> *Base pay caps did apply to current employees, and base pay is now increasing above old caps, but there were no significant overall pay scale increases for current employees, only the usual incremental ones

This is pretty interesting to me. So you're saying when they lifted the cap, existing employees' comp was not changed, but I'm guessing new hires are being brought in within the new range (meaning way larger base salaries than their incumbent peers)? Are they given smaller new hire stock packages to balance out total comp? I can't imagine trying to measure internal pay equity between two people in the same role/grade/location and are on two entirely different comp strategies. And then keeping those two distinct strategies up-to-date against current market data. Sounds like a nightmare.

They should have moved everyone over at the same time and incurred a one-time expense, while simultaneously dropping their stock refresh budgets.

I think the amount of money they make is irrelevant and shouldn't prohibit them from complaining. My issue is complaining about a specific compensation variable that everyone knows can go up or down based on company performance and/or market conditions. People accept compensation in a myriad of ways. I had a contractor accept 2 jet skis once. He doesn't get to come back to me 2 years later when the jet skis depreciate asking for more compensation because the original compensation is no longer worth the original amount.

I, myself, am a compensation consultant in "big tech"... and while I don't have direct insight into how Amazon's compensation philosophy works, I would highly doubt they set their total comp targets with an assumption of 15% YoY appreciation on the stock. That just is not how the compensation industry sets benchmarks -- and we all use the same data to set our strategies.

If you're a comp consultant for Amazon, we should connect IRL and I'd love to learn more about how you guys roll that strategy out.

That is totally crazy, but not totally surprising.

I am a compensation consultant in "big tech". I am often asked to build out YoY Comp models (typically at the Director level) for recruiters to use during their offer.

These models make tons of assumptions about future performance and future stock price. They're not meant to guarantees and they're not meant to be shared with the candidate. I've had recruiters share these models with candidates multiple times, which then puts us in a tough spot and creates a negative experience for the candidate when we go back and say this wasn't actually your comp.

I think they summed it up quite nicely. What's your take?

And what about every other year when the stock surges 30%. Is that because of the workers? When things are good, it's because of the workers. But when things are bad, it's the "poor reputation/service of the company."

Good grief. These employees took a job where the comp is outlined ahead of time. It's heavy stock. You'd have to be highly regarded to not understand the risk there. There's a chance to smash your total comp target, but there's also a chance to not hit it. That is fair.

Exactly. They want all of the upside with none of the downside. Life's tough.

> The company won’t issue more restricted stock to employees to help them meet their target compensation for this year, some of the people said.

Nor should they. That's the whole point of receiving stock as compensation. When the company does well, you can exceed your target via an increased stock price. The flip side is of the company doesn't do well, you may not meet your target. This should obvious when you take the job. If you want a job where there is no variation above or below your target, then take a job that pays 100% in base salary.