4 ms·

> The end result is that practically speaking, a full-time employee will be 100% vested after no more than about 2.5 years, and possibly as soon as 2 years. ed

by jsolson 11y ago

> The end result is that practically speaking, a full-time employee will be 100% vested after no more than about 2.5 years, and possibly as soon as 2 years. edit: This is correct under very specific circumstances, which as I call out in my response below strike me as a bunch of horseshit. Either this is incorrect, has changed, or I got screwed when I left[0]. I worked at Amazon as a full-time software engineer (SDE2 then 3) for a bit over two years, starting January 3rd 2011 and leaving in mid-February 2013. When I left my entire 401k match was revoked. [0]: I left on good terms as regretted attrition; my manager, sr. manager, director, and VP all asked to be the first person I emailed when I decided to come back (which I doubt I'll ever do, as my new gig is better for me by basically every metric, but it was a nice gesture).

giaour 11y ago
If you left in mid-February 2013, then you did not work 1000 hours in 2013. You need to work at least 1000 hours in three separate calendar years.
- jsolson 11y ago
  Ah. Fair enough; I misunderstood the original post. I will admit to not having paid any attention to the 401k policy while I was at Amazon other than ensuring my employee contribution maxed out each year. Also the parent's assertion that you might be vested after as little as two years seems completely off base. I didn't really care much as Amazon's match didn't amount to very much money (particularly compared to my current immediately vesting 50% match up to 100% of salary or the 18k limit). Regardless, it still feels like a good way to protect their downside losses by conditioning expected compensation payouts against probability of someone actually sticking around that long. edit: Oh, I see, if you join exactly mid year you might be able to accomplish this. Wow, what a pile of horseshit.
  - delecti 11y ago
    > edit: Oh, I see, if you join exactly mid year you might be able to accomplish this. Wow, what a pile of horseshit. Considering they promise 3 years, I fail to see any problems with being able to do it in 2.
    - jsolson 11y ago
      There's a bunch of shit that's basically pinned to calendar start date that's sort of absurd. Consider this: if you started June 3rd and I started January 3rd, your 2nd anniversary with Amazon would come with full vesting of your 401k while mine would wait another six months. We'd both have worked the same number of days, and overall the policy would be simpler to understand if vesting was pinned only to start date or hours reported on your paystub. On the flip side: I was eligible for more stock in my first annual review[0]; if I'd started two weeks later I would not have been eligible for full additional year. This despite the fact that review conversations typically happen in March/April. If I'm being uncharitable (and after having had conversations with managers about Amazon's total compensation philosophy in which raises are scaled back if the stock did well but not scaled up proportionally if the stock underperformed, I am perfectly willing to be uncharitable here), I would believe that large chunks of their compensation system are structured around an average employee tenure of roughly 18-30 months. If you assume that, it almost looks like the company has gone out of its way to minimize the amount it will actually have to pay to people while maximizing the amount it looks like they're offering. It's not that there's anything wrong with it, it's just that it feels sleazy, particularly in retrospect. [0]: Not that I actually saw any of it, because unlike my current gig where refreshes begin vesting immediately Amazon's refreshes don't start vesting until ~18 months after they're granted.
      - giaour 11y ago
        The law on cliff vesting 401k matches is that it has to happen in three years. If it were tied to your start date, then everyone would have to wait exactly three years. Since it's tied to calendar years, you only have to wait the full three if you start on January 1st. Even if you start on January 3rd, you come out a couple days ahead.
        delecti 11y ago
        Actually the way to maximize the time it takes to vest your 401k is to start just late enough in the year that you can't accumulate 1000 hours. Around mid-late July, if I remember correctly from the math I did when trying to figure this out for myself.

by jsolson 11y ago

giaour 11y ago

If you left in mid-February 2013, then you did not work 1000 hours in 2013. You need to work at least 1000 hours in three separate calendar years.

jsolson 11y ago
Ah. Fair enough; I misunderstood the original post. I will admit to not having paid any attention to the 401k policy while I was at Amazon other than ensuring my employee contribution maxed out each year. Also the parent's assertion that you might be vested after as little as two years seems completely off base. I didn't really care much as Amazon's match didn't amount to very much money (particularly compared to my current immediately vesting 50% match up to 100% of salary or the 18k limit). Regardless, it still feels like a good way to protect their downside losses by conditioning expected compensation payouts against probability of someone actually sticking around that long. edit: Oh, I see, if you join exactly mid year you might be able to accomplish this. Wow, what a pile of horseshit.
- delecti 11y ago
  > edit: Oh, I see, if you join exactly mid year you might be able to accomplish this. Wow, what a pile of horseshit. Considering they promise 3 years, I fail to see any problems with being able to do it in 2.
  - jsolson 11y ago
    There's a bunch of shit that's basically pinned to calendar start date that's sort of absurd. Consider this: if you started June 3rd and I started January 3rd, your 2nd anniversary with Amazon would come with full vesting of your 401k while mine would wait another six months. We'd both have worked the same number of days, and overall the policy would be simpler to understand if vesting was pinned only to start date or hours reported on your paystub. On the flip side: I was eligible for more stock in my first annual review[0]; if I'd started two weeks later I would not have been eligible for full additional year. This despite the fact that review conversations typically happen in March/April. If I'm being uncharitable (and after having had conversations with managers about Amazon's total compensation philosophy in which raises are scaled back if the stock did well but not scaled up proportionally if the stock underperformed, I am perfectly willing to be uncharitable here), I would believe that large chunks of their compensation system are structured around an average employee tenure of roughly 18-30 months. If you assume that, it almost looks like the company has gone out of its way to minimize the amount it will actually have to pay to people while maximizing the amount it looks like they're offering. It's not that there's anything wrong with it, it's just that it feels sleazy, particularly in retrospect. [0]: Not that I actually saw any of it, because unlike my current gig where refreshes begin vesting immediately Amazon's refreshes don't start vesting until ~18 months after they're granted.
    - giaour 11y ago
      The law on cliff vesting 401k matches is that it has to happen in three years. If it were tied to your start date, then everyone would have to wait exactly three years. Since it's tied to calendar years, you only have to wait the full three if you start on January 1st. Even if you start on January 3rd, you come out a couple days ahead.
      - delecti 11y ago
        Actually the way to maximize the time it takes to vest your 401k is to start just late enough in the year that you can't accumulate 1000 hours. Around mid-late July, if I remember correctly from the math I did when trying to figure this out for myself.