Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Is Eliminating Bonuses, Stock Awards to Help Pay for Raises (bloomberg.com)

Amazon is eliminating monthly bonuses and stock awards for warehouse workers and other hourly employees after the company pledged this week to raise pay to at least $15 an hour, Bloomberg reported Wednesday. From a report: Warehouse workers for the e-commerce giant in the U.S. were eligible in the past for monthly bonuses that could total hundreds of dollars per month as well as stock awards, said two people familiar with Amazon's pay policies. The company informed those employees Wednesday that it's eliminating both of those compensation categories to help pay for the raises, the people said. Amazon received plaudits when it announced Monday that the company would raise its minimum pay. The pay increase warded off criticism from politicians and activists, and put the company in a good position to recruit temporary workers for the important holiday shopping season.

152 comments

  1. The raises are worth more by edtice1559 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Amazon actually put out a statement on this that isn't in the TFS. Surveys showed that current employees would prefer more predictable pay to the bonuses. Makes sense when your income is relatively low. Bonuses are nice but you can't count on them. Being assured of a paycheck is more useful short-term. Now maybe Amazon is full of it in their statement but TFS is one-sided in a misleading way.

    1. Re:The raises are worth more by alvinrod · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is probably true in the case of anyone for whom this is an hourly pay increase. However, if you're salaried you might prefer the option for bonuses (if you think you're more productive than your peers) or stock options (if you're younger and expect the company to grow a lot over the next several years) as opposed to a flat increase in base salary.

    2. Re:The raises are worth more by torkus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bonuses don't work better for salaried employees - they work better for employees already making enough and can then treat it as an actual BONUS. Ya know, instead of something they need to pay for food or rent

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    3. Re: The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon's strength is its logistics.

    4. Re:The raises are worth more by Baki · · Score: 1

      Also it is less prone to favouritism and misuse of power.

    5. Re:The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      as opposed to a flat increase in base salary.

      I prefer increased salary.
      I can invest it in places different than my employer (options) and diversify my portfolio.
      I can even invest it in me (training, new qualifications not useful only in current job) or place in savings ...

      Because i trust employer as far as I can throw company Board.
      Promises can be changed next week. and company cannot go back on what they already paid me.

    6. Re:The raises are worth more by MachineShedFred · · Score: 0

      Anything labeled as a "bonus" is also taxed at a much higher rate.

      The average employee will come out much better this way.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    7. Re: The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh.. what? There is no special tax code for bonuses. They are treated as income in the tax code.

    8. Re:The raises are worth more by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      However, if you're salaried you might prefer the option for bonuses

      Well, if you are salaried, you by definition don't work hourly....minimum wage only apples to hourly workers.

      It sounded like this was only the bonuses and all for warehouse hourly workers...they are hourly, so they all are at min. wage of $15/hr, but no more bonuses.

      If that isn't the case, then, they are then also robbing incentive money from salaried folks to pay for raises to $15/hr for the hourly folks, which indeed would suck for them.

      But it sounded like to me, that the warehouse hourly workers lose the potential bonuses, in exchange for everyone making at least $15/hr.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re: The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. Bonuses are treated as regular income for tax purposes. In many cases the paycheck they are disbursed in get taxed at a higher rate due to it "looking like" your pay is dramatically higher. You get it back when you file your taxes but it's not as exciting as it sounds to get that bonus check when $1000 bonus only adds $400 to your check.

    10. Re:The raises are worth more by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not sure how Amazon does their bonuses, but for many salaried positions I've been at, a bonus is a tantalizing carrot that appears much larger than when it's finally in your hands - if it gets there at all. The company can have a "bad quarter" or "bad year" and suspend them, they can allocate a certain amount per group and the the manager divvies it up according to their whims instead of using metrics, etc.

      At this point in my career any time a manager talks about a bonus, I'll believe it exists when I see it land in my bank account, not before. So others in the company below me pay-wise getting a raise and eliminating some fairy tale bonus that probably wouldn't materialize to cover that? Sounds fine to me.

    11. Re:The raises are worth more by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      So basically this is robbing Peter, to pay Peter...

    12. Re: The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even at the highest tax rate (39.6% > ~$419,000), you'd still see $600 of the $1000. Most people are going to be at 28% or below and so will see at least $700/$1000. The rates are even better (for people, not the deficit) for 2018.

    13. Re:The raises are worth more by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Anything labeled as a "bonus" is also taxed at a much higher rate.

      There is no "bonus" tax; bonuses are subject to the same income tax as all other earned income,
      even the Social Security + Medicare taxes are the same (Unless the bonus just happens to be the payment that
      pushes an employee above the maximum tax base for SS that year).

    14. Re:The raises are worth more by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 1

      Bonuses do mess up the tax withholding rates though which typically results in more taxes being withheld than should be. This is resolved at tax filing and typically translates into less of an outstanding tax burden, (or a higher refund if you get one of those.)

      --
      --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    15. Re:The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That kind of stuff helps the company get and retain better talent. When I got hired for my current job, I actually had three job offers to choose from. Know which one I choose? The one with the best benefits and pay. I make about 45% more than I spend, so it's not like I'm short on money or anything. Nonetheless, if a company told me that they're going to compensate me less because they need to pay the high school dropout more money, then I'm less likely to work for them.

    16. Re: The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not entirely accurate. Many bonuses are treated as supplemental therefore taxed at a flat rate.

    17. Re:The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon is eliminating monthly bonuses and stock awards for warehouse workers

      They're only cutting these benefits for works impacted by the $15min wage. An equivalent you at amazon is completely unaffected, so no worries about your pay being cut to pay for highschool dropouts in this scenario.

    18. Re:The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more predictable pay

      YMMV - obviously, distribution warehouses have different levels of shit going down - but I know a great many people who are still stuck in the rectum of the blight on the ass of the world I grew up in.

      All of them have worked for Amazon. For a brief period of time. And that second part wasn't by their own choice.

      $15/hour sounds good, but if you work for Amazon, you're not likely to see 40 hour weeks long enough for it to matter before your body gives out.

    19. Re: The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonuses are taxed at fixed 25% rate
      https://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/income-and-investments/bonus-time-how-bonuses-are-taxed-and-treated-by-the-irs-8003/

    20. Re: The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BZZTZ wrong, thanks for playing, please come again.... ...they are taxed at a fixed 25% rate
      https://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/income-and-investments/bonus-time-how-bonuses-are-taxed-and-treated-by-the-irs-8003/

    21. Re: The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the heck is salaried at less than $15 per hour?

    22. Re:The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bonuses don't work better for salaried employees - they work better for employees already making enough

      Bonuses in my experience mostly seem to be based on company goals being met. Here is what I'd prefer.

      1. Pay me for the hours I work. Limit me to 40 if you want, but if I did the work and you authorized it, I want paid. No cheap exceptions or excuses. Want me to spend lunches in meetings and such? Sure, but I want paid. Take the yearly sick time, cut it in half if you want, then add it to the vacation time and call it paid time off if you want. Have it never expire. That is the key. A good employee would try to keep at least a couple weeks in the bank for if they get sick.

      2. Promotions should match skill and yes skill is a substitute, at least in part for "magical leadership skills being seen by the right people." If your say two levels higher than your current grade level skill wise, then you should be promoted a single level, unless they have a dang good reason not to.

    23. Re: The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Amazon's strength is the ability to operate at a loss long enough to drive everybody else out of business while forcing the government to subsidize its employees.

      The logistics is a close 3rd though.

    24. Re:The raises are worth more by mentil · · Score: 1

      Bonuses aka intermittent rewards are a stronger motivator than a constant reward e.g. salary/wages, which is probably why they were utilized. That doesn't mean people won't prefer a constant reward instead, though.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    25. Re:The raises are worth more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another factor is that only a few high performance employees benefit substantially from the bonusses, so the average and the downright lazy band together to press for fixed pay. I'm presently working at a company without a bonus policy and there's much more lazing around and inefficient work here than at the previous company. Although the actual work itself is more fun, it bugs me that many of my colleagues basically need constant supervision (and in some cases constant active encouragement) to be productive.

    26. Re:The raises are worth more by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      Surveys showed that current employees would prefer more predictable pay to the bonuses.

      (I don't know how their bonuses work, so if they are rare and hard to achieve (and the same to the stocks) I was unaware when making this post) To be fair.... I worked in a warehouse for a year or so. Many employees there were angry / insulted at being offered life insurance and 401k's. They would give a response of basically: "What the HELL would I want my money going to anything else for? It's MINE I want it now. How else am I gonna go get crunk every Friday after this place?" A guy with 3 kids was asking this.

  2. Isn't this what people wanted? by JeffOwl · · Score: 2, Funny

    Everyone gets paid the same regardless of productivity? This should be good news for those advocating the $15/hr minimum wage.

    1. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I agree. I make $50,000 in IT in Silicon Valley and I feel guilty I am making so much more than these people.

    2. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by CryptoBear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you only make $50k a year in a tech-heavy field in Silicon Valley I feel bad for you. Your employer is literally paying you peanuts.

    3. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why feel guilty when you have earned it. Moving boxes doesn't require a great amount of skill and pay reflects that.

    4. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whoosh...

      The "I make $50K/year in Silicon Valley" thing is a Slashdot in-joke

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      That isn't what the article says. A bonus is different then a normal raise in salary, also stock awards to low end employees are rarely that useful, here is a few thousand dollars of stock, you can cash it in, but you probably shouldn't because it will be worth more in the future.

      Normally I prefer a higher salary then hoping for a Bonus. With Bonuses I am hoping for the Good will of the company. Vs the Company putting in a long term investment in me.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly. We actually jobs that pay less than $15 an hour should be eliminated because they are simply not worth doing, and we don't the social safety net to prop up businesses providing services that are not worth doing.

    7. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting exactly the right order into boxes in 110 F warehouses while standing for 12 hours per day does require skill. Getting your viagra from Canada depends on Tom being able to buy Dr. Scholes, otherwise you might get Mr. Schmeltz's horse laxative instead.

    8. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      I have no idea how your comment ties into the article. And it doesn't even tie into minimum wage increases. Every employer understands the follow-on effect. If a brand-new, less productive person is going to make a certain wage, those who are more productive and have been around longer demand higher pay. When minimum wage goes up, you have to increase the pay not just of those making less than minimum wage. It's one of the standard arguments against this. And again, this is in Amazon's statement. "Amazon said those who are already making $15 an hour will see an increase in pay but did not specify how much." https://finance.yahoo.com/news...

    9. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by gnick · · Score: 0

      Normally I prefer a higher salary then hoping for a Bonus.

      Me too - 100%. First the higher salary, then the bonus.

      "than"?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    10. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your employer is literally paying you peanuts.

      May 2018 price for Groundnuts (peanuts) is $1,420/metric ton. 35 metric tons of nuts is fucking nuts.

      How would an employer even ship and store that many nuts for their employees. It would be the literally worst business decision.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    11. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

      and you get the obligatory xkcd quote of the day...

    12. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by XXongo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone gets paid the same regardless of productivity? This should be good news for those advocating the $15/hr minimum wage.

      Yep. Defining "productivity" is at the whim of the employer, and "paying for productivity" is a well-proven strategy for lowering wages.

      In most businesses, the things that reduce productivity are screw-ups by management, not by the people actually doing the work.

    13. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Endurance, persistence, and fortitude would be a better description. Every job requires some level of basic skill to function. For starters you have to have the skill to learn and accept instructions. I can't be a Walmart greeter if I don't understand basic instructions like “stand at the door, and say ‘Hi, welcome to Walmart’.” But we're not going to call that a skilled job either.

      It's skilled if a job typically requires an apprenticeship, trade school, certification program, or formal degree. Truck driver, carpenter, electrician, whatever. That's not to say it's easier to be a package handler at a warehouse than it is to be an electrician. But the latter is a skilled job that required more than on the job training.

    14. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Somehow I don't think the greatest threat to Amazon is not being able to identify unproductive warehouse workers in time who are earning $15 per hour. That's the type of problem you have with engineers.

    15. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the goal is "everyone gets enough to live on without working multiple jobs or making serious compromises on living conditions (e.g. living on nothing but ramen and peanut butter)". Nobody minds performance bonuses if they're actually bonuses, rather than "necessary to pay the rent". Having experienced several different performance evaluation systems, I don't trust any of them to accurately reward productivity. That's annoying, but not terrible when your base pay is enough to live on; it's terrible when those random rewards are for mere survival.

    16. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Me too. I like Christmas bonuses. I get them for being Christian.

    17. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

    18. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      It's actually a minimum wage, so employees can receive wage raises for merit if Amazon so chooses.

      The median wage tends to follow the minimum wage as a proportion of productivity, which means a minimum wage not kept up with productivity gains just gets you a larger, less-wealthy work force instead of making the workers wealthier. Had the minimum wage stayed at 1960s levels, the United States would likely have around 270 million population today, and a median household income of $115,000--the dollar number might be different (more or less inflation), but the purchasing power would be what $115k buys today.

      Of course that brings us back to the age of the bourgeoisie and the proles: while a great many households have a mere $40k income, the middle-class lavishes in its $120k lifestyle. Of course the haute would be around the same $200k lifestyle they occupy today, and the rich above them.

    19. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by AuMatar · · Score: 2

      Eh, you should almost always cash in stock. Having your savings and your income from the same company is a huge risk- in a downturn you lose your savings and income at the same time. Better to be invested anywhere else. Besides, if you want shares of FOO you can buy them on the open market. The only time this isn't true is preIPO.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    20. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by galabar · · Score: 1

      If by "eliminated" you mean "replaced by robots," I would agree with you.

    21. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by DogDude · · Score: 2

      $50,000 indicates that he/she is paid in US dollars, not peanuts. He/she is literally getting paid in US dollars. Maybe you mean he/she is getting paid figuratively in peanuts?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    22. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      If there's anyone in the world that could ship and store that many nuts, it would be Amazon. When you get paid your peanuts, it's with "free" 2-day shipping!

      You had just better have a large food-grade silo at home to hold them all in. A cubic foot of peanuts weighs somewhere between 16 and 19 pounds, so 35 metric tons of peanuts would take up about 4500 cubic feet. Personally, I can't afford to buy a stainless steel silo that big when I'm paid peanuts!

      Yes, I'm mixing metric and imperial units, get over it.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    23. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For a nation-wide government IT project, $50K per year is the national average."

      So some are making more, some are making less? Where's the citation for your figures, Chris? Since you seem so good with the copy-paste comments, you could just add that data to your text file.

      "Those who live in the boonies are making out like bandits."

      So move there.

      " Those of us who live in the cities are getting by."

      Getting by stacking silver and buying Funko Pop figurines.

      " I'm looking forward to another five-year contract in 2019."

      So ambitious. Where are the Microsoft certifications?

    24. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2

      Your comment reminds me of all the times i've read/been told that roman soldiers were payed in salt, thereby explaining the saying of someone "being worth their salt". And all I ever think about is how incredibly inconvenient it would be to get payed in raw commodity.

      Yep, here's this months pay, a 120 kilo block of salt. (based on quick google searches of roman pay)
      Now you gotta haul this heavy damn block to the local market, find someone who is buying salt,(because probably the local tailor is not accepting raw salt as currency) get a fair deal for your salt, (better hurry, before the other soldiers get there and flood the market with salt). and then, finally, go about purchasing your needed goods.

      I suspect it was all dealt with via some form of official IOU, but on the surface, the idea seems hilariously inconvenient.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    25. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      Extra productivity should be a bonus ON TOP of a living wage. The system you seem to be promoting is, if you meet your ever increasing quotas THEN you can make a minimum wage level payout. If you need to you can pee in your soda bottle!

    26. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Everyone gets paid the same regardless of productivity?

      No, people still have different salaries. They're just eliminating their individual performance bonuses.

      In business there are times when things that are often a good idea might not be a good idea right now. For example, well-run performance bonus programs are generally effective, but if you've been running one which is widely perceived as arbitrary and unfair it might be better to call it off for a while rather fix it. Until people trust the umpires they aren't going to sacrifice to win the game.

      Also, bonus programs do come with downsides; they increase employee stress and inter-employee conflicts. If those things are a big problem at your company, a performance bonus program might not be your best next move. After you've got those problems sorted out, sure.

      That's what makes running a company challenging; you can't be a one-trick pony, you can't manage by platitudes and stereotypes. You have to manage according to the situation.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    27. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He/she means literally figuratively, not literally. Obviously.

    28. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      In most businesses, the things that reduce productivity are screw-ups by management, not by the people actually doing the work.

      Oh please, I've been in many situations where it's very clear that it's the "doer" at the lowest level that is lazy and/or incompetent, both in software development and elsewhere. Unless you use the cop-out that having crap people on staff is ultimately a management failure there are some pretty terrible employees out there. I'm working with one right now, he's a real life Wally. If he's got two projects he's always super busy on the other one. Like he says the exact opposite to different projects in separate status meetings on the same day. He always blames the tools, requirements, documentation, training etc. and what always happens is he spends 1-2 months achieving nothing, somebody more qualified is brought in to put out the fire and he's reassigned to something new. He does a few routine maintenance tasks and other than that he's a waste of space. My boss knows at least in part but I doubt he'll do anything until there's a downsizing.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    29. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Amazon already fires unproductive people. And "unproductive" includes things like taking bathroom or lunch breaks.

      But, why would it be bad if all warehouse workers were paid the same regardless of productivity?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    30. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      And paying your horrible employee merely less doesn't get him out of the way. He should be fired. Heck, being able to "pay him less" actually makes it more likely he'll stick around longer.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    31. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I make twice that in the center of the country in IT ... you need to reevaluate what your doing.

    32. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm currently facing a dilemma witha job offer I received from a Silicon Valley company. On the one hand, Silicon Valley in general makes great resume material. On the other hand, they only want to pay me 95k per year.

      It's about 10k more than I make now, but what a downgrade to my standard of living... People shit on the sidewalks, everything costs an arm and a leg, and as if that's not bad enough, the same people who shit on the sidewalks constantly harass you for money.

    33. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting exactly the right order into boxes in 110 F warehouses while standing for 12 hours per day does require skill.

      If the warehouses weren't air conditioned and they actually worked 12 hours per day, then your comment would be accurate. Instead it's reduced to: "Putting exactly the right order into boxes does require skill." Maybe. Depends on how you define "skill". I don't think putting things in boxes and making sure they're the right things would be all that difficult.

      Getting your viagra from Canada depends on Tom being able to buy Dr. Scholes, otherwise you might get Mr. Schmeltz's horse laxative instead.

      Just because it's _important_ that the right order goes in the right box doesn't mean that it's _difficult_ to do it right.

    34. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an employer I have to say sometimes you sort of want these lazy fucks because you just don't have the numbers to pay more... without them prices go up. It's not always a bad thing- but to expect them to be paid more than they are worth? Fuck no.

    35. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I make 3.5 times that working for Amazon as a developer ... you need to reevaluate what you're doing. (Maybe it's because I don't mix up "your" and "you're"?)

    36. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      Luckily for Roman soldiers the whole paying in salt thing was very likely a back-formation invented by Pliny from assumptions on the meaning of the word salaries. And the section of his book where he mentioned this was more about facts relating to salt than about soldiers or economics. In Pliny's time soldiers were paid in coin, and have been since around 100-150 years before Pliny's time (Marian reforms).

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    37. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

      It appears that the whole notion of Roman soldiers being paid in salt (or salt equivalent) is a fairly recent invention and there don't appear to be any contemporary sources that back it up. It's just a myth, so don't try to reason it out too much. (source)

      --

      Enigma

    38. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      Jezuz, I make more than that living in a mid-sized city on the east coast when a generally considered low-cost of living.

    39. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      As someone who's run small businesses for 15 years, I can assure that there's a huge difference between a productive employee, and an employee who does just enough to keep their job. We rapidly promote the former with commensurate pay raises because they help us make more money and we don't want to lose them to another company (or our competitors). Meanwhile, some of the latter have been languishing at near-minimum wage for nearly two decades, kept around mainly because their experience means it's slightly easier to suffer their mediocre work than to hire and train a new employee.

      The thing most people don't understand is that for the vast majority of employees, there is no distinction between company/management and employees. The employees are the company. And the company lives or dies based on the quality of its employees. The Fortune 500 companies only employ about 17.5% of the workforce. You're making gross policy errors if you're using the behavior of large corporations to justify regulations which will affect the 82.5% of employees working at small and medium businesses. e.g. All those people calling for higher corporate tax rates due to companies hiding profit in overseas tax shelters? Small and medium businesses don't have overseas branches and so can't shelter their profit overseas. You increase the corporate tax rate, you just make it easier for the mega-corporations to kill off small local businesses.

    40. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't agree.

      A declining population would spell disaster for the US economy. Our birthrate leaves us 750,000 new people per year short of a stable population, much less a healthy rate of increase. This means immigration is vital to our economic survival.

      If immigration is vital, the one thing that I request as a lower middle-class American is that those immigrants not be coming in to take my position or positions above me. The kind of merit-based immigration that is being discussed now would do exactly that. It actually seems that they want to bring in the elite of other countries to take away by opportunities. F-that.

      Instead, I absolutely want the tired, poor, and huddled masses of the other countries coming here and busting their butts to get to where I am so that I have time to move up out of their way, and they are usually cheaper than robots.

    41. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets not forget how warehouse workers learn to game the system to increase thier numbers. Maybe now every order will be treated equally.

    42. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And paying your horrible employee merely less doesn't get him out of the way. He should be fired.

      What kind of manager are you? You got to keep around at least one dead weight employee to justify why *no* employee will *ever* get a raise. Slowly but surely you'll drag down your whole group as the good workers just leave because inflation basically means their wage is going down. That'll just double down the justification for why "cuts" have to be made, and then you can get your bonus for "cost saving" and be promoted out of the hellhole you created.

      Paying people a decent wage and firing people who fail to be sufficiently good workers? That sounds like communism to me!

    43. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

      And I have no idea where you are going with your comments that don't seem related to mine.

    44. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      They're Amazon warehouse workers, Amazon already has them working as hard as possible (or fired) without time for a piss break. How are they going to be more productive? The bonuses were probably based on how the whole shift or warehouse performed rather then how individuals performed unless it was who could go the longest without a piss or collapsing in the warehouse without air conditioning.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    45. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've clearly never worked in a warehouse. It's easy to do that if you take 10 minutes picking out the item and throwing it in a box before packing and sealing it.

      It's a lot harder if you're having to do it as fast as what's normally required by most warehouse operators.

    46. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by mentil · · Score: 1

      You're conflating employment with revenue. Sure, the Fortune 500 may only employ 17.5% of the workforce, but what portion of GDP are they? Fortune says they're responsible for 2/3 of the US GDP, which is what they're primarily taxed on (revenue taxes, as opposed to payroll taxes).

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    47. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those people calling for higher corporate tax rates due to companies hiding profit in overseas tax shelters? Small and medium businesses don't have overseas branches and so can't shelter their profit overseas. You increase the corporate tax rate, you just make it easier for the mega-corporations to kill off small local businesses.

      The problem is republicans typically want to let the poor multinationals to bring their money back without penalty, which is the opposite of helping since it would make it even easier to squash local competition.

      I'm all for taxing companies such that just being bigger doesn't really help to negate taxes. It is a hard problem, but that is their job. It may even be that lower corporate taxes overall is the way to go, but the bills must be paid, so higher taxes on people are likely required in that case, including taxing all income at the same rate period, save perhaps inheritance, which you might be able to split the gain over say ten years.

      None of the Trump style evil such as paying a kid enough to be a millionaire by the time he is 8 must be aloud. He should pay back every dime he helped defraud over his lifetime or go to jail. Being rich should never mean you have better options to cheat on taxes.

      Trump has gone crazy with tariffs which will blow up sooner or later in our faces, but one of the few legit users of tariffs beyond simple reprisals is environmental and labour standard offsets. It should be clear up front that if a country improves both to a minimum level the tariffs go away. A level playing field is required, and even then your likely going to bias somewhat against tariffs. (It is also fair game to count the pollution caused by the rather dirty boats carrying the goods.)

    48. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears that the whole notion of Roman soldiers being paid in salt (or salt equivalent) is a fairly recent invention and there don't appear to be any contemporary sources that back it up. It's just a myth, so don't try to reason it out too much. (source)

      So what you are saying is that the story isn't worth its salt?

    49. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an excuse to treat you like shit and you accept it. Meanwhile on other government it contracts you have helpdesk making 80k a year in georgia. During the recession btw.
      You can't even put your customer's name on your linkedin meanwhile NSA contractors are bulletpointing classified programs on their resumes.
      You are being disrespected at work worse than whatever fclm does to you here.

    50. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FCLM is just a lovable scamp, ribbing creimer for shits and giggles. There's a whole other bunch of people doing much more disrespectful things. FCLM never made dick pics or click bots. FCLM simply finds Chris a very irritating yet amusing person. FCLM enjoys Chris's videos and many logins. Chris actually puts more effort into his many, many characters on Slashdot than he puts into his own life! He doesn't care about his ebooks, his blogs, his Microsoft exams, his low salary, or his lack of a relationship.
      FCLM is actually very similar to Chris, FCLM is also a loser. Misery loves company.

    51. Re:Isn't this what people wanted? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Oblig.
      In Soviet Russia, whoosh gets you!

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  3. Very reasonable increase by easyTree · · Score: 1

    In other news, Bmazon workers now must meet minimum quotas every three minutes to receive their quota of air.

    1. Re:Very reasonable increase by Kaenneth · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Very reasonable increase by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Mmmm. Clearly I'll have to upgrade my utopian-vision generator; reality has overtaken the version I have...

    3. Re:Very reasonable increase by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Looks like a low cost, more enclosed cab that you already see on all types of machinery. If you're operating a forklift, they already have what's called a safety cage if it's being used to lift people. This one just looks a lot more idiot proof.

  4. Holier Than Thou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I mean did anyone really think they were going to pay for it from their profit margins?

  5. Should be in addition to, not instead of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's always a catch.

  6. Amazon is robbing Paul to pay Paul by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Otherwise known as Three-Card Monte.

    1. Re:Amazon is robbing Paul to pay Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, they're robbing the Paul that nobody could really count on to pay Peter that's more reliable and shows up on time bi-weekly...

    2. Re:Amazon is robbing Paul to pay Paul by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Otherwise known as Three-Card Monte.

      I suppose the government could retaliate to this transparent PR scam of Amazon's by creating its own dog's breakfast of ever shifting taxation rules and benefit programs, designed to gain approval (buy votes) while leaving everyone confused as to whether they are actually any better off.

      But that would be crazy!

  7. Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someday soon, someone is going to make a killing selling Guillotines!

    1. Re: Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is your equality of outcomes. No one is rewarded and everyone gets the same. Now all they have is the lash to keep them inline. Expect more aggressive firing.

    2. Re:Soon by XXongo · · Score: 1

      Someday soon, someone is going to make a killing selling Guillotines!

      I see what you did there.

  8. Stock awards are on the way out, in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MSFT did this to its developers few years ago. The real reason is the way the stock award is structured the stock price is set to the lowest price in the award period, which incentivizes people to sell, putting constant downward pressure on the stock price. The real con here is they eliminated the stock awards, and converted that part of total compensation into salary. Don't be amazed when they do this to their developers, too, if they haven't already.

    1. Re: Stock awards are on the way out, in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A structured compensation salary is more about retention then stock games. The amount the high end management sales makes everyday joes tc look like peanuts. Amazon was always hilarious when it came to the three year mark. Finally taking the golden handcuffs off can be nice.

    2. Re: Stock awards are on the way out, in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you taking about? At MSFT stock awards are a big part of the annual compensation package for developers.

    3. Re:Stock awards are on the way out, in general by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't mind this. Most places I have been the stock price is essentially flat, with small blips at the most. The RSUs being given out instead of bonuses is a bit of a pain - I have to wait for them to vest, and if I leave the company I don't get all of them. Whereas the cash bonus means I have cash to do whatever I want with.

      Often the goal here is to incentivize the worker to do a good job so that the stock goes up. But workers don't have this ability as most of a stock's price has nothing whatsoever to do with how well an individual worker does their job, or even how well a department does their job. The stock price is innately tied to the mood of third party analysts and whether or not the CEO is saying anything to the media.

      Employees who've been around a bit have learned to sell when they can. That "15% below the market price on a certain day" stock purchase plan means you should to sell immediately and not hold onto it, especially if you're not a day trader who's constantly watching the price. It's always been good advice to diversify of course, but there's also been advice I've heard many times that you shouldn't put too much into the company you work for (see Enron). You can be too biased towards your own company and hear too much irrational exuberance at the water cooler, so it's a good idea to take that money and put it somewhere else.

  9. This is exactly the parable of socialized grades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly the parable of socialized grades. They're removing the incentive for high performance to pay for low performing workers to get a raise (high performing workers likely already make more than $15/hr).

    So, now, not only is there no incentive to be a better worker, those who are better workers will make "not as much more" than low-performing workers, which further disincentivizes good work.

    Bezos will rue the day he allowed this to happen.

  10. The plans are increase more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder if those who already have options through the previous plan lose them?

    1. Re: The plans are increase more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a grant is a grant, the trick is staying until the vest date.

      Unless the companies name is Zynga... in that case...

  11. Few respond to performance pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Studies show only 10% of the population responds to performance pay (bonuses, etc). A net zero change for Amazon. Lol

  12. Remember that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone gets paid the same regardless of productivity? This should be good news for those advocating the $15/hr minimum wage.

    Remember that when your job is sent overseas to someone who is just as, if not more productive than you for half the price.

    Now, let's cue up the "yeah, but the work is subpar and needs rework, wah wah wah."

    Keep telling yourself that, it'll just make it more of a shock when you're canned. Quite a few large IT services, software, tech companies have been doing that successfully for a couple of decades now.

    1. Re: Remember that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until the company realizes they are actually other costs Involved than just lowest cost per unit of labor, but by that time the executives that proposed this and cashed the big bonus checks for âoesavingâ the company all this money have long since left and the company is holding a big steaming pile, rinse repeat.

  13. Automation is going to change the balance of power by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    pay raises are more desirable than bonuses since they are cumulative. But of course, total compensation is total compensation and bonuses allow more merit recognition at the cost of lowering the retention aspects of higher salaries.

    Since amazon is going to more and more automation it may turn out that those higher paying jobs will be gone in a few years making this non-cumulative and just the same as a bonus from amaazons point of view. The higher they can raise the wages of their non-automated competition the better. e.g. raise the wages of UPS and Fed-ex who, susrprisingly, are not as automated as amazon, then move into their bussiness with cheaper logistics, drone delivery.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  14. You want to know what you're going to be paid by XXongo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, indeed, people mostly prefer being told what they will make, instead of a "we will maybe pay you more if we feel like it, or maybe not, we'll let you know later" salary

    1. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by DCFusor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, they can go deeper into debt slavery that way - constant income is a loan magnet. Which is a key way society as it is tends to keep the poor, poor. Back when there was a Bunker-Ramo, I worked there as a high level engineer. Our new hires, mostly making more than they ever had, were going way deep into debt to get that "good life" they always dreamed of and marketing everywhere sells you.
      This kinda bothered me - I liked the people under me - so I went to higher management with kinda WTF, should we educate them better on their options for financial security (we were in a high risk contracting business).
      Answer - nope, that way they can't quit so easily....(meaning, we own them now and don't have to treat them well anymore).
      I quit...

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    2. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      es, they can go deeper into debt slavery that way - constant income is a loan magnet. Which is a key way society as it is tends to keep the poor, poor. Back when there was a Bunker-Ramo, I worked there as a high level engineer. Our new hires, mostly making more than they ever had, were going way deep into debt to get that "good life" they always dreamed of and marketing everywhere sells you.

      Err...well, it's called "welcome to the real world", where you need to learn to live and act like and adult, and live within your means.

      People have been doing it as long as the modern world has been around.

      It isn't rocket surgery.

      And advertising and marketing aren't magic entities that force you to buy things. Sure it makes things tempting, but again....you are supposed to be an adult and make adult decisions.

      You can't live peoples' lives for them.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You plan your finances based on your base compensation. Bonuses are just that, a bonus. What this does is fund the average worker off the compensation of the best workers. Those that earned bonuses and grants will now earn less while the bottom feeder workers will earn more. This is the type of compensation system that unions get you. They remove all incentive to be a better employee and make everyone equal (which equates to lowering overall productivity).

    4. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by sjames · · Score: 2

      Otoh, inconsistent income forces workers to very expensive and barely legal payday loans. Not only is that worse, but they can't avoid it even if they know it's a bad idea. Unlike the loans you are worried about.

    5. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      See other reply to my post. Which I happen to somewhat agree with. You CAN'T live people's lives for them. On the other hand, you can not lead them to lie on the train tracks, believe lies, go so deep into debt that one slip means they lose a home or that new Vette they should never have bought. You can give them good advice (or at least, what you think is good) and then let them decide for themselves - I have no problem with that. But what I saw was like a cute juvenile girl dressing like a whore, planning on getting drunk, and going to hang out in a bad part of town...surely you can see it might not be a bad idea to mention the possible consequences of that - and then let them go if they want to, of course. Using something like "you can't live their lives" as an excuse to abdicate all responsibility to help your fellow human - now that, I take issue with.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    6. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by DCFusor · · Score: 2

      Inconsistent income - live within the means of the consistent part, and there's no forcing anyone to do anything stupid like a payday loan. What are you smoking? So the marketing that "you/they need this and deserve it even if you can't afford it" worked on you so well you believe its the only truth? Gheesh.
      When I had little money I just lived like a monk in a monastery. Great motivation to fix that issue - it's not like most people should consider low level employ at a place like Amazon to be a real career and not think of how to improve their lot (and do something about it other than complain). I didn't borrow.
      And now I'm pretty well off, with good habits. At least, it worked for me, what should I tell others? Stuff that didn't?

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    7. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by sjames · · Score: 2

      That only works if your base pay is actually enough to live within. Otherwise, you're stuck depending on bonuses to live, and suffering payday loans when the bonus doesn't come. It's better to do away with the bonuses (that is, money your employer pays you if/when he feels like it) and have a consistent income that makes ends meet.

      I'm betting you haven't asked your employer to flip a coin to decide if you get paid this month or not.

    8. Re: You want to know what you're going to be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You can't live peoples' lives for them.

      Shouldnt you help them when you can?

    9. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's called "welcome to the real world", where you need to learn to live and act like and adult, and live within your means.

      I agree. And a great way people learn most things is in school or with classes. I mean, no one said to you "welcome to the real world, there's physics, figure it out".

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Yes, they can go deeper into debt slavery that way - constant income is a loan magnet.

      Nothing compared to pay day loan companies that "help" people avoid homelessness with friendly, 6,000% loans. Your confirmation bias and anecdote of some kid splurging with his first real paycheck after living on Ramen for four years aside.

    11. Re: You want to know what you're going to be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At a certain point people do have to accept some responsibility for their own choices. If an employee is being paid well enough to have a decent lifestyle at some point, the employer shouldn't have to be responsible for protecting the employees from themselves.

    12. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What kind of incentive is there to be a "good" employee when you're being paid $15 an hour? Perhaps if you live in the middle of nowhere that has a cost of living that's extremely low, that might prove to be an incentive. But, in virtually any city that's basically a starvation wage that gets you at most somebody coming in punching the clock for 8 hours and probably not anymore than the bare minimum to avoid being fired while they look for work elsewhere.

      This shouldn't be an either or situation, Amazon makes so much money that they should be able to fund at least $15 an hour and still have bonuses. The point of cutting the bonuses is to make it seem like the company is making sacrifices when Bezos alone could solve homelessness in America or world hunger and still have tens of billions of dollars left over.

    13. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Yes, it only works if you're not so stupid as to take a job you can't live on the income from in the place where the job is, and are too dumb to either improve yourself or move to a better opportunity. And dumb enough to blame all your troubles on some external entity because you think you're entitled to a certain level of lifestyle whether you worked to deserve it or not, and whether you misspent your time being supported by parents or the state rather than prepping yourself to do something in demand enough to get a decent paycheck.
      I'd suggest not taking a burger flipping or equivalent job and insisting on living in silly valley, for example.
      Stockroom person, paper delivery person - that's Amazon. Low skill, low value added, low pay follows.
      Of course higher base pay is nicer. But also, a lot of people use the occasional bonus to get those things they lacked the discipline to save for - tax refunds used to be that bonus (even though it was only a forced saving).
      The stink of "I'm entitled" even if I don't deserve crap by earning it is offensive. Why do we have so many immigrants, uneducated, taking crap jobs, and somehow doing fairly well - and even integrating into societal norms (at least here in a rural area) - and doing it on pay much less than any Amazon job? Are you saying they know some magic you don't?

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    14. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      You lose your bet, FWIW. I have asked that (not flip a coin, but results based) and did quite well before I started my own successful outfit. Worked my tail off and did quite well, and that was all a "coin flip" - but by choosing to become skilled, and in what field, and judging the demand for work in that field, I was able to load the dice, so to speak. Which is available to all, and always has been.
      Otherwise, historically, "suckers never get an even break", isn't peculiar to the US...and stretches back through all of history. Wishing for something else may not be enough, and may be a case of "be careful what you wish for". You want losers to have unearned power over everyone else's resources? Really? Nutcases in power seem to be a complaint around the world already.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    15. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Yes, they can go deeper into debt slavery that way - constant income is a loan magnet

      No, idiocy is a loan magnet leading to debt slavery.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    16. Re:You want to know what you're going to be paid by sjames · · Score: 1

      People feeling entitled is a problem. For example, people feeling entitled to pay people less than it costs to live and expecting the rest of society to keep their "worker units" running for them. Why should they feel entitled to all that labor for less than the cost to produce it?

      I suppose next they'll want to only pay 80% of the power bill and have the taxpayers kick in the other 20%.

  15. Jeff Cant Afford Living Wages! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SAD. Such a shithoke country... richest man can't afford to pay his employees a living wage?

    SHITHOLE COUNTRY.

    1. Re:Jeff Cant Afford Living Wages! by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      He likely doesn't have the liquidity to do so. His salary was about $80k in 2017. His money isn't real until he cashes it in and why should he do so to pay peoples salary?

    2. Re:Jeff Cant Afford Living Wages! by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      I mean, yes, his base salary was $80k, but made $1.6m in "other" compensation: https://www1.salary.com/Jeffre...

      Problem is, it doesn't go into what the "other" is. It's not bonuses, stock, or stock options.

  16. Re: Enjoy Your Homeless! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have TWICE as many per capita as Canada.

    #FREEDUMBS

  17. executive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would of been more impressed if the money was taken from executives' bonuses. It would take peanuts away from the executives, but made them looked like they really cared.

  18. Re:This is exactly the parable of socialized grade by unimacs · · Score: 1

    Because paying a higher minimum wage means you can't pay a better performer more than that or give them a promotion?

  19. too bad by renegade600 · · Score: 1

    too bad they will not end bonuses to management. In the end, I guess it is better to get a more consistent and higher paycheck than relying on bonuses you may or may not get.

  20. LMAO! Suckers! by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    I'd rather have the bonuses & stocks I know many people that in the late 70's went to work for "Wal-Mart" (now Walmart) that got paid squat for an hourly wage, but went hog wild with stock options and the like, that are now retired and "sitting pretty" when they cashed in all the stocks & what not. People today, don't think more than a few months down the road. If you go to work when you are 18-25 and don't get "much" of a salary, but are offered a retirement plan, deferred bonuses, stocks & what not, some if done right, could "retire" at 50ish and not be concerned about retirement. This will SAVE Amazon a ton of money in the long run.

  21. Good move. Bonuses are taxed more by acoustix · · Score: 1

    Bonuses are usually taxed at 30% (at least mine were when I worked in private sector). It's better to get that money as regular salary and pay a lower tax rate on it.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  22. Re:LMAO! Suckers! by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    It's a much different world than what it was back in the 1970's. A person in the US can't live off minimum wage working 40 hours, especially in the larger cities. What good is saving a stock until your retirement when if you're lucky you can pay to have a roof over your head but you're stuck deciding between the electricity bill and food. It may not be exactly that combination but many people today are having to make a similar choice because minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. People need a living wage not a minimum wage.

  23. Re:Good move. Bonuses are taxed more by Moof123 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You are an idiot. You must think your annual refund is "free money" too? Higher taxes get withheld from large checks such as one that includes a bonus, as each one calculated as if all checks were of that size. However you are taxed on your overall income for the year, so any over-payment or underpayment comes back to you come tax time.

  24. They're what? Oh I see... by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

    For a moment there I thought that they were eliminating executive stocks and bonuses to pay for this.

    Silly me, how could I possibly imagine that happening!

    --
    THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
  25. Re:Good move. Bonuses are taxed more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? No they are not. No country that I know of does this (I have people reporting to me across NA/SA/EU and have never heard of this). Bonuses are treated as regular income. It makes no difference if $X comes via bonus or salary; the marginal rate changes based on the total.

  26. Re:Good move. Bonuses are taxed more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No. Your employer withheld at 30% because it was easy math for their payroll department at bonus time and likely to be an overpayment, rather than an underpayment. It is taxed at exactly the same rate as the rest of your income, based on your tax bracket (as determined by annual income).

  27. Re:Forced increases in minimum wage ... by burningcpu · · Score: 1

    You are wholly misinformed and your post a litany of poor logic. A train wreck.

  28. Re:LMAO! Suckers! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    I know many people that in the late 70's went to work for "Wal-Mart" (now Walmart) that got paid squat for an hourly wage

    Squat back in the 70's is more than squat today.

    If you go to work when you are 18-25

    You think most Amazon warehouse employees are 18-25??? Most pickers are, but those are being automated and there aren't that many of them. Packers, etc. tend to be fairly old (say, 40's+)

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  29. Re:Good move. Bonuses are taxed more by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Yes, people making 20k a year are always worried about minimizing their tax burden. That occupies a lot of their thought.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  30. The important question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are the bananas still free, Jeff?

  31. Re:Forced increases in minimum wage ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your in-depth counter argument, with detailed refutations of his each and every point, was truly incredible.

  32. Strange how . . . by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    in all the gushing about Amazon raising their salary minimum, nothing is said about their employee turnover numbers??????

  33. Bonus tax by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

    Did you bother reading the material at the link you quoted? Here are the highlights:

    1). As such, bonuses (like other supplemental wages) are treated differently than ordinary wage or salary income when it comes to taxes *withheld at payout*.

    2). Remember, taxes may be withheld from your bonus at a higher tax rate at payout, but when you file your taxes at tax time your actual tax rate is based on your total taxable income and overall actual tax rate, which may be lower.

    In other works, withholding might be based on 25%, but when you figure your taxes for the year, if you're in the 15% bracket, you're only taxed 15% of the bonus. In other words, that extra 10% contributes toward overpayment of taxes upon which you would get a refund.

  34. This is a classic management trick by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they goal here is to get the two classes of workers (hourly and salaried) fighting among themselves and prevent them from Unionizing.

    I"m actually annoyed that, given how old /.'s audience is and how many layoffs we've all been through that nobody else seems to have pointed this out.

    It usually works. Here's hoping it fails for a change. A guy like Bernie can keep it from happening, but we need a new Bernie. The one we have is pretty old :(...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is a classic management trick by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      they goal here is to get the two classes of workers (hourly and salaried) fighting among themselves and prevent them from Unionizing.

      As a salaried employee represented by the same union at my work that also represents the hourly employees can I send you a "Huh?"

  35. Many will be raised to above $15 minimum by RhettLivingston · · Score: 2

    I was talking to an Amazon employee today who said it appears that they are definitely performing a compression of lower range employee salaries to implement this minimum - as I would expect.

    What this means is that their lowest paid workers will be raised to $15 / hour. Others paid more than that will likely be raised to higher than that. So, for example, someone making $10 / hour might go to $15 and someone making $13 / hour might go to $17.

    The employee had no idea how high the salary compression would go, but presumably, there is a stopping point. Perhaps someone at $25 / hour will still get $25 / hour and everyone under some ceiling of the compression range will get something depending on how close they are to that ceiling.

    This makes sense because positions that make more should still make more, and it avoids throwing away rewards given for performance and experience.

    The employee I spoke to was making closer to $20 / hour and is expecting that this will result in a raise.

  36. Could be competitor killing for holiday season by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

    Given the current environment, there is a very good strategic reason to do this now other than the publicity advantages.

    We are at or very close to full employment. Many retail businesses near me are already having much greater difficulty finding employees and turnover is climbing. The holiday season is approaching. There will be a severe crunch this holiday season to staff seasonal employees.

    Amazon has just made a very aggressive grab for those seasonal employees. Other retail businesses already in deep trouble will likely not be able to match this new pay scale. If the crunch is as deep as expected, some employers will likely not be able to find necessary staff. This could represent the final straw for weaker competitors.

  37. Nice. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    No, seriously. We are all sceptical of the large scale disruption Amazon is bringing about and yet we all enjoy it. Nice to hear that Bezos isn't all Manchester capitalism about it. I figure he thought I'd I'm going to start large scale philanthropy with my obscene amounts of money, might as well start with some basics for my workers.
    Nice. Well done.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  38. Bonuses come and go anyway by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    I'd rather have a higher base salary and less bonuses, than lower base salary and higher bonuses. That's because bonuses are never guaranteed.

    This seems like a win for Amazon employees.

  39. LOL More failure of the Left! by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    When will leftists learn that trying to raise the minimum wages doesn't work?

  40. The signature of incompetence in management by XXongo · · Score: 1

    In most businesses, the things that reduce productivity are screw-ups by management, not by the people actually doing the work.

    Oh please, I've been in many situations where it's very clear that it's the "doer" at the lowest level that is lazy and/or incompetent, both in software development and elsewhere

    It is an amazing thing, but incompetent managers who screw up always put the blame on the people who work for them. Funny, they never admit they screwed up.

    The phrase "the people who work for me were lazy and/or incompetent" is pretty much the signature of an incompetent manager.

  41. Could be worse by hambone142 · · Score: 1

    What was once Hewlett-Packard eliminated bonuses, profit sharing and stock options to give no raises.

    We didn't see that in the news.