3 ms·
This behavior is absolutely ethical. They have done some work, not all the work as you have implied. Part of the basis of paying employees with options is so th
by prklmn 10y ago
This behavior is absolutely ethical. They have done some work, not all the work as you have implied. Part of the basis of paying employees with options is so that they stick around - early employees know this when excepting this form of payment. This is the small price they are paying for getting rich later.
- jamra 10y agoIt's not a small price and it's not made clear in the beginning when they promise shares for service. The absurdity of allowing management to make slaves of men is no small thing.
- dnautics 10y agothat's not the unethical part. The unethical part is that exercising the options is a nontrivially confusing, in part, because of the legal and tax ramifications... And the startups don't complain too much because if the employee doesn't take part in the equity sharing scheme (often because of decision paralysis resulting) it is to their benefit. The unethical part is that the startup uses the equity to lure the employee, but fails to adequately warn them about the trickiness coming down the pike when that time comes.
- PeterisP 10y agoThe whole point of this article is that the employees have stuck around for the agreed vesting terms, the company has been successful, and the "later" has arrived now - but they are still prevented from exercising the promised gains and will be, potentially forever (e.g. if the major owners decide to keep the company private indefinitely under current terms). That was not the initially accepted bargain. The bargain was that they take the risk of options becoming worthless or them not staying through the vesting period. Those risks didn't happen, this is the point where they would have earned the right to cash out, but now it turns out that the option isn't actually there.