Of course it's only an issue now when the opposite is true, and is costing Amazon rather than the employees.
For example, if your total comp required 20k extra per year and the stock price was $100, you’d be granted 800 shares. If the stock price had fallen to $80, you’d be granted 1,000.
We always wanted the stock price to have a temporary low around review season because that would benefit our RSU grant.
Any dollar amount assigned to the grant on the given review date was understood to be based on the current stock price, subject to change, and as a way to communicate total comp. If the stock dropped over the course of the year, there was occasionally corrections, either in base pay or RSUs. This was also complicated by the fact that you could have up to four years of grants stacked on top of one another, all vesting on the same schedule. Obviously, that was taken into total comp calculations, so if you got lucky with a low price and big grant in the past four years, your yearly grant might end up low as a result.
What a perverse incentive. I would love to know if any high-profile outages are clustered around those dates.
Yep, luck is only for the capitalists, not for the plebes. Shouldn't it be the case that if a worker was part of a major turnaround they should reap the rewards? Instead this would just make sure they didn't really benefit. If this were sr mgmt they would claim the increase should justify _extra_ comp as they did such a good job to make the stock go up.
Many people enable punitive & regressive decisions like that.
Things go bad? Ship is too big to steer, the failure is on the whole company, the CEO didn't even know, they swear!
Things go right? Obviously it was all the hard work of the CEO they definitely deserve millions in bonuses!
It was Steve Jobs, so was the wage-fixing. They were all so stupid about it they literally got busted doing it.
Doesn't matter what the company makes, only the C-Suite will reap the rewards.
But hey, maybe some $ will trickle down to the people who make the money for the company...
I think that’s trivially true. AFAIK, it wasn’t him alone who put 100+ million iPhones in boxes every year, and without that, Apple’s success would have been smaller. He also didn’t do hardware design without help, and I’m fairly sure he didn’t write much of Apple’s software, etc. etc.
Even if you think all others involved were replaceable, many of them still contributed.
It doesn't trickle down. Some (most) people agree to work for someone in exchange for money, rather than go off and be CEOs and have people work for them.