When Amazon announced a pay increase for warehouse workers and other hourly employees to at least $15 per hour, we were surprised to hear that Amazon also eliminated bonuses and restricted stock units (RSUs) for those same workers. Amazon's move was widely reported by news outlets, such as Bloomberg. (We note, however, that some of the articles, along with Senator Bernie Sanders, mistakenly referred to these RSU grants as stock options.)
Amazon apparently cut bonuses and RSUs to redirect expenses for the increase in hourly wages and calculates that these workers will still see an overall pay rise. It also stated that as the pay these workers receive is "no longer incentive-based, the compensation will be more immediate and predictable."
Benefits Of Broad-Based Stock Grants
So what should we make of Amazon's decision? In past blog commentaries, we have reported favorably on stock grants made by various prominent companies, including Apple and Starbucks, to their broad employee populations. An article on similar topics in The Wall Street Journal rightly observes that broad-based equity can be a "powerful recipe for an engaged workforce," mentioning that modest restricted stock grants at this employee level "is good for the bottom line because it generates loyalty."
We are, therefore, very curious about the internal calculation, evaluation, and (hopefully) debate that Amazon went through before its decision to eliminate the RSU grants and cash incentive bonuses. When your company's stock price has skyrocketed and is expected to remain strong, as at Amazon, that is often when employees want equity the most. That is when stock compensation can play its most powerful role in recruitment, retention, and motivation, whether in the executive suite or in the warehouses. Plus, it is often the lower-level employees who most appreciate how equity pay increases their wealth and helps them with financial planning and funding for important life events.
Not surprisingly, some hourly employees at Amazon were disappointed by the company's elimination of bonuses and RSU grants, as discussed by articles in The New York Times and the magazine Money. The NYT gives details on both the variable compensation plan, which provided for the monthly attendance and productivity cash bonuses, and on the RSU grants. The NYT article reports that some employees "were saddened to lose the sense of ownership that the stock compensation provided." That is a message which we at myStockOptions.com have always emphasized as a major reason for having stock compensation.
Sharing Financial Success With Front-Line Workers
After Gardner Denver Holdings granted $100 million in shares to 6,000 employees, including hourly workers and staff in customer service and sales, a Bloomberg news report quoted chairperson Pete Stavros about the reasons. He explained that employee ownership at manufacturers can be effective at improving operations in which the company needs to do a "a million things a little better." He observes that "it's the workers on the front lines that often know where the inefficiencies are to fix and they share in the success through their equity stake." His statement succinctly expresses why broad-based grants, particularly to those in front line and hourly positions, are often a smart compensation approach.
For data from studies exploring the benefits of equity comp to companies (and employees) and the various reasons why they make them, see an FAQ at myStockOptions.com.
Comments