Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajkjk | Hacker News Reader

I worked there as an SDE for ~3 years, until recently (in Seattle, in a core business area) and liked it a lot.. As far as I could tell, most of the people in my organization were very content with their jobs. We've of course talked about the negative reputation about the work environment. It seems like those conditions must exist somewhere, to hear this much about it, but they must be in other parts of the company since they're totally unlike what I've seen.

That or it existed until several years ago and the rumors have a time delay in coming out.

View on HN

Unless the turnover is ludicrous such that very few lasted over a year, survivor bias would probably make it seem those left are content... For myself I've read a lot of really bad posts from ex-employees (and talked with a few as I'm in the area) and it's enough to make me never want to work there under even desperate circumstances despite my great appreciation as a customer and acknowledgement of their superior tech practices in some domains. (Like use of TLA+, being API-driven...) Maybe you can update me on these, but I currently ignore Amazon recruiters because I can't figure out which few-words complaint to send by itself in response: "free snacks", or "personal side projects including games", or "40 hour weeks", or "stack ranking", or "aggressive non-compete".

Ex amzn here: survivor bias is a huge. You hear very different stories when talking to the few (starry-eyed) employees and the many ex employees.

I don't think the people who stay for a long time are "starry-eyed". I think they're people who jive better with the culture. That perfectly explains why they like it there, too.

I did well with the culture, and therefore had a positive experience. I'm definitely aware of people who didn't. I'm also aware of people who weren't unhappy, but left for unrelated reasons (several because the weather in the Bay Area trumps Seattle for them. I don't know if I feel that way, having not lived down there, but I think Seattle's weather is vastly underrated.)

(I feel compelled to defend Amazon since I feel like the lone naysayer in this comment thread.)

Other face posts mention a structure of hiring bonus (getting less after 2 years) and some 4 year reason to stay. Can you elaborate?

An example of salary from one wholly-owned Amazon subsidiary: Base salary 78k. First Year signing bonus: 30k, 10 RSUs vest after first year Second Year signing bonus 25k, 30 RSUs vest after second year Third year & Fourth year, 40 RSUs vest after every 6 months of employment

This was directly from an entry level offer and it is general practice to get a salary increase at annual reviews and more RSUs for after your fourth.

Like many RSUs, if you leave before your RSUs vest, you forfeit them. This is pretty much your 4 year incentive to stay.

EDIT: Clarifying RSU forfeiture

So when the first and second year RSU's mature and you quit, you can still sell the 20 RSU's though right?

Golden Handcuffs in Caps. Explains the other posts.

The income I was getting felt luxurious even without the RSUs. I viewed them as "promises of extra income next year" rather than "money I get this year but forfeit if I leave", which seems much healthier for many reasons. You're always on a revolving set of RSUs anyway; it's not like there's a point where they've all vested. In no sense is that 'handcuffs'. It's more of a guaranteed raise.

That's how all bonuses work? If I'm reading your comment correctly. If you leave a company within, usually, two years, you have to return the money.

Whoa, unless the bonus is astronomical, you would really need to question the offer, especially if relocation is involved. The longest earn-out I've ever had on a hiring bonus was 6 months, even then I left within 5 and didn't have to pay it back. The amount of things that can cause you to leave a job or be fired over two years creates a huge risk, and creates an incentive for your employee to fire you on your 23rd month.

The three offers that I'm familiar with from three of the big ones were 2 years, though maybe it's different for new grads?

I totally agree, I don't really like it. I think, though, that the astronomically large bonuses are worse than the small ones. Paying back $5000 (+ income tax, mind you) is much easier than paying back $100k + tax.

a friend of mine who works at Amazon (Toronto), got an 8K signing bonus. He just graduated from University (and he worked there for 4 months before graduating on a co-op).

As for signing bonuses, I have read contracts from various startups that want you to pay your signing bonus (which is generally about 5k) back if you leave within the first year.

how does your friend like it in Tdot?

from what I understand, he's happy working there.

I have heard stories from other employees, claiming that entire teams were fired, and workloads were transferred to the remaining employees - however they have been just that - unverified rumors.

thanks for lmk!

Last place I was at the payback was pro-rata, so there was no real incentive for firing on that basis.

sign on bonus is the same as almost everywhere. You get the money up front and have to return it if you leave within a year.

RSUs are back loaded. I forget the exact numbers, but it is something akin to 5% vested after 1st year, then 15%, then 35%, so after 2 years the vesting schedule makes it pretty hard to walk away from, especially with the current stock price. "If I stay just another 3 months I get 45 thousand bucks over my salary... hmm...."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com