If you left in mid-February 2013, then you did not work 1000 hours in 2013. You need to work at least 1000 hours in three separate calendar years.

Ah. Fair enough; I misunderstood the original post. I will admit to not having paid any attention to the 401k policy while I was at Amazon other than ensuring my employee contribution maxed out each year. Also the parent's assertion that you might be vested after as little as two years seems completely off base.

I didn't really care much as Amazon's match didn't amount to very much money (particularly compared to my current immediately vesting 50% match up to 100% of salary or the 18k limit). Regardless, it still feels like a good way to protect their downside losses by conditioning expected compensation payouts against probability of someone actually sticking around that long.

edit: Oh, I see, if you join exactly mid year you might be able to accomplish this. Wow, what a pile of horseshit.

> edit: Oh, I see, if you join exactly mid year you might be able to accomplish this. Wow, what a pile of horseshit.

Considering they promise 3 years, I fail to see any problems with being able to do it in 2.

There's a bunch of shit that's basically pinned to calendar start date that's sort of absurd.

Consider this: if you started June 3rd and I started January 3rd, your 2nd anniversary with Amazon would come with full vesting of your 401k while mine would wait another six months. We'd both have worked the same number of days, and overall the policy would be simpler to understand if vesting was pinned only to start date or hours reported on your paystub.

On the flip side: I was eligible for more stock in my first annual review[0]; if I'd started two weeks later I would not have been eligible for full additional year. This despite the fact that review conversations typically happen in March/April.

If I'm being uncharitable (and after having had conversations with managers about Amazon's total compensation philosophy in which raises are scaled back if the stock did well but not scaled up proportionally if the stock underperformed, I am perfectly willing to be uncharitable here), I would believe that large chunks of their compensation system are structured around an average employee tenure of roughly 18-30 months. If you assume that, it almost looks like the company has gone out of its way to minimize the amount it will actually have to pay to people while maximizing the amount it looks like they're offering.

It's not that there's anything wrong with it, it's just that it feels sleazy, particularly in retrospect.

[0]: Not that I actually saw any of it, because unlike my current gig where refreshes begin vesting immediately Amazon's refreshes don't start vesting until ~18 months after they're granted.

There are absolutely a lot of things at Amazon that range from less than ideal to outright sleazy, as you rightly point out. I was just saying that if you promise 3 years for a 401k vest and some people can do it in 2, that specifically isn't problematic.

I'm well aware of their shady compensation practices. I've gotten only sub-1% annual raises, in large part due to the very well performing company stock being counted as part of my total annual compensation.

> There are absolutely a lot of things at Amazon that range from less than ideal to outright sleazy, as you rightly point out. I was just saying that if you promise 3 years for a 401k vest and some people can do it in 2, that specifically isn't problematic.

Fair enough; I expect people who value being treated equitably who started in January (or worse, July) might take a different view as to whether it's problematic :).

> I'm well aware of their shady compensation practices. I've gotten only sub-1% annual raises, in large part due to the very well performing company stock being counted as part of my total annual compensation.

For what it's worth, your annual review is negotiable. See my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10111816

> If I'm being uncharitable (and after having had conversations with managers about Amazon's total compensation philosophy in which raises are scaled back if the stock did well but not scaled up proportionally if the stock underperformed, I am perfectly willing to be uncharitable here), I would believe that large chunks of their compensation system are structured around an average employee tenure of roughly 18-30 months. If you assume that, it almost looks like the company has gone out of its way to minimize the amount it will actually have to pay to people while maximizing the amount it looks like they're offering.

Absolutely.

I'm kinda on the fence about the stock price increase being used to avoid giving raises.

On one hand, yes the amount of money I can get in a year went up.

On the other, the company already allocated those RSUs. They aren't giving me anything new. They are also forcing my hand into selling them immediately if I actually want a raise in my take home pay. Plus, you quit after 2 years or so they gave out only about 20% of the total, so you leave all that money on the table. That's after they didn't give you any sort of real raise for 2 years because your were already hitting the target.

I'd be interested to hear some people from other companies talk about their employers philosophy.

The law on cliff vesting 401k matches is that it has to happen in three years. If it were tied to your start date, then everyone would have to wait exactly three years. Since it's tied to calendar years, you only have to wait the full three if you start on January 1st. Even if you start on January 3rd, you come out a couple days ahead.

I did not know that. So the options are either 100% vested at match time (which is what I have now) or a three-year cliff?

In that case I suppose you could argue Amazon is just trying for the most liberal interpretation of the law; bully for them. Except of course that the other option was to ditch the cliff entirely and give people their 401k match from the get go.

Yeah, they could just vest employer contributions immediately. That's pretty rare in my experience but not w/o precedent.

One other option I've seen is incremental vesting of 20% year over year. You only have to vest in three years if you do it all at once; otherwise you can take up to five years.

Actually the way to maximize the time it takes to vest your 401k is to start just late enough in the year that you can't accumulate 1000 hours. Around mid-late July, if I remember correctly from the math I did when trying to figure this out for myself.

Assuming 40-hour weeks and that you get credit for "work" on holidays (I don't know how long people are working, but if we're talking exempt employees the calculation is probably based on a 40-hour week), you'd maximize that by starting 25 weeks from the end of the year. The 175th-to-last day of the year is July 10.

So, yes, mid-July is the worst possible time to start from a 401k point of view.

Ouch. Good thing I started in June.