprised if the actual # of RSU's was not information available to the employees. Even if the company dropped the ball in a compensation notice & didn't explicitly state the # of RSU's, that is still information that would almost definitely be included within the employee's compensation section in the company's HR portal.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#154

Post by ineedasername »

TimPC wrote: post #90
alistairSH wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends how the comp statement is written. "Salary: $180k. RSUs: $80k (100 shares)" VS "Salary: $180k. RSUs: $80k" With the former, I can easily spot check the share price and make sure it's correct. With the latter, I cannot, and take it at face value.

They have to write the latter because at the time of the offer letter the share price on the conversion date is not known. If you get hired on September 1st and the first board meeting after is September 19th, your RSUs will get converted to shares on September 19th at the September 19th price. If your offer letter is written August 1st, there is no way to include the correct number of shares.

>at the time of the offer letter the share price on the conversion date is not known

That's exactly why the notice should (and usually does) state both the RSU # and the present $ value while also indicating that it is the present value.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#155

Post by ajross »

pyuser583 wrote: post #152
ajross wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So frustrating to see this interpretation repeated here. No, that's not correct, because it if were correct these Amazon folks would have an open and shut case to keep their raises, and they don't. That's not the way compensation works. It might be the way one side or the other wants it to work in some situation, but it's not. You get paid what your employer offers. Your employer gets to keep the employees that want…

You’re wrong and spreading confusion. Every job I’ve had has had a contract, and it’s usually “we pay what we want, we terminate you when we want, and you quit when you want.”

No, no, no. That's not a "contract", it's just a document. Go google "seven elements of a contract" (the basic definition in common law) and note that at-will employment simply lacks several (the big one being "certainty"). In particular a "contract" that says "you can do whatever" is clearly not a contract under common law.

Now, sure, it's true that some elements of an employment agreement may constitute contracts and may have been enforced by courts. Back wages are a big one, obviously. Likewise promised benefits being denied, etc... But at-will compensation and termination just don't qualify. They don't. The Amazon workers can't sue for their mistake raises under contract law becuase those raises don't constitute contracts. Period.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#156

Post by ineedasername »

zwily wrote: post #72
Scea91 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not Amazon, but when I receive RSUs it is denominated in the dollar amount. In a year when the first part vests the dollars are converted to stock units based on the price at that moment. Thus I do not know how many units of stock I am receiving until the first vesting event, because I don't know what the price will be in a year.

That sounds absolutely bizarre. Why do stock the first year at all? I have never heard of anyone trying that before. edit: That setup is basically saying "you don't benefit from the increase in share value for the first year of employement", which is pretty employee-hostile. I bet a company that was doing this before stopped doing it this year, when their stock value fell by a lot. :)

I've not heard that either, but maybe they do it because it's cheaper? Stock reserved for RSU grants doesn't cost companies cash in the same way that a direct monetary bonus would.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#157

Post by Cederfjard »

ineedasername wrote: post #154
TimPC wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have to write the latter because at the time of the offer letter the share price on the conversion date is not known. If you get hired on September 1st and the first board meeting after is September 19th, your RSUs will get converted to shares on September 19th at the September 19th price. If your offer letter is written August 1st, there is no way to include the correct number of shares.

>at the time of the offer letter the share price on the conversion date is not known That's exactly why the notice should (and usually does) state both the RSU # and the present $ value while also indicating that it is the present value.

I think you’re assuming that it’s the value that’s variable, and not the units of stock. That already from the beginning the company has decided on how much stock to give in terms of units, not dollar value.

But the point that’s being made (as I understand it) is that certain companies, including Amazon, first decide on a dollar value, notify the employee of that value, and then later grant the commensurate number of stock units based on the price at that later time.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#158

Post by wperron »

michaelt wrote: post #81
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #45

Two things going on here: 1. First, I'm a bit baffled by some of the responses along the lines of "Amazon should just own their mistake". Sorry, but in the real world, "finders keepers" rarely applies (unless you're talking about crypto, but I digress...). I would certainly want a bug corrected if it were in my favor, and if a bug went the other way, I might need to re-evaluate my company satisfaction based on my new…

> Sorry, but in the real world, "finders keepers" rarely applies If Bob signs a contract for Alice to paint a fence for $800 and a copy-paste error transfers her $1000 instead, yes. But if the copy-paste error happened before the contract was signed? Leading to Bob promising Alice $1000 and signing a contract promising it? Then in all probability, Bob will end up paying the contract amount.

Actually the most apt comparison here is if Bob sends over a contract for $1000, but then goes "oh no I'm sorry, I really meant $800"

There are not takebacks here.

Actually, I know there legally could be, as these situations aren't always black and white, however the company, being such a position of power compared to the employee, loses all goodwill in this situation. If I were in this situation, I would already be sending out feelers.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#159

Post by treme »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48
cooneyb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no such thing as "bank error in your favor" anymore i suppose

There has never been such a thing as a "bank error in your favor", and folks are living in a fantasy land if they think there has been.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-01/crypto-co...

people work in banks and sometimes people make mistakes.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#160

Post by dapithor »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #45

Two things going on here: 1. First, I'm a bit baffled by some of the responses along the lines of "Amazon should just own their mistake". Sorry, but in the real world, "finders keepers" rarely applies (unless you're talking about crypto, but I digress...). I would certainly want a bug corrected if it were in my favor, and if a bug went the other way, I might need to re-evaluate my company satisfaction based on my new…

I'd say, Banque Worms ruling as we've found out can always be at play. Cough $900,000,000.00 accidentally transferred a couple years ago from a large bank to lenders.
Post reply on HN