• scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I never understood why anyone works for them at all. And I’m not even talking about warehouse workers. I’m talking about the tech staff. Amazon is known as a cutthroat workplace that drives people like a hammer drives nails. I would never choose to go there.

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      FAANG looks good on the resume so people go there with intention to eventually leave for another company willing to pay for FAANG experience. unless you work in a very focused team (e. g Occulus) youre better off jumping companies for higher pay.

      if you go to tech career fairs, especially in the silicon valley, the biggest example of this is working for Cisco. they have huge turnover and youre only going to work there to have Cisco on your resume because of how ubiquitous they are at networking for companies.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s pretty hard to beat FAANG pay though. Probably there are other factors involved as well. Like maybe they can command 90% of the pay but have 2x better work-life balance or something. But people do stay at these companies for long periods. I’m sure some are there to stamp their passport but not all.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Agreed and they have an average tenure of like 1.2 years, but their stock vesting schedule gives you 5% in year one, then 15%, 40%, and 40%. So you’re pretty likely to never get whatever carrot they dangle in front of you.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Their strange stock vesting schedule makes me think that they’re aware that people won’t actually want to stay for four years. A back-loaded vesting schedule never benefits the employee, only the employer.

        Other companies usually have an even schedule, for example Meta vests 25% per year (actually it vests quarterly instead of yearly). Google is an outlier too, but they do the opposite of what Amazon does - 33% in year one, then 33%, 22% and 12%. I suspect Google do this so they can list a higher total compensation (since total comp is salary, stock, and benefits for one year), but getting more of your stock sooner is a good thing.