Amazon setting the bar: $15 min hourly wage

[A Cellar Honker 19]

Forgot to add this - from Yahoo Finance:

 

Amazon’s decision to raise workers’ minimum wage to $15 per hour was welcome news, even Sen. Bernie Sanders praised the move. 

But for some Amazon employees, the excitement didn’t last very long as they learned that existing financial incentives and bonus programs, including stock and monthly bonuses, that usually boost paychecks will be eliminated starting November 1. 

Several Amazon warehouse workers in the U.S., who spoke to Yahoo Finance on the condition of anonymity fearing reprisals, talked about how the change will negatively affect them. After the removal of these perks, some workers said they will be making less. Most of the workers who voiced concerns have been working for the company for more than two years, and have been earning close to $15 an hour before the raise.

While these workers’ hourly rates will rise modestly, they said they could lose thousands of dollars that they would have collected from the stock and monthly-bonus programs. Amazon said those who are already making $15 an hour will see an increase in pay but did not specify how much.

[ChickenSandwich 9,852]

The workers with less tenure, experience and skill thank them for their sacrifice. Redistribution. These complaints are probably from greedy White Men. Bet they drink beer too. 

[Hank Scorpio 17,731]

5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The workers with less tenure, experience and skill thank them for their sacrifice. Redistribution. These complaints are probably from greedy White Men. Bet they drink beer too. 

It's rare you get to see someone have a stroke while typing a sentence. 

[David Dennison 18,946]

7 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The workers with less tenure, experience and skill thank them for their sacrifice. Redistribution. These complaints are probably from greedy White Men. Bet they drink beer too. 

You benefit from redistribution. You should say thank you.

[TwiceHorn 31,536]

 

[BurntOrange&White 40,010]

 

Why do you continually post Hillary shit?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,523]

1 hour ago, A Cellar Honker said:

While these workers’ hourly rates will rise modestly, they said they could lose thousands of dollars that they would have collected from the stock and monthly-bonus programs. Amazon said those who are already making $15 an hour will see an increase in pay but did not specify how much.

From my understanding, the stock plan was an employee stock purchase program.  These can be very lucrative but I would assume that a small percentage of the lower income employees are actively purchasing company stock.  I'm sure the number is greater than 0 but it can't be much.

As for the monthly bonus, it would seem unlikely that the average bonus would have been higher than the hourly wage increase.

Now perhaps there are a handful of lower income workers that received big bonuses for great work and they flipped those amounts to the stock purchase program.  Those employees might ultimately earn less but exactly how many of these employees exist out of the hundreds of thousands of employees receiving this raise?  And if they're great employees, managers usually find ways to make them happy.

[Clintonaldo 2,576]

8 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Man, Phillip Seymour Hoffman was awesome. RIP. I haven't like an actor as much since he's passed, I don't think.

Take that shit to Movies & TV!

[kopp0e 1,135]

On 10/2/2018 at 2:25 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I believe Wal-Mart is at $11.  It would be a big jump for them to $15 but these type of employers can set the market.  You work in a warehouse for no-name company for $10, you will be applying to work at an Amazon warehouse every chance you get.  Your current employer may have to react with higher wages.  

And while not stated, I assume Amazon has to raise other wages as well.  At least for employees just above 15.

We could be looking at a day in the not too distant future where minimum wage is "unofficially" over $10 per hour...

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,523]

10 hours ago, kopp0e said:

We could be looking at a day in the not too distant future where minimum wage is "unofficially" over $10 per hour...

You would think that many, many people are near a Walmart or amazon facility.  If they’re paying $11-15/hr, why would anyone accept $7.25 somewhere else except for the issue that you’re not good enough for Walmart or amazon.  

I have a friend that hires men for tough, manual labor jobs for around  $10.  Why not work in the amazon warehouse for 50% more.

Now it’s sucks for employees that have business models that can only afford to pay $7 jobs.   In some cases they will be reduced to hiring illegal immigrants or undesirable citizens. Or perhaps pay higher value employees less in order to pay the low value employees more.  Either way, fewer and few people will want to work for that employer. But that’s the capitalist world.  The weak die.

[Guest]

On 10/2/2018 at 8:37 PM, Incredulity said:

Every company I deal will would kill for a few thousand people avaliable for even some of the most remedial tasks.

Currently lack of labor avalibility is driving automation projects more than employee cost.

This.

our entry level job is $17.10/hr + benefits at about 37 hrs/wk with O/T during holiday weeks( hey, I get it, not everyone wants that, but it’s in the grocery industry. That’s when we’re busy.)

We have hell staying staffed because some people generally don’t want to fulfill the most simple duties, such as taking pictures of their completed work and posting to cloud or logging in properly to begin/end their shifts and then being completely shocked when they get let go for fudging their reported time worked. The supervisor sees thwm anout an hour a week at best and many folks just can’t handle the responsibility of  independence, and you know it’s probably the best paying job they’ve ever had.

It’s frustrating to say the least...

[Trey3216 15,356]

On 10/4/2018 at 10:18 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

From my understanding, the stock plan was an employee stock purchase program.  These can be very lucrative but I would assume that a small percentage of the lower income employees are actively purchasing company stock.  I'm sure the number is greater than 0 but it can't be much.

As for the monthly bonus, it would seem unlikely that the average bonus would have been higher than the hourly wage increase.

Now perhaps there are a handful of lower income workers that received big bonuses for great work and they flipped those amounts to the stock purchase program.  Those employees might ultimately earn less but exactly how many of these employees exist out of the hundreds of thousands of employees receiving this raise?  And if they're great employees, managers usually find ways to make them happy.

Actually, they were given stock bonuses by the company quarterly and monthly cash bonuses based on production.  They had the option to buy  more, but they were given stock as a bonus.  They won’t be any longer, but hey, they’ll be making $15/hr.  

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,523]

34 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Actually, they were given stock bonuses by the company quarterly and monthly cash bonuses based on production.  They had the option to buy  more, but they were given stock as a bonus.  They won’t be any longer, but hey, they’ll be making $15/hr.  

 

 

You’re right.  Hourly employees received 1 amazon share at the end of each year.  Worth about $2000 now.    And they got 1 additional share after 5 years.  I don’t know if they had to hold onto the share for a certain period before selling.  I would assume yes but maybe not.      

And it’s doubtful that amazon stock will grow 100x at this point.   Employees aren’t getting rich from future amazon single share bonuses. 

A few extra dollars in hourly wage might be better for most.    I suppose they could offer the employees a choice of raise or stock, but there’s nothing stopping the hourly employees form just taking their raise and buying amazon stock.  We know that would rarely happen.

[Trey3216 15,356]

10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You’re right.  Hourly employees received 1 amazon share at the end of each year.  Worth about $2000 now.    And they got 1 additional share after 5 years.  I don’t know if they had to hold onto the share for a certain period before selling.  I would assume yes but maybe not.      

And it’s doubtful that amazon stock will grow 100x at this point.   Employees aren’t getting rich from future amazon single share bonuses. 

A few extra dollars in hourly wage might be better for most.    I suppose they could offer the employees a choice of raise or stock, but there’s nothing stopping the hourly employees form just taking their raise and buying amazon stock.  We know that would rarely happen.

Say they went from $10/hr to 15.   That 1 share bonus is the equivalent of 133 hours of work st 15/hr or 200 at $10/hr.  200 hours is 5, 40 hour work weeks.  

 

Further, the loss of that share bonus is the marginal increase in pay ($5) 400x.  

 

They have to work 400 hours more to equilibrate.  

 

And this doesn’t factor in the other cash bonuses they received monthly.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,523]

Your example lost me.  If they earn $5 more per hour, that would be $10,000 more per year.  And I fully admit I don’t know what they earned pre raise.   I also assume we are only talking about full time employees.  It’s doubtful seasonal workers get the same share bonus as full time workers.  10k is wages paid out over each paycheck vs 2k in a stock share at the end of the year that may still have timing restrictions.  Is that choice that anyone has to think about?  

And if those numbers are small to anyone here and you would rather gamble with the stock, think if your boss offered you a 1m in annual salary or 200k in company stock.  What is your choice?   If you choose the stock, your boss should question your analytic skills. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Nice Guy Eddie

[kopp0e 1,135]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You would think that many, many people are near a Walmart or amazon facility.  If they’re paying $11-15/hr, why would anyone accept $7.25 somewhere else except for the issue that you’re not good enough for Walmart or amazon.  

I have a friend that hires men for tough, manual labor jobs for around  $10.  Why not work in the amazon warehouse for 50% more.

Now it’s sucks for employees that have business models that can only afford to pay $7 jobs.   In some cases they will be reduced to hiring illegal immigrants or undesirable citizens. Or perhaps pay higher value employees less in order to pay the low value employees more.  Either way, fewer and few people will want to work for that employer. But that’s the capitalist world.  The weak die.

I agree with your assessment...

On the flip side, anyone with felonies would have "more options" in at least being hired...

[Bozo_Casanova 26,553]

This. our entry level job is $17.10/hr + benefits at about 37 hrs/wk with O/T during holiday weeks( hey, I get it, not everyone wants that, but it’s in the grocery industry. That’s when we’re busy.) We have hell staying staffed because some people generally don’t want to fulfill the most simple duties, such as taking pictures of their completed work and posting to cloud or logging in properly to begin/end their shifts and then being completely shocked when they get let go for fudging their reported time worked. The supervisor sees thwm anout an hour a week at best and many folks just can’t handle the responsibility of  independence, and you know it’s probably the best paying job they’ve ever had. It’s frustrating to say the least...

 

 

 

No offense, but that’s a tight labor market at work. if you can’t get the people you want you aren’t paying enough for the people you want.  My 15 year old used to host at a restaurant that she joined when they opened and she was 14. They paid her $8.50/hour. They are chronically understaffed, have high turnover, and as a consequence suffer from service problems. Sometimes they have people waiting to be seated while tables sit empty because they are short handed.

 

She recently quit that job and started as a barrista at a bakery/restaurant/cafe where she makes about $15 hour including tips, with a guaranteed floor of about $13.50. On top of this, she also gets a food credit of about $40 week, plus a meal break during shift. She only works about 15 hours a week and she’s on my insurance, but if she was older and close to full time she would be offered benefits.

Not coincidentally the cafe has very low turnover, efficient service and runs like a top.

 

Both places have roughly the similar prices, COGS, and traffic. The cafe is a stable institution and the restaurant struggles despite being busy.

 

If you know one thing about me after all this time you know that I believe the market always wins. What you describe is a demonstration.

 

 

 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No offense, but that’s a tight labor market at work. if you can’t get the people you want you aren’t paying enough for the people you want.  My 15 year old used to host at a restaurant that she joined when they opened and she was 14. They paid her $8.50/hour. They are chronically understaffed, have high turnover, and as a consequence suffer from service problems. Sometimes they have people waiting to be seated while tables sit empty because they are short handed.

 

She recently quit that job and started as a barrista at a bakery/restaurant/cafe where she makes about $15 hour including tips, with a guaranteed floor of about $13.50. On top of this, she also gets a food credit of about $40 week, plus a meal break during shift. She only works about 15 hours a week and she’s on my insurance, but if she was older and close to full time she would be offered benefits.

Not coincidentally the cafe has very low turnover, efficient service and runs like a top.

 

Both places have roughly the similar prices, COGS, and traffic. The cafe is a stable institution and the restaurant struggles despite being busy.

 

If you know one thing about me after all this time you know that I believe the market always wins. What you describe is a demonstration.

 

 

 

 Sure, I agree.  To reemphasize though, that is entry level pay. Established employees make considerably better within about 2 years or so. When they start, there is no special license, training, or certification required other that what we provide. You show up, do work, get paid, wash, rinse repeat...

 

$17.10/hr plus bennies  for unskilled labor is pretty freaking competitive, especially with some of the flexibility and independence the job allows.  I couldn’t agree more that the market will dictate what we do going forward.  I prefer it that way, as opposed to having gov’t intervene.

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by slorch

[Ag with kids 581]

On 10/2/2018 at 3:49 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Remember when noted labor economist @Ag with kids was considering not tipping at restaurants that paid more than minimum wage because he was convinced they were over charging him? Good times. I wonder if he's going to stop buying stuff at Amazon...

I didn't say ANYTHING about them overcharging me.  I said that, if they're getting paid $15/hr to serve food, they're making plenty of money and there's no reason for me to tip them.  I don't tip the fast food people that make and bring me my food because they're getting paid to do that.

Now, if they gave EXCEPTIONAL service, I might toss down a few bucks as a personal reward, but for just normal service, sorry....

Tipping 15/20% is done because the workers get paid a minimal hourly wage and then the tip is essentially the payment for their labor services.  It's the way the pay structure is set up.

So, since that's the basis for my position, why would this do anything for me at Amazon...unless it raised my prices and I could find the items cheaper elsewhere?

I couldn't care less what companies decide to pay their workers, other than how it affects the prices they charge me.  Note that I said "what companies decide to pay".  The government making them pay that amount would be a TOTALLY different thing.

[Jack Burton 35]

Poor Ag with kids