6 ms·

It sounds like the sign on bonus she’s referring to vests over 4 years. Unless I’m mistaken, this is an initial stock grant and you only get the full amount if

by vjeux 8y ago

It sounds like the sign on bonus she’s referring to vests over 4 years. Unless I’m mistaken, this is an initial stock grant and you only get the full amount if you stay with the company for 4 years.

wavee 8y ago
And they were probably well aware about this when he joined. He must have signed and agreed to those terms.
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  Wasn't it Amazon where they routinely fire people a few months before the vesting date?
mygo 8y ago
It always bothered me when people who wanted me to join their startup were bothered by me not wanting wait for something to vest that long. So you mean to tell me I can do all the work you need me to do right now, and then just get rid of me before it vests and I don't get it? I really think there should be 2 different vesting terms - 1 in case I quit (can be longer term in this case) - and another in case I get fired (shorter vesting period IMO). Call it early termination.
- underwater 8y ago
  So now everyone who wants to leave the company will be a negative force, hoping to be fired. Not such a great idea. Vesting is fine as a concept. Just understand that whatever dollar amount to they're telling you is something you have the chance to earn over a period of time. It's not a bonus.
  - dingaling 8y ago
    So it's not a bonus, it's a loaded roll of the dice? I think there is merit in having immediate vesting in the case of no-fault dismissal. It's the company choosing to terminate the contract unliaterally, the employee has fulfilled his part of the deal.
  - deathanatos 8y ago
    Then vest over a reasonable period of time, like weekly or monthly, and not annually?
    - underwater 8y ago
      That seems reasonable. But from my understanding the complaint was that someone was promised $x over four years and then let go after two years, and lost $x/2.
- taneq 8y ago
  If that's what they were secretly planning to do, then of course they're bothered by you not playing along. What startup was it that was discussed here a while ago, where the founder was describing shareholding ex-employees as "dead weight" who didn't deserve the shares since they were no longer working there? I'm a guessing similar mentality was at play here.
  - kamaal 8y ago
    That kind of confusion happens because people don't understand how ownership really works. Stocks are not compensation in the sense as deferred bonus, but really more like ownership(albeit whatever small amount of it). Say I went ahead and bought 10,000 shares in some company X for $10,000(A mutually agreed transaction, in which company accepted the money for a percentage of ownership). Now I just choose to buy-and-forget it for say 30 years. At the 31st year, the company makes it big, say the value of each share now is $1000. Now my shares are worth $1,000,000,000 . Imagine the current CEO of X, saying its `unfair` or `dead weight` or `undeserving` or whatever because the per unit of stock price went up. Its the same thing with employees. The company just paid, stocks instead of money. How would it be any different than some investor putting in the money and buying the same amount of shares for that same amount of money and getting rich later? If you really think your company is going to be very rich. You shouldn't even bother to pay in stocks. Just pay good salaries and be done with it. The trouble is most people know their companies are going to fail, so they have no qualms in giving imaginary points of ownership, only to realize later it could have all been theirs.
    - ric2b 8y ago
      But keeping 50% (or whatever fraction) of a fortune is still great, and you don't have a lot of money now, so it does make sense to pay in stock even if you believe it'll be worth a lot more later.

by vjeux 8y ago

wavee 8y ago

And they were probably well aware about this when he joined. He must have signed and agreed to those terms.

HarryHirsch 8y ago
Wasn't it Amazon where they routinely fire people a few months before the vesting date?

mygo 8y ago

It always bothered me when people who wanted me to join their startup were bothered by me not wanting wait for something to vest that long. So you mean to tell me I can do all the work you need me to do right now, and then just get rid of me before it vests and I don't get it? I really think there should be 2 different vesting terms - 1 in case I quit (can be longer term in this case) - and another in case I get fired (shorter vesting period IMO). Call it early termination.

underwater 8y ago
So now everyone who wants to leave the company will be a negative force, hoping to be fired. Not such a great idea. Vesting is fine as a concept. Just understand that whatever dollar amount to they're telling you is something you have the chance to earn over a period of time. It's not a bonus.
- dingaling 8y ago
  So it's not a bonus, it's a loaded roll of the dice? I think there is merit in having immediate vesting in the case of no-fault dismissal. It's the company choosing to terminate the contract unliaterally, the employee has fulfilled his part of the deal.
- deathanatos 8y ago
  Then vest over a reasonable period of time, like weekly or monthly, and not annually?
  - underwater 8y ago
    That seems reasonable. But from my understanding the complaint was that someone was promised $x over four years and then let go after two years, and lost $x/2.
taneq 8y ago
If that's what they were secretly planning to do, then of course they're bothered by you not playing along. What startup was it that was discussed here a while ago, where the founder was describing shareholding ex-employees as "dead weight" who didn't deserve the shares since they were no longer working there? I'm a guessing similar mentality was at play here.
- kamaal 8y ago
  That kind of confusion happens because people don't understand how ownership really works. Stocks are not compensation in the sense as deferred bonus, but really more like ownership(albeit whatever small amount of it). Say I went ahead and bought 10,000 shares in some company X for $10,000(A mutually agreed transaction, in which company accepted the money for a percentage of ownership). Now I just choose to buy-and-forget it for say 30 years. At the 31st year, the company makes it big, say the value of each share now is $1000. Now my shares are worth $1,000,000,000 . Imagine the current CEO of X, saying its `unfair` or `dead weight` or `undeserving` or whatever because the per unit of stock price went up. Its the same thing with employees. The company just paid, stocks instead of money. How would it be any different than some investor putting in the money and buying the same amount of shares for that same amount of money and getting rich later? If you really think your company is going to be very rich. You shouldn't even bother to pay in stocks. Just pay good salaries and be done with it. The trouble is most people know their companies are going to fail, so they have no qualms in giving imaginary points of ownership, only to realize later it could have all been theirs.
  - ric2b 8y ago
    But keeping 50% (or whatever fraction) of a fortune is still great, and you don't have a lot of money now, so it does make sense to pay in stock even if you believe it'll be worth a lot more later.