5 ms·

It was livable because they'd get 2 shares of amazon stock, worth about a 10% boost to their earnings per year and in non holiday seasons, they could make an ad

It was livable because they'd get 2 shares of amazon stock, worth about a 10% boost to their earnings per year and in non holiday seasons, they could make an additional 8% on performance, with that doubling in the holiday seasons. So instead of making an additional 18% to 26%, the bump to long term workers is as stated in the article from $14 to $15, where the previous performance program in the off season was $1.28, before the extra 10% from the stock grant. So amazon just saved ~20% on this holiday's logistics costs.

philwelch 8y ago
If you give performance bonuses and people work too hard to meet them people complain about work conditions, and if you just pay everyone more instead, people complain that you took away the performance bonuses.
- coldtea 8y ago
  And they are right in both cases. How about having regular wages for regular work AND performance bonuses to reward great performance (what they're meant to be)? As opposed to low wages for regular work, thus making performance "bonuses" a necessity (and thus using them to force people to overworking) OR having regular wages and not compensating those working more. If I pay you $8/hour, and have "performance bonus" of $16 for those who work their asses off, people will be forced to work 2-3 hours more per day to get those just to get by. If I then start paying you $10/hour and drop the bonuses, those working regular hours would be ok, but others who are still made to work overtime would still like to be compensated extra for what they do. They might still make the same as before, but now their colleagues who go off a 8 hours or have lower performance get the same too. So what's to compensate for their extra effort? That's what performance bonuses are about, to compensate for extra effort.

5 ms·

It was livable because they'd get 2 shares of amazon stock, worth about a 10% boost to their earnings per year and in non holiday seasons, they could make an ad

by downrightmike 8y ago

philwelch 8y ago
If you give performance bonuses and people work too hard to meet them people complain about work conditions, and if you just pay everyone more instead, people complain that you took away the performance bonuses.
- coldtea 8y ago
  And they are right in both cases. How about having regular wages for regular work AND performance bonuses to reward great performance (what they're meant to be)? As opposed to low wages for regular work, thus making performance "bonuses" a necessity (and thus using them to force people to overworking) OR having regular wages and not compensating those working more. If I pay you $8/hour, and have "performance bonus" of $16 for those who work their asses off, people will be forced to work 2-3 hours more per day to get those just to get by. If I then start paying you $10/hour and drop the bonuses, those working regular hours would be ok, but others who are still made to work overtime would still like to be compensated extra for what they do. They might still make the same as before, but now their colleagues who go off a 8 hours or have lower performance get the same too. So what's to compensate for their extra effort? That's what performance bonuses are about, to compensate for extra effort.