Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#171

Post by pyuser583 » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 8:38 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #167

benj111 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re Certainty. I'm pretty sure if you do work, as contractually agreed, the contract requires you be paid for that work. It's just a contract agreeing rates for work done, not a contract guaranteeing work will be done.

> I'm pretty sure if you do work, as contractually agreed, the contract requires you be paid for that work. Yes it does (and I even said so in the comment you replied to), but compensation plans, raises, offer letters, etc... are not payment for work done , and are not contracts for work for the reason stated. These Amazon folks aren't getting a penny, and it absolutely stuns me that people want to argue otherwise.

They get paid for the previous work they have done (two weeks, half month, one month, depending on pay period).

That’s theirs.

But going forward, they don’t have any right to any level of pay above minimum wage.

I’ve personally dealt with this. I had an employer run out of money and be acquired by a new company. The new company owes paychecks for last pay period, but wants to pay everyone lower salaries.

Going forward the new company could pay whatever (above minimum wage). But they owned all the debts of the previous company including that last months wage.

We only had at will hiring agreements, but that didnt matter.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#172

Post by drstewart » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 9:46 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #40

drstewart wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen them assigned a dollar value (actually, in one case: SpaceX, which also had a 5 year vesting schedule instead of a standard 4 year). That would defeat the purpose of RSUs.

How would it defeat the purpose of RSUs? If you get 100k USD worth of RSUs on start date, and the stock value goes up 10X you still have a lot of skin in the game.

Because you don't get RSUs on the start date, you get them as they vest over years.

If the stock goes up 10x in 4 years, then your grant on year 4 is still 100k, not 10x that.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#173

Post by patrick451 » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 1:44 AM UTC

mikeryan wrote: post #67

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…

The web is littered with people telling their stories of getting overpaid in comp, frequently around bonuses, and having the company ask for their money back. They're always disappointed to find out that they do, legally, owe the company the extra pay back. Good companies will work with the employees on this. Other's can be a bit shitty about it. Big caveat that this is a US-centric view.

When I was in gradschool, this happened to me all the time. I had the university ask for a couple hundred dollars back probably 6 times in 5 years. Whoever ran their payroll must have been woefully incompetent.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#174

Post by benj111 » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 8:18 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #167

benj111 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re Certainty. I'm pretty sure if you do work, as contractually agreed, the contract requires you be paid for that work. It's just a contract agreeing rates for work done, not a contract guaranteeing work will be done.

> I'm pretty sure if you do work, as contractually agreed, the contract requires you be paid for that work. Yes it does (and I even said so in the comment you replied to), but compensation plans, raises, offer letters, etc... are not payment for work done , and are not contracts for work for the reason stated. These Amazon folks aren't getting a penny, and it absolutely stuns me that people want to argue otherwise.

I was replying to

>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.

Which was in reply to a comment about every job having a contract.

Further your other examples could be contractually enforced.

If you accepted an employment contract based on the compensation plan, that forms part of the contract. Raises are updates to the contract, unless you're saying it's potentially ok to claw back 40 years of pay raises when some one retires. Offer letters are probably more questionable but if there's a specific start date and pay has already been discussed, it seems to me that that would form a contract.

The key thing in this particular situation seems to be that there was an error, and the error was rectified quickly.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#175

Post by Closi » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 1:00 PM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #162

tomatocracy wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This area of law is usually a bit more nuanced than "what you wrote is the contract". If both parties thought the contract said $800 when it was signed (and if that could be proven...) then that might well be enough for a court to either read the contract as if it said $800, or to void it entirely.

If both parties thought it said $800, why are they going to court about it? A contract is an agreement between parties. Parties are free to agree to changes to the contract.

I think they are an example, the problem here is (I believe):

* Both parties (AMZ & Employer) signed up to a bonus % in the contract

* There was a document that stated % was equivalent to $ which was miscalculated

* Employer agreed to pay whatever the % in the contract was, employee believed they were getting the $ in the estimate.