I find it reallllly hard to trust Amazon when it comes to working less. This really just sounds like a way to get someone to work the same amount for less pay (I assume the position has a paycut).

In other words, when the janky build tools someone wrote >10 years ago break down, you're going to be on-call so much that you'll just run a landline into the back of your head, Matrix style.

Here are some of the many possibilities:

The service has poor uptime and you're on call every weekend.

Schedule pressure or poor management means that you're asked to come in on Fridays "until the next release".

The reduced-hours position was sponsored by a VP who has lost interest or left the company. Your direct manager has deadlines to meet and pressures you into working full-time.

I mean, that's all they have to determine/enforce how much you time you put in currently... general expectations.

Some people say you work the hours needed to get the job done, but that doesn't really make sense. Somehow the work the company needs to get accomplished gets divided up and distributed to employees. And ultimately you've got to think of how much is reasonable to accomplish. Here, that expectation of reasonableness is going to get reduced by about 20% if they are hired to work that many less hours.

IIRC it was in a trial period pre-pandemic. The impression I got was that they wanted to test a 4-day week, but worried it would be disruptive if only one or two team members were out on Fridays. Hence, 4-day teams.

Amazon gets a bad rap, but it can be a nice place to work as a developer. The overtime and pressure varies wildly from team to team, and you'd have to figure that people who choose to join a 4/3 team aren't the sort to press deadlines.

This listing looks like it is for a position which supports their internal developers and/or retail site. Those systems are probably fairly mature, so maybe it's a good business move to hire people to keep them running on a slow burn with better work/life balance.

I for one get serious heart symptoms if I don't have adequate sleep.

Amazon compensation packages assume 15% increase in RSU value year over year, so when you get a 4 year grant as a new hire, your target compensation will be projected based off 15% year over year growth, which typically means less stock granted in year 4 compared to year 3.

With a stagnant stock price, many Amazon employees are potentially at risk of not hitting their year 3 target compensation.

* Amazon pay a signing bonus for the first two years in lieu of RSUs. The idea is that you could sell your RSUs to make up the difference. The problem is that, for anyone who started in the last two years, your RSUs won’t make up the difference between your base salary and what you were getting as a bonus.

From levels.fyi, FAANG and the unicorns are almost all in the $300k-$400k range. Have offers gone up $200k in the last few months? Or are you assuming people are moving up a level?

If you filter by "New Offers Only", you'll see a pretty sharp shift in the trend starting around October 2021.

Same with Uber, a notable uptick starting late last year: https://www.levels.fyi/company/Uber/salaries/Software-Engine...

The top of the band has probably gone up more than the median offer, and most companies didn't increase their bands by that much (yet). This is definitely a case of "the future is here - just not evenly distributed yet".

If stock goes down, you end up getting more shares and vice versa but the $ stays the same

It's basically just regular bonuses tied to tenure