271–280 of 300 posts
Rules for corporations:
Actions > Words
Rules for politicians:
Policies > Rhetoric
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it’s just income on your w2 same as rsus and salary. You’re thinking of long term cap gains which is entirely different matter
Bonus fits into the category of "supplemental wages" which Google suggests has a special 22% tax rate. However that rate also apparently applies to RSUs most of the time.
This 22% tax rate is the default rate applied by your RSU brokerage which often leaves you owing taxes to the IRS. IRS treats RSU at vesting as regular income. For the tax purposes it is same as if you received their equivalent in cash and then used it to purchase the same number company shares [0].
[0] https://www.cordantwealth.com/rsus-tax-saving-and-hedging/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doing something about a problem generally requires someone is aware that a problem exists right? Otherwise it’s just marking them for future termination without telling them, which seems like a waste of everyone’s time.
No. The management team can make honest mistake. After preliminary investigation, they find they are wrong. No need to tell the employee in this regard. I did not say they should never tell the employee. I think sometimes it's unnecessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The process is relevant to the company. So it's relevant to the employee. The headline is correct unless Amazon policy is not telling employees about performance problems before Focus. Otherwise the discussion about Focus sounds just like the discussion they should have before Focus. > There’s a more fundamental question - are we saying once you get hired, your job should be permanent, regardless of your performance?…
“It would have been appropriate…” I don’t think I did anything inappropriate, which is what you seem to be implying. My other comment about working at Amazon is in this same HN discussion. And you can see that I work for Amazon from my post history. Performance management is a necessity in any company, but whether you’re in “Focus” or not is besides the point. There’s no company policy that managers cannot or should…
It is the most basic level of transparency and just seems like a decent thing to do. For some reason your comments keep avoiding that point. I wonder if this is the effect working at Amazon has on everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A toxic culture of fear is the intended effect here. People at amazon love to discuss the flywheel effect[1]. The flywheel here is the culture of fear that keeps employees on their toes. Bezos believes that employees are inherently lazy[2], and it seems like fear is tool the S-team have chosen to solve the problem of lazy employees. This has a lot of unintended consequences[3], but the executives with the power to ch…
Imagine suffering from imposter syndrome in an office with this fear culture. People will work themselves to the bone trying to fix personal perceived inadequecies. Then they burnout and quit. I guess if workers are considered expendable than that's a positive. Corporations need to be more accountable to their workers welfare and not solely stockholder's welfare.
there's no incentive for doing so. As far as the owner of the company is concerned, ensuring there s a pay-cheque is the end of the company's responsibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah my big takeaway from the recent press is that they didn't even think I was good enough to be a patsy to fire. Definitely an ego hit
Have you applied to Amazon? Talking with recruiters who've left it sounded like Amazon incentives were different than other places. So internal recruiters spend more time contacting people already in their system. Sometimes not even doing a basic fit check.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the true nature of the concealing? The fact that some managers flout the guidance that Amazon provides to not tell people they are on a PIP? I’ve never heard of another company doing that, much less would want to work for one where that is the official guidance to managers! If you might label it a hit price, I don’t think it’s that controversial to label you as Amazon apologist.
In the small section where they quote Amazon’s perspective, it says: > tell the employee that their performance is not meeting expectations Then the rest of the article is all quotes about employees who are not sure if they are meeting expectations or not. Are managers just not following this guidance, or is there some other rule that says the opposite of this quote?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seconded. Haven’t seen this anywhere in Amazon. Edit: Clarified that I meant within Amazon.
> Seconded. Haven’t seen this anywhere. The military has it, and (news to me) it appears common in accountancy and management consulting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out
So up or out means “if you’re passed over for promotion twice, you must suck and we don’t want you anymore.”
But I have seen old officers in the lower ranks because they were enlisted men, then warrant officers, then finally officers. They were far older than their peers, but still needed to tick the boxes and get promoted.
Ref: Military Officer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't survive 4 years without doing that. Remember someone gets voted out each year. Your goal is not be that person so you can't help a newbie. Someone new has to come in and screw someone else over to stay.
i may be way off base, so appoligies if so, but isnt that a form of sociopathy?