Originally Posted by lawyerdad
If no employees are complaining because they're shitting gold, it's pretty hard to see how that's a comp structure that tilts in favor of the company. Win-win, maybe. By definition, a comp structure that tilts in favor of the company should yield a lot of disgruntled employees.
Now if part of the upside for employees is contingent, different people will value that risk-reward payoff differently. Presumably the people that choose to go there are more comfortable with the trade-offs involved. And if it's a shitty place to work, as with many other places whether it's worth putting up with that for what you're getting paid is an individualized decision.
But those are different questions than whether the compensation structure tilts in favor of the company (any more than the norm).
I say that it's tilted in the favor of the company because the amount of guaranteed money that Amazon has to pay out in the form of base compensation is less than that of other tech companies.
It just so happens to be that their compensation plan has resulted in greater total compensation by virtue of the stock's lust worthy performance. If the stock was in the shitter, you'd see a lot more disgruntled employees. Highly situational. Either way, it's tilted in favor of the company, IMO.
Edit: I will add that I think this structure works out great for both the company and its employees. The employees are incentivized to work harder for long-term shareholder gains, which, in turn, theoretically creates a "better" company. I know this is all high-level, fluffy talk, but I think we can all agree that Amazon is a company that provides great value to its customers.Edited by GreenFrog - 10/7/16 at 3:41pm