18 ms·

Amazon says wage hike ‘more than compensates’ for loss of bonuses

51 points by Ours90 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kpwags 8y ago
I can understand some of the frustration, especially for those making just shy of $15 before the raise, but even if the raise is only from $14 to $15, that still is around $2,000/yr (assuming 40 hour work week) that is guaranteed the way a bonus generally isn't. I would almost always prefer a raise over a one-time bonus for that exact reason. In my experiences, I can't always count on my company giving me a yearly bonus.
- sovnade 8y ago
  It was on a curve. If you were already making over $15, you still got a raise. edit: If you were making under $15, you could still be bumped higher than $15 as well. They raised the base rate and then there are still modifiers on top of that.
- behringer 8y ago
  That's all well and good, but Amazon replaced their bonuses for raises and then pretended like they were giving everyone an actual raise when in fact, some people could end up getting a pay cut.
  - abtinf 8y ago
    Their claim is that everyone affected by this is getting a net raise. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - behringer 8y ago
      According to the article: "Those making, say, $14 an hour prior to the increase may only receive a $1 raise, which fails to make up for the loss of benefits."
      - bryanlarsen 8y ago
        And the Amazon statement in the article says "more than compensates for the phase out of incentive pay and future RSU grants." The conflict is probably due to the fact that RSU grants were very lucrative over the last few years. If you assume that the stock is going to quadruple in the next 3 years, then yes, a RSU bonus is probably better than a raise, but I don't think Amazon will be a 4 trillion dollar company in 3 years time...
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > The conflict is probably due to the fact that RSU grants were very lucrative over the last few years. The conflict is probably due to the fact that Amazon publicly and loudly announced the raises alone in response to political pressure, to pretend they were giving people the same deal but with higher hourly wage, and the the benefit cuts became known later and separately. It would be a conflict even if there was no question that everyone was getting at least a small net raise, because even if that is true everyone is also getting a smaller net raise than Amazon tried to get public credit for. Being caught in a lie, including a lie of omission, by people concerned with the issue about which you are being deceptive, produces (or exacerbates) conflict.
        p0rkbelly 8y ago
        correct. For companies with heavy RSU based compensation they assume a certain % of growth every year. Say 10%. Let's say Amazon did 50% year over year. You did better than you expected. However, next year you will get less RSUs since you made a lot more than planned in the previous year. Having a very good year, as I imagine most Amazon employees did, does not mean you should get the same windfall money next year. I'm sure that is not properly understood.
        8y ago
    - cm2187 8y ago
      I don't think they said "everyone".
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        They repeatedly said that nobody was getting a pay cut From the article: > “Again, all hourly operations and customer service employees will see an increase in their base pay, as well as in their total compensation,” Amazon SVP Jay Carney said in the letter, obtained by the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post.
- kiliantics 8y ago
  This makes plenty sense but, still, why not keep both when they can clearly afford to? It really doesn't look good. They say the new setup more than compensates for the removal of the old. But how much more? Does it cost amazon 5% more, 20%?
  - SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
    I think even from a PR perspective it might be the right move. In prior news cycles about Amazon's compensation, I don't think we heard about all the people who apparently were already making $15/hr after expected bonuses.
- elicash 8y ago
  Not to mention, if next year they get let's say a 3% bump in salary, a bonus wouldn't be included into the calculation to determine their larger salary. Salaries are better than a bonus.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- seem_2211 8y ago
  This is also good for workers in that most compensation conversations in my experience (professional agency recruiter for 2 years now), start with the employer asking "how much did you make in your last role"
  - orev 8y ago
    Anyone answering that question would be including bonuses. Or maybe you use a question like that to determine who the suckers are? How does one’s compensation at their previous company have any bearing whatsoever on how much value they can provide to a new employer, other than trying to low-ball them?
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Yes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But if it's really the case that some people are coming out with less money in the end then they've misrepresented themselves publicly.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  And for those few with a Defined benefit pension as a bonus is not pensionable.
- slededit 8y ago
  The problem is this was announced as giving them a massive raise. It turns out it was really just a wash and mostly a PR stunt. They aren't actually giving the employees more money than before. People were comparing this to Henry Ford's livable wage.
sys_64738 8y ago
Are bonuses incentivized? What is that incentive and how will it impact Amazon's business now it's gone?
- behringer 8y ago
  They were generally not incentivized, but had a 2 year vesting period. That kept people working at Amazon longer for that extra few grand.
  - kss238 8y ago
    The bonuses were incentivized. It was based on monthly attendance. The stock grant program was not though. You might be confusing them.
chadash 8y ago
In the past 5 years, Amazon's stock has gone up almost 6X. Anyone who got paid in RSUs almost certainly made out well. But, as Amazon points out in their statement, past results are no guarantee for stock performance going forward. I can pay you $500 in cash or I can give you $500 worth of stock (which vests over a period of time). Generally speaking, the cash (which you get right away) should always be valued more since you can spend it as you want, including using it to purchase stock (which these days can be purchased for nominal trading fees). Furthermore, salary increases are always worth more than equivalent end-of-year cash bonuses, since you lose out on bonuses if you leave your job mid-year.
- aetherson 8y ago
  They'll be comparing the instantaneous value of the stock with the value of the raise. So if you previously got pay for the month of let's say $2,000 plus $400 in RSUs (the value of the RSUs at the moment they're assigned), then you might lose the RSUs but get paid $2,500 per month -- a $100/month raise. If you then feel that Amazon stock is a good investment, you can buy $400 of Amazon stock on the public market, and you'll be where you were before, plus $100 in cash.
  - test6554 8y ago
    Not to mention that owning stock in the company you work for is not a very diversified portfolio. If Amazon crashed and filed for bankruptcy for some reason, you would lose both your job and your savings. That doesn't seem very likely given Amazon's size, but look at Sears.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  Given predictions of a economic downturn Amazon has done a lot of these workers a favor in terms of their risk profile by changing RSUs and bonuses to hard compensation.
- krapp 8y ago
  >Anyone who got paid in RSUs almost certainly made out well. "Well" is relative. The price of the stock may have gone up but its value is still much less than that of the income they could have had at $15/hr over the time it takes to vest. No one is really making out like a bandit on their RSUs at that level.
fareesh 8y ago
Is it something like this? For someone who worked at one of these jobs at Amazon for 3 years Basic wage: X Bonus Wage: Y Total: X+Y Under the new system Basic Wage: X+Y Bonus Wage: 0 Total Wage: X+Y The net effect is zero but principly the value of the bonus has been reduced to nothing, after the loyalty of rhe employee and the benefits that come with that, have already been collected by the employer. Seems somewhat unfair from that perspective, but they can do what they want I guess.
- sfcguyus 8y ago
  More accurate: Basic wage: X Bonus Wage: A Market Appreciation: B Total: X+A+B Under the new system Basic Wage: X+Y Bonus Wage: 0 Total Wage: X+Y X+Y > X+A Sometimes, X+Y+Z > X+A depending on if you keep the RSU. But you can always also take Y (the increase) and invest it and it will always be higher.
swarnie_ 8y ago
I'm going to assume a lot of these warehouse workers would rather have more money in there pay packet now then a share or two which need years to vest with an unknown value.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  That's true for shares, but NPR had interviews with Amazon warehouse workers that indicated the cash bonuses are monthly. One of the interviewees indicated his bonuses would sometimes equal his salary during busy periods like the holidays.
  - p0rkbelly 8y ago
    I wonder what % of the employees got bonuses though. are 95% of the employees better off, and the highest performers taking home less?
    - krapp 8y ago
      It depends on whether your entire building exceeds productivity by a certain amount, which isn't guaranteed. Also, employees lose half or all of their bonus for the month using UPT, which puts them one flat tire or traffic jam away from potentially losing out even if they would otherwise get VCP that month. When it works, it works, the problem is you can't predict it, and since you can't predict it, you can't depend on it.
- class_struggle 8y ago
  The cash bonuses were monthly. I used to work in those warehouses. They definitely helped. Amazon and Bezos could definitely afford to keep all those programs and still give those employees a raise they deserve. The working conditions there are terrible.
thoughtexplorer 8y ago
This sort of hand wringing seems like a distraction from the likelihood that Amazon has moved up the date* in which these jobs will be eliminated. Whether employees are netting out the same or not is going to be moot. If it's similar though then that really doesn't seem like a good deal longer term. *Robots will be able to do the jobs for $15 hour sooner than they'll be able to for $7 an hour. The math will accelerate the move to automation.
- beat 8y ago
  I don't buy this argument. The problem usually isn't that robots are too expensive to do the human jobs, it's that robots can't do the human jobs, period. If something can be done by machine, it is done by machine, and that's been true since the beginning of the industrial era. Entire job classifications get wiped out by new automation, all the time. At this point, the jobs that are still done by humans are jobs that require judgment and intuition. Those things are very, very difficult to emulate in software, unlike repetitive motions and data lookups.
  - maym86 8y ago
    Exactly, and Amazon is still growing so even as some jobs are gradually replaced by machines the total number of workers is still increasing.
    - cromwellian 8y ago
      But they are being replaced with engineers, salesmen, and customer support, not with warehouse employees. Different skill sets and likely, a net loss of jobs for the poorest and a net increase of white collar positions.
      - maym86 8y ago
        I specifically mean wearhouse workers. The automotation technology isn't good enough and whether or not they implement it has little to do with these wage changes.
docker_up 8y ago
This is the problem with media. It starts with the media focusing on how many Amazon workers aren't making enough money. Political pressure mounts and Amazon increases everyone's salary to minimum $15/hr. The media then changes focus to those that feel slighted by their loss in bonus. They stop focusing on the people who are now happy and keep focusing on the small percentage of people who are unhappy, and seem to revel in creating a narrative where Amazon is STILL doing something wrong. This is the fake news culture that is driving people like me away from actually believing the news.
- moate 8y ago
  Unbiased point: Amazon can raise wages to $15/hr (or higher!) and STILL do something wrong related to how they compensate their workers. Pay/compensation structures for many workers are more complex than just "how many dollars are you given gross by your employer". If their compensation isn't actually better, then there's reason to draw attention to it. As someone below said: If past(bonus + base pay) = current (base pay + bonus) it doesn't matter what the numbers are for base and bonus, they're still the same. And if things are still the same, there will still be people who are upset with their compensation.
- maym86 8y ago
  This is a problem with Amazon PR misrepresenting a salary increase that isn't actually what they protrayed it as originally.
- staticassertion 8y ago
  What part of this is 'fake'? Why should the media be cutting Amazon slack?
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    God, please, agreed, can we please stop using the term "fake news" for anything we disagree with and leave it for stories that are actually factually untrue? There is nothing in this story that is false. It's fine to point out that the media likes to focus on outrage-inducing features, but that doesn't make the news fake.
beat 8y ago
I kind of think Amazon botched this from a PR perspective. It could have been a total win for them. Instead, it looks like a scam. Even if it isn't a scam, and employees will truly be better off (which is probably true), it at the very least failed to capitalize on the opportunity to look like a progressive company that cares about its employees.
jorblumesea 8y ago
Amazon is correct. Equity is an inherently risky asset and is something better suited for those who can accept the risk. If you're making $12/hr, adding Amazon stock on top is a feast or famine situation and would almost certainly cause issues in the next few years. We're on the end of a 10 year bull market, and the most likely situation is trending down. As the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
dreamache 8y ago
"Bezos is no fool. He will reduce his headcount, and step up his automation effort to eliminate as many low-skilled jobs from Amazon. Then he will lobby Congress to increase the minimum wage for his competitors that still employ lower-skilled workers. As these competitors will lack the resources to automate, they will be driven out of business, and all their workers will lose their jobs. Less competition will make it easier for Amazon to raise prices." - Peter Schiff I'm all for voluntarily raising wages for your employees; that's a great thing. But if we see that Amazon is backing efforts to raise the minimum wage, we'll know Schiff was right.
- p0rkbelly 8y ago
  I think for Schiff to be right, they would have to be ultimately raising their prices.
  - ProAm 8y ago
    They've been slowly doing that for years now
    - p0rkbelly 8y ago
      Do you have any data that isn't subjective? I have subjective data saying the opposite. 8/9 times when I shop Around Amazon has the best price. If it's close, like a buck or so difference, I still choose Amazon due to reliability, speed, and me having a history of good customer service interactions. I buy everything I need every month on Subscribe & Save (from tooth, toilet paper, to batteries, air freshener, etc) and the even greater 15% discounts add up as well.
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  The problem I have with this argument is that it sets up Amazon in a caricature that always makes them look evil and anti-labor: 1) Don't support lowering the minimum wage = Democrats + labor groups hate on you for not paying workers, even if you can hire more of them = anti-labor 2) Support the minimum wage nationally + across their international workforce = "This is an automation ploy + competitive advantage = anti-labor There seems like no ideal approach for low-skilled labor here that won't seem anti-labor in the short-to-medium term
rdtsc 8y ago
Not sure what to think about Bernie needing too go as far as naming the bill "Stop BEZOS" https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-stop-bezos-act-summary?inline=file https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-stop-bezos-act-s... It was a political move, and it worked it got Amazon do respond. But seems a bit childish. Remembering when I was making $7.50 / hour, bump in salary would have been better than bonuses or RSUs. I think in that salary range, this is still a good move.
- ThetaOneOne 8y ago
  While it is targeted at bezos I think the name is more of a joke if anything. After all even in the document that you linked it lists several other countries. With that said I don’t think Bezos’ move is based on Bernie. In the current political climate there is no way a bill like that would ever pass. I would guess this is based off of public pressure but I’m not 100% sure what this move if for. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- beat 8y ago
  I'm not convinced the bill, or the political climate in general, led to this. I think the unemployment rate did. Amazon is looking at their holiday season staffing needs, and wondering how to compete against all the other businesses fighting over that limited labor pool. A big "$15!" splashy headline looks great then. Then business does business, and attaches a bunch of cost-saving measures to it, and then it looks bad. No different than the normal corporate development cycle. Not enough leadership, a bunch of people doing what's best for their department rather than the whole company. Sad.

51 points by Ours90 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

I can understand some of the frustration, especially for those making just shy of $15 before the raise, but even if the raise is only from $14 to $15, that still is around $2,000/yr (assuming 40 hour work week) that is guaranteed the way a bonus generally isn't. I would almost always prefer a raise over a one-time bonus for that exact reason. In my experiences, I can't always count on my company giving me a yearly bonus.

sovnade 8y ago
It was on a curve. If you were already making over $15, you still got a raise. edit: If you were making under $15, you could still be bumped higher than $15 as well. They raised the base rate and then there are still modifiers on top of that.
behringer 8y ago
That's all well and good, but Amazon replaced their bonuses for raises and then pretended like they were giving everyone an actual raise when in fact, some people could end up getting a pay cut.
- abtinf 8y ago
  Their claim is that everyone affected by this is getting a net raise. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - behringer 8y ago
    According to the article: "Those making, say, $14 an hour prior to the increase may only receive a $1 raise, which fails to make up for the loss of benefits."
    - bryanlarsen 8y ago
      And the Amazon statement in the article says "more than compensates for the phase out of incentive pay and future RSU grants." The conflict is probably due to the fact that RSU grants were very lucrative over the last few years. If you assume that the stock is going to quadruple in the next 3 years, then yes, a RSU bonus is probably better than a raise, but I don't think Amazon will be a 4 trillion dollar company in 3 years time...
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > The conflict is probably due to the fact that RSU grants were very lucrative over the last few years. The conflict is probably due to the fact that Amazon publicly and loudly announced the raises alone in response to political pressure, to pretend they were giving people the same deal but with higher hourly wage, and the the benefit cuts became known later and separately. It would be a conflict even if there was no question that everyone was getting at least a small net raise, because even if that is true everyone is also getting a smaller net raise than Amazon tried to get public credit for. Being caught in a lie, including a lie of omission, by people concerned with the issue about which you are being deceptive, produces (or exacerbates) conflict.
      - p0rkbelly 8y ago
        correct. For companies with heavy RSU based compensation they assume a certain % of growth every year. Say 10%. Let's say Amazon did 50% year over year. You did better than you expected. However, next year you will get less RSUs since you made a lot more than planned in the previous year. Having a very good year, as I imagine most Amazon employees did, does not mean you should get the same windfall money next year. I'm sure that is not properly understood.
        8y ago
  - cm2187 8y ago
    I don't think they said "everyone".
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      They repeatedly said that nobody was getting a pay cut From the article: > “Again, all hourly operations and customer service employees will see an increase in their base pay, as well as in their total compensation,” Amazon SVP Jay Carney said in the letter, obtained by the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post.
kiliantics 8y ago
This makes plenty sense but, still, why not keep both when they can clearly afford to? It really doesn't look good. They say the new setup more than compensates for the removal of the old. But how much more? Does it cost amazon 5% more, 20%?
- SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
  I think even from a PR perspective it might be the right move. In prior news cycles about Amazon's compensation, I don't think we heard about all the people who apparently were already making $15/hr after expected bonuses.
elicash 8y ago
Not to mention, if next year they get let's say a 3% bump in salary, a bonus wouldn't be included into the calculation to determine their larger salary. Salaries are better than a bonus.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
seem_2211 8y ago
This is also good for workers in that most compensation conversations in my experience (professional agency recruiter for 2 years now), start with the employer asking "how much did you make in your last role"
- orev 8y ago
  Anyone answering that question would be including bonuses. Or maybe you use a question like that to determine who the suckers are? How does one’s compensation at their previous company have any bearing whatsoever on how much value they can provide to a new employer, other than trying to low-ball them?
emodendroket 8y ago
Yes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. But if it's really the case that some people are coming out with less money in the end then they've misrepresented themselves publicly.
C1sc0cat 8y ago
And for those few with a Defined benefit pension as a bonus is not pensionable.
slededit 8y ago
The problem is this was announced as giving them a massive raise. It turns out it was really just a wash and mostly a PR stunt. They aren't actually giving the employees more money than before. People were comparing this to Henry Ford's livable wage.

sys_64738 8y ago

Are bonuses incentivized? What is that incentive and how will it impact Amazon's business now it's gone?

behringer 8y ago
They were generally not incentivized, but had a 2 year vesting period. That kept people working at Amazon longer for that extra few grand.
- kss238 8y ago
  The bonuses were incentivized. It was based on monthly attendance. The stock grant program was not though. You might be confusing them.

chadash 8y ago

In the past 5 years, Amazon's stock has gone up almost 6X. Anyone who got paid in RSUs almost certainly made out well. But, as Amazon points out in their statement, past results are no guarantee for stock performance going forward. I can pay you $500 in cash or I can give you $500 worth of stock (which vests over a period of time). Generally speaking, the cash (which you get right away) should always be valued more since you can spend it as you want, including using it to purchase stock (which these days can be purchased for nominal trading fees). Furthermore, salary increases are always worth more than equivalent end-of-year cash bonuses, since you lose out on bonuses if you leave your job mid-year.

aetherson 8y ago
They'll be comparing the instantaneous value of the stock with the value of the raise. So if you previously got pay for the month of let's say $2,000 plus $400 in RSUs (the value of the RSUs at the moment they're assigned), then you might lose the RSUs but get paid $2,500 per month -- a $100/month raise. If you then feel that Amazon stock is a good investment, you can buy $400 of Amazon stock on the public market, and you'll be where you were before, plus $100 in cash.
- test6554 8y ago
  Not to mention that owning stock in the company you work for is not a very diversified portfolio. If Amazon crashed and filed for bankruptcy for some reason, you would lose both your job and your savings. That doesn't seem very likely given Amazon's size, but look at Sears.
dv_dt 8y ago
Given predictions of a economic downturn Amazon has done a lot of these workers a favor in terms of their risk profile by changing RSUs and bonuses to hard compensation.
krapp 8y ago
>Anyone who got paid in RSUs almost certainly made out well. "Well" is relative. The price of the stock may have gone up but its value is still much less than that of the income they could have had at $15/hr over the time it takes to vest. No one is really making out like a bandit on their RSUs at that level.

fareesh 8y ago

Is it something like this? For someone who worked at one of these jobs at Amazon for 3 years Basic wage: X Bonus Wage: Y Total: X+Y Under the new system Basic Wage: X+Y Bonus Wage: 0 Total Wage: X+Y The net effect is zero but principly the value of the bonus has been reduced to nothing, after the loyalty of rhe employee and the benefits that come with that, have already been collected by the employer. Seems somewhat unfair from that perspective, but they can do what they want I guess.

sfcguyus 8y ago
More accurate: Basic wage: X Bonus Wage: A Market Appreciation: B Total: X+A+B Under the new system Basic Wage: X+Y Bonus Wage: 0 Total Wage: X+Y X+Y > X+A Sometimes, X+Y+Z > X+A depending on if you keep the RSU. But you can always also take Y (the increase) and invest it and it will always be higher.

swarnie_ 8y ago

I'm going to assume a lot of these warehouse workers would rather have more money in there pay packet now then a share or two which need years to vest with an unknown value.

ceejayoz 8y ago
That's true for shares, but NPR had interviews with Amazon warehouse workers that indicated the cash bonuses are monthly. One of the interviewees indicated his bonuses would sometimes equal his salary during busy periods like the holidays.
- p0rkbelly 8y ago
  I wonder what % of the employees got bonuses though. are 95% of the employees better off, and the highest performers taking home less?
  - krapp 8y ago
    It depends on whether your entire building exceeds productivity by a certain amount, which isn't guaranteed. Also, employees lose half or all of their bonus for the month using UPT, which puts them one flat tire or traffic jam away from potentially losing out even if they would otherwise get VCP that month. When it works, it works, the problem is you can't predict it, and since you can't predict it, you can't depend on it.
class_struggle 8y ago
The cash bonuses were monthly. I used to work in those warehouses. They definitely helped. Amazon and Bezos could definitely afford to keep all those programs and still give those employees a raise they deserve. The working conditions there are terrible.

thoughtexplorer 8y ago

This sort of hand wringing seems like a distraction from the likelihood that Amazon has moved up the date* in which these jobs will be eliminated. Whether employees are netting out the same or not is going to be moot. If it's similar though then that really doesn't seem like a good deal longer term. *Robots will be able to do the jobs for $15 hour sooner than they'll be able to for $7 an hour. The math will accelerate the move to automation.

beat 8y ago
I don't buy this argument. The problem usually isn't that robots are too expensive to do the human jobs, it's that robots can't do the human jobs, period. If something can be done by machine, it is done by machine, and that's been true since the beginning of the industrial era. Entire job classifications get wiped out by new automation, all the time. At this point, the jobs that are still done by humans are jobs that require judgment and intuition. Those things are very, very difficult to emulate in software, unlike repetitive motions and data lookups.
- maym86 8y ago
  Exactly, and Amazon is still growing so even as some jobs are gradually replaced by machines the total number of workers is still increasing.
  - cromwellian 8y ago
    But they are being replaced with engineers, salesmen, and customer support, not with warehouse employees. Different skill sets and likely, a net loss of jobs for the poorest and a net increase of white collar positions.
    - maym86 8y ago
      I specifically mean wearhouse workers. The automotation technology isn't good enough and whether or not they implement it has little to do with these wage changes.

docker_up 8y ago

This is the problem with media. It starts with the media focusing on how many Amazon workers aren't making enough money. Political pressure mounts and Amazon increases everyone's salary to minimum $15/hr. The media then changes focus to those that feel slighted by their loss in bonus. They stop focusing on the people who are now happy and keep focusing on the small percentage of people who are unhappy, and seem to revel in creating a narrative where Amazon is STILL doing something wrong. This is the fake news culture that is driving people like me away from actually believing the news.

moate 8y ago
Unbiased point: Amazon can raise wages to $15/hr (or higher!) and STILL do something wrong related to how they compensate their workers. Pay/compensation structures for many workers are more complex than just "how many dollars are you given gross by your employer". If their compensation isn't actually better, then there's reason to draw attention to it. As someone below said: If past(bonus + base pay) = current (base pay + bonus) it doesn't matter what the numbers are for base and bonus, they're still the same. And if things are still the same, there will still be people who are upset with their compensation.
maym86 8y ago
This is a problem with Amazon PR misrepresenting a salary increase that isn't actually what they protrayed it as originally.
staticassertion 8y ago
What part of this is 'fake'? Why should the media be cutting Amazon slack?
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  God, please, agreed, can we please stop using the term "fake news" for anything we disagree with and leave it for stories that are actually factually untrue? There is nothing in this story that is false. It's fine to point out that the media likes to focus on outrage-inducing features, but that doesn't make the news fake.

beat 8y ago

I kind of think Amazon botched this from a PR perspective. It could have been a total win for them. Instead, it looks like a scam. Even if it isn't a scam, and employees will truly be better off (which is probably true), it at the very least failed to capitalize on the opportunity to look like a progressive company that cares about its employees.

jorblumesea 8y ago

Amazon is correct. Equity is an inherently risky asset and is something better suited for those who can accept the risk. If you're making $12/hr, adding Amazon stock on top is a feast or famine situation and would almost certainly cause issues in the next few years. We're on the end of a 10 year bull market, and the most likely situation is trending down. As the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

dreamache 8y ago

"Bezos is no fool. He will reduce his headcount, and step up his automation effort to eliminate as many low-skilled jobs from Amazon. Then he will lobby Congress to increase the minimum wage for his competitors that still employ lower-skilled workers. As these competitors will lack the resources to automate, they will be driven out of business, and all their workers will lose their jobs. Less competition will make it easier for Amazon to raise prices." - Peter Schiff I'm all for voluntarily raising wages for your employees; that's a great thing. But if we see that Amazon is backing efforts to raise the minimum wage, we'll know Schiff was right.

p0rkbelly 8y ago
I think for Schiff to be right, they would have to be ultimately raising their prices.
- ProAm 8y ago
  They've been slowly doing that for years now
  - p0rkbelly 8y ago
    Do you have any data that isn't subjective? I have subjective data saying the opposite. 8/9 times when I shop Around Amazon has the best price. If it's close, like a buck or so difference, I still choose Amazon due to reliability, speed, and me having a history of good customer service interactions. I buy everything I need every month on Subscribe & Save (from tooth, toilet paper, to batteries, air freshener, etc) and the even greater 15% discounts add up as well.
s3r3nity 8y ago
The problem I have with this argument is that it sets up Amazon in a caricature that always makes them look evil and anti-labor: 1) Don't support lowering the minimum wage = Democrats + labor groups hate on you for not paying workers, even if you can hire more of them = anti-labor 2) Support the minimum wage nationally + across their international workforce = "This is an automation ploy + competitive advantage = anti-labor There seems like no ideal approach for low-skilled labor here that won't seem anti-labor in the short-to-medium term

rdtsc 8y ago

Not sure what to think about Bernie needing too go as far as naming the bill "Stop BEZOS" https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-stop-bezos-act-summary?inline=file https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-stop-bezos-act-s... It was a political move, and it worked it got Amazon do respond. But seems a bit childish. Remembering when I was making $7.50 / hour, bump in salary would have been better than bonuses or RSUs. I think in that salary range, this is still a good move.

ThetaOneOne 8y ago
While it is targeted at bezos I think the name is more of a joke if anything. After all even in the document that you linked it lists several other countries. With that said I don’t think Bezos’ move is based on Bernie. In the current political climate there is no way a bill like that would ever pass. I would guess this is based off of public pressure but I’m not 100% sure what this move if for. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
beat 8y ago
I'm not convinced the bill, or the political climate in general, led to this. I think the unemployment rate did. Amazon is looking at their holiday season staffing needs, and wondering how to compete against all the other businesses fighting over that limited labor pool. A big "$15!" splashy headline looks great then. Then business does business, and attaches a bunch of cost-saving measures to it, and then it looks bad. No different than the normal corporate development cycle. Not enough leadership, a bunch of people doing what's best for their department rather than the whole company. Sad.