4 ms·

Is the presumption that founders and investors are not trying to screw employees? I genuinely can't tell from the article. I thought it's just common knowledg

Is the presumption that founders and investors are not trying to screw employees? I genuinely can't tell from the article. I thought it's just common knowledge that they will try to screw employees at every chance. With options it was different strike prices for management/ founders vs employees. With RSU's it is weird vesting schedules and forcing forfeiture situations.

iaw 10y ago
This comment isn't very productive. Some high-level valley participants are definitely bad actors but the bulk of them are just normal people in positions of power.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- codeonfire 10y ago
  Normal people that like money. If this article is about how equity compensation can be improved, then that is a fairly messed up world view and kind of insulting. Employee equity compensation is always designed to explode or have no value. Workers are sick of the schemes. Just pay cash. Companies don't want to and never will improve equity compensation. A better solution would be a law that requires a cash value of granted options or RSU's to be reported to workers which would require a look at sale-ability, strike price, volality, expected employee turnover, etc.
  - ericd 10y ago
    Actually there's a big movement to making options exercisable well after employees leave. So, no. Startups don't have enough cash to compete in terms of pure salary with the leverage that the Googles of the world have. And stock can turn out very well for employees, I've seen it happen at a fairly good rate. You just need to make sure you're getting what you're worth, risk adjusted.
    - madgar 10y ago
      There's a "movement" in the sense that people are writing blog posts. Fewer than a handful of name-brand startups are putting any money where their mouth is. Any there's huge VCs trying to hold the line and keep anyone from changing the industry standard practice.
  - iaw 10y ago
    There is an argument going on in the VC world right now about how to properly structure employee compensation. There is a side arguing for the status-quo and another side arguing for a change given the new-norm of long-delayed IPO/liquidity events. I see where you're coming from, but the world isn't black-and-white and everyone with money isn't Art Carnegie hiring the Pinkertons. It's convenient to paint the VC industry in simplistic terms but it doesn't paint an accurate picture.
kevan 10y ago
>Is the presumption that founders and investors are not trying to screw employees? I think the presumption is that all parties act in their own self-interest. For some founders that means compensating employees with equity, for others that means keeping equity to themselves and relying on cash compensation for employees. Without talking about specific situations I don't think you can ascribe malice to either choice.

iaw 10y ago

This comment isn't very productive. Some high-level valley participants are definitely bad actors but the bulk of them are just normal people in positions of power.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
codeonfire 10y ago
Normal people that like money. If this article is about how equity compensation can be improved, then that is a fairly messed up world view and kind of insulting. Employee equity compensation is always designed to explode or have no value. Workers are sick of the schemes. Just pay cash. Companies don't want to and never will improve equity compensation. A better solution would be a law that requires a cash value of granted options or RSU's to be reported to workers which would require a look at sale-ability, strike price, volality, expected employee turnover, etc.
- ericd 10y ago
  Actually there's a big movement to making options exercisable well after employees leave. So, no. Startups don't have enough cash to compete in terms of pure salary with the leverage that the Googles of the world have. And stock can turn out very well for employees, I've seen it happen at a fairly good rate. You just need to make sure you're getting what you're worth, risk adjusted.
  - madgar 10y ago
    There's a "movement" in the sense that people are writing blog posts. Fewer than a handful of name-brand startups are putting any money where their mouth is. Any there's huge VCs trying to hold the line and keep anyone from changing the industry standard practice.
- iaw 10y ago
  There is an argument going on in the VC world right now about how to properly structure employee compensation. There is a side arguing for the status-quo and another side arguing for a change given the new-norm of long-delayed IPO/liquidity events. I see where you're coming from, but the world isn't black-and-white and everyone with money isn't Art Carnegie hiring the Pinkertons. It's convenient to paint the VC industry in simplistic terms but it doesn't paint an accurate picture.

kevan 10y ago

>Is the presumption that founders and investors are not trying to screw employees? I think the presumption is that all parties act in their own self-interest. For some founders that means compensating employees with equity, for others that means keeping equity to themselves and relying on cash compensation for employees. Without talking about specific situations I don't think you can ascribe malice to either choice.