4 ms·
I read it as hyperbole for the sake of making a point. I don't think the OP meant it literally. But, debating that term seems to be getting away from the main
by redshirtrob 10y ago
I read it as hyperbole for the sake of making a point. I don't think the OP meant it literally.
But, debating that term seems to be getting away from the main point--that an employee could have an option on a sizable asset with no way to assert ownership of the asset, despite having fulfilled the vesting requirements set forth in the stock option agreement.
- giaour 10y agoI'm not sure it is getting away from the main point. The OP's original assertion was that Uber is acting unethically, and calling the arrangement "indentured servitude" was meant to highlight how Uber's actions are morally wrong. I disagree. The employees who are saddled with options they can't exercise are adults who agreed to the terms of their employment. They are free to quit Uber and work somewhere else if they want. There are a number of other ways options can become worthless while you're waiting for them to vest. The employees gambled on options and are finding out that there is yet another way to lose that bet.
- redshirtrob 10y agoAnd I do think it's unethical to exploit this particular corner-case. So we disagree. I can't refute your second paragraph. You're totally correct on every assertion. I just happen to think it stinks, and I happen to think Uber is taking advantage of the situation. There are other companies who recognized this issue and chose to remediate it (to their employee's benefit), rather than exploit it. So yeah, it's another way to lose the options lottery. I'm glad I know about it now. I'll add it to my list of things to look out for.